it was proven on an experiment that the faster the object, the slower the time inside the object.

Slow is what happen not recorded, if faster than the speed of light means can scroll back time? everything is just still, its like the heart beat once in 100 years slow of that moment. Where is the recording?

Human bodies are not able to withstand the speed of light I suppose? Thus, No to time travel.

Time is another dimension after the 3 dimension of perception, it's not something that you can store on tape/DVD or any other medium(at least for now). Just like you can't store width, length nor volume, sounds funny that volume can't be stored, but it's true, even if you put water in a container, but it still occupies the same amount of three dimensional space, only when you 'hold' water in an alternate dimension then you can truly say you contained a dimension.


Nobody has been able to exceed the speed of light, at least not that I know of, so we work on the assumption that the cosmic speed limit is the speed of light, about 186,282 miles per second.

If you were traveling on a spaceship with 2 cabins going at 186280 mph, and you need to go from one cabin to another(say Cabin A to B), and you rode a Segway to do it, at 20mph. Now if you add both you will realize it exceed the speed of light, so space-time get distorted around you and slows you down so that you obey the speed of light. From your perception, you're still riding a Segway to Cabin B at 20mph, but if an observer is able to travel alongside your spaceship and see you moving, you'll only be traveling at 2mph(since you're 18mph over the speed limit of light).

So if you took 2 minutes to get from Cabin A to B, from your perception, from the observer you actually took 20 minutes, technically you traveled to the future 10 times the time you spent on the journey. So in a way you can travel through time at sheer speed. You don't have to look very far to see the effect of this so-called 'time dilation'. Clocks on space shuttle missions always return to Earth out of sync(very very minute difference, like millionths of seconds), and GPS satellite has to resync themselves often else they'll throw you off course by feets everyday.

It only indicate speed of time but not going back and forth to specific time frame and expect every single molecule is at its location before it transform/ mutate...

Well if you read back from page 1 I did gave my opinion that time travel through some form of material transfer is impossible, due to the looping paradoxes, at least into the past anyway. Time dilation is closest you can get to time travel, and under the assumption that nobody can go beyond the speed of light, we do not know if traveling faster than speed of light will reverse time.

Come to think of it, with 6.4 billions humans on earth now, what are the odds of every single time travel agent from the future being tight lipped, or not exposed by present time people?

This post has been edited by SeaGates: Jan 12 2011, 09:18 PM

hazairi said what I want to say.
When you can travel in speed of light, it seems that you more time than than the other time frame(slower than speed of light).

The time dilation does exists, you should have a look at Michelson interferometer experiment.


Twin paradox effect

Travelling through time is something we all appear to do every day, this morning I was in the past but now I'm in the present which was the future! I assume however it is about when an individual travels to a time outside of the ordinary scope. There's an interesting article in Le Poidevin & McBeath's book The Philosophy of Time on the subject but I can't remember who wrote it, however here are two key issues.

First if we were to travel back in time it would appear possible that we could change the past, possibly causing a causal loop whereby our actions in the past affect the way we are in the future. Second there is the ontological status of the past and the future.

To deal with the first problem, consider the 'Back to the Future' scenario where the character potentially stops his mum meeting his father and therefore prevents his own existence. If this were to happen however it would not be the case that in the future that he could go back and prevent his own existence. The argument therefore entails that if he can prevent his own existence then he can't prevent his existence. The other apparent way to avoid this problem is to suggest that you can't affect the past when you go back, but this is somewhat strange. The way around this problem is to say that the Time traveller can affect the past however he can't change it. the 'past'' is already a determined system which the time traveller may cause an event in but any event that he causes will have already happened. He is therefore free to affect the past but he cannot change anything that happened in it.

The second issue is whether there is anywhere to travel to. There are two main positions on time which broadly are the tensed view and the tenseless view. Without going into the positions too much the tenseless view of time is that there is nothing ontologically privileged about the 'present' that we perceive, all times are equally real, thus this position is somewhat analogous to the conception most of hold on space where there is nothing special about 'here' rather it is just the place we happen to occupy. If you are a tenseless (b-theorist) theorist then there clearly is a 'place' to go to when you time travel.

The second position that is held is the tensed theory (a-theory) of time whereby there is something privileged about the present, namely it is the only time that is present. Time flows from the future into the present, and the present to the past. One of the main motivations for this position is that it allows us to hold that the future is open and allows for a non-deterministic position of the world. The a-theorist has more work to do than the b-theorist at this point as for the a-theorist three main positions are viable:

a. Only the present exists.
b. The past and the present exist.
c. The past present and future exist.

Now depending on which of a—c you accept you're potential to travel to those places is affected, clearly if you hold a then time travel is a priori impossible, if b then you can't go to the future.

There are other issues but I feel these are the main two. As I say if you have an interest in time I strongly recommend Le Poidevin and McBeath's anthology [The Philosophy of Time. Oxford University Press 1993].