Time Travel is Science Fiction

[Billy T]

... There is a big difference between the change of a rate of certain processes (e.g., biological processes) and the change of all possible physical processes in a coordinated fashion.

Yes. Time dilation effects every thing the same way. If one ages 25% slower than his twin on Earth, then his cesium clock "ticks" 25 % slower than one on earth does, standard candle burn down 25% slower, the same pond alga in same strength sunlight that on earth doubles in mass in a day will take four days (of earth) to double its coverage area, etc. etc. but note that the alga area doubling life time in their days is also one, the standard candle burn rate is exactly what is for one earth (measure by their clocks) etc. etc.

They don't think they are "time traveling" or with "time dilation" The first is the POV of some who know little SR physics and live stationary in a frame that is moving with respect to their's. The second is the POV of those who are better educated about what SR actually predicts. Not one well educated physicist will say that the cosmic ray muons reaching the surface of the earth, did so by "time travel" as that muon example is standardly given in physics courses as PROOF that SR's time dilation is real, not unconfirmed theory.

 

[Motor Daddy]

yeah,(shakes head) typical. you know exactly what i'm saying.
again, is age directly related to time ?

Age is the amount of time between your birthday and now...now...now... so your age increases with time. Your age can not differ from time elapsed since birth.

 

[krash661]

Age is the amount of time between your birthday and now...now...now... so your age increases with time. Your age can not differ from time elapsed since birth.

so that's a yes then ?

 

[Motor Daddy]

so that's a yes then ?

Yes, age is directly related to time. It is time elapsed since birth. Now, you were saying??

 

[krash661]

Yes, age is directly related to time. It is time elapsed since birth. Now, you were saying??

ok thanks.

 

[Motor Daddy]

ok thanks.

So you've got nothing more to say on time maintaining a constant rate of 1 second per second?? That age is time since birth?? Thought so.

 

[krash661]

So you've got nothing more to say on time maintaining a constant rate of 1 second per second?? That age is time since birth?? Thought so.

wait, now time is a constant, while we are discussing time dilation ?
agian, funny.
all in all, you do not realize what just happened by my little question.

 

[krash661]

Yes. Time dilation effects every thing the same way. If one ages 25% slower than his twin on Earth, then his cesium clock "ticks" 25 % slower than one on earth does, standard candle burn down 25% slower, the same pond alga in same strength sunlight that on earth doubles in mass in a day will take four days (of earth) to double its coverage area, etc. etc. but note that the alga area doubling life time in their days is also one, the standard candle burn rate is exactly what is for one earth (measure by their clocks) etc. etc.

They don't think they are "time traveling" or with "time dilation" The first is the POV of some who know little SR physics and live stationary in a frame that is moving with respect to their's. The second is the POV of those who are better educated about what SR actually predicts. Not one well educated physicist will say that the cosmic ray muons reaching the surface of the earth, did so by "time travel" as that muon example is standardly given in physics courses as PROOF that SR's time dilation is real, not unconfirmed theory.

what if there is no clocks or candles to measure, then what ?
i don't understand how one can say time doesn't exist, that it's just motion.
but then say time dilation slows time down.

 

[Motor Daddy]

wait, now time is a constant, while we are discussing time dilation ?
agian, funny.
all in all, you do not realize what just happened by my little question.

Again, two runners in the 100 meter dash, one a 10 second runner and the other a 20 second runner. Time elapses at the exact same rate for each runner. If you claim different start explaining. If not, stay on the porch!

 

[Trippy]

This debate seems to be getting out of hand. It boils down to a difference of opinion as to what the deffinition of Time-Travel should be.

Billy has been consistently saying that he believes the definition should be limited the Scifi definition that involves an individual moving between separate, time frames of reference, without a continous experience of the elapsed time from frame to frame... Like a jump in one's own frame of reference, either forward or backward in time.

PhysBang and paddoboy, have been (I believe with some variation) been supporting the idea that the definition of time travel should imclude the effects of time dilation on an individual's leaving one frame of reference and returning in a maner that when comparring clocks traveling with the individual and left at rest at the starting point wind up disagreeing, when brought back together. Essentially saying that time differences associated with time dilation should be defined as time travel.

What seems to me disturbing is that lately it has been being suggested, that if you do not call time dilation time-travel, you are denying time dilation, which is a crap argument. I tend more toward Billy's position, than the idea that time dilation is time travel. Unless as I have mentioned earlier you want to include waking up in the morning, as time-travel.

As I began this post, the discussion is getting out of hand. Both sides have been adequately presented and both have merit. But both are also opinion! There is no fixed definition that all will agree with... And the difference of opinion as to what the definition should be has begun to affect aspects of argument that have no real connection with the underlying disagreement.

To be fair, every sci-fi example I've been able to think of regarding time travel - H.G. Wells, Star Trek, Stargate (Both SG-1 and Atlantis), 7 Days, Time Cop, Terminator, Dr Who, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Billy and Ted's Bogus Journey... While there are some that approach 'instantanrous teleportation', in every one of those sci-fi examples, time travelling into the future requires a process that takes a non-zero amount of time.

I'd point this out to Billy, but so far he's been ignoring me which is shit form for a moderator.

 

[krash661]

Again, two runners in the 100 meter dash, one a 10 second runner and the other a 20 second runner. Time elapses at the exact same rate for each runner. If you claim different start explaining. If not, stay on the porch!

i have no clue what you're rambling about. i'm in this time dilation discussion.

 

[Billy T]

.... Again, some discontinuity does not seem to be required for time travel. ...

In the common use of science fiction writers, in the OP and in my view, experience a discontinuity in time is what defines "time travel." SR's predicted "time dilation" does NOT produce any discontinuities in time. Thus is NOT time travel.

 

[Motor Daddy]

i have no clue what you're rambling about. i'm in this time dilation discussion.

How can you be in a time dilation discussion without knowing what time is? That's like you trying to talk about cam specs. You don't have a clue. Do you?

 

[Billy T]

To be fair, every sci-fi example I've been able to think of regarding time travel - H.G. Wells, Star Trek, Stargate (Both SG-1 and Atlantis), 7 Days, Time Cop, Terminator, Dr Who, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, Billy and Ted's Bogus Journey... While there are some that approach 'instantanrous teleportation', in every one of those sci-fi examples, time travelling into the future requires a process that takes a non-zero amount of time.

I'd point this out to Billy, but so far he's been ignoring me which is shit form for a moderator.

No I have not been "ignoring you." It is only that you have made at least two post that simply assert your opinion that "Billy T is wrong" and give no supporting reason for that POV which I could discus with you.

In your recent post 1330, there is no reason to respond, as I agree, "time travel" refers to 'instantaneous teleportation' - Non I. e. being with your "now" at T1 and then after the 'instantaneous teleportation' being with your "now" at T3 where for "time travel" into the future, T1 < T2 < T3. I.e. what I have been calling a Discontinuity in Time - did not pass thru / experience T2. Whether or not you in the time machine experience some changes (what most think is due to the "flow of time") or not is not required by my definition of "time travel". All that is required is that there is some interval around T2 that you did not experience.

 

[krash661]

That's like you trying to talk about cam specs. You don't have a clue. Do you?

no, you are correct, i have no clue about legos.
if i was interested in playing with legos, i would by a lego set, not make a career out of it.
now if you don't mind, let's get back to the time dilation aspect of the discussion.
but it appears billy has me on ignore. oh well, it doesn't mean anything, everyone else can see my comments.

 

[Trippy]

In the common use of science fiction writers, in the OP and in my view, experience a discontinuity in time is what defines "time travel." SR's predicted "time dilation" does NOT produce any discontinuities in time. Thus is NOT time travel.

Nope.
Clocks on board the TARDIS do not experience a discontinuity.
Clocks on board the Enterprise did not experience a discontinuity.
The watches of SG-1 did not experience discontinuities.
A time piece carried by H.G. Wells' time traveller did not experience a discontinuity.

A discontinuity is not a pre-requisite for time travel in science fiction.

 

[Motor Daddy]

no, you are correct, i have no clue about legos.
if i was interested in playing with legos, i would by a lego set, not make a career out of it.
now if you don't mind, let's get back to the time dilation aspect of the discussion.
but it appears billy has me on ignore. oh well, it doesn't mean anything, everyone else can see my comments.

You still haven't shown your claim of moving fast makes time slow down to be true.

I can say stupid things like you do, like, if you run slower the distance gets longer. The slower you run the greater the distance, but the time stays the same, see? So there really are no losers in the 100 meter dash, just some people that have run greater distance in more time and some that ran less distance in less time. It sounds counter intuitive, but trust me...distance gets longer the slower you run, but the time stays the same.

See? Just like you I can spout BS at will! For no apparent reason other than it sounds stupid.

 

[Trippy]

No I have not been "ignoring you." It is only that you have made at least two post that simply assert your opinion that "Billy T is wrong" and give no supporting reason for that POV which I could discus with you.

I have given as much evidence to support my assertion that you are wrong as you have to support your assertion, and you have a range of responses available to you.

In your recent post 1330, there is no reason to respond, as I agree, "time travel" refers to 'instantaneous teleportation.'

If that's what you think then you need to brush up on your english comprehension, because that's pretty much the opposite of what I said. Each of the examples I gave are examples of time travel in science fiction without instananeous teleportation and without a discontinuity in the clocks of the time traveller.

I. e. being with your "now" at T1 and then after the 'instantaneous teleportation' being with your "now" at T3 where for "time travel" into the future, T1 < T2 < T3. I.e. what I have been calling a Discontinuity in Time - did not pass thru / experience T2.

Again, that's pretty much the opposite of what I have said. H.G. Wells's time travel travelled into the future by changing the rate at which the time traveller experienced time...

 

[Billy T]

... A discontinuity is not a pre-requisite for time travel in science fiction.

I never watched (or read) much SCi=FI but the little of "star trek" I watched did have faster than light "warp speed" that if you accept the standard "Light cone" model of space time is a jump out side the light cone to a space time point not allowed by accepted physics.

 

[phyti]

In actual fact, there are may opinionated posters here and they have taken two opposite sides and opposing views. Am I one? I don't believe so, and I also believe those holding the contrary view to mine, have taken this whole debate beyond the simple statements that.....
GR and the laws of physics do not forbid time travel, and in fact give possible solutions to how that can be achieved:
Any sufficiently advanced civilisation could achieve it:





That is not true. I'm an optimist and always have been. When I said.....
"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 was referring to the inevitable use by date of the Sun and the Earth.
In other words I was being optimistic enough to perceive the human race as still being around in about 3 to 4 billion years, when the Sun becomes a red giant, and life on Earth will be impossible.
If we havn't moved beyond our solar system by then, then yes, we are doomed.




Agreed. Did I say or infer any different?




I wasn't predicting as much as just saying that what is not forbidden by the laws of physics and GR could be obtainable, given that all important ingrediant called time.
We have about 3 billion years to progress to the technology of interstellar travel.
If we are able to do that, we may survive as a species beyond 3 billion years.
First though, we need to survive our own planetary Earthly follies to get to that period, but I believe we will do it.

Text in red is an assumption based on what humanity has observed (short term) so far. A theory for some cases does not imply all cases. We can't know when we have seen or experienced everthing.