Time Travel is Science Fiction
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
Did I say that?
This is what I said......
With time travel, we are at this stage aware that at the micro level [muons and such] it is indeed factual that it happens and happens all the time.
A whole bunch of physicists that are professionally qualified, which you are not, all happen to disagree with you.
Remember, as much as it literally rips out the foundation stones of your delusional take on accepted cosmology, TIME TRAVEL IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND GR.
You see, [and I'm really trying to help you here] your whole take on cosmology is built like a house of cards...It just takes one obvious error/misinterpretation or woo aspect, and your whole structure of cards come tumbling down.
Now that you have been told the truth, you can put me back on ignore.
Paddoboy, that's a lot like saying that because you can't grow bananas in Antarctica, there are no penguins in Antarctica.
True the laws of physics don't forbid time travel, but they also just don't say anything about it.
I'm pretty sure its a bit more inferred then that.
The possibility of time travel is implied by theory. The laws of physics say nothing about it. If I am wrong quote me the law.., not the theory.
The two facts with regards to relativity is that neither time nor space is absolute...or as Thorne puts it, each has his own personal time [see http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed]
The rest is logical and history.
The link did not work for me, but on the face of it you are talking theory and opinion. I have no issue with either supporting the idea of time travel, though I personally don't believe it possible. My issue was with suggesting that the laws of physics theirselves support the possibility.
Last edited:
and I said:
" Please tell more, if you are asserting that muons do travel back into the past. I don't believe that as the past no longer exists. "
I assumed that your "it" now red did refer to the "time travel" you started the sentence with as that is normal English construction, but you now seem to be saying your "it" which happens all the time, refers to something other than "time travel"? If so what is the anticendent of your "it"
I.e. please tell "what happens all the time."
BTW The link in post 827 did not work for me, either.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry about that...try...
http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed.
I see you actually as splitting hairs, afterall time dilation and length contraction are emergent from relativity.
You are pathetic farsight, and a liar to boot.
Good answers from anyone that agrees with what you happen to agree with, twisting and misinterpreting other answers from other experts that only part agree, and writing off completely as woo, any expert that disagrees with you.
And obviously your past claim to have a TOE, confirms you as a liar.
Good work as usual tashja, and nice to hear another professional.
It should be noted that he said.....
There is an important difference between time dilation and time travel. What fast moving muons experience is time dilation, where the clock of an object moving relative to an observer appears to run more slowly than a clock stationary with respect to the observer. This a consequence of Special Relativity.
I cannot accept that view and I see it as opposite to what Sagan and Thorne have claimed.
eg: If I travelled at 99.999% "c" and returned to Earth 12 months later, by my onboard ship's clocks, both biological and mechanical, I will be returning to an earth 230 years down the track. This is time travel in any one's language, and is the opnion of Thorne, and Sagan as well as Carroll and Smolin.
He then said......
If I were talking about time travel in the sense of Doctor Who or The Time Machine then I would expect the time traveller would take a path through space and time not permitted by the rules of Einstein’s theories of relativity that have been tested by experiment."" In this sense the muons aren’t time travellers"""
NOTE: IN THIS SENSE.....so in the other sense, it can be construed as time travel???
I'm sure it could.
And then we have this doozy that completely refutes what delusional Farsight claims....
There are some situations where time travel remains hypothetically possible while obeying the rules of these theories, and some discussion about what travelling backwards in time might mean, but no experimental evidence for time travel in this sense. Stephen Hawking’s whimsical ‘proof’ that it isn’t possible is that we don’t meet tourists from the future, but this isn’t meant to be an absolute proof.
So in essence the good professor has refuted Farsight's claims, while remaining part non commital on the other stuff.
But Farsight sees it as agreeing with him....
Maybe too much of the
might be at fault.
No there is no other sense - your muons do not travel backwards in time. Yes the traveling twin can travel forward in time more slowly than his "stay at home" brother, who may be long dead when he returns to Earth. He did not travel into the future either - he just lived more slowly by earth's clocks and got to see more later developments that happen - exactly as if he had been put into suspected animation, right here on earth all the time he was not conscious of time passing - in fact you do a small version of this "time travel" every time you sleep and then become conscious again about 8 hours into the future.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are confused again. No one said they travel backwards in time. They travel forward in time.
Well mainstream accepted opinion in general is saying it is time travel.....and more importantly, so do I.
TRAVELLING TWIN: [ on returning to Earth]How's Obama going? [to a white house security gaurd]
SECURITY GAURD: Are you OK matey? He died 200 years ago!
TRAVELLING TWIN: What years is this?
SECURITY GAURD: 2214, why?
TRAVELLING TWIN: But I have only been away for 12 months.
Yeah, it's time travel!
No, I'm not. You're clinging to conviction and clutching at straws in order to believe in something for which there is no evidence at all, and which doesn't make any logical sense. Pay attention to what Billy said, and to what Dr Peter baker said. Your assertion about muons has been blown out of the water, just like the rest of the popscience woo you believe in. You know what you are don't you? You're the modern equivalent of a true believer. Only you don't put your undying faith in heaven and hell and sweet baby Jesus. You put it in time machines and the multiverse and similar garbage peddled by quacks pimping books to suckers, and competing to come up with the most outrageous speculations that will garner media attention in order to promote their careers.
We all do. "Forward in time" is the ONLY way we can as the past does not exist. Likewise you can not time travel into the future, as it does not yet exist. What you can do is slow your rate of aging (as measured by clocks on earth).There are in principle two ways people now living can live to experience New Year's eve of 2199-2200. Only one is likely to be achievable.
(1) It is use of drugs and whole body cooling to greatly slow all biological processes. That way by the calander you may be able to die 200 years after you were born.
(2) The other way to slow your biological processes as measure by earth clocks is very expensive if more than a minute is added to your life-span (as measured by earth clocks): Leave Earth's frame with prolonged accelerations of the few Gs your body can tolerate for more than an hour. Keep that acceleration up until in earth's frame you are traveling at >90% of the speed of light. (Returning to earth is not necessary and much more than doubles the cost.)
Both do EXACTLY the same thing - namely slow your rate of aging as measured by earth clocks and neither is what is normally meant by "time travel" in science fiction stories, which ignore the fact that neither the past nor the future exist somewhere for you to travel too; but if you want to call it that, OK, just don't try to say one is and the other is not "time travel" as what is happening is ONLY that your biological processes are proceeding more slowly as measured by earth's clocks.
Another way to understand this is to note that everyone on earth is already "time traveling" as far as the clocks in an inertial frame very frame very far from earth are concerned. Those clocks on the "other side of the universe" show that our clocks, including our biological processes, are advancing very slowly wrt their clocks.
Make the effort to think clearly - that will avoid your confusion.
BTW you have said the following more than half dozen times (this quote chosen as it is shortest):
now you seem to agree time travel into the non-existing past is impossible but think time travel into the non-existing future is permitted by the laws of physics. I don't know where there is any mention of different laws of physic for the past than for the future - how can you have it "both different ways"?
Last edited by a moderator:
Now my post complaing about a whole page being missing is gone, and the post I wanted to edit has returned! I copied it and re post it below the solid bar.
The page now missing had post by me telling James was very knowledgeable about science ...
Then Write-4U's post telling he did not mean to imply no one here was able to moderate
Then Farsight's post telling he wished I were the moderator and perhaps another post or two.
Do you think some one from the future is changing the past?
____________________
Paddoboy had said: "You are confused ... They travel forward in time." and I replied as below:
We all do. "Forward in time" is the ONLY way we can as the past does not exist. Likewise you can not time travel into the future, as it does not yet exist. What you can do is slow your rate of aging (as measured by clocks on earth).There are in principle two ways people now living can live to experience New Year's eve of 2199-2200. Only one is likely to be achievable.
(1) It is use of drugs and whole body cooling to greatly slow all biological processes. That way by the calander you may be able to die 200 years after you were born.
(2) The other way to slow your biological processes as measure by earth clocks is very expensive if more than a minute is added to your life-span (as measured by earth clocks): Leave Earth's frame with prolonged accelerations of the few Gs your body can tolerate for more than an hour. Keep that acceleration up until in earth's frame you are traveling at >90% of the speed of light. (Returning to earth is not necessary and much more than doubles the cost.)
Both do EXACTLY the same thing - namely slow your rate of aging as measured by earth clocks and neither is what is normally meant by "time travel" in science fiction stories, which ignore the fact that neither the past nor the future exist somewhere for you to travel too; but if you want to call it that, OK, just don't try to say one is and the other is not "time travel" as what is happening is ONLY that your biological processes are proceeding more slowly as measured by earth's clocks.
Another way to understand this is to note that everyone on earth is already "time traveling" as far as the clocks in an inertial frame very frame very far from earth are concerned. Those clocks on the "other side of the universe" show that our clocks, including our biological processes, are advancing very slowly wrt their clocks.
Make the effort to think clearly - that will avoid your confusion.
BTW you have said the following more than half dozen times (this quote chosen as it is shortest):
Pages earlier, paddoboy had said (quoting the entire post, which was all in bold): ↑
"The over riding fact on this subject is that the laws of physics and GR in no way forbid the possibility of time travel.
And any sufficiently advanced civilisation could achieve it, even our own.
Both are undeniable facts accepted by all mainstream common sense logical physicists."
I noted:
now you seem to agree time travel into the non-existing past is impossible but think time travel into the non-existing future is permitted by the laws of physics. I don't know where there is any mention of different laws of physic for the past than for the future - how can you have it "both different ways"?
The page now missing had post by me telling James was very knowledgeable about science ...
Then Write-4U's post telling he did not mean to imply no one here was able to moderate
Then Farsight's post telling he wished I were the moderator and perhaps another post or two.
Do you think some one from the future is changing the past?
____________________
Paddoboy had said: "You are confused ... They travel forward in time." and I replied as below:
We all do. "Forward in time" is the ONLY way we can as the past does not exist. Likewise you can not time travel into the future, as it does not yet exist. What you can do is slow your rate of aging (as measured by clocks on earth).There are in principle two ways people now living can live to experience New Year's eve of 2199-2200. Only one is likely to be achievable.
(1) It is use of drugs and whole body cooling to greatly slow all biological processes. That way by the calander you may be able to die 200 years after you were born.
(2) The other way to slow your biological processes as measure by earth clocks is very expensive if more than a minute is added to your life-span (as measured by earth clocks): Leave Earth's frame with prolonged accelerations of the few Gs your body can tolerate for more than an hour. Keep that acceleration up until in earth's frame you are traveling at >90% of the speed of light. (Returning to earth is not necessary and much more than doubles the cost.)
Both do EXACTLY the same thing - namely slow your rate of aging as measured by earth clocks and neither is what is normally meant by "time travel" in science fiction stories, which ignore the fact that neither the past nor the future exist somewhere for you to travel too; but if you want to call it that, OK, just don't try to say one is and the other is not "time travel" as what is happening is ONLY that your biological processes are proceeding more slowly as measured by earth's clocks.
Another way to understand this is to note that everyone on earth is already "time traveling" as far as the clocks in an inertial frame very frame very far from earth are concerned. Those clocks on the "other side of the universe" show that our clocks, including our biological processes, are advancing very slowly wrt their clocks.
Make the effort to think clearly - that will avoid your confusion.
BTW you have said the following more than half dozen times (this quote chosen as it is shortest):
Pages earlier, paddoboy had said (quoting the entire post, which was all in bold): ↑
"The over riding fact on this subject is that the laws of physics and GR in no way forbid the possibility of time travel.
And any sufficiently advanced civilisation could achieve it, even our own.
Both are undeniable facts accepted by all mainstream common sense logical physicists."
I noted:
now you seem to agree time travel into the non-existing past is impossible but think time travel into the non-existing future is permitted by the laws of physics. I don't know where there is any mention of different laws of physic for the past than for the future - how can you have it "both different ways"?
Last edited by a moderator: