Another rather light take on the situation....
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/time-travel.html
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/time-travel.html
Time Travel is Science Fiction
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
http://www.hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.html
extract:
At first sight, all these seem possible. For example, in 1948, Kurt Goedel found a solution of the field equations of General Relativity, which represents a universe in which all the matter was rotating. In this universe, it would be possible to go off in a space ship, and come back before you set out. Goedel was at the Institute of Advanced Study, in Princeton, where Einstein also spent his last years. He was more famous for proving you couldn't prove everything that is true, even in such an apparently simple subject as arithmetic. But what he proved about General Relativity allowing time travel really upset Einstein, who had thought it wouldn't be possible.
We now know that Goedel's solution couldn't represent the universe in which we live, because it was not expanding. It also had a fairly large value for a quantity called the cosmological constant, which is generally believed to be zero. However, other apparently more reasonable solutions that allow time travel, have since been found
extract:
At first sight, all these seem possible. For example, in 1948, Kurt Goedel found a solution of the field equations of General Relativity, which represents a universe in which all the matter was rotating. In this universe, it would be possible to go off in a space ship, and come back before you set out. Goedel was at the Institute of Advanced Study, in Princeton, where Einstein also spent his last years. He was more famous for proving you couldn't prove everything that is true, even in such an apparently simple subject as arithmetic. But what he proved about General Relativity allowing time travel really upset Einstein, who had thought it wouldn't be possible.
We now know that Goedel's solution couldn't represent the universe in which we live, because it was not expanding. It also had a fairly large value for a quantity called the cosmological constant, which is generally believed to be zero. However, other apparently more reasonable solutions that allow time travel, have since been found
Actually, you cannot know that either. It is still theoretical. And a projection of limited local evidence that does not include the lifespan of a person. It remains theoretical.
What's theoretical? Time dilation??
I beg to differ, and see your claim that it cannot be projected to macro objects [a person] as totally unsupported.
Re-read the sentence that I emphasized in bold.
Note I did not point out that you cannot travel at relativistic velocities.., and there is no evidence that any massive object apart from isolated particles and bare ionized nucei has ever been observed to do so. That being the case, even if you could reach 0.9c you would likely not live to find out how time dilation would affect your aging.
I get on these kicks about making the distinction between knowing something and believing it to be accurate. I have some ideas and speculations about the fundamental nature of inertia and gravity, but I don't know
What you emphasized in bold, is based on relativity equations, and time dilation.
We wont travel at anywhere near 99.9999% light speed directly. But if our technology allows and the predictions of GR are correct [have we any reason to doubt that in this day and age] then we maybe able to manipulate the topology of spacetime to achieve a perception of relativistic speeds......If we ever are sufficiently advanced, we maybe able to construct a wormhole and finally we would be able to extract energy or enter and return from the ergosphere of a Kerr type BH, and in addition, if passing through the spin axis of such a BH and aligned properly with precision, we could pass through its ring singularity, without being torn asunder.
All specualtive, all sci/fi at this time in our species history, all extremely difficult to achieve, but none impossible.
non-sense
Paddoboy, I have no problem with imagination, speculation and hypotheticals note the difference between how you presented your case above and..,
Because time dilation is a fact.....It happens.
The speculative stuff surfaces when we have to achieve the means.
Last edited:
The topic is, does time travel exist, is time travel sci-fi. By not discussing the routes of ''time'', you are all considering and starting the topic half way through.
The question should be, does time exist, that allows us to pass through it backward and forwards.
You say quite simply I am wrong. I would say the exact to anyone whom believes in time travel.
I have heard several explanations of time travel, and gibberish logic it is, that by simple Physics can be over ruled.
I consider one of the most amusing ideas, like in the Superman series of films, where superman flies around the Earth the opposite way to reverse time.
Where this is not possible, the only action involved is opposite direction at a greater speed.
Technically to travel back in time, we would have to de-evolve. And evidence of experiment , does not show de-evolving, but only a slow down of evolving.
This does not relate to time, in any sense of the word time. and relates to a dilation of decay of the object.
Example- I place one Caesium atom in a plane and one Caesium atom on the ground, and the plane flies around the Earth several times to make the dilation.
I time the period of time it takes , for the Caesium atom on the plane, to be placed back next to the one on the ground.
The plane A
The Atom in the plane B
The atom on the ground C
I start to count, 24hrs later precisely, B is next to A.
Both A and B travelled relatively the same period of ''time''. Both A and B travel the exact period of time relatively to C.
Example 2 - I place B , on top of a mountain, and again time the interval of displacement from C, again relatively the same period of time is recorded.
In both examples, relative to B and C, they emit differently on their internal timings.
Science is saying the equivalent of, we can time travel, because the drips from the tap have slowed down.
This is not time, it is timing by device, and not very accurate devices I must say.
Example 3- A stationary Caesium clock on Earth, counts the passage of time, the gravity of Earth underneath the clock, decides to have slight fluctuations, effecting the clocks timing.
Can you not see the reality of it?
Added- Logical axioms over rule all.
example 4 - I make a counting device that drips water, 1 drip per second, that hits a surface for counting.
I fly this device around the world, the drips slow down the rate of emission by less gravity force. Oh, I invented time travel <not>.
Last edited:
Apparently you do not have the brain power to understand simple conversations, or you are just dishonest.
You said time dilation does not occur and I said, "quite simply you are wrong". I said that because you are wrong.
I said nothing about time travel.
And I said you are simply wrong, because it is not time that dilates, it is a change of timing, and this is an axiom, so why try to deny it, when the truth speaks for itself?.
The problem is that you have shown you are ignorant of science in general and physics in particular. The fact that you cannot understand an aspect of physics does not make it wrong, it only means you cannot understand it. There is clear theoretical and empirical evidence that supports time dilation. You have only confusion, misuderstanding and ignorance to support your position.
There is no misunderstanding on my part. I understand the Keating experiment, I understand the experimental results, and I also understand how to fundamentally break down and formalise a process to its fundamentals. As opposed to a naive set theory. And to show that there is no transcendent meaning to a discipline other than the literal content created by a practitioner
And by using a family of approaches to the presentation of science, to construct a true reality, based on truth, and formal attributes.
You do not understand that science in this manor is defining timing devices as time. When the truth is time is a singularity that does not alter, travels passive of all interactions, and all interactions are passive through unchanged time.
Clearly you do not. The results matched what was predicted by theory. Was that just a coincidence?
Well said.
What a bunch of gibberish. Time is a singularity? What a freaking goofy thing to say.
''In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability''.Clearly you do not. The results matched what was predicted by theory. Was that just a coincidence?
Well said.
What a bunch of gibberish. Time is a singularity? What a freaking goofy thing to say.
I am trying to say, that all the interactions , including the Caesium atom dilation of ''timing'', all happens within the one dimension of ''time'', and one dimension of 3 dimensional space. It is only by matter interaction of a quantifiable scale that you can ''count'' the passage of ''time''.
Time and space is not relative to matter, matter is relative to space and time, within ''space time''. Time and space is a constant, all matter is within that constant, and travels through the constant of ''space time''.
Relative to the space time constant, the interactions or timing within the space time constant , can not alter the space time constant.
And this is not something I have sprung out of my backside, this is a logical axiom of time.
Time fails to be differential in 3 dimensional ''empty'' space.
Only if (as I think you have admitted) being in suspended animation for 229 years and then awakened to greet the find who retuned from his trip is also "time traveling." Both of your are one year older biologically than when his rocket left earth and you achieved deep suspended animation.
If you call both "time travelers" that is your choice. I think it a deceptive one, as what really happen is they used two different way to slow the rate of aging.
BTW: The laws of biology allow members of an exceedingly advanced civilisation to be in suspended animation for as long as they might wish.
Last edited by a moderator:
Again we have a semantic conflict. "You do not Look into the past" You see the light that came from the past long ago.*
Is English your native language? Mine is.
* I had a devout Mormon friend who had masters degree with major in physics. I asked him how could he believe that earth , the universe, etc. were only about 8,000 years old? His answer was faith based but irrefutable:
God made everything including the light coming from those stars and they were realtively close to earth ( not billions of light years away) God is testing your faith as he made their light red shifted etc. (For him anyway, there clearly was less than 10,000 years of "past."
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't believe you are being honest in the discussion.
The question is, Does time travel exist? Not what is time?
While how you answer the second does influence any discussion of the first, by beginning with that first question the second has been already set aside. Not necessarily agreed upon but assumed to exist. That is.., the question, Does time travel exist?, already assumes that time exists. Your statement that, "it is not time that dilates, it is a change of timing..." Is a question about time itself not time travel.
Your argument is the same as saying, I don't believe in time travel, because I don't believe in time!
There is another thread for the underlying apparent intent of your comment.