Gobbldydook confuses the best of us, past, present or future.
Time Travel is Science Fiction
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
Gobbldydook confuses the best of us, past, present or future.
So you turned to science.. no problem, take the easy route.
Well do so
Its about thermo , temperature and , more importantly , Dynamics
And the dynamics relates to the physical force and energy given to any object on which thermo-dynamics comes into play
If YOU CHANGE THE TIME of this situation nothing will happen
But if you change the physical force or energy of any object then the thermo-dynamic of object(s) will change ,only then will the consequent time involved change
Do you understand my point ?
Hold your finger in a candle flame for 1/10 of a second and record your observations. Then hold your finger in the candle flame for 5 seconds and write down your observations. What is the input variable that resulted in the differences in your observations? If you cannot figure out what the difference is, then continue to repeat the experiment increasing the time your finger is in the flame by an additional 5 seconds. I am confident you will figure it out eventually....
Heat can be converted to a scalar change, there is no problem with a cyclic present so long as there are quantum holes in the system. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics has most of the physics missing. Everything is cyclic, and therefore steady state.
Entropy and time are by necessity connected...they both have an arrow in the same direction.
But it is nice to see you have recognised the fact that you can have changes in time, and that no Universal "NOW" has or will ever exist.
Which means that time travel [as per the twin paradox] is theoretically conceivable.
Well far more logical actually, which than equates to an easier route as per Occams razor.
So you favour gobbldydook because it is beyond comprehension?...as per the following??
Hot thing are bigger than cold things, if heat moves towards cold it scales down, it can escape eventually through smaller, and smaller gaps like the sea breaking down rocks, and like evaporating water. It will come out eventually as clouds, and those clouds will mix with the present to scale back up again, and round you go, back to the beginning with a red shift. Hot moves to cold, scales down, escapes, moves out through the gaps. The cloud spins around holes, and spinning clouds are larger particles again. Cyclic. Gravity changes to magnetism.. magnetism changes to gravity cyclic.
Clouds, red shift, gravity, magnetism, holes, spinning clouds...Wow!
Seems like you have discovered a TOE, or at least a GUT.....
Nobel prize coming up!! [tic mode on]
You have missed my point
Time is the measure of change in thermo-dynamics and the only way that this change will happen is if you CHANGE the temp. And or dynamics of the objects involved
CHANGING TIME ALONE WILL NOT CHANGE THE THERMO OR DYNAMICS OF THE OBJECT
Inotherwords , time has no efficacy to change the time that is already measured
To change the time of the object you must first change the thermo and/or dynamics of the object
You don't get rewards for changing science. Generally you get the heretic badge. It's a big part of history. I don't mind anyway, I like what I know, and would accept the heretic badge for the truth rather than a nobel prize for being less intelligent. If you can't see that our Galaxy is cyclic with its physics, then you just can't see. A cycle propagates itself, you don't need time. You have to ask, is it as hard to slow everything down as it is to accelerate everything? It's the same. Slowing things down takes the same amount of energy. So you just accept that everything keeps moving in circles, as that is the best option.
No, I have not.
The point of this thread is time travel being theoretically possible [as per the twin paradox]
And I have shown that, as have others.
The thermodynamic arrow of time, or entropy, increases with time, but in an open system, that entropy can also decrease.
The arrow of time could be said to be a property of entropy.
And along with the cosmological arrow [as I have previously mentioned] all move in the same direction.
Both are related to the conditions that evolved along with the BB.
"...theoretically conceivable"?!
Can you name one thing that is NOT "...theoretically conceivable"?!
You turn to nonsense bullshit.
Sure, for you anything...Fairies, goblins, gnomes, a broken cup picking itself up from the floor and reassembling.
For you time....
Only if you ignore the evidence that supports time travel [as per twin paradox]
The twin paradox is a dynamic perspective , by observers
Thats all this paradox is
I know the physics involved in the time dilation. Relativity is physics once you know what you are doing. Ageing is propagation of forces between points. Points are the opposite of particles. Particles always move towards the area of least resistance which are points. The points are propagated by gravity very easily in space. People think that space is frictionless, but it is 50% friction, and 50% points which gives you a constant. So you hit the 50% friction, and create a 50% negative friction hole. You can call that frictionless, but you are missing the physics. Anyway the holes create the time dilation. And that's why suns have huge bow shocks.. the holes that they are creating to move through. The constant area of least resistance. The cancellation of friction.
Or
Question: What is the Twin Paradox?
The twin paradox is a thought experiment that demonstrates the curious manifestation of time dilation in modern physics, as it was introduced by Albert Einstein through the theory of relativity.
Answer: Consider two twins, named Biff and Cliff. On their twentieth birthday, Biff decides to get in a spaceship and take off into outer space, traveling at nearly the speed of light. He journeys around the cosmos at this speed for about 5 years, returning to the Earth when he is 25 years old.
Cliff, on the other hand, remains on the Earth. When Biff returns, it turns out that Cliff is 95 years old.
What Happened?
According to relativity, two frames of reference that move differently from each other experience time differently, a process known as time dilation. Because Biff was moving so rapidly, time was in effect moving slower for him. This can be calculated precisely using Lorentz transformations, which are a standard part of relativity.
Twin Paradox One
The first twin paradox isn't really a scientific paradox, but a logical one: How old is Biff?
Biff has experienced 25 years of life, but he was also born the same moment as Cliff, which was 90 years ago. So is he 25 years old or 90 years old?
In this case, the answer is "both" ... depending on which way you're measuring age. According to his driver's license, which measures Earth time (and is no doubt expired), he's 90. According to his body, he's 25. Neither age is "right" or "wrong," although the social security administration might take exception if he tries to claim benefits.
Twin Paradox Two
The second paradox is a bit more technical, and really comes to the heart of what physicists mean when they talk about relativity. The entire scenario is based on the idea that Biff was traveling very fast, so time slowed down for him.
The problem is that in relativity, only the relative motion is involved. So what if you considered things from Biff's point of view, then he stayed stationary the whole time, and it was Cliff who was moving away at rapid speeds. Shouldn't calculations performed in this way mean that Cliff is the one who ages more slowly? Doesn't relativity imply that these situations are symmetrical?
Now, if Biff and Cliff were on spaceships traveling at constant speeds in opposite directions, this argument would be perfectly true. The rules of special relativity, which govern constant speed (inertial) frames of reference, indicate that only the relative motion between the two is what matters. In fact, if you're moving at a constant speed, there's not even an experiment that you can perform within your frame of reference which would distinguish you from being at rest. (Even if you looked outside the ship and compared yourself to some other constant frame of reference, you could only determine that one of you is moving, but not which one.)
But there's one very important distinction here: Biff is accelerating during this process. Cliff is on the Earth, which for the purposes of this is basically "at rest" (even though in reality the Earth moves, rotates, and accelerates in various ways). Biff is on a spaceship which undergoes intensive acceleration to read near lightspeed. This means, according to general relativity, that there are actually physical experiments that could be performed by Biff which would reveal to him that he's accelerating ... and the same experiments would show Cliff that he's not accelerating (or at least accelerating much less than Biff is).
The key feature is that while Cliff is in one frame of reference the entire time, Biff is actually in two frames of reference - the one where he's traveling away from the Earth and the one where he's coming back to the Earth.
So Biff's situation and Cliff's situation are not actually symmetrical in our scenario. Biff is absolutely the one undergoing the more significant acceleration, and therefore he's the one who undergoes the least amount of time passage.
History of the Twin Paradox
This paradox (in a different form) was first presented in 1911 by Paul Langevin, in which the emphasis stressed the idea that the acceleration itself was the key element that caused the distinction. In Langevin's view, acceleration therefore had an absolute meaning. In 1913, though, Max von Laue demonstrated that the two frames of reference alone are enough to explain the distinction, without having to account for the acceleration itself.
From
http://physics.about.com/od/timetravel/f/twinparadox.htm
Question: What is the Twin Paradox?
The twin paradox is a thought experiment that demonstrates the curious manifestation of time dilation in modern physics, as it was introduced by Albert Einstein through the theory of relativity.
Answer: Consider two twins, named Biff and Cliff. On their twentieth birthday, Biff decides to get in a spaceship and take off into outer space, traveling at nearly the speed of light. He journeys around the cosmos at this speed for about 5 years, returning to the Earth when he is 25 years old.
Cliff, on the other hand, remains on the Earth. When Biff returns, it turns out that Cliff is 95 years old.
What Happened?
According to relativity, two frames of reference that move differently from each other experience time differently, a process known as time dilation. Because Biff was moving so rapidly, time was in effect moving slower for him. This can be calculated precisely using Lorentz transformations, which are a standard part of relativity.
Twin Paradox One
The first twin paradox isn't really a scientific paradox, but a logical one: How old is Biff?
Biff has experienced 25 years of life, but he was also born the same moment as Cliff, which was 90 years ago. So is he 25 years old or 90 years old?
In this case, the answer is "both" ... depending on which way you're measuring age. According to his driver's license, which measures Earth time (and is no doubt expired), he's 90. According to his body, he's 25. Neither age is "right" or "wrong," although the social security administration might take exception if he tries to claim benefits.
Twin Paradox Two
The second paradox is a bit more technical, and really comes to the heart of what physicists mean when they talk about relativity. The entire scenario is based on the idea that Biff was traveling very fast, so time slowed down for him.
The problem is that in relativity, only the relative motion is involved. So what if you considered things from Biff's point of view, then he stayed stationary the whole time, and it was Cliff who was moving away at rapid speeds. Shouldn't calculations performed in this way mean that Cliff is the one who ages more slowly? Doesn't relativity imply that these situations are symmetrical?
Now, if Biff and Cliff were on spaceships traveling at constant speeds in opposite directions, this argument would be perfectly true. The rules of special relativity, which govern constant speed (inertial) frames of reference, indicate that only the relative motion between the two is what matters. In fact, if you're moving at a constant speed, there's not even an experiment that you can perform within your frame of reference which would distinguish you from being at rest. (Even if you looked outside the ship and compared yourself to some other constant frame of reference, you could only determine that one of you is moving, but not which one.)
But there's one very important distinction here: Biff is accelerating during this process. Cliff is on the Earth, which for the purposes of this is basically "at rest" (even though in reality the Earth moves, rotates, and accelerates in various ways). Biff is on a spaceship which undergoes intensive acceleration to read near lightspeed. This means, according to general relativity, that there are actually physical experiments that could be performed by Biff which would reveal to him that he's accelerating ... and the same experiments would show Cliff that he's not accelerating (or at least accelerating much less than Biff is).
The key feature is that while Cliff is in one frame of reference the entire time, Biff is actually in two frames of reference - the one where he's traveling away from the Earth and the one where he's coming back to the Earth.
So Biff's situation and Cliff's situation are not actually symmetrical in our scenario. Biff is absolutely the one undergoing the more significant acceleration, and therefore he's the one who undergoes the least amount of time passage.
History of the Twin Paradox
This paradox (in a different form) was first presented in 1911 by Paul Langevin, in which the emphasis stressed the idea that the acceleration itself was the key element that caused the distinction. In Langevin's view, acceleration therefore had an absolute meaning. In 1913, though, Max von Laue demonstrated that the two frames of reference alone are enough to explain the distinction, without having to account for the acceleration itself.
From
http://physics.about.com/od/timetravel/f/twinparadox.htm