If you had a plane that could go around the world in under 24 hours could you go back in time? like if you go around the world and it took you 10 hours and your gonna be back in time 24 hours later with the times zones so wouldnt you go forward like 14 hours??
129397
and you need a flux capacitor oh and a delorean
426642
Sadly, I've actually heard about this before.  I can't believe how much useless junk I put into my head...I'd say pure fiction.  Its just more likely that he was some bored computer geek trying to get some attention.  Its still unclear whether or not time travel into the past is possible.  Based on current science I'm leaning toward the impossible side.  Oh well, 2036 will be here soon enough.  Then we'll know for sure.   ;)
52910
"On the average, in the northern hemisphere, travel time flying east is less than travel time flying west as in the northern hemisphere the prevailing winds are to the east.\nThe rotation of the earth has no measurable influence on duration of flight. The atmosphere rotates with the Earth, and the aircraft moves with the air.  If we were to ignore the winds, no matter which direction you flew, the speed of the aircraft relative to the Earth would be the same. Airlines do try and make use of the jet streams wherever possible."
156386
time is relative. perhaps you can use this example: two twin brothers which born in the same time, the first one live on the earth and the other one live in the spaceship outside the earth's atmosphere, for a several years. when the second one returns to earth, the age of the twin brother is not the same. the reason? it's relativity, einstein told about this long time ago.
546854
The faster you travel, the more time slows down for you (the traveller) compared to a person not moving as fast as you.  *At* the speed of light, time slows to be infinitely long -- so your teacher's "example" is actually incorrect, because at the speed of light it would take you an infinitely long time to get to the moon (as mass increases as you approach the speed of light, you'd also be infinitely heavy -- what all that shows is that it's impossible for anything except light to travel at the speed of light).\n\nHis example would have been better if he had said you went to the moon at, say, 75% of the speed of light.  At that speed, time would pass slower for you and faster for the people on earth, so by the time you went there and back nearly everybody on the earth you knew would be dead.  It would only take a few seconds from YOUR point of view to make the trip to the moon, but in those few seconds from your perspective the people on the earth would have passed dozens or hundreds of years.\nThis is the essence of "relativity" : that time is relative to the observer based on his position and speed, and is not absolute.  It's been confirmed experimentally by flying extremely accurate clocks in airplanes and spacecraft at high speeds, and then bringing them back to earth and comparing them with a similarly accurate clock synchronized with the moving clock before takeoff.  It's real, but also can be confusing :)
167000
Think about what time traveling to the past means. It means that the entire universe except the time traveler is in a previous state. Now, for the time traveler, his time is still moving forward. He is older in the past after his journey than he was before his journey. \n\nSo, you have an entire universe one way and our traveler another. Since there was no past that existed that had his time traveler self in it, where has he gone? What is more reasonable is a time traveler experiment you can do yourself  by sending a smaller part of the universe into the past and watching that as you move foreward. Sound weird? Well, you can do it by resetting your computer. It goes into a past state and you keep moving foreward. This sort of time travel sounds like a cop out but it is just what is generally described on a smaller scale. That is, the entire universe but the traveler gets re-set to a previous condition.\n\nI know this answer doesn't satisfy the mystery feeling one gets with the time traveling notion, but it's what we really mean.
413581
By plain, I have no idea.  By plane depends on the route but direct would be about 11 hours.
426785
My techer said that scientists had 2 clocks that were accurate to like, nano-second, or more, and put one on a plane and flew it aorund the world and when it landed it was different than the other which didnt move
27639
No.  You'd need to have a wormhole.  Current theory predicts that transversable wormholes exist but would not allow time travel.  See reference for details.
645919
The easiest way to travel through time is to approach the speed of light.  The universe seems to speed up from your frame of reference.\n\nGet into a fast rocketship with a big gas tank and fly toward the nearest star.  If you could get going to .95c for half the trip, slingshot around the star to a reverse course and start slowing down again halfway back, you would be traveling for about 20 years as seen from earth.  Your watch would show that you were only gone for 19 years.  You traveled forward in time by 1 year.  Woo-hoo!  \n\nThe trick of course is to somehow get to relativistic speeds without consuming a huge amount of energy or time.  For instance, if you could get to .99c for 80% of the trip, the trip would take about 12 years on earth and like 8 years in the spaceship.  You could travel forward by 4 years.\n\nIf you could get to .999c for 99.9% of the trip, it would take 10 years on earth and like 1 year for you.\n\nLook us up when you get back.
89760
There are some theoretical models based of GR that allow closed time-like curves. Most working physicists think those models are bunk. To have such curves requires a curves space-time, so is the domain of GR, not SR.\n\nTo see why such a curve would allow time travel, you have to understand what the terms mean. Time-like means that at any point on the curve, the tangent vector is into the future. In other words, someone going along that space-time curve would always be going 'forward in time' in *their* mind. Closed, in this context, means that the curve comes back to the starting point, again *in space-time*. So the traveller would always be going forward in time in *their* mind, but would end up back at the same point in space and time as when they started. Looks like time travel to me. ;)
4021
well yeah... \nwell we dont have any definitive start or end point, so it's only relative to itself meaning that you can only measure a change in time, not how much of it you actually have. \nyour actual question is a little ambiguous, if this isnt what you meant, you can add some to the question,  are you looking for an explanation of how high velocities distort time or something, because I can explain that if you would like, just add it onto the question or make a new one or something.
392300
If you were traveling at such a speed that an hour lasted 60 minutes, then you would be traveling at the same speed which the Earth rotates. That is the spped that we are all traveling at all times, even when we are sitting still.
337388
Do you mean one hour relative to someone standing still?  You would return 214,000 km away from the Earth.  This is assuming you travelled exactly one hour back.  The Earth would have moved in the 2 hours you were away.  Since the earth revolves around the sun at 107,000 km/hr, you would be 214,000 km away.
306420
Only if travelling long distances in time costs the same as short distances in time. In all the modes of transport I know, travelling long distances costs more than travelling short distances. Travelling long distances is also more dangerous than travelling short distances. Therefore, users can only afford to make a short ride back in time because a long journey is expensive and dangerous. \n\nSo, suppose it's Monday and Eric is the owner of the first time machine. Eric travels back to last Tuesday. There, his concubines Amie and Atria will be able to take the machine apart, so that Eric can't get back home, but Amie and Atria won't be able to replicate it, because they can't understand how it works, because the crucial part won't be invented until Saturday. The girls will wait until Saturday and then buy a time machine at the same store that Eric bought his. \n\nThus everyone who wants a time machine has to buy one on Saturday at the earliest.
661765
Your understanding of relativity is wrong.\n\nYou cannot even accelerate to the speed of light, let alone beyond it. Relativity predicts that infinite enrgy would be required to accelerate a mass to the speed of light. IT makes no predictions that would make travel backwards in time possible.
583664
1. Time is a variable and not a constant. It ran backward only in Harry Potter's Vol 3 using Time Machine\n2.The perpendicular distance is the shortest distance\n3.Why not\n4.The variable nature of time can be felf only with objects moving with a velocity that approaches that of light. The theory of Relativity cannot be proved wrong because no one has understood it completely