General Chat / Is there a 'perfect crime'?

It's to do with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, I believe. Although it is incredibly minimal and isn't so much time travel, as experiencing time at a slower rate.

I'm sorry, but I can't tolerate people stating time travel is possible. That's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. There's quite evidently no proof.

The problem I have with time travel to the past is this: if you go to the past and change history, surely that would have repurcusions with regards to the present from which you travelled in the first place. Ie, having changed the past the present would no longer be the same, and you might not have time travelled anyway, meaning you couldn't exist in the past.

Gigaforce, you amuse me to a ridiculous degree by criticising people for looking at this too scientifically, then spelling "too" incorrectly and continuing to state in a highly scientific manner what is and what is not possible as if it were a fact.

actually very much my opinion, though if we stick to all the theories we know neither of them says time traveling isn't possible.
so i also think it is wrong to say it isn't possible. the right answer would be, i don't know.
still there is the question, what do we know for sure. nothing!
expect of the pt2 bench being late
and the story i told you with the plane has a very small effect. just 2 or 3 seconds for your life. means it's not worth to try it.

what do we know for sure. nothing!

At least we know you, then
Oh, and the PT2bench thing...

It has something to do with a train and turning the light on.

Wasn't it like this? If a train goes with lightspeed, and you walk through... you're faster than light aren't you?
And what will happen, if this train turns his light on?
Is light material?
'Cos if you put a lamp into zero gravity and turn it on, it will move pushed away by the light... very slow but it would.
So if you are in a race with someone and you turn your backlights on, you'll win

haha. that lamp is interesting
didn't know this yet, but it seems to be even more theretical than my plane
but if i turn on the light in my dads car it need more fuel. is that cause of the frontlights. they push the car backwards (ok just joking)

the story WME is talking about is the following:

a trains moves with the speed x. it is just important that it is moving in one direction.
now you turn the a light on in the middle of the train.
obviously you'd say the light get's to both ends on the train at the same time, but then if you look at the train from outside the light to the one end must be moving too fast. it has to be c + x, but as x is bigger than 0 this doesn't work.
so you should be able to find out the rest of the story on your own

Magnus, ur problem is you dont believe in Fate. If Fate exists, then stuff IS planned, and the future DOES exist to travel to, thus absolutely destroying the "Nowhere- or NoWHEN to travel to."

You cannot travel to the past because it no longer exists. Using Einstein's theories of relativity *yes, we had to read his whole fucking book* and time dilation, we proved that it is possible to dilate time moving at VERY high speeds, showing in theory that someone moving at a VERY VERY VERY high speed can travel in a rocket for 75 years of earth time, but only age one year -> he has travelled 1 year to travel 75 years, and using the definition of time travel, that IS in fact time travel. We also proved how a pilot flying planes can extend his life by 1-3 seconds for flying so much at high speeds

The real question is:

Must a cause precede it's effect?

Magnus, ur problem is you dont believe in Fate. If Fate exists, then stuff IS planned, and the future DOES exist to travel to, thus absolutely destroying the "Nowhere- or NoWHEN to travel to."

You cannot travel to the past because it no longer exists. Using Einstein's theories of relativity *yes, we had to read his whole fucking book* and time dilation, we proved that it is possible to dilate time moving at VERY high speeds, showing in theory that someone moving at a VERY VERY VERY high speed can travel in a rocket for 75 years of earth time, but only age one year -> he has travelled 1 year to travel 75 years, and using the definition of time travel, that IS in fact time travel. We also proved how a pilot flying planes can extend his life by 1-3 seconds for flying so much at high speeds

could you please give me the exact name of the book. i want to buy it.


and yes i don't believe in god.
actually we should try travel that fast. then we can get to the mars one day

I'm also interested in this Book...
Maybe i'll Google it out.

Heh. The train thing is actually a difference of perspectives.

Ok, you have the train going at speed x, as magnus said. Speed x, however, has to be around a third of the speed of light to make for any decent results, so it's all strictly theoretic. When a person in the train turns on the light in the middle of the train, that person sees the light getting to both sides of the train at the same time, yet when a person outside watches the train he sees the light getting to one end of the train faster than the other. That, would have to do with the fact that if c is light speed, c + x = c.

Anyways, i think i told the story correctly, not incredibly sure. It was told to me about 10 months ago..

I heard the other thing too, that if twins were to have one becoming an astronaut... they'd turn out to be differently aged in the end.. and stuff. But that's probably just a theoretical picture they showed =P.

Anyways, giga, a cause must precede its effect. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a cause. It is actually in the definition of the words.

And this faith.. it's really hard. Of course, there's a million outcomes, but who is to say that the path isn't set? Nothing is a 100% sure, you might do this, or that, but what if the set path had rolled its dice already? If you travel to the future, and another person travels to the future, they're likely to end up in the same future, thus it would sort of mean that it is set. Probably the reason to believe that time travel isn't possible. Of course, losing little bits of time when traveling at lightspeed is a different story. It's not getting us a few years into the future when we step into a time machine is it?

you have to be careful with the word time here.

this astronaut flying at a very high speed (very near to c) is going to fly for 75 earth years but just feels one year.
the result isn't really traveling in time it is just that he doesn't get older, which is cause of his relative time.
still he doesn't go to the future or past in fact he is just living longer.

And WME:
I'll look up that story. I know a story being almost the same.

Two things.

One.
If the astronaut had a clock of some type, which time would represent? His, or the Earth's?

Two.
Just thinking, but you know how they have those really small pools where there's a current and you do 'laps' in it? Well, could you, by the defenitions of relativity, build something similar (in theory), but with respects to the current travelling at a velocity close to c and the capsule the person/thing is in (they'll be in some sort of suspended animation) going the opposite direction so that some sort of 'eternal' life can be reached?

I know that doesn't sound like it makes sense. But I don't feel like rewording it.

If the astronaut had a clock of some type, which time would represent? His, or the Earth's?

The earth one... Cos a clock works with technic that wouldnt stop because traveling that fast...

There is.

Kill someone with an icicle.  No fingerprints.  And no evidence after a bit. 

deception point.

How do you kill someone with an icicle, anyway? Wouldn't it break?

dunno. in deception point by dan brown he explained this way the kgb used to kill people. you stuff snow down their throat and they suffocate. however i am sure with some advanced autopsy you could see abrasions in the throat passage. still, interesting.

How do you kill someone with an icicle, anyway? Wouldn't it break?

Not if it's a really big thick icicle.

dunno.  in deception point by dan brown he explained this way the kgb used to kill people.  you stuff snow down their throat and they suffocate.  however i am sure with some advanced autopsy you could see abrasions in the throat passage.  still, interesting.

That and maybe a little frostbite.

The word "perfect" could never describe something that is wrong, to me...

what is a "crime" is not always wrong either...