because for einstiens thoery to hold true, the object would have to obtain infinit mass, which currently causes problems with propultion. i imagine there will be other issues with that happening. aswell for mass that exceeds the speed of light, the mass would split into a particle of light and a remainder of mass, or the other way where light can become mass. that is my understanding of it at least. and we have created particles of light and particles of mass in this way.

instead of light-speed we should discuss wormholes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

/me shrugs

Unless someone can prove a wormhole is even remotely close to Earth, then wormholes becomes irrelevant (since we dont have faster than light travel to get to the thing)...

Agreed

I don't think you understand what a black hole is.

Smashing two particles together isn't exactly a strong parallel to a ginormous amount of mass, event horizon, etc.

Advanced physics is interesting and all, but some seem to be forgetting that wormholes and such are entirely theoretical. These aren't things we observe anywhere, ever. These aren't things we're going to be studying and artificially creating and using this century. Or next. Or the one after that. Or the... You get the idea. You can disagree and think we'll be doing some such nonsense within a century or two, but seeing as it's entirely theoretical science with 0 evidence to work with at this time, nobody has a basis to argue a time-frame.

It's all just crackpot theories at this point. Maybe that's all it'll ever be.

Because we have 0 evidence to support that these things are so massive they somehow [can] connect with one another, anyone's free to pretend that maybe reality conforms to their imagination and there's no more evidence to suggest they're wrong than to suggest they're right. Smarter people than me agree with all these theories, and smarter people than me disagree with them. At this point we don't know if most of them will ever be proven right/wrong.

There aren't any travel opportunities. But they want to be on TV anyway, so listen to what they imagine!!

And there's no such thing as time travel. Anyone you see pretending that forward time travel is possible is redefining words to trick idiots who don't understand that space and time are connected into watching him talk. And anyone you see pretending that backward time travel is possible is on H2, is stupid, and is full of shit.

"_might_ create tiny black holes, which they say _would_ be a fantastic discovery." Emphasis added.

"Curiously, though, nobody had ever shown that the prevailing theory of gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity, actually predicts that a black hole can be made this way."

"Now a _computer model_ shows conclusively for the first time that a particle collision really can make a black hole." Emphasis added.

"Or so physicists have assumed." -- They're talking about "tiny black holes," without anything of the mass/gravity of actual black holes. I'm sure there's some high level theoretical science behind it that's over my head, but it's just that: Theoretical. They're making predictions. Maybe they're right. But they haven't produced evidence with experiments yet.

" A calculation from the 1970s also suggested a particle collision could make a black hole, Choptuik notes, but it modeled the particles themselves as black holes and thus may have been skewed to produce the desired result."

"Does that mean the LHC will make black holes? Not necessarily, Choptuik says. The Planck energy is a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum. So the only way the LHC might make black holes is if, instead of being three dimensional, space actually has more dimensions that are curled into little loops too small to be detected except in a high-energy particle collision. Predicted by certain theories, those extra dimensions might effectively lower the Planck energy by a huge factor. "I would be extremely surprised if there were a positive detection of black-hole formation at the accelerator," Choptuik says. Physicists say that such black hole would harmlessly decay into ordinary particles."

Here's the explanation I hoped for earlier. (theories predicting effectively lowering the Planck energy) It's completely theoretical.

"Such simulations _could be_ important to study particle collisions and black hole formation in greater detail, he says." Emphasis added.

I quoted the article so much because it doesn't back up a word of what you just claimed about time travel. And it backs up entirely what I've been saying about theories regarding black holes. It doesn't back up a word of what you said about creating black holes. It says that the LHC _might_ make black holes _if_ "space actually has more dimensions that are curled into little loops too small to be detected except in a high-energy particle collision." These extra dimensions _might_ lower Planck energy. It's all theoretical.

Not a word of what you just claimed is true.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Einstein-s-Relativity-Proven-with-Atomic-Clock-135315.shtml
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/aluminum-atomic-clock_092310.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment
http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2005-03/elasticity.html

pick  one, perhaps you should use the pbs. as it may be more your speed.
your right my prior link didnt say anything about time travel, it was to state we are capable of creating black holes, its upsetting that i have to show you what you can easily find.
time travel is possible, though i dont think it will be with a black hole, or any kind of known hole

GREAT SCOTT!...we have to go back...to the future!