Universe doesn't equal Time travel

1. Dec 12, 2005

runicle

I have a theory, please correct me if I'm wrong.

What if the big bang didn't start the universe from expanding? If we were speed up to the rate the universe is accelerating in, where would we be? How did it start?

Well I have an answer, I am not sure about the big bang theory being correct, but what i'm having difficulty is that the shape and size of how it blew up. I think the universe doesn't have time in it's equation, though it has a speed.

Now think about this, if you were to time travel back in time trying to fix a problem in the past (Like telling yourself not to ask a certain person to marry you, because it work out in the future). Where will you turn up if you were go back to the present?

The Answer: The Universe isn't the only universe, like a molecule isn't the only molecule (There are many others). So, if you time travel, your not actually time travelling your Universe travelling.

2. Dec 12, 2005

DaveC426913

OK, let's see if I can get this in before this thread gets locked... (pet theories not allowed)

You seem to have several unrelated ideas here, one about expansion of the universe and another about time travel.

The *definition* of speed is distance over time.

Well done! This is actually one of the proposed ways of averting time travel pardoxes.

3. Dec 16, 2005

Silverbackman

I disagree about how you could be traveling through time in the multiverse because you can't do this all at one time. If your universe is one but many universes chances are each universe operates differently than others. So if you were to travel back 500 years in this time it won't make a difference on the outside I don't think.

4. Dec 17, 2005

Danger

While I'm a believer in the multiverse theory (well, as an atheist I feel obliged to believe in something), there's one aspect of the crossing of timelines equating to time travel that has never made sense to me. As far as I can tell, all 'phases' of the multiverse are supposed to be infinitesimally different from those adjacent to them. That would mean that they all started at the same time, and are aging at the same rate. In order to affect the past of one, therefore, you would still have to travel backward into its time. It seems to me that the only way you could really go back in time by crossing universe boundaries would be if you cross laterally into one that is younger than the one that you start in. Anybody care to sort this out for me?

5. Mar 28, 2008

SmartieGirl12

Universe Travelling

I believe your theory. You have clearly thought this out very thoroughly. I'm 12 years old and it is very common for any child this age younger or older to be thinking about time travel. I always wondered why it was just TIME travel, and the consepts of time, but then the consepts of the universe. If it was Universe travelling, that would make a little bit more sense. The faster the universe goes, the further ahead in years/time we would be...if it were going in the opposite direction, we may be back in the stoneage. (lol.) When I was about 6, I wanted to go back in time, so I created a type of blue chart. (Although, I was six, therefore, it was barely recognizeable as a blue chart.) Anyhow, scientists have now found a molecule thing that is related with time travelling "universe travelling". If I had that then, I would have built a "time machine". Or would have gotten considerably close. I still long to make a time machine, and will succeed someday. I think your theory is Brilliant, brilliant I say. =^-^=

6. Mar 28, 2008

chroot

Staff Emeritus