Time Travel is Science Fiction

[Beer w/Straw]

No. Quote Einstein. The whole point of our discussions here is that I've read what Einstein said, and you don't believe what he said, or me. Because you've seen something different in some textbook that you treat like a bible.

Wow! Such hypocrisy, Farsight. None of that is true. Well, except for the part of me not believing you of course

But anyway, tell me, can I gain anything by conversing with you? I was just wondering is all.

 

[Farsight]

Yes, you can gain understanding by conversing with me. You can for example understand gravity. Once you understand that time travel is science fiction because time doesn't literally flow and we don't move through it, you can understand that when an optical clock goes slower when it's lower, it's because light goes slower when its lower. See this thread for more on that, including the Einstein quotes and references to the evidence of say the Shapiro delay. After that it's easy to understand how gravity works. See this thread. It's all pretty simple once it clicks.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

OK, let's say that I understand the things you mention better than you do, save gravity.

Why haven't I then figured out gravity if you say it is so simple?

 

[QuarkHead]

. And actually, you'll be hard pressed to find him talking about curved spacetime. Try giving a quote.

That;s easy

$$R_{jk}-\frac{1}{2}g_{jk}R=-\kappa T_{jk}$$.

Notice the first term on the LHS represent the scalar components of the Ricci curvature tensor where each index has values 0,1,2,3 i.e. four of them. If this this doesn't describe "spacetime curvature" it's hard to see what it does describe.

A better source than all your wordy sources, wouldn't you agree?

 

[krash661]

billvon said:
Exactly. And you are talking pompous pseudoscience since we are already directly observing people moving through time at different rates.

No we don't. It's popscience to say we do.

Like I was saying, all we are dealing with here is different rates of local motion.

 

[paddoboy]

I don't think I've talked to any professional physicists who think Einstein was an idiot. But I have talked to some who think Hawking is a devious quack who has deliberately focussed on unfalsifiable hypotheses. And I have met some who think Thorne is a wannabee celebrity physicist peddling popscience woo.

About the best one could say about that "theorist-constant, chinglu" like inspired delusional bullshit is.....

No we don't. It's popscience to say we do. Imagine you can directly observe some guy sitting in his chair. He isn't moving through time at all. His heart moves, his blood moves, light moves, cogs move in a clock. And all this motion is through space.

I'm pointing out what actually happens. You're clinging to a fantasy, like the guys who cling to the fantasy of heaven and hell and sweet baby Jesus, and you will not give it up.

This hypocritical nonsense coming from the same poster that claims to have a TOE. [although we have not heard too much of that of late. He may have realised that claiming that furphy is just way too far over the top...

And again: time dilation is not time travel.

No, it certainly is, and just as I have proven to you previously.

It's a popscience book. There is no way you can move such that everything else in the universe has somehow magically moved back to where it was before it moved.

The only book on this forum that I have heard that is just fairy tales is your own publication.
A book that you had to deviously publish yourself, because of outright rejection by the rest of the community.

 

[Farsight]

OK, let's say that I understand the things you mention better than you do, save gravity. Why haven't I then figured out gravity if you say it is so simple?

Because you don't understand those things better than me. The first thing you have to understand is what a clock clocks up. After that you have to understand that when an optical clock goes slower, it's because the light goes slower.

That's easy

$$R_{jk}-\frac{1}{2}g_{jk}R=-\kappa T_{jk}$$.

Notice the first term on the LHS represent the scalar components of the Ricci curvature tensor where each index has values 0,1,2,3 i.e. four of them. If this this doesn't describe "spacetime curvature" it's hard to see what it does describe. A better source than all your wordy sources, wouldn't you agree?

No. When I quote Einstein talking about something I give it verbatim, with no inference or interpretation. For example re the speed of light, in Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie Einstein said this:

"Eine Krümmung der Lichtstrahlen kann nämlich nur dann eintreten, wenn die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert."

That translates to "a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position". However if you ask around about why light curves the typical answer you'll get is "because spacetime is curved". Einstein never said this, and like I said, you'll be pushed to find him saying spacetime curvature at all. Hence Peter M Brown's essay at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044:

"There exists some confusion, as evidenced in the literature, regarding the nature of the gravitational field in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. It is argued here the this confusion is a result of a change in interpretation of the gravitational field. Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with."

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Because you don't understand those things better than me. The first thing you have to understand is what a clock clocks up. After that you have to understand that when an optical clock goes slower, it's because the light goes slower.

Is there anyone who understands things better than you?

Names?

 

[paddoboy]

Because you don't understand those things better than me. The first thing you have to understand is what a clock clocks up. After that you have to understand that when an optical clock goes slower, it's because the light goes slower.

A clock simply measures time duration. And from observations, many people here understand many subjects far better then you, including GR and general cosmology.

No. When I quote Einstein talking about something I give it verbatim, with no inference or interpretation. For example re the speed of light, in Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie Einstein said this:

That is simply not the case. You have taken the great man, and many other great men out of context...including all those professors whose replies in all cases refuted your own mythical take on GR and cosmology

 

[krash661]

the speed of light varies with position".

1. location: the place where somebody or something is, especially in relation to other things
3. arrangement: the way or direction in which an object is placed or arranged
4. situation: a particular set of circumstances
"
Definition of Motion, Position, Velocity, and Acceleration
Position, velocity, and acceleration all describe the motion of an object; all three are vector quantities. In one dimension, position is given as a function of x with respect to time, x(t). An object's change in position with respect to time is known as its displacement. The velocity of an object is found by taking the derivative of the position function:

. Velocity can be thought of as the object's speed and direction, or change in position over time. The acceleration of an object is equal to the derivative of its velocity

and describes the object's change in velocity over time.
"
"
An object's position is its location relative to a reference point (or origin of a coordinate system). Position is a vector quantity because it does have a direction.
"

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Because you don't understand those things better than me. The first thing you have to understand is what a clock clocks up. After that you have to understand that when an optical clock goes slower, it's because the light goes slower.

No. When I quote Einstein talking about something I give it verbatim, with no inference or interpretation. For example re the speed of light, in Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie Einstein said this:

"Eine Krümmung der Lichtstrahlen kann nämlich nur dann eintreten, wenn die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert."

That translates to "a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position". However if you ask around about why light curves the typical answer you'll get is "because spacetime is curved". Einstein never said this, and like I said, you'll be pushed to find him saying spacetime curvature at all. Hence Peter M Brown's essay at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044:

"There exists some confusion, as evidenced in the literature, regarding the nature of the gravitational field in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. It is argued here the this confusion is a result of a change in interpretation of the gravitational field. Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with."

So is that why you didn't like my textbook quote?

Because it dismisses the unpublished arxiv submission quote entirely, and or, you are cherry picking/taking things deliberately out of context?

 

[Farsight]

So is that why you didn't like my textbook quote?

I said Einstein didn't speak about the curvature of space. He was always very careful to distinguish between space and spacetime. And actually, you'll be hard pressed to find him talking about curved spacetime. Try giving a quote. And you quoted from some random textbook. You didn't quote Einstein.

That is simply not the case. You have taken the great man, and many other great men out of context...including all those professors whose replies in all cases refuted your own mythical take on GR and cosmology

I quoted Einstein verbatim, and some of those professors agreed with me about the variable speed of light. Tim Moore did, so did Don Koks. Which he would do, seeing as he wrote this:

"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In the English translation of his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity [Einstein clearly means speed here, since velocity (a vector) is not in keeping with the rest of his sentence] of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [speed] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers..."

So it's patently obvious that you're just a naysayer clinging to popscience woo and dismissing what Einstein and others have said. And you're abusive too. So you're back on ignore.

Sincere posters: please do not feed the trolls who are intent on trashing this thread and this forum.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I said Einstein didn't speak about the curvature of space. He was always very careful to distinguish between space and spacetime. And actually, you'll be hard pressed to find him talking about curved spacetime. Try giving a quote. And you quoted from some random textbook. You didn't quote Einstein.

Can you edit that to make sense, can you see the ambiguity in your words or not?

Or, is it a showing pretense of you liking to change the rules whenever you want?

 

[paddoboy]

So it's patently obvious that you're just a naysayer clinging to popscience woo and dismissing what Einstein and others have said. And you're abusive too. So you're back on ignore.

Sincere posters: please do not feed the trolls who are intent on trashing this thread and this forum.

I'm actually mortified at being put on ignore.
And you continue with your bullshit.
I claim cosmology and GR as generally accepted by mainstream. Because it reality, its what makes the most sense.
You claim nothing, other then your own delusional greatness.

 

[QuarkHead]

.....{response to my "verbatim quote" of the field eqns}....

No. When I quote Einstein talking about something I give it verbatim, with no inference or interpretation.

No comment required

Hence Peter M Brown's essay

Peter M. Brown, aka pmb, aka Phyman, aka Physicist etc on numerous internet fora (from all of which he has been perm-banned) is well-known for pushing a personal agenda and is not, repeat NOT a reliable source

Farsight, you really do take the biscuit. I repeat - read and try to understand the sole unambiguous Einstein source - his field equations where you will see you are wrong (assuming you can do the mathematics. You can can you not?)

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Can you edit that to make sense, can you see the ambiguity in your words or not?

Or, is it a showing pretense of you liking to change the rules whenever you want?

On second thought, who cares. You'd argue the semantics of the words "geodesic" compared with "curve" for crying out loud.

 

[Farsight]

No comment required Peter M. Brown, aka pmb, aka Phyman, aka Physicist etc on numerous internet fora (from all of which he has been perm-banned) is well-known for pushing a personal agenda and is not, repeat NOT a reliable source

Ad-hominem, and valueless. Because he refers faithfully to Einstein and Ray and Synge and others, and they are reliable sources. And the point remains that you can't quote Einstein talking about curved spacetime, can you?

Farsight, you really do take the biscuit. I repeat - read and try to understand the sole unambiguous Einstein source - his field equations where you will see you are wrong (assuming you can do the mathematics. You can can you not?)

Yes I can. And moreover, I understand the associated physics, whilst you don't. Remember a previous exchange here? You don't even know the difference between space and spacetime, because you are "lost in math" and you have clearly never read any of the original material by Einstein, and so you have no understanding of gravity whatsoever. And do note that Einstein's field equations don't show me to be wrong, just as they don't show Einstein to be wrong when he said a curvature of rays of light can only occur when the speed of light varies with position. That's what you understand when you understand that clocks clock up motion. An optical clock goes slower when it's lower because the light goes slower, just like Einstein said.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Einsteins words are not his mathematical equations. You do know this, right?

Hence, your line of argument is a straw man.

 

[paddoboy]

Ad-hominem, and valueless. Because he refers faithfully to Einstein and Ray and Synge and others, and they are reliable sources. And the point remains that you can't quote Einstein talking about curved spacetime, can you?

Please accept...space, time, spacetime are all basically the same.
The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. – Hermann Minkowski, 1908:

With regards to Albert and what you say/interpret he says, perhaps where he was speaking of relativity and space and time, he saw no need to constantly refer to spacetime as uneccessary inspeaking to who he was speaking to...that is learned folk and his peers.
He obviously was not addressing you.
Scientists are sometimes lazy when speaking to there own kind...We still refer to the BB as the BB, when most know it was nothing of the sort.....we refer to BH's as BH's when again, they are nothing of the sort...Still far easier though then saying "gravitationally completely collapsed objects"

You are totally wrong in your general interpretations of things, and I can support that with undisputable evidence...[1] You have been banned from other forums, and [2] You went to the trouble to publish your own book instead of getting it published by an independent source.
So why? and how? do you expect anyone to accept your word as gospel, no matter how many times you chose to spread it across the net?
And finally all this ranting, raving, denial of what you have done, accusing others of ganging up on you in a conspiracy, and having the audacity of claiming a ToE, is impressing no one, including the general mainstream experts.
I remember distinctly one of tashja's replies from a professor, concluding with the remarks that you really need to go and learn some GR.
Obviously you have not taken that advice.

 

[Trippy]

I quoted Einstein verbatim, and some of those professors agreed with me about the variable speed of light. Tim Moore did, so did Don Koks.

Strictly speaking you quoted an english translation of something that was originally said in German. German being a language that uses the same word for velocity and speed.