What do I mean by esoteric? It is a theoretical analysis which has no immediate possibility for empirical testing. For me it's a fun prediction derived from GR. It's also associated with the 'speculative' topic of this thread.
Time Travel is Science Fiction
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
paddoboy #1157
Consider two house flies, whose life span is a few days. One is born in the north while there is still snow on the ground. The 2nd is born in the south where everything is green. Each writes a description of the world around them. Their papers are published worldwide. (Flies are avid readers, and with their faceted eyes, they can read two papers simultaneously!) In the course of a year, many generations read them with mixed reactions. One paper promotes a paradise like state, but the other promotes a harsh, cold environment.
Since a human has a lifespan about 10,000 times longer, we can explain the differences in the authors conclusions.
If the hypothetical age of the universe is about 14 billion years, then our flys eye view of the world is 1/200,000,000 of its age. Even the collective work of 200 yrs of science is extremely brief.
Does anyone think humanity can get a complete or thorough understanding of the universe, in what amounts to a blink of an eye?
true because...?
true because...?
true because...?
Consider two house flies, whose life span is a few days. One is born in the north while there is still snow on the ground. The 2nd is born in the south where everything is green. Each writes a description of the world around them. Their papers are published worldwide. (Flies are avid readers, and with their faceted eyes, they can read two papers simultaneously!) In the course of a year, many generations read them with mixed reactions. One paper promotes a paradise like state, but the other promotes a harsh, cold environment.
Since a human has a lifespan about 10,000 times longer, we can explain the differences in the authors conclusions.
If the hypothetical age of the universe is about 14 billion years, then our flys eye view of the world is 1/200,000,000 of its age. Even the collective work of 200 yrs of science is extremely brief.
Does anyone think humanity can get a complete or thorough understanding of the universe, in what amounts to a blink of an eye?
Better still, consider the fact that the laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel, and the GR equations show the methodology and probable solution.
Otherwise your whole post is totally meaningless and irrelevant.
????
Let's submit the part of my post the above is referencing from 1157......
"""I reason that anything that is not forbidden by the laws of physics and GR, and are valid solutions of GR, could by any sufficiently advanced civilisation, be possible.
None of us can really give a 100% certainty of what can eventuate and what we may be able to achieve in the future...there are too many variables, not the least being that Earth/Sun do have a "use by date"
That though gives us around 3 billion years to be able to achieve [if possible] all those GR solutions which are not forbidden.
I don't see my stance as arrogant or stubborn...I'm not giving any 100% faitre complei certainty that time travel, spacetime manipulation, matter transportation etc etc are certain.
I'm saying they are possible by an advanced civilisation.
And in all reality, if we don't achieve all those possibilities, along with inter-stellar travel, then we are doomed as a species.
In summing, we were not born to stagnate on this fart arse little blue orb""".
I'm rather confused phyti. What do you require me to do? Give reasons wht the earth does have a "use by date"?
That is patently obvious as are my other assumptions you seem to question or ask for reasons.
Last edited:
what about the scale of the flies time flow ?
why would you think it would be the same as humans ?
that short span of the flies life could have a perception of 100 years within one year of our scale.
Now would this be the same George Bush that invited those with slightly less than white complexions and rather dark beards to a free stay at an hotel in Guantanamo Bay? Such luxuries as not being bothered by conversation with room-mates, not having to be bothered by mindless TV, irritating phone calls, or equally irritating internet sites, plus a free hair, ear, nose and mouth wash up to 8 times a day in refreshingly cold water.
Landau Roof
Registered Senior Member
Wrong again bobble head. If you were anyone else, by which I mean someone respectable and not a hopeless comic-book referencing troll, I would cite you links. Look it up yourself if you know how. Ah, I feel sorry for you:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hu...-space-exploration.142510/page-3#post-3237399
That's one of my latest of several, which is way more than you've got or will ever be capable of. Now please do not acknowledge my existence ever again. I'd like that.
Don't be too concerned Krash. I havn't quite worked him out as yet, whether just an anti-science/authoritarian phobia, or some religious orientated phobia, suffice to say he fits into the Farsight category.
I'm slightly ahead of you at this stage, as both landau and farsight have me on their ignore list, so you have some catching up to do.
Both though obviously quite frequently can't help but have a peek at my posts!
cute [ i think i can, i think i can].several of what ? elementary, disabled thinking ?
i do think that post is " sad and yet laughable ". it's nothing, nothing at all.
it's like you have been under a rock all your life and you recently discovered everything.
it's massively obvious how ridiculous you are, but please continue.
BdS
Registered Senior Member
So a star a few light years away has a different mass, velocity and located in a different gravitational potential than our own star. Is it transmitting to our star from the future?
and mars has a different mass, velocity to Earth and located in a different gravity potential, so is it in the future?
If im traveling past the earth at 0.8c I'll see the earth going backwards?
"the laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel"
what about the laws of nature?
I'm with Einstein, rememberber? I think the Copenhagen Interpretation is junk. Junk that's way past its sell-by date. And I disagree about QM making no sense. I think it makes perfect sense when you understand it. Start a thread and I'll tell you what I can.
I understood everything, and I also understand that time travel to multiple futures is woo.
I'm no menace. But I am a threat to woo-peddlers like you, Quackhead. Because I'm no moron. And by the way, you still haven't addressed the OP. And we all know you won't, don't we?
No it doesn't. Palle Yourgrau addressed this in A World Without Time: the Forgotten Legacy of Gödel and Einstein. See page 142: "Wheeler, unfortunately, has conflated a temporal circle with a cycle, precisely missing the force of Gödel's conclusion..." In other words, you don't move along a worldline. It merely represents motion through space. A closed timelike curve doesn't represent Groundhog Day. Instead of living the same day over and over you live for one day only, with neither cause nor consequence. It's more like Mayfly Day.
Not when you understand it it doesn't. Einstein gave the equations of motion. And there is no way you can move such that everything else in the universe is back where it was such that its recent motion never happened.
It's a physics discussion. People like Krash661 and PhysBang are the trolls, not people like Billy and me.
There are two huge problems with this answer. First, it has absolutely nothing to do with thermodynamics. I know, it's a branch of physics that has applciations, so Farsight thinks that it is beneath him, but still, this answer is merely a dodge to something that Farsight is more comfortable with, the textual analysis of a book he has access to. (Perhaps access to only this passage?)
Second, it concedes the point. As the full passage points out, GR allows timelike curves. The events are always the same on these curves, yet, but they are part of the theory.
Farsight attempts to deceive us by not telling us Godel's conclusion. However, one can actually read the book, which Farsight seems to forget. Sure, it's a bad book and probably didn't sell very well, but that doesn;t mean it's not available.
Here is Godel's conclusion that Farsight wanted to hide: "that the possibility of closed, future directed,
timelike curves, i.e., time travel, proves that space-time is a space, not a time in the intuitive sense."
So Yourgrau's position is that Godel proved that GR allows "time travel". Yourgrau might be wrong in his understanding of "space" (throughout the book he seems to be equivocating between the space of mathematics and set theory and the space of place for physical objects).
Except that Godel showed that one could, as Yourgrau outlined in the book that Farsight cites over nad over again.
While Billy T has his problems in reasoning, he is nothing like you, Farsight. He sometimes attempts to present physics. Here you have lied and dodged any physics question put to you. I'm sure that you'll jut respond to that charge rather than to any of the textual analysis I did above.
it's like a baskin robbins 31 flavors employee telling a expert welder how to weld a building. then the welder tells ice cream guy, " no that's incorrect"
then the ice cream guy goes around telling everyone that the expert welder is completely wrong and does not know how to weld a building. then tells his ice cream friends that the welder agrees with the ice cream guy.
not only does it appear to be the actions of a mentally disabled individual but it's also extensively hilarious.
Last edited:
With all the respect that is due to you (i.e. not much). You are fond of selective text-quoting. If you read these texts as carefully as you read my posts, it is small wonder you are confused.
Note bene I never once asserted that time travel was a realistic possibility, I merely pointed out some things that might be considered if it were. Likewise I indicated no particular preference for one interpretation of QM phenomena over another - I was simply pointing out that they are all weird according to the classical thinking that we grey-beards are more comfortable with
Self-assessment is rarely reliable
Of course it is. So to was TV at one time.... so to was planes....so were telephones. Shall I go on?
But the inference by the OP was that it is sci/fi and will remain sci'fi for all eternity.
That is not absolutely true. Why?
Because the laws of physics and GR do not forbid it, and the equations of GR give valid solutions to the problem.
We though are not sufficiently advanced enough to develop the technology to take advantage of those valid solutions.