If we’re going off of The Simpsons. Then, let me tell you this. After seeing something or even hearing about it. Doesn’t history like to create or repeat itself? Wouldn’t something that can easily be recreated even though it’s hard to believe be possible? A lot sci-fi adventures were created. History also can definitely repeat itself every 100 years of virus comes by just like now. Time traveling is a slippery slope to even mention let alone to be held in the palm of your hand. You have to think outside the box even better doing something so . . . . how can I put this “insignificantly small”! You have to understand to look at in theoretical research and discoveries! Didn’t light come out of black hole recently couple years back? Now didn’t they say that would never be possible for anything to escape a black hole? You could just look at the world as it. However, if you look towards as a singularity and multiply into single little parts kinda like hearts. The matter is alive just like every single one of us. Imagine seeing every point of space and time in multiple variables. Your beating into different dimensions not only of reality the points in time. You can’t meticulous just one vibrational point. You have to be open minded to every single variable of every single frequency every any given time. Black holes will take everything and anything at any single point of time. Even different variations it was suck it in. It doesn’t matter where. Think of it as a bunch of hail coming down at once in the intercept with cracks against the window. You never know where the cracks are going to lead or where the intercept. Whether you know at the point of impact is going to create something at the rate for the cracks vibrate close to one another in the exact times.
Didn’t light come out of black hole?Are you talking about this:
Black Hole Has Major Flare Oct 27, 2015The results suggest that supermassive black holes send out beams of X-rays when their surrounding coronas – sources of extremely energetic particles – shoot, or launch, away from the black holes.
“This is the first time we have been able to link the launching of the corona to a flare,” said Dan Wilkins of Saint Mary’s University in Halifax, Canada, lead author of a new paper on the results appearing in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. “This will help us understand how supermassive black holes power some of the brightest objects in the universe.”
Supermassive black holes don’t give off any light themselves, but they are often encircled by disks of hot, glowing material. The gravity of a black hole pulls swirling gas into it, heating this material and causing it to shine with different types of light. Another source of radiation near a black hole is the corona. Coronas are made up of highly energetic particles that generate X-ray light, but details about their appearance, and how they form, are unclear. …
Now didn’t they say that would never be possible for anything to escape a black hole?
They did based on the evidence at hand. The incident you mention didn’t exactly come from inside the Blackhole, check out that article.
The matter is alive just like every single one of us.I know that matter is atoms and molecules and the "laws" of physics and ... Okay my opinion is worthless, so your question inspired me to look up an 'authoritative" response.
This comes from,
Carl Zorn, (Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility | Jefferson Lab · Division of Physics PhD). (detector scientist)Atoms are forever! But let me explain. … (470 words later) … Ultimately, even these stable atoms have a limit imposed by the lifetime of proton (>1025 years). Remember, though, that the best estimate of the present age of the universe is the much smaller number of 1010 years, so for all practical purposes, atoms are forever. … (then a summary).
Living creatures are composed of atoms, molecules and the “laws” of physics, but they are entropic beings in a way no constituent atom is. The atoms in our bodies are constantly being exchanged.
https://medium.com/a-microbiome-scientist-at-large/science-monday-if-our-cells-replace-themselves-why-do-we-have-lifelong-scars-deb77b2ab5c0Next time you hear someone state that every cell in our body is replaced every seven years, you can now confidently correct them: the average age of a cell in our body is 7 years, but some cells are replaced constantly, while others stay with us for our entire lives.
lifetime of proton. 10^25 years
present age of the universe. 10^10 years
lifetime of proton. 10^25 yearspresent age of the universe. 10^10 years
Yeah, I figured something got lost in translation.
As long as it wasn’t 4^70 words later 
Traveling into the future has already been proven? ?
but there is no way of returning? ?
ScienceNews must have missed that one. Do you have a reference so others can read about it?
a future earth not synced with your time experience -- btsynced? this happens every time you go somewhere that is at a higher elevation, just on a much smaller scale. There is no "time experience" that you are "synced" to. It's not "time travel" any more than; us living as other things change, is time travel.
I guess in you space ship the clock runs the same as on earth and there is no difference in time after the trip. Better tell Einstein.Suppose we use entanglement for instantaneous travel. We leave NY and our entangled twin arrives in Paris at the same time. Will there be a difference in age between the traveler and the people at the destination?
Not sure if this is the right link, but in any case it is a wonderful NOVA presentation by David Pogue.
In your opinion . Not many people would through special relativity out the door and say its not real.IMO, there is no dimension of Time to travel at all. Spacetime is a human term. In reality there is only a permittive condition which allows events to occur in chronological order.
Time is a human invention to record the duration of chronological events. Therefore time is always created in a forward direction into the future where time (duration) does not yet exists, but is permittive of events to occur. The entire concept of time travel is fantasy. Our journey through space creates our relative time frames in the process. Human “time” is created as a result of duration of events related to our existence and POV.
There is no reversal of time possible and there is no way to travel backward in time without going forward in time yourself. A fatal paradox.
Traveling into the future has already been proven but there is no way of returningReally? Something like traveling in the "afterlife" has also been proven but there is no way of returning?
Get real please.
“Is it possible to travel through time? To answer this question, we must be a bit more specific about what we mean by traveling through time. Discounting the everyday progression of time, the question can be divided into two parts: Is it possible, within a short time (less than a human life span), to travel into the distant future? And is it possible to travel into the past?Not humans
“Our current understanding of fundamental physics tells us that the answer to the first question is a definite yes, and to the second, maybe.Not humans
“The mechanism for traveling into the distant future is to use the time-dilation effect of Special Relativity, which states that a moving clock appears to tick more slowly the closer it approaches the speed of light. This effect, which has been overwhelmingly supported by experimental tests, applies to all types of clocks, including biological agingThat only applies to zero mass particles. A human mass encased in a massive vehicle cannot ever get even close to the speed of light and therefore never use any form of meaningful time dilation . Not that this would matter, time dilation just means you are going forward in time at a slower rate.
To go back in time one would need to travel at faster than light and that is impossible for even a zero mass particle let alone anything massive.
The only possible way is via entanglement , which would involve your total physical disintegration into single entangled particles and a method to restore all those particles at the destination from entangled twins.
Entanglement technology, which sounds much akin to Gene Roddenberry’s vision via Star Trek, of teleporting life-forms and/or inanimate solid objects from point A to point B.
And to date, we humans–circa 2021–have ZERO clue on crafting workable teleporting devices that would require unfathomably huge physical energy generation and computer memory storage beyond what we can comprehend now.
Would be nice if we, in our lifetime, saw such technology.
Apparently you have not considered the scenario where the box is accelerating.
Here are the three relativistic observation of the man in the box.
https://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s3.htm
This is the scenario Einstein used to demonstrate the emergence of gravity along with acceleration.
In all scenarios the light will strike the opposite wall at the same time in spite of the relative distance traveled. This is really weird, because it seems to be in conflict with the law of “shortest distance between two points”.
IMO, an excellent illustrative example of relativity, which makes perfect sense, once you consider the dynamics of the scenario.
The problem with the caption above is that it says “the beam of light will curve downward”. This is wrong. The caption should read “… will appear to curve downward”.
Actually there will be no “beam” of light; there will be a series of waves produced at the source and each individual wave will move at a constant velocity away from the source. We accept that the source is configured to emit waves into the box in only one direction, in this case horizontally. The motion of these waves will be similar to the individual molecules in a “stream” of water from a hose or the series of individual bullets shot from a machine gun except that the light waves will not attain a velocity component due to the motion of the source as would the water molecules and the bullets.
In all three instances shown the light “beam” will be observed only if there are particles, such as dust or water vapor, in the box. In order to keep this example simple we must accept that those particles will be moving with the box and they reflect the light to the observer’s eye.
The amount the light “beam” will appear to be deflected at any point on its way to the wall opposite the source can be calculated using simple geometry. It is too early for me to figure what shape curve we might get if the acceleration were not constant.
Is it obvious that we would get a concave curve, rather than the convex curve shown, if the acceleration were negative and the velocity of the box is slowing? It would be interesting to see a video of the box accelerating from rest up to speed and then slowing back down to rest.
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:93, topic:6389”]
The problem with the caption above is that it says “the beam of light will curve downward”. This is wrong. The caption should read “… will appear to curve downward”.
No, to the man in the box the beam of light actually does curve downward . It is measurable. Not because the light bends, but because the box moves and accelerates.
It is a perfect example of relativity.
Please look at what you wrote. “to the man in the box” means the illusion he sees but then you say “the beam of light actually does curve”. Oh my.
I worked up the following just for you. I don’t think I can do any better. I’ll have to leave it here.
First off, let us agree that light is originated at a source. Energy applied at the source will begin producing a series of waves and when the energy is no longer applied the source will cease producing the waves. From this understanding that a series of waves has a beginning and an end we can understand that each wave in the series has a beginning and an end. In other words, each wave is a complete entity and is not dependent upon either any prior wave nor any subsequent wave for its form or for its existence.
Each wave is produced at a specific place. If the source is moving each wave in a series will be produced at a different place along the path of the source. Each wave will gain no velociy component (no direction nor any speed) from the velocity of the source. If we somehow restrain or “focus” a series of waves into a single direction we may obtain a series of waves we refer to as a “beam” of light.
Each wave will move through space until it encounters an object which is capable of reacting to the energy present in the wave. We observe the reaction in the object and quantify it as a “photon”. What we call a photon is the reaction to the wave at the encounter with the object. The wave, not a photon, moves through space and produces the quantity we call a photon. We can not observe the wave until it encounters an object and produces the reaction.
In the example of the man in the moving box the man will not see the “beam” of light because he cannot see light waves. He may see a series of particles (dust or water vapor) as they react to the series of waves emitted from the light source.
If we simplify the example a bit we can say that some of the individual waves will encounter particles and some will not. Those that do not will continue on to encounter the side of the box opposite that where the light source is located.
If the box is moving really fast, say at one-half the speed of light, and the box is really wide some of the waves will reach the opposite wall at the same time as other ones are emitted from the source. Some of the waves still in transit to the wall will be encountering particles in the air inside the box and the man may see those reactions.
This is a simple graphic “snapshot” (taken with an extremely high speed camera! 
) of what the man will see where “s#” is where a wave in the series was emitted and “r#” is where the leading edge of that wave will be in its transit to the wall and will be encountering a particle at approximately the same time as one wave has reached the wall.
s10 r10
s9-------- r9
s8 ------------r8
s7 ----------------r7
s6 --------------------r6
s5 ------------------------r5
s4---------------------------- r4
s3 --------------------------------r3
s2------------------------------------ r2
s1-----------------------------------------r1 [Wall]
As he continues to watch the man will see these reactions and those that will follow (due to other waves) thus giving him the illusion of a steady “stream” or “beam” of light pointing, or moving, downward at an angle.
Note that each wave actually moves at a constant speed and only in a horizontal (in this example) direction.
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:95, topic:6389”]
Please look at what you wrote. “to the man in the box” means the illusion he sees but then you say “the beam of light actually does curve”. Oh my.
I worked up the following just for you. I don’t think I can do any better. I’ll have to leave it here.
Don’t waste your time. I know what light is about.
There is not a single word I would change in;" to the man in the box the beam of light actually does curve downward ", because to the man in the box it demonstrably does!
Are you going to correct Einstein now?
Apparently, you do not understand the principles behind the Theory of Relativity.
Learn the difference between objective truths and subjective experiences of truths.
I believe we can agree on two things. First, what I present to you is objective truth. Second, what you describe is subjective experience.
The basis principle behind the theory of relativity is that we can know and accept as truth only what we observe. I suspect what you have not yet grasped is that we can know and accept as truth more than what we gather from one isolated observation. Our understanding of what the man in the box sees must include all we know about the behavior of light, not just what he sees in this one experiment, otherwise we are forcing ourselves to accept an illusion as truth.
If the man in the box knows how light moves and reacts with objects it encounters then he will know that what he sees is an illusion. The truth is that he can demonstrate the illusion.
If the man in the box doesn’t know anything about how light moves and reacts with objects he would see the path of the “beam” change and probably think “wow, the beam really does actually bend, and how cool is it that I can demonstrate it.”
Note that the experiment would be no different if the box had no wall on the side where the light source is located. Also it wouldn’t matter if the light source were inside the box or outside as long as it moved with the box. And it would be no different if, instead of one moving light source producing a series of waves, there were a number of fixed light sources outside the box each triggered to produce only a single flash of light as the box moved past them.
We must accept that any frame of reference defined or recognized by an observer not in that defined frame of reference is, and can only be, a subset of the frame of reference of the observer who is not in the defined frame of reference. This means that the truth of what happens in the defined frame of reference cannot be determined from observation solely within the defined frame of reference, but must be reconciled with observation from outside the defined frame of reference. Observation in the larger frame of reference must be considered as truth when there is no other superior frame of reference. A frame of reference which defines another frame of reference cannot be defined by the defined frame of reference. In other words two different frames of reference cannot define one another. In order to have two different frames of reference defined they must be defined from a larger frame of reference which contains both defined frames of reference. In order to determine the truth of actions relative to two different frames of reference they must be reconciled through the superior frame of reference. Frames of reference may be nested but cannot overlap. The bottom line is that under the basic principle of relativity there can be only one truth and the rest of what we may think we understand is relative to that one truth.
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:97, topic:6389”]
If the man in the box doesn’t know anything about how light moves and reacts with objects he would see the path of the “beam” change and probably think “wow, the beam really does actually bend, and how cool is it that I can demonstrate it.”
And he can… because it does… from his POV
The light in the box actually bends, yet travels the same distance as if it were a straight line.
If you take a video of the light with a camera in the box, it will record the light bending, because inside the box the light does bend and hits the opposite wall at a lower point than where it entered, and at the same time as when the box was stationary.
That is not subjectivity, it’s relativity. We can see the light bend in the gravitational field of a massive object. The argument that light follows a straight line in a gravitational field is false. If light were to always go straight it would traverse any curvature in a perfectly straight line.
Gravity bends light
Light travels through spacetime, which can be warped and curved—so light should dip and curve in the presence of massive objects. This effect is known as gravitational lensing. The bending of light caused by gravity .Mar 2, 2016
ESSENTIALS
- Isaac Newton described the effects of gravity, but didn’t propose a mechanism for how it worked
- Albert Einstein proposed that massive objects warp and curve the universe, resulting in other objects moving on or orbiting along those curves—and that this is what we experience as gravity
- This theory, general relativity, has led to a number of predictions that have held up to experimental testing
- One prediction of this theory is that ‘gravitational waves’ ripple through the universe, but Einstein thought they would be too small to detect
- In February 2016 the direct measurement of gravitational waves was announced. This provides us with a new method for exploring the universe
- In its current form, general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics—signalling that a shift in our understanding may be on the horizon
Enter DeBroglie - Bohm Pilot Wave theory.
The long leg of a right triangle is always longer than either of the two shorter legs. If the light “in” the “beam” did actually bend and hit the wall at a spot lower than where it would have hit it when the box was at rest then it would have traveled a longer distance. Simple geometry.
If the transit time for any light wave when the box is in motion is the same as when it is stationary and it travels a greater distance then one must conclude that the wave was moving faster. It doesn’t do that.
The basic problem with what you posit as “actual” is that there is no “beam”. “It” is not actual. There is nothing to bend or slope downward. What the man in the box sees is dust particles or water vapor illuminated by a series of light waves. What the man calls a “beam” is not a thing; it simply does not exist. There is no “it” and “it” cannot do anything nor can anything do anything to “it”.
Now as far as bringing gravity into the explanation for the illusion, it is not pertinent to the issue.
One question I’ve never been able to get anyone to answer is “if space is warped, how do we know whether a path (or a line) is actually straight or curved?”
[quote=“ibelieveinlogic, post:99, topic:6389”]
There is nothing to bend or slope downward
You’re right. It’s the box that accelerates upward