Time Travel is Science Fiction

Synching clocks has nothing to do with how much time it takes light to travel a specific distance. Light travels 299,792,458 meters in 1 second. Light travels 1 meter in 1/299,792,458 of a second. Light travels 1,582 meters in 1,582/299,792,458 of a second. There is no escaping it, no matter how much you want to.


Synchronising clocks has everything to do with it, and then to somehow magically keeping them synchronised.
Without that, you have no experiment, no matter how much it stuffs up your agenda.
And of course the fact that the speed of light is finite, dictates to how much difference there is between your now and my now, and to how far we are able to see into the past.
Edited the last sentence:
 
Last edited:
Billy T said.......
I don't think it is "time travel" any more than other means actually available* to some small extent now that slow one's rate of aging as measured by clocks on earth. Yes conceptually it is possible by accelerating for a few years at the few Gs max the body can tolerate for more than an hour, so you could in principle live to die 200 years by earth's clocks after your birth, but actually being the "traveling twin" to do that probable would cost more than a year of the world's total GDP, so will not be done, even if technically possible. ... * The drugs inducing coma and lowering whole body temperature as used mainly with brain and open heart replacement surgery, which takes most of a day to do.
...Prof. Alcubierre said:

Hi, thanks for the message. What "Billy" says is not correct. According to General Relativity, the future and past do exist. In fact, there is no absolute way to define "the present" except at a single point. Simultaneity is relative, it depends on the observer. When we solve the Einstein equations we obtain the whole spacetime, past and future included. We normally call this a "block Universe" ....
What text did he get to read? I too have said clocks in different FoR can not be synchronized. And noted that is true even in one FoR where gravity is differnent. I have also spoke of light cones and noted that the trajectories of particles in them can be indexed more than one way. Also noted that the "Now" of one FoR need not agree with (be simultaneous with) the "now of another. - that follows from fact clocks can NOT be synchronized across FoR with relative velocities.

Until Some error in what I said is stated, "Billy T is wrong" is not meaningful. Give me his address so I can discuss directly with him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm referring to the paper in the post that I initially responded to. Did you read it, and do you recognize that #8 is from the conclusion section of that paper? I'm not making it up; I quoted it and asked some questions, and though essentially true, your answers don't seem to address the questions satisfactorily.


I skimmed it. I stand by my statement. If the disk is changing rotational velocity it is accelerating. There must be a force causing that acceleration.
 
Synchronising clocks has everything to do with it, and then to somehow magically keeping them synchronised.
Without that, you have no experiment, no matter how much it stuffs up your agenda.
And of course the fact that the speed of light is finite, dictates to how much difference there is between your now and my now, and to how far we are able to see into the past.
Edited the last sentence:

So you're saying that if you can't sync a clock on the sun then you have no business claiming it takes 8.25 minutes for light to travel from the sun to the earth. I hear ya bro. I keep saying absolute time, but religious people are a force to be reckoned with. Like it or not! They have already infiltrated science and have a non scientific agenda.
 
What text did he get to read?

I sent Prof. Alcubierre posts #855 and #863, plus a link to the thread. He is clearly addressing the following remarks (my bold) in post #855:

In both cases no one is Traveling into a future that does not yet exist. We all are Traveling into future as it becomes the present. But via space ships or suspended animation, one can live longer or "age more slowly" by Earth's clocks.

It is not that the laws of physics do not prohibit time travel (or dozen of the other concepts in science fiction) - it is the simple fact that there is no where to travel too as neither the future or the past exists ANYWHERE now.


Prof. Alcubierre: What "Billy" says is not correct. According to General Relativity, the future and past do exist. In fact, there is no absolute way to define "the present" except at a single point. Simultaneity is relative, it depends on the observer. When we solve the Einstein equations we obtain the whole spacetime, past and future included. We normally call this a "block Universe".
 
So you're saying that if you can't sync a clock on the sun then you have no business claiming it takes 8.25 minutes for light to travel from the sun to the earth.

Not exactly. I'm saying that if anyone cannot see that the constant finite speed of light means that we look into the past every night, then they lack common sense and logical reasonings.

I hear ya bro. I keep saying absolute time, but religious people are a force to be reckoned with. Like it or not! They have already infiltrated science and have a non scientific agenda.

Sure they are....just as much a force as ego inflated know all's that know SFA.
On your second claim, I don't believe that to be true...maybe on forums such as this, yes, but its forums such as this that are the only outlet our religious nuts and ego inflated know all's will ever have.
And that in reality plays no part in the halls of Academia and science in general.
The scientific method and peer review will always weed out the wheat from the chaf, in both cases.
We recently had one thread thankfully assigned to the cesspool by some YEC nobody, and quite a few alternative hypothesis have been assigned there also.
No, we'll be OK...
 
Not exactly. I'm saying that if anyone cannot see that the constant finite speed of light means that we look into the past every night, then they lack common sense and logical reasonings.


If a brick starts falling at 1:03 and it hits you on the head at 1:04, what time is it where the brick started falling when the brick hits you on the head?


Sure they are....just as much a force as ego inflated know all's that know SFA.

Who are the know it all's on sciforums, AN and rpenner?
 
If a brick starts falling at 1:03 and it hits you on the head at 1:04, what time is it where the brick started falling when the brick hits you on the head?

Go have a disprin and a good lie down MD...you need it.
I'm not going to play your childish games.


Who are the know it all's on sciforums, AN and rpenner?


The question you should be asking MD, is who are those that think they know it all, but know sweet FA....
Let me name a few..Farsight, river, yourself, a few others that have been banned, Swilvester, constant-theorist, chinglu,
The two you mentioned are valuable to this forum, something you should realise.
Now have that lay down.
 
Prof. Alcubierre's response is obviously an opinion, rather than a fact.


Maybe its a question of what one views as time travel.
I do know that if I travelled at 99.9999% 'c' for 12 months, a period of around 230 years would pass on earth.
That is time travel in any language!
 
Go have a disprin and a good lie down MD...you need it.
I'm not going to play your childish games.

You can't win with your BS so you quit. I understand. Typical quitter/loser.

The question you should be asking MD, is who are those that think they know it all, but know sweet FA....
Let me name a few..Farsight, river, yourself, a few others that have been banned, Swilvester, constant-theorist, chinglu,
The two you mentioned are valuable to this forum, something you should realise.
Now have that lay down.

Laughable coming from you who can't tell time.

If a runner in the 100 meter dash leaves the start line at t=0 and crosses the finish line at t=12 seconds at 1:04:12, what time is it at the start line when the runner crosses the finish line at 1:04:12, know it all??
 
Ignoring the incessant gibberish and ranting and trolling, the position remains, as to the possibilities or otherwise of time travel.
[1]The laws of physics and GR still do not forbid it.
[2] Any sufficiently advanced civilisation will achieve it.
Going from the numerous reputable links, that appears to be the mainstream position.
Prof. Alcubierre's response certainly was an opinion, and an opinion that was similar to the opinions of Thorne, Sagan, Carroll, Smolin and Kaku, and all based on the undeniable fact that the speed of light is a constant finite "c".

It's really amazing how a couple have got so emotional over this obvious fact at [1] and [2]
 
Still can't tell time. You should seek professional psychiatric services. Oh, wait, they charge by the hour! Now what? You can't do that because the doc says you owe him one amount and you claim the time is all wrong. Chaos would ensue. Police would need to be called. You'd do jail time for being stupid. You deserve it!!
 
And time travel still remains within the realms of possibility as far as the laws of physics and GR are concerned and despite your emotional tirade. :)
 
An Interesting article......
at......
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/is-time-travel-a-possibility-now-545851

Is Time Travel a Possibility Now?
World | Press Trust of India | Updated: June 22, 2014 16:38 IST


time_travel_thinkstock_360x270.jpg

Representational image
Photo credit: thinkstockphotos

MELBOURNE: Australian researchers have used photons - single particles of light - to simulate quantum particles travelling through time.

University of Queensland researchers used photons to simulate quantum particles travelling through time and study their behaviour, possibly revealing bizarre aspects of modern physics.

"The question of time travel features at the interface between two of our most successful yet incompatible physical theories - Einstein's general relativity and quantum mechanics," said lead author and PhD student Martin Ringbauer, from UQ's School of Mathematics and Physics.

"Einstein's theory describes the world at the very large scale of stars and galaxies, while quantum mechanics is an excellent description of the world at the very small scale of atoms and molecules," he said.

Einstein's theory suggests the possibility of travelling backwards in time by following a space-time path that returns to the starting point in space, but at an earlier time - a closed timelike curve.

This possibility has puzzled physicists and philosophers alike since it was discovered by Kurt Godel in 1949, as it seems to cause paradoxes in the classical world, such as the grandparents paradox, where a time traveller could prevent their grandparents from meeting, thus preventing the time traveller's birth.

This would make it impossible for the time traveller to have set out in the first place.

UQ Physics Professor Tim Ralph said it was predicted in 1991 that time travel in the quantum world could avoid such paradoxes.

"The properties of quantum particles are 'fuzzy' or uncertain to start with, so this gives them enough wiggle room to avoid inconsistent time travel situations," he said.

In the study, the research team simulated the behaviour of a single photon that travels through a wormhole and interacts with its older self.

This was achieved by making use of a mathematical equivalence between two cases, Ringbauer told 'The Speaker'.

In the first case, photon 1 "travels through a wormhole into the past, then interacts with its older version."
In the second case, photon 2 "travels through normal space-time, but interacts with another photon that is trapped inside a CTC forever."

"We used single photons to do this but the time-travel was simulated by using a second photon to play the part of the past incarnation of the time travelling photon," Ralph said.

The study is published in the journal Nature Communications.
 
Maybe its a question of what one views as time travel.
I do know that if I travelled at 99.9999% 'c' for 12 months, a period of around 230 years would pass on earth.
That is time travel in any language!

Prof. Alcubierre: What "Billy" says is not correct. According to General Relativity, the future and past do exist.

If you read the portion of the profesor's statement in red, as in response to Billy's position, it must be assumed he is saying that both the future and the past have some physical existence, right now.., according to GR.., because Billy is saying they don't. That is an interpretation and opinion, on the part of the good professor! GR is a theory. As far as I know there is no experimental evidence supporting the idea that the past and future have any physical reality right now... While it is certain the the past did occur and that the future will occur and that GR does as a theory deal with past, present and future events.., the idea that the past and future have any physical existence right now in the present, is opinion... And there are scholars of GR on both sides of the argument.
 
Prof. Alcubierre: What "Billy" says is not correct. According to General Relativity, the future and past do exist.

If you read the portion of the profesor's statement in red, as in response to Billy's position, it must be assumed he is saying that both the future and the past have some physical existence, right now.., according to GR.., because Billy is saying they don't. That is an interpretation and opinion, on the part of the good professor! GR is a theory. As far as I know there is no experimental evidence supporting the idea that the past and future have any physical reality right now... While it is certain the the past did occur and that the future will occur and that GR does as a theory deal with past, present and future events.., the idea that the past and future have any physical existence right now in the present, is opinion... And there are scholars of GR on both sides of the argument.


I have already agreed to that many times, but a couple appear rather highly emotive on the whole issue.
Irrespective this "block universe" idea and time, does appear to be in favour by the majority.
 
Back
Top