Time Travel is Science Fiction

[origin]

You obviously have not fully understood what I wrote. I agree to a dilation, but not a dilation of time.

Then quite simply, you are wrong.

A dilation of timing by different gravitational strengths, the Physics involved and not Invisible Pink Unicorns.

You are the unicorn rustler in this discussion.

 

[billvon]

A failure by the Caesium atom to keep a constant rate by displacement of gravity, and not sci-fi.

You could look at it that way. A failure by the cesium atom (and every other process) to keep the time of another reference frame. They always keep the time of their own reference frame.

Place two Caesium clocks in the same reference frame, and no dilation, in another words, place two clocks on the aeroplane in the Keating test.

Or........place one on the ground, one on the plane, run the experiment, swap clocks around to their relative position, run the experiment again, and what do you know, no change in the outcome of running the test twice and swapping them around.

They will cancel each other out.

Exactly. Because each experiences only the time in its own frame. Swap frames halfway and the slow clock catches up to the fast one. (And that will be true if the clocks are mechanical, biological, light-based, atomic etc.)

To formalise it, it is not time slowing down at a greater distance away from a gravitational force, it is the rate of output of the Caesium atom that slows down. Your timing device, not time itself.

There's no difference. If every single observable process slows down (including whatever you are using to measure time in that frame) then for all intents and purposes time is slowing down.

This also shows us, that a gravitational force, drains energy away from matter.

Nope.

A third observer from a perceived external visual , wonders what all the fuss is, because they record no change in timing.

No one ever records a change in timing in their own frame.

 

[Billy T]

I've a better idea...You argue that out with the professors...all of them....Alcubierre, Sagan [oops, he's passed on, so you might have to wait until we can nut out the problems and paradoxes with backward time travel] Thorne, Kaku and whatever others I have linked to throughout this thread.

I agree with them all. They are NOT saying that any point in the future exists now for you to travel to it. They tell some ways that your aging processes can be made to slow compared to a twin brother on earth who does not use one of them. The New Years celebration of 2015/2016 does not yet exist for you to "time travel" to it. That I my point. There is no "future" now existing. When it arrives to our "now" it will briefly exist (< four seconds for humans to still perceive / experience as hearing someone speak. Read about echoic memory.) before becoming part of the non-existing past. The professors and I agree there are means to slow your rate of aging so you can in principle live to see the New Year 2100 arrive into the now; but in practice that will be possible for readers here, only via "suspended animation."

I have reviewed your often repeated false claims (about "time travel" not just being slowed aging with time coming into the "now" but existing somewhere you can travel to; about time having observable properties; and being essential for physic, not just a convenient parameter in equations that allow two equations to be "decoupled.") Here is the result of that review (with reference to your post etc. Sorry it is a long post, but needed to be to be accurate, precise, and nearly complete):

To:
Paddoboy & others who believe time is real with observable properties or that the future and/or past exist somewhere now you can travel to:

Post 28 of the “what is time” thread could and should have closed that thread and this one, but many BELIEVE that it can not be correct that the entire universe (classical & quantum) can be completely described without any mention of “time” yet can find no error in the mathematical PROOF of that in post 28 or in Mach's proof of the same given more than 100 years earlier. Time is an unnecessary POSTUALTE, but a convenient one.

We use a "t" in the equations of physics as a great convenience because then you do not need to couple the phenomena you are discussing to any SPECIFICE other; but in fact the "t" is ALWAYS given by some other phenomena - often the motion in a device we call a "clock." (I gave an example with the second equation being about the burning of a candle.) For more than 100 years, without significant challenge by Ph.D. physicists it has been known that the time “t” in equations is not needed, just a convenience as succinctly stated here:

Prof. Barbour: “If nothing changes, one cannot speak about time. Thus, change is primary. Moreover, one can formulate laws of change without the notion of time as something which exists in addition to the things that change.”

You repeatedly ASSERT the converse, with never any supporting quote* that most physicist believe time is real. (Newton included. You cherry picked a few of Newton's words (your post 148 of that other thread) when you noted and PARTIALLY quoted him: Even Issac Newton acknowledged in "Principia Mathematica the inevitable flow of time.” Just words you put in Newton's mouth. - I objected in several posts (180, 223, etc. to 811) to those words cherry picked from Newton's mouth, and asked for an actual quote. But got none, so I gave full quote of Newton's words:

... Here, in its entirety is what Newton said (with some parts made bold where he clearly states this "mathematical time" is NOT observable.):

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year."

I agree completely, Common time is sensible - measured by "means of motion" and his absolute mathematical time or "true time" is not “sensible.”

This is in complete accord with my POV. Newton's true or mathematical time is NOT observable / sensible. It is not tied to any clock or movement. It may or may not be real but is the t parameter used in equations describing real evolution or change in real observable events and from post 345:
“No extra, un-needed hypotheses should be made. My post 28 proof only shows that there is no need of that extra hypotheses that time exists, so neither I nor Newton, made that un-needed hypotheses. Newton is quite explicit in stating his "mathematical time" also called by him "true time" is not sensible (or in my terms has no detectable effect) Newton contrasts this mathematical time with common time like hours and days, noting even that in terms of his mathematical time, these common times are not even constants (as Earth's orbit is slightly elliptical, not circular).
Newton does not violate Ockham's razor. - In fact it is the very first of his "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy" that starts "Book Three of the Principles of Mathematics." It is (in Andrew Motte's translation of the third edition, completed by Newton on 12 January 1726):

"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances" No magic, No God, No time, as they are NOT necessary to "explain their appearances"

Finally in post 293, you admitted you could not find Newton saying that but offered this “cherry picked” start of one of Newton's sentences: “Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external...” In post 336 above, I completed what Newton actually said.

You have and continue to assert the opposite of post 28's mathematical proof – I. e. that (1) Time is essential for describing what we can and do observe."(Math is NOT refuted by assertions.) and assert that: (2) “The "t" commonly fund in equations of physics is observable / has properties at: www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-time.143040/page-40#post-3248515f and offering more assertions like: "Without time, there would be no motion.” as "proof."

Too long for one sciforums post - so it continues in the next.

 

[Billy T]

Continuation of prior post:

You asserted many times (more than a dozen you even said) that Sagan, Thorne, Smolin, Carroll, Kaku, and Hawking say either of (1) or (2) or both above; but cannot quote them so saying. Thus you are (at worst) just putting words in their mouths too (expressing your opinion as you did to Newton); or you are (at best) misunderstanding their POV.

You did give a video talk (at http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/) as “evidence” but did not tell any specific point in the video that supported your POV. I watched it and then listed a few places where he refuted your POV. (See post 827.)

SUMMARY: You need to give clear, REFERENCED, quotes, stating (1) & (2) or admit you were misunderstanding or putting words in their mouths. But in any case, please stop making UNSUPORTED ASSERTIONS. Many repetitions of them do not make them true.
-----------------------------------------

* True you did quote Carroll as saying that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was a mystery (in his opinion as time is reversible at the quantum level) but I have explained that the 2nd Law is just Statistic's “law of larger numbers” as the are many more ways, for example, to arrange the 10Kg of sand existing on a beach initially in the form of some child's “sand castle” so that sand will become disorganized with higher entropy. For a quantitative example (N coins shaken in a cigar box) See point (3) of post: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-time.143040/page-15#post-3244796

I have also noted that the 2nd law is almost NEVER true when gravity is the dominate force: For example, our highly organized (low entropy) solar system violated the 2nd law to evolve from a very chaotic higher entropy gas cloud.

In post http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-time.143040/page-38#post-3248334 you do quote:
(1) Sagan saying: "Time travel into the indefinite future is consistent with the laws of nature."
and I agree, but note that the “time travel” he refers to (like the “traveling twin returing to Earth 250 years after he was born) is ALWAYS just some means of slowing the rate of aging. There is no “future” to travel to.
I also note you did not quote the last two "summary sentences" of Sagan's article the above quote was taken from. They are: “We don't know that time travel is even possible, and if it is, we certainly haven't developed the time machine. But it's a stunning fact that we have now reached a stage in our understanding of nature where this is even a bare possibility.” More of your "cheery picking!"
Read full article at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/Sagan-Time-Travel.html

(2) In the Rebirth of Time, Smolin … “finds that contemporary physics eliminates time.” He argues persuasively that any adequate cosmology rests on making time and “NOW” fundamental.” Read it here: http://leesmolin.com/writings/time-reborn/ but your quote is just from a review by a retired professor emeritus from the University of Pennsylvania, not Smolin.
After admitting time is not needed in the contemporary known physic, he suggest it may be “fundamental” in a better underderstand of the first few femtoseconds of the BB's inflation, which are only conjure, that make it more probably that our highly specific “physical constant” are what they are – If only very very slightly different, we could not have evolved. He is NOT asserting time will be needed to describe that very early stage of cosmology – only that it might be.

(3) At http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed Thorne says:
“This personal character of time allows one person to travel forward in time much faster than another, a phenomenon embodied in the so-called twins paradox. One twin (call him Methuselah) stays at home on Earth; the other (Florence) travels out into the Universe at high speed and then returns. When they meet at the end of the trip, Florence will have aged far less than Methuselah; for example, Florence may have aged 30 years and Methuselah 4,500 years.”

I agree, one's “personal rate” of aging can be slower than someone else's is.** Thorne also notes that this slowing of aging rate can be achieved by orbiting just outside the event horizon of a black hole. In all these case one is NOT traveling into a future time that does not exist now, but living longer to see that future hour arrive – just as if having been in suspended animation for years before being “re-animated.”

(4) You cited this video of Carroll's http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/ but as discussed above it refutes your POV (at the spots in post 827 I cited above) – you cited none.

** Mine is. Most estimate I am at least 20 years younger than I am. This has been achieved by never smoking, lots of swimming or walking; only oils that are liquid at room temperature in diet (mostly soy and some olive oil, never butter or fats) with lots of fresh fruits which are cheap in Brazil; red meat only when it is free (at a party or at an all-you-can eat restaurant AND salad instead is not available.***) My breakfast every morning is two cups of coffee, a 1 minute microwaved banana, with raw oats and yoghurt I make from powdered milk, over it. Plus about ten vitamins (only the 5000 units of D3 may be needed as I do avoid the sun.)
A few years ago I had very complete general physical, including a whole body tomography scan and stress exercise testing, plus three different types of Doppler tests of the circulation system, and more than 30 blood tests - all within the norms. I wanted the tread mill of the stress test to run faster than it could! - I am sort of a "show off" and proud to be so healthy at my age. The doctor running the test said the speed was limited as too much risk of people falling off if it went faster.

*** There is a type of restaurant in Brazil that basically only serves meat - large pieces cooked on rotating shafts. The waiters come to your table and cut off slices of it. I avoid going there if possible - last such visit was more than three years ago.

 

[paddoboy]

What can I say?...Much ado about nothing!
You have told me so far in this and the other time thread, that I havn't answered this, or done that, or proved something else, and in all those cases, I have shown you to be grossly in error.
Now my post certainly won't be any where near as long as yours.....I don't really need to make unsubstantiated claims, or carry on with philosophical bullshit.
But just a few points....
Your post 28 was in no way any supposed end to this thread....Your maths was not conclusive and did in no way invalidate the fact that time travel is not forbidden by the laws of physics and GR, and that the equations of GR do lead to many methods as to how this can be achieved......
Secondly I said nothing about any past or future existing, although this in itself is respected scientific speculation that all points in time are equally valid and real...They call it the block Universe. But again, I have yet to ever refer to that. All I have said is that...
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND GR DO NOT FORBID TIME TRAVEL AND ANY SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED CIVILISATION COULD ACHIEVE IT.

Thirdly, all my links so far support that concept and nothing I have supplied has been taken out of context, which is far more then you or Farsight are able to claim.
Fourthly, as I have pointed out to you a few times, your's and Farsight's continued dragging of red herrings like clocks, candles and what not, do nothing for your cause......
Fifthly my claims stand in regards to Carroll, Smolin, Sagan, Thorne and company, seeing time dilation and other methods as TIME TRAVEL
To claim any different is to be dishonest like Farsight.
Sixthly, You have already been told you are wrong by the last professor in this regard, and you need to accept that....
And finally, just as in the debate about whether time is real, the possibility or otherwise of time travel, is in no way 100% faitre compleii...It is in reality undecided and unknown. To claim you are 100% faitre compleii correct, is again to be dishonest.

The only faitre compleii facts to come out of all this is the following.
TIME TRAVEL IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND GR, AND ANY SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED CIVILISATION COULD ACHIEVE THAT.

I will though withdraw my Higg's particle and field as a means of achieving this. [for the time being!]

 

[paddoboy]

You obviously have not fully understood what I wrote. I agree to a dilation, but not a dilation of time.

We have experimental and observational evidence for time dilation. To deny that is very foolish. Just as foolish as someone attempting to claim that light is an illusion and dark and shadows are real.
You do seem overly obsessed by pink Unicorns...each to there own I suppose. :shrug:

 

[paddoboy]

SUMMARY: You need to give clear, REFERENCED, quotes, stating (1) & (2) or admit you were misunderstanding or putting words in their mouths. But in any case, please stop making UNSUPORTED ASSERTIONS.

I NEED TO DO NOTHING!
IT'S YOUR ASSERTIONS THAT ARE UNSUPPORTED. I HAVE GIVEN WHOLE LINKS NOT " OUT OF CONTEXT" EXTRACTIONS.
AND ALL THOSE LINKS SUPPORT MY FACTUAL CLAIM THAT.......
TIME TRAVEL IS NOT FORBIDDEN: :ANY SUFFICIENTLY ADVANCED CIVILISATION COULD ACHIEVE IT:

 

[paddoboy]

Another Interesting link......
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/marcus-chown/is-time-travel-possible_b_5697312.html
extract:
It's all down to Einstein. In his "general theory of relativity" of 1915, he showed that time flows at different rates in different gravity: slower in strong gravity, faster in weak gravity. So, all you need for a time machine is a region of space where gravity is weak and time flows normally - say the Earth - and one where gravity is strong and time flows more slowly - say close to a black hole.

Now imagine clocks which start ticking in both locations on, say, Monday. By the time it's Friday on the Earth, it's still only Wednesday by the black hole. If there is a way to go instantaneously from the black hole to the Earth, it is possible to travel from Friday back to Wednesday. So, is there? Remarkably, yes. Einstein's theory permits a tunnel or short-cut through space-time. It's called a "wormhole".

The recipe for a time machine is therefore this: Take the Earth and a region near a black hole, and connect them with a wormhole.


So let's recap. The recipe for a time machine is a black hole; a wormhole; type of matter with repulsive gravity that we don't know exists; and the energy emitted by appreciable fraction of the stars in our Milky Way during their lifetimes. Nobody said making a practical time machine was easy!

The point is not that it is possible to build a time machine in practice. It's mind-bogglingy hard. Except for a super-advanced technological civilisation it would appear impossible. The point is that it is possible to build a time machine in principle.


Please Billy take note of that last sentence!

 

[Farsight]

Marcus Chown is a popscience writer. Wormholes are science fiction, repulsive gravity is science fiction, time travel is science fiction. And did you see this?

Einstein's theory permits a tunnel or short-cut through space-time

No it doesn't. Spacetime models space at all times. You can draw worldlines in it to represent motion through space over time, but it's static. It's the block universe. There is no motion through spacetime. You can't move through it, and you can't take a short cut through it. Oh, and dark energy is not "the repulsive gravity that is speeding up cosmic expansion". To be brutally frank, this guy is peddling popscience pseudoscience for suckers and kids. Wise up.

 

[paddoboy]

Marcus Chown is a popscience writer. Wormholes are science fiction, repulsive gravity is science fiction, time travel is science fiction. And did you see this?

And pray tell, what is Farsight? What credentials do you hold? Were you delusional when you claimed to rewrite 21st century cosmology and have a ToE? Does this delusional state continue, unabatted, adinfinitum?
Stay tuned for the next instalement!

Einstein's theory permits a tunnel or short-cut through space-time

No it doesn't. Spacetime models space at all times.

Yes it does. Space, time, spacetime are really one and 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

Every link I have supplied are all reputable and all from professional qualified experts.
You, Farsight are just an amateur.
Do better.

 

[billvon]

Marcus Chown is a popscience writer. Wormholes are science fiction, repulsive gravity is science fiction, time travel is science fiction. And did you see this?

Einstein's theory permits a tunnel or short-cut through space-time

No it doesn't.

From Space.com:

================
Wormhole theory

In 1935, physicists Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen used the theory of general relativity to propose the existence of "bridges" through space-time. These paths, called Einstein-Rosen bridges or wormholes, connect two different points in space-time, theoretically creating a shortcut that could reduce travel time and distance.

Wormholes contain two mouths, with a throat connecting the two. The mouths would most likely be spheroidal. The throat might be a straight stretch, but it could also wind around, taking a longer path than a more conventional route might require.

Einstein's theory of general relativity mathematically predicts the existence of wormholes, but none have been discovered to date. A negative mass wormhole might be spotted by the way its gravity affects light that passes by.

Certain solutions of general relativity allow for the existence of wormholes where the mouth of each is a black hole. However, a naturally occurring black hole, formed by the collapse of a dying star, does not by itself create a wormhole.
================

 

[paddoboy]

Time travel although allowed for in GR, is never-the-less hard for some to accept.
Why is that possibility so hard to accept? For the same reasons that the inferences and realities of our greatest theories, SR/GR were so hard to accept for laypeople....and the existence of BH's....quantum weirdness etc etc They are counter-intuitive on face value.
The Universe is a weird and wonderful place, and our "intuitive" state of mind, is denoted by what we experience at sub relativistic speeds, in an earth based environment.

The issue for people to overcome and realise is summed up in that last paragraph in my previous link......
"The point is not that it is possible to build a time machine in practice. It's mind-bogglingy hard. Except for a super-advanced technological civilisation it would appear impossible. The point is that it is possible to build a time machine in principle".


The above is all I have ever claimed, and I see nothing yet to shift my views on that score.....In fact, what I do see is plenty of support from many reputable professional links.
This has been infected somewhat with plenty of skirting around that prime issue by the naysayers, coupled with irrelevant red herrings and nonsensical non analogies.

 

[paddoboy]

Certain solutions of general relativity allow for the existence of wormholes where the mouth of each is a black hole. However, a naturally occurring black hole, formed by the collapse of a dying star, does not by itself create a wormhole.
================

Except we are unaware of what happens at the singularity. It has been speculated that a wormhole may exist via an ERB and an out-pouring [WH] into another space time.

Once again I raise also the Kerr metric BH, ergosphere and ring singularity.
I find that scenario as open for plenty of speculative debate, based on theoretical possibilities of the model.

 

[Farsight]

And pray tell, what is Farsight? What credentials do you hold?

None. And my credentials don't matter. What matters is the evidence and the logic. And it's all on my side.

Except we are unaware of what happens at the singularity. It has been speculated that a wormhole may exist via an ERB and an out-pouring [WH] into another space time.

LOL, you do so love your woo, don't you?

 

[Dr_Toad]

What matters is the evidence and the logic. And it's all on my side.

 

[LaurieAG]

I am not familiar with the paper, so I cannot comment.

http://areeweb.polito.it/ricerca/relgrav/solciclos/gron_d.pdf

Origin, maybe you and any other posters who are interested should get across as it is much more complex than this time travel issue and the results are clear.

Here's a link to one solution (and the calculations) that agrees with Gron on another forum. Not only are the points on the wheel moving at relativistic velocity in x, y + time the axle can be shown to be traveling consistently at the same velocity along the x axis + time (in the axle velocity between events column).

http://www.thephysicsforum.com/spec...elativistic-rolling-wheel-ii-3.html#post12704

I think it's time for people to start putting up some real information if they know any better.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Again you seem rather befuddled and confused.
When we see the Sun "now", due to the finite speed of light, that "now" was 8.25 minutes ago for any imaginary being sitting on the Sun.
Can you do simple mathematics?

At t=0 (12:00 O'clock our time and the sun's time) the light leaves the sun. At t=8.25 minutes (12:08.25 (the sun's and our time)) the light arrives at earth and we see it at 12:08.25. It left the sun at 12:00 and arrived at earth at 12:08.25.

Do I have to teach you how to tell time now? Are you for real??

 

[paddoboy]

None. And my credentials don't matter. What matters is the evidence and the logic. And it's all on my side.

Of course it matters...You just confirmed you are a fraud.

LOL, you do so love your woo, don't you?

Just legitimate scientific speculation.......You just confirmed that you are the one peddling fraud...see above.

 

[paddoboy]

Do I have to teach you how to tell time now? Are you for real??

The crux of the whole matter, is you need to recognise that you are looking into the past, courtesy of the constant finite speed of light.
Do better.

 

[tashja]

No no. For a being sitting on the sun, the light takes 16.50 minutes to reach his eyes. 8.25 minutes for the light from the sun to reach earth, and another 8.25 for the light to be reflected back. j/k