Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
No.
Time Travel is Science Fiction
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
No.
Fair enough
But can anybody else handle what I have to say with curiosity , rather than insults of any kind ?
Anyway my point is this ;
Objects do what they do based on their internal nature and outside forces and the various combinations of both
Time and/or duration has nothing to do with any internal nature or outside forces of any object
Neither time and/or duration has any efficacy to any thing , they never have , and never will
Time and/or duration is a measure consequence of movement action(s) by objects only
Therefore time/duration , is not a true dimension , because neither can affect any physical thing , in and of themselves
Therefore time travel is impossible
Objects do what they do based on their internal nature and outside forces and the various combinations of both
Time and/or duration has nothing to do with any internal nature or outside forces of any object
Neither time and/or duration has any efficacy to any thing , they never have , and never will
Time and/or duration is a measure consequence of movement action(s) by objects only
Therefore time/duration , is not a true dimension , because neither can affect any physical thing , in and of themselves
Therefore time travel is impossible
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No.
I know what you mean.
Last edited:
Time travel, [into the future] as per the twin paradox is theoretically possible. This has been experimentally verified many times.
You can argue all you like as to whether it is real time travel, [the time machine] but the practical results speak for themselves....It is possible, period.
Time travel into the past is another kettle of fish...far more difficult, but still not impossible.
Wormholes [as predicted by GR] and Alcubierre drive are some considerations.
" Warp-field experiments are a series of currently undergoing and proposed future experiments to create and detect instances of spacetime warping. The ultimate goal is to prove or disprove the possibility of spacetime metric engineering with reasonable amounts of energy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp-field_experiments
All of course beyond our reach at this time, but it wasn't so long ago that flying faster than sound was also beyond our reach.
All that is allowed by the laws of physics and GR, are theoretically possible to achieve....given time.
river, I also believe that I understand what you are saying.
Theoretical constructs, imaginings, ideas and musings - even if they are accepted and considered fundamentally sound, in their area of applicability, are not Physically Real...?
Is my interpretation or understanding, close to "correct", or...?
The following is rather relevant to this thread.......
" Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation."
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
My eternal question has yet to be answered with any satisfaction.......
What was GP-B measuring?
The constructs of GR may not be physical, but that doesn't mean they are not real.
space, time, space/time, gravity, matter/energy are basically all interconnected.
" Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation."
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
My eternal question has yet to be answered with any satisfaction.......
What was GP-B measuring?
The constructs of GR may not be physical, but that doesn't mean they are not real.
space, time, space/time, gravity, matter/energy are basically all interconnected.
Morning Paddo.
Read and parse and understand that Einstein quote carefully, paddo.
Consider: Until Einstein et al, Newton et al thought of 'space' as just an absolutely EMPTY VOID like 'space' with things and energies 'moving in that empty space'. See?
Now we are all aware, as Einstein et al became aware, that 'space' is not 'void' between things/energies.....space IS constituted BY things and energies ubiquitously occurring/processing AS THAT SPACE we 'perceive' AS 'space' FIELD(S).
That's what Einstein tried to get across, ie, that in fact and effect 'space' WAS ENERGY-SPACE PROCESS ITSELF; only it all went horribly and persistently wrong the moment he also introduced IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH that totally QUALITATIVELY different CONCEPT and ABSTRACT TERMINOLOGY of a purely math-construct of 'space-TIME'.
It was then that everyone rashly took Einstein's first distinction (between 'space' and 'void') and conflated the REAL PROCESSING 'energy-space itself' with the UNREAL STATIC representation of it he called 'space-time maths abstraction'.
It has been a stumbling block to proper understanding of Einstein's meaning regarding distinguishing 'real energy-space process' ITSELF which 'makes up 'space' as we perceive it; and regarding his meaning when he tried to encapsulate abstractly in a 'space-time' math construct the PROCESS (ie, MOTION/CHANGE IN/OF that NON-VOID energy-space which IS UNIFIED ENERGY FIELD UNIVERSAL EXTENT per se).
All Einstein meant in that quote was that there is no such thing as empty space (it is the processing ubiquitous-field-of-ENERGY RESERVOIR ITSELF) and that energy-feature/perturbation 'things' arise/evolve and subside move and change IN/OF that energy-space itself.
The 'time' abstraction comes from comparative measures and relativities of that motion/changes in/of energy-space FIELD in the form of varying quanta of 'perturbations/features'.
So please please, paddo, everyone, read that Einstein quote again and again without the bias of inculcated incorrect 'readings' by all those that have misunderstood what he was saying THEN that distinguished the Newtonian 'empty space' concept from the Einsteinian SPACE IS ENERGY FIELD concept.
Unfortunately for physics, everyone then ran away with themselves and with the abstract 'space-time' math construct; leaving behind in the dust of history the most important Einsteinian insights on offer at that moment, ie: space is energy (not void), energy-processes (space field moves and changes etc); and 'time' only has any currency as a analysis tool DERIVED from the motions comparisons/measurements graphed/geometrized ABSTRACTLY in the math modeling phase ONLY.
Don't just believe the mistaken/conflated mainstreamers 'urban legends' about what Einstein meant; just read and reread it there for yourself in light of what I pointed out to help you parse and understand FOR YOURSELF the actual contemporary contextual meanings in the thrust and words of that quote.
I trust you will have the patience objectivity to understand the important subtleties and distinctions that need to be made when reading Einstein quotes on any subject. All the best, mate.
Last edited:
As you already know, I don't believe in urban legends.
But I certainly do accept that space, time, space/time, gravity are real.
I also accept the scientific method and peer review.
I didn't ask you to 'accept' or deny anything, I just pointed out some pertinent aspects which may be of interest to your further OBJECTIVE reading/understanding of that Einstein quote which you posted. There is a possibility what you believe at this juncture may be based on an unfortunate misunderstanding of what Einstein actually meant in that quote passage. So, before you go accepting/denying anything either way...
Did you at least read and fully understand that Einstein quote in light of what I pointed out to you regarding the contemporary meanings and context, and the obvious misunderstandings by mainstreamers since then which have been repeated and put into official texts so deeply and ubiquitously that the 'urban legend' confusion/conflation has over the decades unfortunately become 'real' but isn't correct?
It wasn't a quote from Einstein.
It was Sten Odenwald.
And as I have said, I don't find too much of a problem with the mainstream interpretation anyway, but I do find plenty of inconsistencies, disagreements, and interpretations in the four or five alternative explanations.
It wasn't a quote from Einstein.
It was Sten Odenwald.
And as I have said, I don't find too much of a problem with the mainstream interpretation anyway, but I do find plenty of inconsistencies, disagreements, and interpretations in the four or five alternative explanations.
Is it a fair statement of Einsteinian postulates at the time? If so, then whoever said or paraphrased Einstein's postulates/theory like that has effectively tried to explain exactly the distinction which should be made in the context and understandings of the time, as I pointed out.
So, whoever wrote that, did you re-read it more than once in light of what I pointed out was the actual thrust of that quoted passage and not the 'urban legend' takes on it since Einstein's postulates regarding 'space' as 'energy-space' field(s) not 'void'; and his 'space-time' model being further abstractions from that as purely mathematical/geometrical 'static space-time' analytical construct, as I pointed out also?
Your view on abstractions and reality has been noted...many times.
I and others disagree, OK?
And the quote emphasises the reality nature of space, time, space/time, gravity, matter/energy.
I accept that.
Other than that, I don't see anything of relevance that you have pointed out
As have your repeated 'uncritically accepted on faith in source' opinionating that adds nothing to the discourse or the science. If you can argue where the abstractions are reality and why, go to it. But do not hide behind blanket generalized repetitions to the effect that you 'believe what mainstream says, so there...end of story!" It's getting stale and annoying if you cannot back that up with any sensible counter arguments which 'prove' those observed abstractions are PHYSICALLY EFFECTIVE things in their own right and not in abstract modeling constructs ONLY.
Take it easy and read, understand and reason for yourself. Be a real scientist, not just another 'believer'. Ok?
There you go again...silly assumptions.
What you need to learn and realize, is that what is real is not automatically governed by taste, feel smell and touch.
The Universe is a weird and wonderful place and what you seem to imagine in your mind, is not the Gospel of science.
You need to accept that.
I have asked a question numerous times previously regarding the reality of space/time/gravity/matter/energy, and finally you did answer, though not in a real coherent fashion.
again....
"Perhaps the most unusual thing about gravity we know about is that, unlike the other forces of nature, gravity is intimately related to space and time. In fact, space and time are viewed by physicists, and the mathematics of relativity theory, as qualities of the gravitational field of the cosmos that have no independent existence. Gravity does not exist like the frosting on a cake, embedded in some larger arena of space and time. Instead, the 'frosting' is everything, and matter is embedded and intimately and indivisibly connected to it. If you could turn off gravity, it is mathematically predicted that space and time would also vanish
Einstein's theory of General Relativity, published in 1915, is our most detailed mathematical theory for how gravity work, With it, astronomers and physicists have explored the origin and evolution of the universe, its future destiny, and the mysterious landscape of black holes and neutron stars. General Relativity has survived many different tests, and it has made many predictions which have been confirmed. So far, after 90 years of detailed study, no error has yet been discovered in Einstein's original, simple theory"
http://www.astronomycafe.net/gravity/gravity.html
It is your incoherent 'reading/understanding' practices and biases that are letting YOU down. Not my problem; your problem, wandering all over the place beside the points being made to you objectively argued and observed. What you do with all that is your affair. No skin off my nose. But please keep the annoying clutter of repetitive 'on faith in source' opinionating and irrelevant 'appeal to authority' linking to a minimum, SINCE IT IS THAT VERY 'authority' THAT IS BROUGHT INTO QUESTION by the points I made. Thanks.
Who argued the philosophical views about abstractions/reality in this exchange with you. You, not me. I was merely pointing out the scientifically REAL PHYSICALLY effective and objectively acting things, and distinguishing the purely mathematical abstractions that have IN THEMSELVES no extant PHYSICALLY REAL EFFECTIVE reality, being as they are BY DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION as MODELING 'devices' concepts etc abstract TOOLS of analysis ONLY. Please don't wander off into the philosophical side as well. Just stick to the objectively physically real scientific effectiveness considerations. Thanks
All well and good, all that guff about 'space-time' and 'gravity' etc etc.....but until you/mainstream/GR can produce the REAL PHYSICALLY EFFECTIVE AGENCY/PROCESS details, all that abstract geometry/math GR 'space-time' theory MODELING gravity observations abstractly ONLY is just that: ABSTRACTION. Period. Your minimal understanding and acknowledgement of that self-evident fact that GR is an abstract mathematical construct would help everyone to move on to the PHYSICALLY EFFECTIVE REAL 'things' which are being missed because of the mistaken conflation of real 'energy-space' and abstract 'space-time'. Thanks.
When you have brought anything of mainstream into question, give us a ring, OK?
In the meantime, I'm off...It's obvious where this is heading.
When you have brought anything of mainstream into question, give us a ring, OK?
Haven't you been reading without bias at all? No wonder you keep to your 'on faith only' repetitions and not argue the objective science points raised that DO bring into question many mainstream assumptions/interpretations OF some of the objective evidence ....and sometimes brought into question by a growing number of the mainstream scientists themselves! Keep up with the evolving status quo, else you will be stuck in 'old news on faith beliefs' from your own misunderstandings and outdated 'facts' which are no longer such according to new cosmological/physics evidence being amassed as we speak.
Thanks for not continuing your clutter posts. Cheers.
When you have brought anything of mainstream into question, give us a ring, OK?
Haven't you been reading without bias at all? No wonder you keep to your 'on faith only' repetitions and not argue the objective science points raised that DO bring into question many mainstream assumptions/interpretations OF some of the objective evidence ....and sometimes brought into question by a growing number of the mainstream scientists themselves! Keep up with the evolving status quo, else you will be stuck in 'old news on faith beliefs' from your own misunderstandings and outdated 'facts' which are no longer such according to new cosmological/physics evidence being amassed as we speak.
Thanks for not continuing your clutter posts. Cheers.