R_W, up to this point in Actual Physical Reality - as far as I know, at least - there has yet to be any conclusive evidence proffered of any "travel" through the abstract theoretical construct called "time", in any direction other than "forward".
Time Travel is Science Fiction
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
R_W, up to this point in Actual Physical Reality - as far as I know, at least - there has yet to be any conclusive evidence proffered of any "travel" through the abstract theoretical construct called "time", in any direction other than "forward".
You should just get out this thread before you start messing it up with troll tactics. Really... you should. Or I will haunt your posts.
Seriously, I will.
the...
.... ''forward time travel.''
I am so glad you are here to give us a deep insight into clearly... A subject you only know in an amateurish sense.
Agreed. But the different rates forward have been demonstrated.
Um, in case you forgot, I ran you out of here, not the other way around. Clearly, you are pissed about that but you should know by now that you can't unhinge me like you get unhinged.
I have no idea what delusions you are running on now, but you are using a hell of a jet pack to get there!
Declan Lunny
Registered Senior Member
@ paddoboy,,
You act exactly like those anti-mainstream people you rail against. They also refuse to accept well established science when it goes contrary to their "pet project". And also like them, you latch on to a few phrases and repeat them ad nausium because you don't understand the underlying principles. Time travel is not possible for us. Physics precludes it.
1) Twin paradox is not a GR paradox. It is a misunderstanding of the General Theory of Relativity. BUT IT IS A TRUE PARADOX. One of the first postulates of GR & SR is that the laws of physics MUST operate the same for all the Universe, there is your paradox..
2) In making physics fun for the lay public, the popularizations of physics ALWAYS introduce the woo science as being "allowed". That is the disservice they do to the lay public in general, and seems to have done to you in particular.
3) GR IS well tested and experimentally verified science. But it does not allow you to dispense with other areas of physics that are just as well tested or even more strictly verified, i.e. Quantum Field Theory, Particle Physics, Thermodynamics, Bio-Chemical Physics. GR allows your "twin paradox", but those other equally valid fields DISALLOW it. That first postulate of GR does not allow you turn off physics for your special "twin's" reference frame.
4) What happens to a single atom at relativistic speeds? It CAN NOT exist as an atom. Much less an entire complex system of atoms (as in a complicated spaceship or a biological system of atoms like a "twin").
5) NASA, JPL, and all the others continually sponsor "woo science". Not because they are seeking the "fun" answers you are so enamored with. Because individuals do these as a means of testing the limits of models and methods of modeling. They don't invest money on these things, they lend their "name" to them only. Those people earn their pay by doing real science and NASA allows them to attach it's name to their pet "fun" projects.
6) NASA, JPL, el. al have also lent their name to people investigating Aether models, MOND models, TeVeSc Models,,,, people associated with NASA have been proponents of Plasma Cosmology, Electric Universe Cosmology, Steady State Cosmology, and contracting universe cosmology. One prominent former NASA guy thinks quasars and pulsars are alien communication networks. There is no shortage of "woo" scientists at NASA or anywhere else in the mainstream.
7) As an apologist for the mainstream, you should slack up and give it a rest for awhile. Because you repeat the same banalities and inanities over and over and over. That will turn people off of your "message" because they will begin to think that you can't think for yourself and can only parrot a few restricted phrases. I'm as mainstream as you will ever find anywhere. I'm professionally employed doing mainstream science and have been for a decade. I'm also embarrassed by your rather superficial defense of what is mainstream and what is not.
8) Time travel by means of relativistic speeding is not mainstream. Particle physics (as well or better tested than GR) doesn't permit it. Quantum Field Theory (as well or better tested than GR) does not permit it. Bio-chemo-physiology (very well tested) does not permit it. Nuclear physics (as well or better tested than GR) does not permit it.
9) GR does NOT permit it either, because GR says physics must operate by the same rules for everyone, including the rules of QFT, Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics, etc, etc,,,,
Until "time travel" is compatible with ALL physics, it's science fiction pure and simple.
You act exactly like those anti-mainstream people you rail against. They also refuse to accept well established science when it goes contrary to their "pet project". And also like them, you latch on to a few phrases and repeat them ad nausium because you don't understand the underlying principles. Time travel is not possible for us. Physics precludes it.
1) Twin paradox is not a GR paradox. It is a misunderstanding of the General Theory of Relativity. BUT IT IS A TRUE PARADOX. One of the first postulates of GR & SR is that the laws of physics MUST operate the same for all the Universe, there is your paradox..
2) In making physics fun for the lay public, the popularizations of physics ALWAYS introduce the woo science as being "allowed". That is the disservice they do to the lay public in general, and seems to have done to you in particular.
3) GR IS well tested and experimentally verified science. But it does not allow you to dispense with other areas of physics that are just as well tested or even more strictly verified, i.e. Quantum Field Theory, Particle Physics, Thermodynamics, Bio-Chemical Physics. GR allows your "twin paradox", but those other equally valid fields DISALLOW it. That first postulate of GR does not allow you turn off physics for your special "twin's" reference frame.
4) What happens to a single atom at relativistic speeds? It CAN NOT exist as an atom. Much less an entire complex system of atoms (as in a complicated spaceship or a biological system of atoms like a "twin").
5) NASA, JPL, and all the others continually sponsor "woo science". Not because they are seeking the "fun" answers you are so enamored with. Because individuals do these as a means of testing the limits of models and methods of modeling. They don't invest money on these things, they lend their "name" to them only. Those people earn their pay by doing real science and NASA allows them to attach it's name to their pet "fun" projects.
6) NASA, JPL, el. al have also lent their name to people investigating Aether models, MOND models, TeVeSc Models,,,, people associated with NASA have been proponents of Plasma Cosmology, Electric Universe Cosmology, Steady State Cosmology, and contracting universe cosmology. One prominent former NASA guy thinks quasars and pulsars are alien communication networks. There is no shortage of "woo" scientists at NASA or anywhere else in the mainstream.
7) As an apologist for the mainstream, you should slack up and give it a rest for awhile. Because you repeat the same banalities and inanities over and over and over. That will turn people off of your "message" because they will begin to think that you can't think for yourself and can only parrot a few restricted phrases. I'm as mainstream as you will ever find anywhere. I'm professionally employed doing mainstream science and have been for a decade. I'm also embarrassed by your rather superficial defense of what is mainstream and what is not.
8) Time travel by means of relativistic speeding is not mainstream. Particle physics (as well or better tested than GR) doesn't permit it. Quantum Field Theory (as well or better tested than GR) does not permit it. Bio-chemo-physiology (very well tested) does not permit it. Nuclear physics (as well or better tested than GR) does not permit it.
9) GR does NOT permit it either, because GR says physics must operate by the same rules for everyone, including the rules of QFT, Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics, etc, etc,,,,
Until "time travel" is compatible with ALL physics, it's science fiction pure and simple.
It is rather breathtaking the naivety and Ignorance shown in some posts.
I mean what part of science was not at one time or another, deemed to be science fiction.
I have already highlighted the silly pessimism that was shown by an otherwise great man in Lord Kelvin....
Science has never achieved anything with a pessimistic attitude.
I love a quote I came across a few years ago....
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty".
Winston Churchill:
Time travel, per the twin paradox will not be easy...In fact I am unable to really think of anything any more difficult for science to achieve.
But then again, my thinking is somewhat constrained by the period I am living in.
Again, time travel as I have detailed, is not against the laws of physics and GR, and given time, may well be achieved one day.
In fact time travel, with non human entities, takes place probably everyday in many scientific experiments.
So yes, it is possible, and one day in the future, we just may have the technical know how and knowledge to apply that to real live humans.
Science can only work with things that actually exist. All that time does is add an extra dimension that does the work of the 3D that we already have. So the optimism is to say.. I hope they find this thing that the Universe doesn't need. If material moves to the area of least resistance you have to get material to go against the flow. To go to the future you have to multiply the amount of material, and make copies of it. I don't know of any physics that makes copies of itself all over the place. I'm in the future, you are talking to me in the past, so now there are 2 of me. But I am a location, I can't be 2 locations. There can be a double of me in the Universe, it's not me though, I am a location. Another me cannot share my location, so its not me.
There is no misunderstanding, well maybe by you, but not by the science community
Where? I see no paradox.
It goes really fast relative to you, other than that nothing.
Sure it can.
Sure it could.
Sure it's science fiction, have you seen me say anything else?
So was flying faster than the speed of sound.
And remember someone did say [and naturally being an optimist I agree] "Todays Sci/Fi, is tomorrow's Sci/Fact...
Arthur C Clarke???
The rest of your post for someone claiming to be a professional, is rather non professional.
And you can rest assured, I will keep up my pro mainstream stance when and where necessary, especially against the increasing numbers of silly alternative theorists that appear to be under delusions of grandeur.
Have fun.
Sound exists as a feature of the 3D backdrop. Time exists in the mind. Today's science is in the mind. Energy is the propagation into the area of least resistance, when energy stands still it spins. The spin removes it from the current backdrop. The present is the distance of your connection to the local backdrop.
I have a more likely scenario.....
You only exist in the mind, as an illusionary representation of the ultimate in meaningless statements and claims.
How did I go Albert?
I mean Uncle, even your few fellow nutters on this forum, are distancing themselves from you child like claims.
I'm one that always likes to help his fellow man.
I'm sure if you play your cards right [and so far you are heading in that direction] you maybe able to couple your rather unusual claims in the Victor Espinoza's: Thread of Intrigue.........
Declan Lunny
Registered Senior Member
I understand it very well, that is why I know there is no "twin paradox". The only paradox is in the implication that physics (other than GR) don't apply.
Because accelerating a spaceship and/or person to relativistic speeds violates the fundamental and well known science of quantum mechanics, particle physics and nuclear physics.
Because of the energies involved with a massive particle at relativistic speeds, an electron and a nucleus can not stay combined. They will separate and become random ions and electrons well before they reach relativist speeds. That is elementary particle physics and quantum mechanics.
There is a reason that particle accelerators only collide sub-atomic particles, that's because when you move them beyond a set energy level, atomic structure is not possible. They can not "hang together" as an atom. They separate out as ions and electrons.
No it can't. That would require a binding energy many orders of magnitude greater than what we know atomic binding forces (EM) to be. Electrons can not stay bound to a nucleus at those kind of energy levels.
I've explained why it can't. Can you do better than "Sure it can"?
Yes I can.
You said:
That is simply not correct. Here is why.
You say that the nucleus could not stay combined due to some undefined energies. But at a speed of 99% the speed of light there are no forces acting on the atoms or anything else in the inertial frame due to the velocity!
Or try this on for size. We can say that we are traveling at 90% the speed of light! I don't seem to be flying apart - are you? There is no prefered frame correct? Well, there are jets of material (even atoms) from active glaxies that are moving at speeds (relative to us) even greater than 90% the speed of light. So from the frame of the jet we are moving at 90% the speed of light. This is not just semantics - there is no experiment that you can concieve of that will identify either the jet or us as stationary and the other as moving. It is just as valid to say either the jet or us are moving at relativistic speeds.
I am all ears! What is that fundamental and well known science????
Declan Lunny, great Post! I have been working in various disciplines of real science for 'nigh on 40-years now, and have to say that I heartily concur 100% with your Post #387!
Welcome to SciForums!
Declan Lunny
Registered Senior Member
You seem to be conflating SR and GR. It's not the speed that constrains the atoms from remaining atoms. It's a different parameter that is controlling, the acceleration being experienced by the atom.
It's not "moving at relativistic speeds" that is the problem. It's the accelerating a thing TO relativistic speeds from a non-relativistic state that makes it unworkable. What you see with the jets in active galaxies are ALL in a completely ionized state. It became ionized way before reaching relativistic speeds. In GR it is not relative frames that you have to keep track of,,,, it's the acceleration that is being experienced by the frame in question. You can not point to any matter that has been accelerated to relativistic speeds that remains "as atoms", much less as molecules or something bigger. It just has never been seen. GR is not SR.