 |
 |
 |
| |
Time Travel Disproved
Reasoning against Time Travel
Time Travel is the theoretical movement of an object or body either forward or backward in time, resulting in the relative age of the time traveller being out of sync with its surroundings. Specifically this involves movement through the space-time continuum.
I intend to disprove this using among other things a brick and a bucket. Firstly let us examine movement in space. Space is full of matter. To move in space a person or object must displace some matter and assuming its position relative to all the other matter. Thus with a bucket half full of water my brick must displace some water to assume its position in the bucket. Simple enough.
So let us imagine that the water in the bucket represents all the matter in the universe. I agree it is slightly absurd using a finite amount of matter to represent a infinite amount, but bare with me I’m only human. So the water in the bucket is all matter. As we watch it over any period of time we shall note that the amount of water in the bucket is a constant. True water can evaporate but this isn’t water is it, its matter, and the universe does not just change from liquid to gas and float off. So the matter is constant over time. Now let us introduce our time travelling matter, the brick. Immediately the water is displaced and the amount of matter has increased, a physical impossibility. This is not to mention to the implosion caused by the removal of the brick from the bucket in the first place. Theory disproved, sort of.
Let us now test the theory, yes it is true I dropped the brick in the bucket, and time travellers arrive rather more gracefully. Consider this, if the brick were to appear in the water by some other form of method, what would happen to the water it displaces. Either it would be pushed aside, and so the original displacement argument stands, or it would not move in which case we have the conflict of 2 object occupying the same position in space time. Again impossible. Theory upheld! You still doubt me ? Fine let us go deeper still.
Let us say the brick is in the bucket, then the brick travels into the bucket. Now we have 2 identical objects in the same space time. Think about the word identical, twins may be identical in features and chromosomal makeup and DNA. But whilst their cells have all the same atoms in the same order, the atoms are different. Not so here. The 2 bricks, or should I say the single brick (to the power of 2) is/are atomically identical. Not only are the atoms all of the same type, in the same order, they are the same atoms. Impossible, Theory upheld.
A-ha I hear you clever people say, the brick is a static, dead item. What about a person, our cells constantly regenerate. Travel outside of your own lifetime and you can not meet yourself and so can not conflict with your own atomic structure. True. Never mind you have disregarded the previous disprovals of the theory, I shall explain. Even though the atoms no longer exist in the same form, they still exist, in some form somewhere in the bucket. Thus the previous position is reinforced. This is not to mention the fact that you are too big to fit in the bucket.
There you go. Time travel disproved, along with Star Trek style ‘beaming’ and other such forms of travel.
Go on prove me wrong.
Want to comment on this Short Stories?
Sign up to Edit Red and you will be able to comment on Short Stories and get access to: Upload your own stories and poems, get readers and their feedback, promote your work...
|
 |
|
[Back to top]
|
|
|
|
Okay penguin you got me. A Scientist i am not, my point was merely to examine the nature of matter in the three different states, solid, liquid and gas and the relative content, movement and spacing which determines the state they hold. Admittedly i am working on 16 year old physics lessons tought to me as a disinterested 16 year old.
On the point of the towel, i think i shall defer to Rene Decartes. |
|
|
:-)"Space is full of sub atomic matter, the difference is in the gap between such matter". Still doesn't hold, since space has to hold both the matter and the gaps, therefore space is neither created nor destroyed.
How does one pack a four pound bag with five pounds of sugar? (Yes - it can be done.) So, your experiment suggests that the bag only holds 4 pounds of sugar, and the other pound is transferring in over time.
"Water is comprised of 2 molecules of Hydrogen and one of Oxygen, which in turn are made of Atoms...". Ummmmmm <pedantic mode>A molecule of water has two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen.
"One cubic centimetre of Water as a solid (ice) contains more atoms than one cubic centimetre of water as a liquid. This in turn holds more atoms than the gas equivalent (steam)." Nope: one cubic centimentre of water (as liquid) contains more molecules than one cc of water (as solid). That's why ice floats on water. 1 cc of steam depends on the pressure it is under - it is conceivable for 1 cc of steam to actually be heavier than 1 cc of liquid water, and hence by extension 1 cc of ice. That's why one usually compare "moles" of a particular substance - and a mole of water, whether solid liquid or gas, has exactly the same number of molecules (Avogadro's number). Actually, one mole of any consistent substance has exactly the same number of molecules. Of course, that doesn't mean the substances take up the same amount of space...
</pedantic mode>
So, although I agree with you that time travel is an illusion, none of us exist (and I don't have to worry about the towel).
:-) |
|
|
HK I hear what you are saying, and feel I have not fully explained my position. The brick is in the water then moves through time to the same space in the bucket at a later time. The brick moves faster than the nominal one second per second (nice one Penguin) So when the brick accelerates it ceases to be in the bucket at that time and starts to being the bucket at the later time. So what happens to the space that the brick used to occupy, either we have a hole in space or an implosion of the universe to occupy the vacant space.
Which brings me to Penguins comments about space and matter, Nora explained it better than I. Space is full of sub atomic matter, the difference is in the gap between such matter. I shall refer back to water as the matter in question. Water is comprised of 2 molecules of Hydrogen and one of Oxygen, which in turn are made of Atoms, in turn are made of Neutrons, Electrons and Protons, etc etc. One cubic centimetre of Water as a solid (ice) contains more atoms than one cubic centimetre of water as a liquid. This in turn holds more atoms than the gas equivalent (steam). Thus space is full of matter.
However I fully respect your position on my non existence, just remember to hold on to your towel and don’t panic.
TruongDaBomb I like your explanation, but feel the experiment lacks a control element. They should have a had a plane fly with the spin of the earth to see if the clock gets faster. My point here being I feel they have only managed to slow time, not time travel, but it’s a start.
Nora, you got class girl, Geek-Groupie, there is a great story in there somewhere
Lanclass, I agree the Doctor is exempt from my theory, ‘cause he is so damn cool !
And Psgri2003, I left you to the end because you exploded my head. I was never too good at science which is why I think in terms of water and bricks, (I never got over Archimedes) |
|
|
No, no, I wouldn't even try to prove you wrong, and although I find all the theoretical arguments fascinating I saw what happened when Rose tricked The Doctor and took them back in time to see her dad and all those nasty flying things came through the rip in space and the world nearly came to an end. The Doctor saved it, of course, but even if one day we can I don't think we should now!
I enjoyed this whole thread, thanks, Anna |
 |
Comment by: Nora Online- 2007-11-16 15:22
|
|
Space IS matter, y'all. "Space" is full of sub-atomic particles, and they aren't "nothing." Let's not forget about anti-matter. Dark matter. There is no such thing as "nothing."
I don't believe time travel is impossible. Just ever-so-unlikely considering our current scientific limitations. "Nothing" is literally impossible.
Einstein, my fantasy lover, suggested that matter and energy are interchangeable, and also that energy cannot be created nor destroyed--it can only change form. There are so many mysteries to the physical world. What do we really know?
I betcha physicists'll tell you spacetime travel is possible, but not on the human level. Meanwhile, those ubergeeks are probably watching quarks appear, disappear and reappear like we watch Brady Bunch reruns. That's the ultimate in SEXY. I should hang outside the Fermilab grounds like slutty groupies hang outside concert venues.
That's not to say this wasn't a very enjoyable piece of writing. Good for you for putting your mind to work in such a way. When I see a brick, I see a brick--not an "I'm gonna question time-travel" piece of matter. Good for you.
Peruse and enjoy:
http://www.fnal.gov/
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/matter/index.html
Fermilab: proving once again, Illinois is good for more than corn and soybeans. |
| 1 2 3 Next |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
