HeadingNorth Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Maybe people have been back in time, but were really careful not to affect the future. Like Marty McFly. People usually invoke the "greedy businessman" paradox to argue that time travel cannot exist; because if it did, a greedy businessman would take a time machine back in time to before it was invented, and take out his own patents on it. It has been suggested that time travel into the past, is only possible back to the point where the machine was invented and not before; if that were true it would resolve the above argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Nope, nanoseconds is a time not a speed. What we need to know is what was the expected time of the neutrinos going the 732km between labs - 0.0024sec And what the actual time of the neutrinos was - 0.00239994sec Doing the maths I think the neutrinos are exceeding the speed of light by a quarter of a percent, or - they travel at 300750km/s while light travels 300000km/s. Of course time is a speed, not a constant speed perhaps, but a speed nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azazel666 Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Of course time is a speed, not a constant speed perhaps, but a speed nevertheless. It's not. Speed equals distance over time. Time itself is a separate, erm, thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I'm just wondering if what they have really achieved is a slightly more accurate method of measuring the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 In order for time to go backwards wouldn't it first have to come to a complete stop in order for it to run the other way and if so wouldn't the universe at that point cease to exist? Take a car travelling forward, in order for it to go into reverse its forward motion must stop at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 It's not. Speed equals distance over time. Time itself is a separate, erm, thing. Velocity, not speed. Plus: taking velocity is not unlawful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapleboy Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Can't be bothered to wade through 5 pages, so apologies if it's already been mentiooned. Assuming the findings are correct - and bearing in mind the current rate of technology advancement - how long before we get a working FTL drive? Less than 100 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 how long before we get a working FTL drive? Less than 100 years? If it's ever going to be achieved, it must already have been! So the number of years must be a negative. Confused, of Sheffield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mapleboy Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 So that explains the UFOs then... Sorry about that, my tinfoil hat slipped a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 86 posts so far, yet not a word about The Young Lady of Wight. Even Stephen Hawking's heard of her: http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.