Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Diamond Casino Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

trickstar34

General Physics Topic

Recommended Posts

trickstar34

To take things away from politics, I would like to discuss the scientific things that can be done here on the forums.

 

I have had a theory since I was twelve years of age that still makes sense after going to college for physics this year. The universe is supposed to be a fabric right? What happens to space-time when matter is in it? It stretches, what happens when fabric stretches? It gets bigger, well I see this making sense the universe is growing so quick, there are more and more galaxies forming everyday and they have super large amounts of matter and the mass being concentrated higher, thus causing faster expansion, especially things like black holes which pull so hard that it stretches it to nearly ripping if not already ripping space-time. (I will dicuss a theory about that also in another topic)

 

Does this theory make sense to anybody?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seachmall

From what I understand the current theory is that the universe is expanding, gravity isn't strong enough to hold everything in place and so they (galaxies) pull away, the more they pull the faster it happens. We know this because the further away galaxies are from us the more the colour changes (colour is a frequency, if you move a coloured object while the frequency is pulsing the gap between each "beat" gets bigger). I'm not sure how well I explained that, or how accurate it is. ph34r.gif

especially things like black holes which pull so hard that it stretches it to nearly ripping if not already ripping space-time.
I'm not sure what you're saying here but a black hole is just a star so condensed that light gets trapped, (the gravitational pull is so strong it doesn't let the light out). So I'm not sure how it would affect space-time.

 

But obviously I'm far from an expert, I'd say K^2 is probably the most knowledgeable in this field.

Edited by Seachmall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trickstar34

K^2 is most knowledgeable in almost every field. See, here is a 2D representation of how gravity effects space-time.

 

user posted image

 

And if you put a black hole there it would stretch so far down you couldn't even see the bottom, and the colors of gravities changing as they get closer and farther away is called red shift, red shift is moving away, and blue shift is coming towards you, there are shades in between them.

 

Red Shift Diagram and example

user posted image

user posted image

 

Also here is an example of how strong a black holes influence on the universe is:

user posted image

 

The black holes pull on the universe effects it so much that it distorts a passing galaxy, it's called gravitational lensing. And about you saying that black holes are just collapsed stars, that is not entirely true, a black hole can form by a collision between any amount of energy, no matter how big nor small. They believe black holes were possibly created also immediately after the big bang, and super-massive black holes, how do you think they became so big? There is no way they became that big starting out as a star, black holes are only the fraction of a size of the star they were born from, super-masive black holes must have been from the beginning of the universe and they had to of been eating other black holes to become so big.

 

A black hole rips apart a near by star, notice the fact that there is a quasar in the black hole, thus indicating this is a very massive star.

user posted image

Edited by trickstar34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

You shouldn't try to talk about the universe expanding and of spacetime curvature in the same sentence. From perspective of spacetime, universe just is. Nothing happens, it doesn't change, and it most certainly does not grow. Universe is just is - from origin to infinity. Yes, there happens to be more space-like "room" in the universe in the "timeward" direction. Yes, our time arrow happens to point in that direction. Yes, that makes it appear to expand. But the explanation lies within the overall geometry of spacetime. Not within local curvature caused by various massive bodies.

 

 

The black holes pull on the universe effects it so much that it distorts a passing galaxy, it's called gravitational lensing.

You should be a little more careful with phrasing this, as well. Black hole passes in front of the galaxy, as viewed from Earth, bending the light rays traveling from that galaxy. The image of the galaxy comes out distorted. Galaxy itself is unaffected.

 

And is that a simulation? I can't imagine something this massive not being a core of some galaxy of its own.

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobgtafan

From what I know the universe is expanding at a fast rate and that thier are two opnions for what happens.

 

A. It all collaspes from the large amount of gravity

B. It keeps scrething until everything is broken down pass atoms and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trickstar34

I get what you are saying K^2 (I think), the universe is unlimited space but gravity is just not strong enough to keep everything together so it starts to float away seeming like the universe is actually getting bigger.

 

I have a question for you, do you beleive the universe is really 13.7 billion years of age?

Edited by trickstar34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

No, the funny thing is, the universe in the future is bigger. It's just that you shouldn't think about it as things "moving apart". There is no motion. Universe is just bigger on one end than the other. And I'm using the word "end" kind of lightly here.

 

And you need to picture time a little differently. Imagine that you got a strip of film on which you have a movie of a ceramic cup being stricken by something and shattering into many tiny pieces. Now, you don't know which way the film is meant to run, but you can see a whole cup on one end of the film, and a bunch of shards on the other. You know that the odds of the cup assembling itself are virtually zero. So you can make assumption about which is the "past" and which is the "future" of that cup. Then you can see the movie frame by frame and observe the cup falling apart. Except it's not really falling apart. It's just a film. All of the frames are already there fixed in their place with cup in different states on them. That's time.

 

The universe is very small on one end of time. Perhaps, a singularity. All the energy and matter condensed into such a tiny space. Further along, we see universe with all the stars grouped into clusters and superclusters forming strands of matter in otherwise rather empty universe. Just like with the cup you can tell which end is first, so can you here. The underlying principle is chaos, or more formally, the entropy. Higher entropy, more chaos, identifies a future state. We observe it as things tending towards disorder. In reality, ability to live, reproduce, remember, and reason - all depend on the increasing disorder. So you remember the past states, ones with less chaos, and these seem to run to you as a continuous movie, but it doesn't change the fact that all the frames are already there.

 

As for the age, I'm working on a model that might fit the red shift data better than standard model. It's going a bit slow, because gravity isn't my field. If it works, I might have a correction to the figure, but it will probably still be in the same ballpark. Most of these

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trickstar34

Good explanation, another point I got from it is that if we are to master the "space bubbles" or in other words, a wormhole that lasts long enough to enter where we can travel through time, it will only take us to the future, never the past, because there is no past to go back to, it's gone, it's always now, and if we were to travel through time we could only go to the future because all that would happen is it would hold you in place until everything catches up to you, it would be 30 years to everyone else and instantly to you. Your cup example explains that we can only go towards it breaking, i.e. the future, but it going back together, i.e. the past, is possibility of zero, equal to impossible, only the God entity, whether you believe there is a God, then there would be the religious God and the singularity, otherwise to an atheist just the singularity that was the beginning can change that law and thus restart time, but it is not likely.

 

I have yet another question, which of the following theories do you think is the end of the universe or the ultimate fate of the universe?

1. The Big Bounce

2. The Big Rip

3. The Big Chill

4. The Big Crunch

5. Multiverse

6. False Vacuum

7. No particular ending, matter may be spread apart but galaxies will remain together to maintain the heat of the universe.

 

For more info on these theories see this link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy

 

Good explanation, another point I got from it is that if we are to master the "space bubbles" or in other words, a wormhole that lasts long enough to enter where we can travel through time, it will only take us to the future, never the past, because there is no past to go back to, it's gone, it's always now, and if we were to travel through time we could only go to the future because all that would happen is it would hold you in place until everything catches up to you, it would be 30 years to everyone else and instantly to you. Your cup example explains that we can only go towards it breaking, i.e. the future, but it going back together, i.e. the past, is possibility of zero, equal to impossible, only the God entity, whether you believe there is a God, then there would be the religious God and the singularity, otherwise to an atheist just the singularity that was the beginning can change that law and thus restart time, but it is not likely.

 

I have yet another question, which of the following theories do you think is the end of the universe or the ultimate fate of the universe?

1. The Big Bounce

2. The Big Rip

3. The Big Chill

4. The Big Crunch

5. Multiverse

6. False Vacuum

7. No particular ending, matter may be spread apart but galaxies will remain together to maintain the heat of the universe.

 

For more info on these theories see this link.

But isn't the wormhole theory a bit impossible? That would mean we would be sucked into a whole that moves us near the speed of light, and be sent out of it at that speed. Who knows what would happen, and even if it would send us far enough to the future. For all we know, it could simply move us somewhere else, not even in time, just a place. Plus, time is ever changing, so it would always be different where we would spat out. I know this is the premise that Back to the Future set it's self on, but isn't it impossible? Sorry if that sounded wrong, it's what our science teacher told us when asked about this.

 

But as to the universe expanding, I can see that being possible. It has to be impossible for something to be infinite. It can always grow to seem infinite, but it can never actually reach that. I guess one could say it is infinite due to it growing, but it's only a theory that I just don't see being possible. Even if black holes are pulling on the universe, I don't see it causing tremendous growth of space.

Edited by Ronnyboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trickstar34

The wormhole theory is real, they have not proved they exist but all studies of it prove it possible and non whatsoever have proved it wrong, the thing that they believe why we haven't discovered any is because they are unstable and disappear the instant they appear, making it impossible to cross over, but the space bubbles theory recreates a wormhole that lasts long enough to enter, but I myself would never trust it, because if something goes wrong you will be stuck in the neck of it forever, if it disappears from existence, thus ending yours and never going to the true afterlife and sending your body (if you believe in religion, just like myself) to an alternative for that entity in the wormhole. Another theory is the Black Hole through White Hole theory, although non have been discovered, white holes are what are believed to be the other end of a black hole, because of the law that states matter and energy is neither created nor destroyed, the matter that doesn't escape the black holes have to go somewhere and white holes in another spot in space and time are the solution, thus called a wormhole. Well I have to disagree with that, the matter will just escape from the singularity in the black hole after the black hole deforms. However this is a theory that I heard that I believe can be true about black holes. A supernova large and powerful enough to create a black hole is a simulation of our own big bang, thus creating an embedded universe and the matter being sucked into a black hole is being feed into it, nobody said anything about them following our laws of physics, so they're life time to them is the same to them as our universe is to us, but they're lifetime to us is a fraction of what it is to them, and when that universe either dies or has all the matter it needs, the black hole dies releasing all matter that was fed to that universe, on that same note, we could be an embedded universe taking in matter as we need it from our own parent universe when matter is taken out of our own universe, we take in matter out of our parent universe to even it out, and I find it plausible, but not likely, because that would mean there is an infinite line of embedded universes.

Edited by trickstar34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

No, that's not it. The problem with wormholes is that topology of spacetime needs to be altered for one to be created, and there is no known mechanism for it. One must simply be, along with a rotating black hole to keep it stable. Nothing says that they can't exist, but we don't know why they would be there, either.

 

There is no problem with traveling to the past. There is no difference between future and past, other than that induced from entropy increase due to the expansion. From perspective of a time-traversing wormhole, the two destinations are exactly the same.

 

Depends on what you mean by multiverse. If you mean separate spacetime regions or parallel manifolds (dimensions), they are possible, but there is no way to confirm this without having a wormhole that just happens to link all these into a single manifold.

 

Many-World, on the other hand, you can count on. It is a direct consequence of quantum mechanics, and all of the underlying assumptions have been verified rather well by experiments. That's one of the reasons why there is no problem with time travel, and why you get time flow in the first place.

 

Big Chill is where my money at. As I mentioned, expansion isn't caused by dynamics of matter. It's the shape of the universe type of deal. And I'm fairly certain that there is no endpoint for time. Universe expands ad infinitum. But even if it isn't so, the arrow of time will always point towards expansion. So if universe for some reason decides to collapse, we won't be able to see that. Our time stream will end long before that can happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trickstar34

I have always found the conception of the Big Rip kind of strange, it just seems impossible for the whole universe to just end like that. I would go with either Big Bounce, Big Chill, or that the matter will be held close enough in galaxies to keep life possible. Do you think there is a point in space where there are no more galaxies and there is just a huge void that goes on forever? I seem to think that when looking at maps of the discovered super-clusters. What do you think of the theory that black holes are embedded universes (read more in the post above yours)? I find it plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Space is most likely closed on itself, like a surface of hypersphere. Not sure about the actual topology, though. Spherical or Toroidal would be my first two guesses. Klein bottle is another possibility, because it does seem like spacetime has a "flip side".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trickstar34

I actually think it's spherical, and it's a very, very, very large sphere, that would explain why we can't see the light from the beginning of the universe. Although the fact that light bends with space, proof is the sun bends light and black holes trap light.

Edited by trickstar34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MorlockGod

-Deleted-

Edited by MorlockGod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loman

The universe being a hypersphere is very plausible. To visualize a hypersphere in three dimensions, you have to imagine a 3d sphere expanding from an infinitely small point, growing to its maximum size, then shrinking back down to the infinity small point. If the universe actually turned out to be a hypersphere, that would mean that the "big crunch" could happen. Of course, I am not very well read in physics, so I am probably just blowing smoke biggrin.gif

Anyone interested in the fourth dimension should definitely check out This Link

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trickstar34

Matter is just condenced energy, forces are energy, everything is energy, even dark energy and dark matter are energy, energy is everything possible in this universe. Does anybody know what the material of the universe is called, you know the void parts where it's pure black, I heard it somewhere before but I don't remember it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
The universe being a hypersphere is very plausible. To visualize a hypersphere in three dimensions, you have to imagine a 3d sphere expanding from an infinitely small point, growing to its maximum size, then shrinking back down to the infinity small point. If the universe actually turned out to be a hypersphere, that would mean that the "big crunch" could happen. Of course, I am not very well read in physics, so I am probably just blowing smoke biggrin.gif

You are picturing the shells wrong. Lets drop one dimension, so that we can talk about a 2D space + time = 3-dimensions.

 

What you are talking about is taking a sphere and cutting it into circular slices. This would give you a circular patch of space that expands and then contracts. But what happens at the boundary? Also, if you draw geodesics in this system, the space inflates, but all matter stays together. This isn't a very elegant structure for the universe.

 

Now picture, instead, that you took your sphere and peeled it into concentric shells. Sort of like an onion. Each shell is a single moment in time. The surface of that shell is your 2D space. Now, geodesics push matter apart, giving you the Hubble's red shift. Also, you end up with no boundaries. Space is completely closed on itself. Time, however, has its own direction, and has a definite starting point (big bang) with no end point. The universe would end up infinitely expanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trickstar34

What your saying is that time is a ray? A beggining but no end, so in turn, the universe will expand forever, but lets say the universe is not it's own but an embedded universe in another, or one of the theories of multiverse (I only remember two right now, embedded and co-existing universes), and one of the theories inside that one, a black hole is a big bang and the matter that it sucks in feeds the embedded universe, thus causing that one to expand, but what about black holes when they die, does that mean that that universe is gone or does it mean that that universe has enough and it will keep existing into infinity?

 

Oh guys, I got this renamed to general physics, so you can talk about anything to do with physics and it wont go off-topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3niX

Well...

 

My physics teacher described the universe as a cone thats turned upside down (singularity is/was the tip) and the theories explain it as either "growing" infinitely (while black holes consume everything) or it starting to drip over the wider end and eventually collapsing into singularity again (though that had several theories as well).

 

The problem with specualtions so far is just that... they are speculations based on systems and logic we created (which isnt all too encouraging considering the fact that we once thought Earth to be flat).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

 

Good explanation, another point I got from it is that if we are to master the "space bubbles" or in other words, a wormhole that lasts long enough to enter where we can travel through time, it will only take us to the future, never the past, because there is no past to go back to, it's gone, it's always now, and if we were to travel through time we could only go to the future because all that would happen is it would hold you in place until everything catches up to you, it would be 30 years to everyone else and instantly to you. Your cup example explains that we can only go towards it breaking, i.e. the future, but it going back together, i.e. the past, is possibility of zero, equal to impossible, only the God entity, whether you believe there is a God, then there would be the religious God and the singularity, otherwise to an atheist just the singularity that was the beginning can change that law and thus restart time, but it is not likely...

Hi, good topic icon14.gif

 

Though I only have a basic understanding of this, I got a question. Why is traveling back in time impossible?

 

I understand, through general relativity, about time dilation. The classic example: a rocket travels to the nearest star at close to light speed. Let's say that it takes 40 years to get there and back to Earth. While it seems like it takes 40 years for those on the rocket, the people back on Earth have seen 400 or 4,000 years pass.

 

If it works in one direction, why not the other? The only thing that comes to mind is that silly Star Trek IV movie. The one where they save the whales...ahh swimming with the whales...anyways. They shoot the spacecraft around the sun, using gravity to...uhh...can't remember but there was a lot of shaking. The other example that comes to mind would be Michael Crchton's 'Timeline' good book, average movie. That would have to to with quantum wormholes, but I don't know much about that. I guess it would come down to knowing that going back could only mess things up. Grandfather paradox and all that. Anyone smart enough to figure out time-travel would be smart enough to avoid doing it. Unless it's some sort of alternate reality situation. In that case, why am I not in the reality with the supermodels and hot tubs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Digital Warlord.
There is the Universe and there is the observable universe. Because the speed of light is finite we can never observe the entire universe. Therefore it is very difficult to achieve an absolute frame of reference. Without an absolute frame of reference I doubt one could return to a previous point in space one had once occupied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
giantteddybearman

Observable universe is slightly bigger than the universe because you can see replicas of galaxies, and I say slightly because you can't see the whole universe, but the reflections of galaxies make up for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Tequeli
Observable universe is slightly bigger than the universe because you can see replicas of galaxies, and I say slightly because you can't see the whole universe, but the reflections of galaxies make up for it.

The size of the universe is not currently known, it could be anything because we only know the observable universe. Wikipedia says it could be infinite in volume, which I don't fully understand (K^2?) but I do know that we don't know how large the universe is. I've heard the observable universe being bigger then the actual as a theory, which is intriguing but not fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
giantteddybearman

Well, just so you know, this is trickstar, so you know where I'm coming from.

 

OK, the universe is infinite in volume because no matter how much matter there is there will always be a void in the universe, it just doesn't have infinite size, it has a growing size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XXI Inc

There's also that theory that if you travel faster than the speed of light you would be back before you left. How that works?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

There's also that theory that if you travel faster than the speed of light you would be back before you left. How that works?

 

Since we can't travel past the speed of light in the conventional sense, this wouldn't happen.

 

As for why you can't travel back in time, I think this takes a different approach than the conventional. Last time I read up on the subject, subatomic particles under certain conditions, there was a hypothesis that their behavior could be explained if the particle traveled back in time for a slight fraction of a second. I don't remember who came up with that, or what has changed... so here is my thought.

 

 

My hypothesis of time travel.

 

In order for some one to travel back in time, they would need to expend an amount of energy equivalent to the amount of energy that it would take to change the universe back to the state it was in at the moment of time you intended to travel to from the state of the universe at the point you were to travel back from.

 

Mind you, assuming you have the technology, the above statement is assuming the time machine is working at 100% efficiency, which we know from thermodynamics is going to be far from the truth. This can at least explain why a subatomic particle can travel back in time a small amount of time and we functionally cannot.

 

Since the effect a subatomic particle makes on the universe by traveling back in time a slight fraction of a second is so minimal, it can draw enough energy to travel back in time; while, if I had a time machine that was 100% efficient, I would need all the power the Earth generates in 10 years just to travel back in time one day (very rough gestimation).

 

I also like the explanation that if some one found out how to time travel like in the movies, why don't we see people traveling back in time?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spaghetti Cat

lol forgot I posted in here, good thing to b/c that star trek reference was horrible. lol.gif

 

so, if I read your post right, then traveling backwards is possible, just that the energy required wouldn't make it pratical? Thats the Time Traveling for Dummies version that I got Leftcost.

 

yay for physics smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

so, if I read your post right, then traveling backwards is possible, just that the energy required wouldn't make it pratical? Thats the Time Traveling for Dummies version that I got Leftcost.

 

Yes, basically, that's Leftcoast's general hypothesis of time travel. I am assuming you meant to say impractical not practical though. No worries, I switch words like that all the time when try and type my thoughts.

 

Edit: This is also assuming that the possibility of sub atomic particles traveling back in time for fractions of a second is / (is still) thought to be a possibility amongst the particle physics community. It's been quite a while since I have been exposed to any current physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mister Beastly

 

There's also that theory that if you travel faster than the speed of light you would be back before you left. How that works?

This theory is plausible, if worked the other way around, however not possible, with current understanding of physics. If they were to discover Tachyons (particles that can travel faster than light, but not below it). These also are believed to be impossible because as something travels closer to the speed of light, its mass increases and will become infinite in mass, and for something to pass the speed of light it would have to have a mass greater than infinity, thus making the particle to have to have a negative mass, being impossible for 2 reasons:

 

1. E=MC^2, E is energy, C is the speed of light, M is mass, and as it gets closer to light, the mass increases, so once it reaches C in speed, it would mean infinite energy is in that object, which would mean that there would be more energy than all the energy in the universe is in that little particle.

 

2. For it not to do the first reason, it would have to have zero mass, which would mean that particle has no energy at all, meaning it could not exist nor move, or it would have to be negative, which would mean less than zero energy would be in that object, bringing on a paradox.

 

Then back to the original question, relativity states time travel is possible, however not into the past, but only into the future. Because the past has already happened, so theres no time to go back to, its already happened, its gone, making it impossible to travel back, also bringing up the grandfather paradox. However there will always be a future to goto and doing so will not bring up any paradoxes. Basically, you will be held still in time (suspended where no observers can see you, nor can you see them), the leap in time seems instantaneous to the person or object traveling in time.

 

However my understanding sees that time travel to the future is also impossible, because that would be violating the law of conservation, because your energy and matter that makes you up will disappear (removed/destroyed in a sense), and then when space-time reaches the point where you will end up in the future, your energy and matter will be added to the universe, thus in both conditions, violating the law of conservation, matter and energy cannot be destroyed. The only way I see this possible is if it just changes your matter into energy and when it reaches the point where you will be after the time travel, the energy will be made back into matter, not violating the law of conservation, since it states that matter and energy can change into one another, just not destroyed.

Edited by Mister Beastly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.