Time Travel is Science Fiction

http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed
In brief: The laws of physics allow members of an exceedingly advanced civilisation to travel forward in time as fast as they might wish. Backward time travel is another matter; we do not know whether it is allowed by the laws of physics, and the answer is likely controlled by a set of physical laws that we do not yet understand at all well: the laws of quantum gravity. In order for humans to travel forward in time very rapidly, or backward (if allowed at all), we would need technology far far beyond anything we are capable of today.
more at....
http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed

This one discusses wormholes for time travel, another aspect not forbidden by the laws of physics and GR.....
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://www.livescience.com/39159-time-travel-with-wormhole.html
The concept of a time machine typically conjures up images of an implausible plot device used in a few too many science-fiction storylines. But according to Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which explains how gravity operates in the universe, real-life time travel isn't just a vague fantasy.

Traveling forward in time is an uncontroversial possibility, according to Einstein's theory. In fact, physicists have been able to send tiny particles called muons, which are similar to electrons, forward in time by manipulating the gravity around them. That's not to say the technology for sending humans 100 years into the future will be available anytime soon, though.
 
paddoboy said:
You seem so obsessed with trivialities, pedant and nonsense, yet continually overlook the facts, accepted theories, and science.
Do better. Oh, and next time I have an inkling to use "bold" I wont ask you...OK? :)
Click to expand...
Is it a triviality that you could be wrong? Is it pedantic to point out that you sometimes use the wrong words? ('inkling' would be the latest example) Is it nonsense to suggest the infallible paddoboy may not know all the facts? You see, the honest members of SciForums discuss things, and perhaps try to educate the others. While you are here merely to show that your views are the correct ones. You would be worth listening to if all of your views were indeed cosmic truth, but how can they be when you do not even respect scientific method in your constant insistent that you are always right? How can they be when your chief method of argument (I would that it was discussion instead of argument) is just to repeat your opinions by cutting and pasting and emboldening the websites that you have previously posted again and again - which the rest of us have already read and feel have no real merit? Do better.
 
Landau Roof said:
Is it a triviality that you could be wrong?
Click to expand...

As much as you try and make this about me you fail dismally.
The fact remains
The laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel.

That's not me, that is a fact according to the reputable links I have given, and the known laws of physics and GR.



 
Undefined said:
Hi paddoboy. :)

Mate, how much longer are you going to clutter up threads/discussions/issues with your by-now-well-known stance and links which add no value and are now actually distracting/confusing the threads/discussions with your zealous posts saying the same thing repeatedly ad nauseam without actually understanding what the subtleties of the new OP points are? Your stance boils down to:

"I believe mainstream and mainstreamers and don't believe you (whomever)...and I won't believe you (whomever) until mainstream/mainstreamers tell me to!"

Yes, mate; we get it! So how about sparing everyone here more of your same old, oft repeated and well known opinion that gains nothing from repetition; and just allowing those who DO understand the subtleties of the points being discussed GET ON WITH IT based on the scientific discussion to and fro involving their own actual math/physics/logics knowledge and not your repetitive wiki-links and stances which all can read for themselves if they were interested to know what you 'believe'.

The discussions here are questioning/reviewing the understandings which you link to/support at present; that is the whole point of these discussions; to tease out what and where improvements to those understandings can be found, and so advance from the status quo. Your insistence on full-blown peer-reviewed ideas HERE is misplaced and premature (as I pointed out to you before, remember?).

So, mate, let those who have something to say/add in DISCUSSION of NEW ideas; and who can post some matter relating DIRECTLY TO the ACTUAL NEW POINT that differs from the 'beliefs' which you may hold at present; do so without you cluttering up the place. We get it. You want to wait until you are told by others you defer to as to what to believe. No problem. That's your prerogative. But please, please, spare us any more deluge of the same old links and opinions which do/add nothing for these PRELIMINARY discussions of ORIGINAL ideas/discourse going on in some of these threads. Make distinctions between truly and obviously 'crank' threads/OPs, and those rare threads/OPs which bring new avenues of original discussion/points of view. OK?

I know that, as an Aussie, you don't have to be hit over the head too many times before you get the (friendly) message! Listen and learn from the discussions between those that have some new/original ideas to discuss, from BOTH 'sides'. Only then will you or anyone get a real sense of where things are headed for mainstream understandings in the future.

Less clutter will make the threads/discussions more readily readable/comprehendable and minimize confusion and cross-purpose exchanges. Your co-operation in this matter would help interested readers/participants a lot. Thanks in advance for your kind co-operation, mate! :)
Click to expand...
I was looking back over the thread to see how many times you cut and pasted your same two links in bold without actually saying anything new when I found this.

Notice I say two links not three. Have you ever noticed that http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed is strikingly reminiscent of. "more at.... http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed"

Reported, and now on my ignore list.
 
Last edited:
Beer w/Straw said:
You just ignored a permanently banned member?
Click to expand...
No, I cited a permabanned member who took the word I was about to write to paddoboy (who I am ignoring) right out of my mouth ten months before I was about to write them. Whoa! Maybe time travel IS possible! :eek:
 
Landau Roof said:
...Back in the discussion we were having with Motor Daddy and Krash 661 (is that earlier this thread?) I read your links and found them all to be the most puerile pop sci...
Click to expand...
I have to say that IMHO paddoboy tends to defend popscience woo to the death, and brings emotion and outrage and insult and disruption to the discussion rather than sincerity and logic and evidence and argument.

paddoboy said:
Traveling forward in time is an uncontroversial possibility, according to Einstein's theory. In fact, physicists have been able to send tiny particles called muons, which are similar to electrons, forward in time by manipulating the gravity around them.
Click to expand...
This is just nonsense for kids. Time dilation is not time travel. I could send you on a fast trip or leave you for a while in a region of low gravitational potential, and you will suffer time dilation. There's less motion in your local clock than mine, that's all. And that isn't time travel. I could watch you every step of the way, you don't appear in the middle of next week.
 
Last edited:
Could you walk us through an example where the physics shows that, for two clocks in relative motion in a negligible gravitational field, that one is really going slower than another?
 
No, nobody can. This is the famous twins "paradox", where if you and I move past one another, I claim your clock is going slower than mine, and you claim my clock is going slower than yours. It's portrayed as something mysterious, but it's no more mysterious than you and I being separated by distance, wherein I say you look smaller than me and you say I look smaller than you. However when one clock turns round and comes back, we then say that it's the clock that's moving and suffering the time dilation.
 
You say the clock that took the round trip is the one that moved. The gedanken observer who is riding it can feel the acceleration.
 
MattMars said:
Hi Pad,
Where you say,

There are factual things with regards to time travel are....
[1] The laws of physics and GR do not forbid it.

This is why you I suggest you read section 1 of on the electrodynamics of moving bodies ,
Because you can't be sure your understanding of GR is totally sound if you have not read the fundamental, original, source paper of SR, that's my point.
Click to expand...
it was faraday's work that lead to einstein understanding that it is time that changes, not light.
 
Landau Roof said:
Is it a triviality that you could be wrong? Is it pedantic to point out that you sometimes use the wrong words? ('inkling' would be the latest example)
Click to expand...
when i do decided to read one of your post, i'm always lead to the same thought.
this thought is,
your comprehension skills are very poor.
you hardly understand anything that is typed.
 
Farsight, of course you disagree with the Einstein–Rosen bridges and quantum mechanical ideas on time travel because they deal with wormholes and parallel worlds. Even though there is no current apparatus on the quantum mechanical, the LHC may one day be used to detect for wormholes. So, you should keep an open mind on what technology of the future could bring; going to the moon was once a ludicrous idea. Otherwise, one may think you just started this thread to bait people.
 
Farsight said:
Cool? It's woo.
Click to expand...
Since it comes from peer-reviewed science it's hardly woo.
And you don't understand it. But you can understand the OP. And you can't fault it.
Click to expand...
Of course I can. It shows you don't understand time. To even consider that time is like gas flowing through a meter indicates you have a very basic comprehension problem.

(btw worst analogy ever - "And just as you can’t literally climb to a higher temperature, you can’t literally travel forward in time. Or backwards. No way, no how." Since we can force things to a higher temperature, or to a lower temperature, the analogy would be that we can force things forward in time and backwards in time.)
 
truefalse_fullpic.jpg
 
Interesting idea. Time is relative to nothing, even if the big bang had not happened time would still exist. Time is a pink invisible unicorn derived by humanity to record its own existence.


We do not move in time, time moves with us. Time continues to move even if we are stopped. Time is multidimensional because it is an invisible pink unicorn.
 
Last edited:
theorist-constant12345 said:
Interesting idea. Time is relative to nothing, even if the big bang had not happened time would still exist. Time is a pink invisible unicorn derived by humanity to record its own existence.
Click to expand...

The BB was an evolution of space and time as we know them.

But actually quite a contradictory post......
In one sentence you say time would exist even if the BB did not bang...In the next you call it an invisible Unicorn.
 
Farsight said:
I have to say that IMHO paddoboy tends to defend popscience woo to the death, and brings emotion and outrage and insult and disruption to the discussion rather than sincerity and logic and evidence and argument.
Click to expand...

100% false.....
It is a fact that our laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel.
It is also a fact that you have had threads closed and others moved to the alternative section due to the woo you sprout.


Farsight said:
This is just nonsense for kids. Time dilation is not time travel. I could send you on a fast trip or leave you for a while in a region of low gravitational potential, and you will suffer time dilation. There's less motion in your local clock than mine, that's all. And that isn't time travel. I could watch you every step of the way, you don't appear in the middle of next week.
Click to expand...

As I have just said, your claims are nothing but sour grapes and false.
Couple that with the fact that you have had threads closed and others shifted out of the science section, reveals to any sensible person who it is that dabbles in nonsense for kids and woo. Do better Farsight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top