| Welcome to Brackenwood. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| John Titor; wondering about time travelers? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 13 2004, 02:22 AM (1,287 Views) | |
| Spitfire #22 | Oct 21 2004, 01:51 AM Post #51 |
|
Brackenwood Lightweight
|
Gets Giant Flaming torch! (burns siegfried to a crisp) actually, if thats the truth we dont need infinite energy to reach the speed of light, thats just a myth in my eyes. if we can reach any speed. with enough energy then we should be able to reach the speed of light, it isnt a magic number....flashlights can do it, we invented flashlights....so we can do it. we dont need infinite speed....just enough speed, with doing some math that tells us, that with X device such amount of power will = speed of light. it will work, it hasnt been proven right or wrong, it could be a simple matter of we dont have the tech to reach such speeds...or create the amount of energy necessary yet..maybe in 10 years, maybe tomorrow, maybe we can do it already..and noone knows. we need to harness the power of light, to bring it into a literal device. we have the speed, we've made something that creates it. but we dont know how to bring it into shape for time travel. |
![]() |
|
| Foster | Oct 21 2004, 02:09 AM Post #52 |
|
Token Canuck
|
The light from a flashlight can reach the speed of light because it is light, and as such has no mass. If something has mass, like a person or a spaceship, then it would require infinite energy to achieve the speed of light. Trust me on this. To go X fast, you need Y amount of fuel, which increases your Z mass. The faster you go(X), the more fuel you need(Y), in order to get that fast, which increases your mass(M). Relativity explains that you would need infinite fuel(Mass) and thus infinite energy, to achieve the speed of light, unless of course, you have no mass. *Breathes* Einstein was a smart guy, he wasn't just spouting off a bunch of numbers. That whole E=mc2 thing isn't just random crap, it means something. Sorry to rant, but it had to be said. I'm not saying time travel is impossible(though I believe it is), I'm just saying that reaching the speed of light isn't a feasible way to go about it. |
![]() |
|
| Spitfire #22 | Oct 21 2004, 02:19 AM Post #53 |
|
Brackenwood Lightweight
|
Here is some time travel news, not too new but recent within a year or 2 russian scientist believe time travel is possible, just havent invented the machine yet..read on check it out. http://www.pravda.us/science/19/94/377/109...imension.html?1 so, your saying that we do have a chance at time traveling. "IF" we can meet those demands, infinite energy right? thats the exception to his theory. so he has left it open, he hasnt tried to time travel and cant and never has done the experiment, so I think he simply is just stating what it takes, not saying it cant and will never be done. even at earth speeds..like on a yet or some kind of supersonic craft..time travel is experienced......only atomic clocks can measure that, but everyone is aware that even at high speeds...not necessarily light speed, time travel is experience...but the difference in time is 2 small to actually be something amazing. as suppose to traveling to another star at light speed...it takes the pilot 1 year, and when he comes back...10 years have gone by on earth. that would be the ultimate version...so he has leaped 10 years into the future..at the cost of his 1. |
![]() |
|
| brackenwoodfire | Oct 21 2004, 11:08 AM Post #54 |
|
Brackenwood Heavyweight
|
of course i know speed of light is hard to acheive and impossible at this point in time im not an idiot |
![]() |
|
| Yembles | Oct 21 2004, 04:55 PM Post #55 |
|
I kick global arse!
![]()
|
I find it difficult to trust when scientists say something is downright impossible. History shows us that they _can_ be wrong. (Copernicus and Galileo for example went against the scientific beliefs of their days.) Hell, even Steven Hawkin has retracted one of his theories lately. I like to keep an open mind.
|
![]() |
|
| Inskeme | Oct 21 2004, 11:32 PM Post #56 |
|
Story Weaver
|
Ok, time to poke some holes in this guy. Alright Mr. Titor said when asked to predict a sporting event (quoted by Spitfire) his response was, if any of us now..in 2000-2004 had the ability to time travel, and went back to 1923 (lets say) would we be able to predict when it was going to rain next, or who was gonna be the next town leader? anything they would ask. of course we wouldnt be able to, we arent scholars or teachers, we would be specifically time travelers, our knowledge would be centered around that. But Mr. Titor also said when asked: How is our worldline different from this yours? For starters, the fact that I'm here makes it different. I've also noticed little things like news events that happen at different times, football games won by other teams , things like that. In any case, wouldn't he have predicted something obvious, like the twin tower incident? He also says there is civil unrest before the 2004 presidential elections, and this is one of the major triggers of the alleged American civil war. Has anyone noticed any civil unrest, considering we are just before the presidential elections? Yeah, the disease he mentioned, as someone already pointed out could very well be Mad Cow Disease. But he didn't really predict that did he, the information was available when he apparenlty 'got here' I also find it hard to believe that a man who has travelled, in time, from a war torn future would stuff around with making merchandise such as this John's world line did have Y2K Ok, why. There was no problem with the computer systems switching over to the new millenium. What reason would there be in his timeline. Conviniently this is used as a possible reason for a war not happening in 2005. |
![]() |
|
| Markham Carroll | Oct 22 2004, 12:40 AM Post #57 |
|
Custom member title
|
I can't even figure how Y2K would even happen. I mean, the clocks would just say 1900 instead of 2000, and that would just happen on old programs. It was all way too overblown. People were making survival storge in their basement like it was going to be the apocalypse. <_< |
![]() |
|
| Synid | Oct 22 2004, 01:29 AM Post #58 |
|
Phase entity
|
No offence... but the majority of people are sheep... Give them a slight reason to panic and people go wack... And here comes the offence... i didn't really mean but... Americans are in that way.. the easiest to poke around... Dunno why but it would deem so... |
![]() |
|
| Markham Carroll | Oct 22 2004, 03:12 AM Post #59 |
|
Custom member title
|
Yeah, that's true. Like what the one guy in Men in Black said, "A person is smart, but a bunch of people are stupid." It was kinda funny, though. This one guy tried to sue the mayonase company because his stash of 100 jars of mayo went bad before the year 2000. :lol: There were also tons of bogus rumors, like all the pacemakers would explode, or something, or airplanes would fall from the sky all because their computers would show the wrong date. :lol: The only problem about Y2K was all the psychos who went around hiding pipe bombs that would go off on Y2K. |
![]() |
|
| Foster | Oct 22 2004, 04:08 AM Post #60 |
|
Token Canuck
|
I bet there are still people sitting in their basements eating cold beans waiting for the radiation to wear off from the nuclear explosion that didn't happen in 2000. :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Spitfire #22 | Oct 22 2004, 05:39 AM Post #61 |
|
Brackenwood Lightweight
|
I think that when you believe something bad enough, you will more then likely do it, or help it happen.....(continues to dictate his followers about coming war) :rolleyes: |
![]() |
|
| brackenwoodfire | Oct 22 2004, 01:34 PM Post #62 |
|
Brackenwood Heavyweight
|
true. we are easy. |
![]() |
|
| Sigfried | Oct 22 2004, 08:33 PM Post #63 |
![]()
Objection!!!
|
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." - Ambrose Bierce the best form of ecucation |
![]() |
|
| Foster | Oct 23 2004, 01:40 AM Post #64 |
|
Token Canuck
|
Too bad it's never taught them the slightest bit of humility... |
![]() |
|
| Markham Carroll | Oct 23 2004, 02:41 AM Post #65 |
|
Custom member title
|
Not really. In my gov econ class, my teacher pointed out that all of us had confused views on where contries were located, even ones like Viet Nam, Iraq, and Korea. |
![]() |
|
| Spitfire #22 | Oct 23 2004, 02:48 AM Post #66 |
|
Brackenwood Lightweight
|
The problem is we dont give a shit about a country untill we are saving it (ww2), want something from it (iraq)....or want to blow it up (japan) |
![]() |
|
| Sigfried | Oct 23 2004, 02:59 AM Post #67 |
![]()
Objection!!!
|
like an old officer said once... "Our bombs are smarter than the average high school student. At least they can find Kuwait. " - A. Whitney Brown |
![]() |
|
| Foster | Oct 23 2004, 06:45 AM Post #68 |
|
Token Canuck
|
That's all fine and good, but it's kinda sad that most americans can't name all 50 states, or state capitols. I mean, really, lots of Canadians can do it. |
![]() |
|
| Spitfire #22 | Oct 23 2004, 06:51 AM Post #69 |
|
Brackenwood Lightweight
|
well, I guess its all about wheter you are into naming states or not....I know of all the states, but I cant just name them all. doesnt prove anything. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 23 2004, 10:47 AM Post #70 |
|
Deleted User
|
HAHA he just wants money... why would he bother making those cups n t-shirts if he was trying so hard to stop a war? or help us prepare for it. Personally I think he just wants people to stop eating meat, and if he has that time machine, why not host some massive gathering and make it take him back to the future. Bet if someone asked him to do that, he'd say it broke during travel or something. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Oct 23 2004, 10:52 AM Post #71 |
|
Deleted User
|
I dont think that is true actually, just my oppinion, I havent read up about it or anything, but, if you were travelling at 1 mile/km under the speed of lights speed, Its hard to explain but, argh hmmm... well you wouldnt actually be going faster than 'time' if ya know what im sayin. Just think about it, It's really hard to explain. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Other Side · Next Topic » |



Gets Giant Flaming torch! (burns siegfried to a crisp)





5:05 AM Jul 12