Time Travel is Science Fiction

[dumbest man on earth]

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

So...paddoboy, did you actually read the whole article and fully understand it? If so, would you care to point out what parts of that article are supporting your position?

BTW - how does philosophy figure into determining whether or not time is real, or that time travel is NOT science fiction? Is philosophy one of the tools utilized in the real process of science, or in the "gauntlet" of Peer Review?

Or is it just a "Strawman" that you are presenting?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

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









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.

paddoboy, I suffer no confusion, nor am I in any way angered.

 

[Declan Lunny]

No I havn't. Have you any reference.

Read any book or almost any interview he's done in the last few years.

Funny, all the physicists you have mentioned I have read and/or listened to, and find reputable and worthwhile...

They are reputable and worthwhile. And have remained civil and professional in the face of personal attacks on the quality of their work by Smolin.

I was also on another forum, where they tore strips of Kaku......and your's truly went into bat for him.
Personal taste?

Kaku is not my cup of tea, no. But then the popularizers in general are not my cup of tea. But he is civil and respectful, even to those who disagree with him. I mentioned him only to point to how a rebel doesn't need to be so rude and condescending to his professional fellows.

 

[paddoboy]

So...paddoboy, did you actually read the whole article and fully understand it? If so, would you care to point out what parts of that article are supporting your position?

BTW - how does philosophy figure into determining whether or not time is real, or that time travel is NOT science fiction? Is philosophy one of the tools utilized in the real process of science, or in the "gauntlet" of Peer Review?

Or is it just a "Strawman" that you are presenting?

No, I will not point out the obvious and play your game.

I have given some examples of evidence supporting the possibilities of time travel.
I suggest you check and either answer them, or refute them.
I don't really care either way, and once again, I don't care to play your game, OKY DOKEY?

 

[brucep]

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.

I'm real basic, if it's natural phenomena it's real.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

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.......

paddoboy, the following is a quote from one of the fellows that you mentioned :

The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you. And when you want to have a conversation, they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm real basic, if it's natural phenomena it's real.

Yep, sure brucep.......It's rather peculiar that those that are opposed to the real world application of time, have not as yet addressed entropy and the second law.
Space is not absolute:
Time is not absolute:
The speed of light is absolute:
Therefor we have no Universal now......therefor time travel [as per the twin paradox] is theoretically possible...therefor the title of this thread is another misnomer raised in desperation by one of the anti mainstream brigade, to make some non existent point.

paddoboy, the following is a quote from one of the fellows that you mentioned :

Speaking of non existent points.......

 

[paddoboy]

Here's a little excerpt from a Q+A to Neil De-Grasse Tyson when asked about time travel......

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I can send you off on a mission traveling near the speed of light, and time would slow down immensely for you. So while it may take you a few years to get to the nearest star, on Earth, decades would go by. When you return, you will have aged just a few years while your loved ones are dead, and others long since have forgotten about you.
http://au.askmen.com/entertainment/right-stuff/neil-degrasse-tyson-interview-2.html
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Here's a u tube video from the same enlightened physicist.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax33hND6gik


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Here's a little excerpt from a Q+A to Neil De-Grasse Tyson when asked about time travel......

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I can send you off on a mission traveling near the speed of light, and time would slow down immensely for you. So while it may take you a few years to get to the nearest star, on Earth, decades would go by. When you return, you will have aged just a few years while your loved ones are dead, and others long since have forgotten about you.
http://au.askmen.com/entertainment/right-stuff/neil-degrasse-tyson-interview-2.html
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Here's a u tube video from the same enlightened physicist.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax33hND6gik


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

paddoboy, more Links?!

BTW - could you possibly use the reversed [/quote] -

method to quote passages?

- an example :

JC: Einstein's Theory of Relativity postulates that as one speeds up, time slows down. Taken to the extreme, that implies time travel into the future.
NDT: Yes. I can send you off on a mission traveling near the speed of light, and time would slow down immensely for you. So while it may take you a few years to get to the nearest star, on Earth, decades would go by. When you return, you will have aged just a few years while your loved ones are dead, and others long since have forgotten about you.
JC: Einstein says the faster you go, the greater that time difference. If we could travel very, very close to the speed of light, would it be possible to come back to a lifeless world in the future?
NDT: There’s nothing catastrophic enough left in the solar system that could destroy the Earth entirely, but what could happen is that an asteroid would kill all life on Earth. And, yes, you could come back to a planet where your species was extinct. It would be quite tragic.

- ^^above quoted^^ from : http://au.askmen.com/entertainment/right-stuff/neil-degrasse-tyson-interview-2.html

paddoboy, the ^^above example^^, not only makes Posts easier to understand, but also includes the context!

 

[paddoboy]

Cool? It's woo. And you don't understand it. But you can understand the OP. And you can't fault it.

You haven't proved me wrong Russ! I can demonstrate that time doesn't flow by opening up a clock. You can't find fault in that demonstration. Nor can you demonstrate that time does flow. Now try to read the OP and point out where it's wrong. When you can't, concede.

That's where it starts, Beer. Come on, you know you agree with me. Don't dig yourself into a hole just because you don't want to admit I'm right.

The above post is just another demonstration, as to the outlandish arrogant approaches and outright "no questions will be entered into," and this is the only possible way it is claims that most alternative theorists have.
As I have mentioned before, the delusions of grandeur they possess in wanting all and sundry, to bow down to their almighty Intelligence, and accept them as a new Saviour of modern day science and cosmology is gut wrenchingly sickening to say the least..

The same approach is seen from most alternative theorists, and conspiracy pushers, and must in some way reflect on their personalities and characters.

An exception to this over the top arrogance and blinkered short-sightedness, was from a poster a few weeks ago, who also had a theory......but some reasonableness and humility with it.......
The thread is entitled " Everett's Hypothesis" and can be found in the General science and technology forum at.......
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140718-Everett-s-Hypothesis

I did make a comment in that thread, on this poster's respectful and scientific approach........
No this is the way it is claims, and no correspondence will be entered into claims.....
No outright claims that the incumbent model is wrong......
No accusations that those sticking with the mainstream are just sheep.....

I recommend that all should read his opening post, his style, his approach, his request for review and to what people think.
And as a result, no harsh dismissals, no insults or name calling, no dismissal of the scientific method and peer review, just a polite scientific approach with loads of humility.

Again, I dips me lid to him!

 

[Nightshift]

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.

There is no such thing as time.

There is no non-trivial time operator in quantum mechanics, nor is time even an observable! In General Relativity, global time doesn't even exist. We know also that Newtonian time, the thing which defines linearity and the so-called ''order of things,'' is also a wrong premise to adopt, simply because time is not linear in the Newtonian sense. It's supposed to be part of the geometry of the vacuum, which leads to further problems, such as cosmology further predicting then that time is not even fundamental.

 

[paddoboy]

Someone mentioned simplicity? [Occam's Razor]
I cannot see anything more simpler [or correct] then the following.


[1] Space separates everything: If we had no space, we would still be part of the Singularity prior the BB

[2] Time stops everything from happening together: Without time, the BB and Big Crunch would all happen together [and everything else in between.

[3] Space/time, has been shown to twist, warp, curve [in the presence of mass] and this has been measured.


[4] Both time and space [space/time] are not absolute....

[5] The speed of light is absolute:

[6] The overwhelming supported of the last two theoretical applications, [4+5] means that all FoR's are valid.

[7] The overwhelming supported applications of 4+5 mean that time travel [as per the twin paradox] is theoretically possible.

 

[Nightshift]

Someone mentioned simplicity? [Occam's Razor]
I cannot see anything more simpler [or correct] then the following.

Yeah, the problem with attempting to use Occam's razor in anything quantum-mechanically-related subjects is that quantum mechanics is far from a rational theory anyway... the early pioneers realized that quantum mechanics more surprised the early inventors, the quantum world was full of hard to wrap you head around subjects which where far from simple.

 

[paddoboy]

Yeah, the problem with attempting to use Occam's razor in anything quantum-mechanically-related subjects is that quantum mechanics is far from a rational theory anyway... the early pioneers realized that quantum mechanics more surprised the early inventors, the quantum world was full of hard to wrap you head around subjects which where far from simple.

So what?
Anyone with any real knowledge will see that the universe is a weird and wonderful place.
Just because you fail to understand some validated issue or theory, does not mean it's irrational.
Please read post 290 and the link.

 

[Nightshift]

So what?
Anyone with any real knowledge will see that the universe is a weird and wonderful place.
Just because you fail to understand some validated issue or theory, does not mean it's irrational.
Please read post 290 and the link.

I never tackled any of the issues you brought up, only that let's stay away from Occam's principle of least imagination. Ok?

 

[paddoboy]

I never tackled any of the issues you brought up, only that let's stay away from Occam's principle of least imagination. Ok?

I suggest you start tackling then....Oh, and I find Occam's razor quite relevant.

 

[wellwisher]

One cannot time travel without impacting the flow of time due to the second law. For us to time travel, will require technology and energy and unless perpetual motion is in effect, there will be an increase in entropy in both directions. This will change the past, present and future.

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

You don't need time, you only need propagation of energy with some form of locality. The Universe is infinite, the energy is not going to escape, so you don't need a direction, a beginning, or an end. You just need the energy to be local, cyclic, and not moving away from you. When you do all of those thing with a theory you have the theory of propagation, not time. You don't need time, and everything that happens is a pattern that is lost anyway. Everything that is going to happen hasn't happened yet, so the future is just silly. You could have a small amount of feedback, that's about it.

 

[paddoboy]

One cannot time travel without impacting the flow of time due to the second law. For us to time travel, will require technology and energy and unless perpetual motion is in effect, there will be an increase in entropy in both directions. This will change the past, present and future.

That's rubbish, and the twin paradox [which isn't a paradox anyway] illustrates that fact.

You don't need time, you only need propagation of energy with some form of locality. The Universe is infinite, the energy is not going to escape, so you don't need a direction, a beginning, or an end. You just need the energy to be local, cyclic, and not moving away from you. When you do all of those thing with a theory you have the theory of propagation, not time. You don't need time, and everything that happens is a pattern that is lost anyway. Everything that is going to happen hasn't happened yet, so the future is just silly. You could have a small amount of feedback, that's about it.

I've heard many philosophical takes and debates on time, and time travel, including the speculative scenario of more than one dimension of time, but this is the first confusing take I have ever heard, promoting no time......:crazy:

 

[Uncle Pythagoras]

That's rubbish, and the twin paradox [which isn't a paradox anyway] illustrates that fact.





I've heard many philosophical takes and debates on time, and time travel, including the speculative scenario of more than one dimension of time, but this is the first confusing take I have ever heard, promoting no time......:crazy:

Happy to confuse you any spin of the present.