! Read error in the file Discovery.Science.Ultra.Science.Time.Travel.PDTV.XViD-SomeTV\ds.ustt.pdtv-sometv.r03
Data error (cyclic redundancy check).

i think guys do not download it is completer error file

get in touch on this page only

ayd, i mos def agree. this is utter bullshit docu, but then i never expect anything credible from discovery anymore. the “physicists” featured were a joke! they should interview _real_ physicists who don’t just write pop sci books but actually also work. and these are _leading_ physicists? where the F do these docu producers come from? Happy land, where magical people live in gumdrop houses on lolly pop lane?

frisbee = chemistry degree, propulsion engineer
sarfatti = crackpot “physicist”
deutsch = actual physicist but works on quantum computation mainly
nimtz = experimentalist

only the last two deserve screen time. and really, the people to talk to about time travel are general relativists (carroll and thorne are among the accessible ones) but discovery wouldn’t even know about that, would they?

i’m sorry, but these shows are ruining physicists’ rep

WTF is with the White and Nerdy comment?

Yeah we know your a nerd, god Im proud I am wouldnt earn this much if I wasnt.

So many people make brave comments about what we can and can not do.

I love doco’s like this!

i like the way you think. when we look at the stars or planets of the universe, what we see is what was however many light years ago happened. if the star is 1000 light years away from earth then we are seeing what took place 1000 light years at that precise moment we perceive the image since it took 1000 light years for that light/image to reach us.

if you were to travel in a space ship towards that planet/star, then you would see the image sooner than someone on earth but that image would ultimately represent a more recent view of the planet/star since you are getting closer and closer to the planet/star and the distance the image/light needs to travel to you gets less and less.

lets say a star 1000 light years away from earth goes super nova today. we won’t see that for 1000 light years, the time it takes for that image to travel from the star to earth. now let’s say that a sentient creature lives on a planet 500 light years closer to the super nova star. that creature would see the super nova 500 light years sooner than earthlings, and, by the time the earthling sees the super nova, the closer planet’s creature would have seen an additional 500 light years worth of what happened to the star after super nova-ing. that creature is not seeing the “future”, although it may seem that way to an earthling, he’s just closer to the action.

So, if you were able to travel faster than the speed of light you could travel from the just-super-nova-ing star and get to earth to tell astronomers of the impending super nova before it is seen on earth. you haven’t gone back in time, just beat time, so to speak.

one current theory on time travel requires formation of a black hole (small, controllable and portable no less) prior to when you want to travel back in time to. then, in the future, you open up a black hole and connect to the previous black in the past. exactly how one create a small/controllable/portable black hole, let alone how one survives being ripped apart on a subatomic level, hasn’t been worked out yet. exactly what happens to matter that enters a black hole isn’t known yet either.

Stay tuned.

science is comprised of bothe hypotheses and theories. for a fact to be scientific it must be independently reproducible. one first develops (theorizes)an hypothesis first and then performs a test which (hopefully) validates the hypothesis. others then retest your hypothesis and get same or similar results.

theories such as time travel are not currently testable hypotheses except using mathematics, of which parts of the arguement are theories themselves. in essence, proving or disproving a statement based on non-factual foundational predicates is not science fact but theory, even if it is consensual theory.

sometimes a theory completely, or near completely, banashes an older line of thought. Einstein’s theory of relativity is one such science altering example. current string theory is an example of your “ever-changing because it’s not hard fact yet” theory. Pythagorus Theorum is pretty much hard, true and unchanging.

i do agree that will be change to a variety of “physics” questions in the future as new and better data is recognized, such as in astrophysics, sub-atomic physics and even global warming.

i do not believe that a million monkeys with typewriters given enough time will create shakespeare prose. billions of human’s have had nearly 400 years to do the same and failed miserably.