Time Travel is Science Fiction

[paddoboy]

Thanks for not continuing your clutter posts. Cheers.

Ít's not clutter putting the accepted mainstream position...It's not clutter reminding alternative theorists, that peer review is compulsory for any consideration...It's not cluttering reminding you of those things you are so apt to forget.
You and I have had one holiday undefined...If you want to keep accusations against my person, you will have another.
I will point out your misconceptions and skipping around peer review.

 

[Undefined]

Ít's not clutter putting the accepted mainstream position...It's not clutter reminding alternative theorists, that peer review is compulsory for any consideration...It's not cluttering reminding you of those things you are so apt to forget.
You and I have had one holiday undefined...If you want to keep accusations against my person, you will have another.
I will point out your misconceptions and skipping around peer review.

Putting repeatedly without any arguments addressing the NEW points raised in the discussion is NOT 'debating science' as the forum is here FOR. It is not a nursery school for repetitive parroted rote learning/inculcation of orthodoxy irrespective of what's being SAID TO YOU and argued objectively that questions that rote learned orthodoxy you clutter up the threads with.

There is a difference between what you have been doing and what the discussion forum is about when it comes to the ideas/arguments themselves and NOT the 'authority' or the 'source'. Is that getting through at all after all this time and pointing it out for you?

Discuss don't just blitz everyone and everything with your unargued opinions and links, however 'worthy' they may be in context....which often has nothing to do with addressing the new subtle/complex questions/issues raised which old orthodoxy is incapable of addressing as it is at present. Ok mate?

 

[paddoboy]

Discuss don't just blitz everyone and everything with your unargued opinions and links, however 'worthy' they may be in context....which often has nothing to do with addressing the new subtle/complex questions/issues raised which old orthodoxy is incapable of addressing as it is at present. Ok mate?

I will post whatever I see as necessary to refute unsupported, alternative theories, despite any and all of your unsupported accusations and how you think it applies to you.


Now my argument in this thread is that time travel is theoretically possible as per the twin paradox......
This is supported by the validation of time dilation and absolute speed of light.

I also support the reality of space, time, space/time, gravity, matter, energy as real concepts and depended on one another.

Your model [unsupported and unreviewed] do not support those concepts.

And whether they are real or otherwise, makes no difference to the validity of SR/GR as has been said by at least one alternative pusher.

Does that clear up your confusion?

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river
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

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...?

Yes

 

[paddoboy]

Yes

Again, just because something cannot be touched, seen, smelt, or felt, does not mean it is not real.
Again, what was GP-B measuring.
And either way that one sees the need to accept the reality or otherwise of certain entities, like space, time, space/time, gravity, matter, energy, does not in any way shape or form, lead to time travel being Impossible [as per the twin paradox]
How that conclusion is reached, when we know that space and time are not absolute, while the speed of light is, is way beyond me.
Afterall we have examples everyday of it happening.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Yes

Makes sense to me - but it is evidently way beyond some people. Some of those people even seem to have to express examples of that fact, everyday.

 

[paddoboy]

As a bright young fellow just pointed out in another thread, if we had no time, the second law of thermodynamics would be meaningless.
Think about it.

 

[paddoboy]

In a conversation with Duke University neuroscientist Warren Meck, theoretical physicist Smolin, who's based at Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, argued for the controversial idea that time is real. "Time is paramount," he said, "and the experience we all have of reality being in the present moment is not an illusion, but the deepest clue we have to the fundamental nature of reality."


Smolin said he hadn't come to this concept lightly. He started out thinking, as most physicists do, that time is subjective and illusory. According to Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, time is just another dimension in space, traversable in either direction, and our human perception of moments passing steadily and sequentially is all in our heads.

Over time, though, Smolin became convinced not only that time was real, but that this notion could be the key to understanding the laws of nature.

"If laws are outside of time, then they're inexplicable," he said. "If law just simply is, there's no explanation. If we want to understand law … then law must evolve, law must change, law must be subject to time. Law then emerges from time and is subject to time rather than the reverse."


Smolin and Meck discussed the consequences of his idea, including what it means for our understanding of human consciousness and free will. One implication of the idea that time is an illusion is the notion that the future is just as decided as the past.

"If I think the future's already written, then the things that are most valuable about being human are illusions along with time," Smolin said. "We still aspire to make choices in life. That is a precious part of our humanity. If the real metaphysical picture is that there are just atoms moving in the void, then nothing is ever new and nothing's ever surprising — it's just the rearrangement of atoms. There's a loss of responsibility as well as a loss of human dignity."

more at....

http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html

 

[dumbest man on earth]

In a conversation with Duke University neuroscientist Warren Meck, theoretical physicist Smolin, who's based at Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, argued for the controversial idea that time is real. "Time is paramount," he said, "and the experience we all have of reality being in the present moment is not an illusion, but the deepest clue we have to the fundamental nature of reality."
...
more at....

http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html

The Link : http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html , is to an article by Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer, and is Titled : "Controversially, Physicist Argues Time Is Real". The first few paragraphs are (Bold by dmoe):

NEW YORK — Is time real, or the ultimate illusion?

Most physicists would say the latter, but Lee Smolin challenges this orthodoxy in his new book, "Time Reborn" (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, April 2013), which he discussed here Wednesday (April 24) at the Rubin Museum of Art.

In a conversation with Duke University neuroscientist Warren Meck, theoretical physicist Smolin, who's based at Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, argued for the controversial idea that time is real. "Time is paramount," he said, "and the experience we all have of reality being in the present moment is not an illusion, but the deepest clue we have to the fundamental nature of reality."

^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html

paddoboy, the article seems to indicate that Lee Smolin is going against the "orthodoxy", or prevailing "Mainstream View" that time is "the ultimate illusion", and not actually "real".

paddoboy, by your editing of the Links content, what exactly were you hoping to accomplish?

 

[paddoboy]

The Link : http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html , is to an article by Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer, and is Titled : "Controversially, Physicist Argues Time Is Real". The first few paragraphs are (Bold by dmoe):

^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html

paddoboy, the article seems to indicate that Lee Smolin is going against the "orthodoxy", or prevailing "Mainstream View" that time is "the ultimate illusion", and not actually "real".

paddoboy, by your editing of the Links content, what exactly were you hoping to accomplish?

Again, as per the Hawking bullshit headlines, probable likewise these headlines.

But I'll see what I can find from the likes of De-Grasse Tyson, Kaku and Tegmark.......

 

[Declan Lunny]

Again, as per the Hawking bullshit headlines, probable likewise these headlines.

But I'll see what I can find from the likes of De-Grasse Tyson, Kaku and Tegmark.......

Smolin started out brilliantly. But over the last 10 years he has gone out of his way to alienate the mainstream physicists. He seems to be actively working for a "woo" label. He quit doing physics a couple of years ago, he's moved into the metaphysical. Just my opinion, call em like I see em. It's too bad really, he has a lot of promise that seems to be wasted.

 

[brucep]

The Link : http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html , is to an article by Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer, and is Titled : "Controversially, Physicist Argues Time Is Real". The first few paragraphs are (Bold by dmoe):

^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html

paddoboy, the article seems to indicate that Lee Smolin is going against the "orthodoxy", or prevailing "Mainstream View" that time is "the ultimate illusion", and not actually "real".

paddoboy, by your editing of the Links content, what exactly were you hoping to accomplish?

Journalists are an authority on what? Very little. Just like you. So give me a reference that concludes the mainstream view of physics "time is the ultimate illusion". Time is natural phenomena. Many have tried to describe time so we have practical descriptions like the one we use in GR and Cosmology and a cadre of philosophical reasoning with no real practical application. Good for writing books.

 

[Declan Lunny]

Journalists are an authority on what? Very little. Just like you. So give me a reference that concludes the mainstream view of physics "time is the ultimate illusion". Time is natural phenomena. Many have tried to describe time so we have practical descriptions like the one we use in GR and Cosmology and a cadre of philosophical reasoning with no real practical application. Good for writing books.

Without time, we couldn't do much physics. (Or the physics that we managed wouldn't do much.)

 

[paddoboy]

Smolin started out brilliantly. But over the last 10 years he has gone out of his way to alienate the mainstream physicists. He seems to be actively working for a "woo" label. He quit doing physics a couple of years ago, he's moved into the metaphysical. Just my opinion, call em like I see em. It's too bad really, he has a lot of promise that seems to be wasted.

Maybe it's just a case of some people like Smolin and Kaku, having the intestinal fortitude to discuss the more philosophical aspects of physics and cosmology that others dare not entertain.
What he and others do discuss is certainly not anti mainstream per se.
I don't see them trying to discredit SR/GR like some of our supposed self proclaimed on line giants.

 

[Declan Lunny]

Maybe it's just a case of some people like Smolin and Kaku, having the intestinal fortitude to discuss the more philosophical aspects of physics and cosmology that others dare not entertain.
What he and others do discuss is certainly not anti mainstream per se.
I don't see them trying to discredit SR/GR like some of our supposed self proclaimed on line giants.

Kaku, is courteous to his fellows, even the ones who disagree.

Have you not read the personal comments that Smolin has directed at Cox, Greene, Krauss, Carroll, et al while preaching that the present crop of people doing physics have lost their way, wasting their time and are misdirected? It's seems to be a requirement at the Perimeter Institute. That's where most of the "bridge burners" end up after they've made them selves unwelcome in the hall's of academia if they are any good.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Again, as per the Hawking bullshit headlines, probable likewise these headlines.

So...was your purpose in Posting the article, to point out "probable billshut headlines"? And did you leave out the first part of the article because you perceived that it was "probable billshut" also?

The Link : http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html , is to an article by Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer, and is Titled : "Controversially, Physicist Argues Time Is Real". The first few paragraphs are (Bold by dmoe):

NEW YORK — Is time real, or the ultimate illusion?

Most physicists would say the latter, but Lee Smolin challenges this orthodoxy in his new book, "Time Reborn" (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, April 2013), which he discussed here Wednesday (April 24) at the Rubin Museum of Art.

^^above quoted^^ from : http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html

So... the headline is "probable billshut" - the beginning of the article is possibly also "probable billshut" - but the rest of the article is NOT "probable billshut"?

]But I'll see what I can find from the likes of De-Grasse Tyson, Kaku and Tegmark.......

paddoboy, why not just present your own position on the issue in your own words? There is really no need to quote anyone else if you fully understand the Theoretical Cosmology involved in the issue!

 

[paddoboy]

Kaku, is courteous to his fellows, even the ones who disagree.

Have you not read the personal comments that Smolin has directed at Cox, Greene, Krauss, Carroll, et al while preaching that the present crop of people doing physics have lost their way, wasting their time and are misdirected?

No I havn't. Have you any reference.
Funny, all the physicists you have mentioned I have read and/or listened to, and find reputable and worthwhile...
I was also on another forum, where they tore strips of Kaku......and your's truly went into bat for him.
Personal taste?

 

[paddoboy]

Here's another more philosophical approach by a Philosopher for dmoe.......

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
What is Time?
Time is real, even if some physicists and philosophers have trouble with it.
Published on September 2, 2013 by Paul Thagard in Hot Thought


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hot-thought/201309/what-is-time

 

[dumbest man on earth]

(Bold by dmoe!)

Journalists are an authority on what? Very little. Just like you. So give me a reference that concludes the mainstream view of physics "time is the ultimate illusion". Time is natural phenomena. Many have tried to describe time so we have practical descriptions like the one we use in GR and Cosmology and a cadre of philosophical reasoning with no real practical application. Good for writing books.

Ad Hominem much?

BTW - I was not the Poster that introduced the Linked article in this Thread!

 

[paddoboy]

So...was your purpose in Posting the article, to point out "probable billshut headlines"? And did you leave out the first part of the article because you perceived that it was "probable billshut" also?

You had the link...You can read??.....I don't always publish the whole article, just depends on what I see as more relevant.

paddoboy, why not just present your own position on the issue in your own words? There is really no need to quote anyone else if you fully understand the Theoretical Cosmology involved in the issue!

Oh I do, and I have.....many times. But that doesn't solve your own problem, does it?
As I went to the pains of telling undefined, Whether I post my own view, in my own words, or an extract from a link, or a whole link, I will make that decision myself.
If that creates a problem with you, then so be it.
Now please dmoe, so that you are not too confused or too angered anymore then is necessary, you need to understand that.