the stupid in this situation is the one obviously attempting to troll.
it's hilarious watching you continue to try with the purposely idiotic nonsense you say.
but then again, stupid is,stupid does(shrugs).
Time Travel is Science Fiction
- Thread starter Farsight
- Start date
it's hilarious watching you continue to try with the purposely idiotic nonsense you say.
but then again, stupid is,stupid does(shrugs).
Then how can you claim, or imply to be in a position to define what constitutes time travel in Sci-Fi?
By use of warp fields which, through cumulative experience over many seasons, although they are never explained, we gather work by distorting space-time in some undefined way - we know they're bi-polar, we know the axis of the dipole is tilted, and we know that each ship exists in a 'bubble' - this resembles the Alcubierre metric. We also know that, while time may be portrayed as being greatly distorted, there is no evidence for a discontinuity when the warp drive is activated, there is no evidence for a discontinuity when time travel occurs. The first examples of time travel in Star trek occur in instances when the enterprise slingshots around a star or black hole. The is no discontinuity in the enterprises' clocks in those instance, the flow of time is continuous. Again, even when we consider 'First contact' the borg sphere generates what appears to be a portal or wormhole leading backwards in time, no evidence of a discontinuity in the clock rates of the travellers.
Last edited:
no, not at all.
warp is still 99.99% the speed of light, with contraction of the dimensional plane.
Last edited:
As several different "time travel" or "time dilation" scenarios have been suggested lets used following to discuss:
TT is the Time Traveler & SH is the stay at home (on Earth) identical twin.
There mother's egg was fertilized during the first second of 1 January 1930 and they were born on the first day of 1 November 1930 at 10 AM.
When they were both 30 years old, TT and SH shook hands (on 1 November 1960 at 11 AM) and TT stated what for him was a 10 year trip (at noon of 1 November 1960);
TT emerged again from the space ship to embrace SH at 3PM on 1 November 2000.
At that "embrace instant" SH was 70 years old, both biologically and by the earth clocks; But TT was only 40 years old both biologically and by the clock he always kept with him.
I don't think any one will deny that by earth based clocks time dilation occurred as I assume all think SR's time dilation is true, and will not respond to assertions that it is not.
Now lets, with common scenario above discuss whether or not "time travel" did occur. I say NO - all is explained by SR's predicted "time dilation."
If one's POV is that TT did time travel, please tell if it is also what the cosmic ray daughter muons do to reach the surface of the Earth.
TT is the Time Traveler & SH is the stay at home (on Earth) identical twin.
There mother's egg was fertilized during the first second of 1 January 1930 and they were born on the first day of 1 November 1930 at 10 AM.
When they were both 30 years old, TT and SH shook hands (on 1 November 1960 at 11 AM) and TT stated what for him was a 10 year trip (at noon of 1 November 1960);
TT emerged again from the space ship to embrace SH at 3PM on 1 November 2000.
At that "embrace instant" SH was 70 years old, both biologically and by the earth clocks; But TT was only 40 years old both biologically and by the clock he always kept with him.
I don't think any one will deny that by earth based clocks time dilation occurred as I assume all think SR's time dilation is true, and will not respond to assertions that it is not.
Now lets, with common scenario above discuss whether or not "time travel" did occur. I say NO - all is explained by SR's predicted "time dilation."
If one's POV is that TT did time travel, please tell if it is also what the cosmic ray daughter muons do to reach the surface of the Earth.
Last edited by a moderator:
I apply Newton's first rule of Philosophical Reasoning (now more commonly called Ockham's rule) as I note that what is observed in the scenarios of post 1344, can be completely explained without postulating time travel occurred.
What would you know? You can't even understand what's being discussed to start with. The wormhole could be used to build a time machine in a local laboratory frame where we could 'travel in time' in the lab frame or like Prof Thornes wormhole thought experiment where we travel into the past/future of a
The local theory of gravity predicts two possibilities and they're well defined and not a matter of opinion since science is never a matter of opinion. One is were we compare the proper tick rate between different local proper frames such as the proper tick rate of the relativistic rocket compared to the proper proper tick rate on the surface of the earth. Or the proper tick rate between a clock on the surface of the earth to a clock on an orbiting satellite. The GPS. Sometimes referred to as a twin paradox scenario has been empirically confirmed. The other is associated closed time like curves and essentially means moving forward or back in time in a single local proper frame. Sometimes referred to as a grandfather paradox where you go back in time and do something that would change the established causal path. This requires violating the principle of causality. There's been many references to both these possibilities in this thread. Some folks participating in this understand what's being discussed and some folks don't. Standard procedure for these threads.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Trolling is not answering questions asked of you.
Question: What do you mean when you say the faster you move the slower time elapses?
On the one hand, Newton's first rule of philosophical reasoning does not put you in a position to define what a 'thing' in a genre is or means. The simple fact of the matter is that the definition you have been using of time travel as it occurs in science fiction is, quite simply, wrong.
On the other hand your reasoning is irrelevant if you're using a wrong headed definition of time travel in the first place. The scenario you outline in post 1344 is indistinguishable from the scenario outlined in H.G. Wells science fiction novel "The Time Machine", or for that matter an episode of Dr Who, or Star Trek IV: The voyage home. If two things are insitinguishable, what do you think Newton's first rule of philosophical reasoning would have you conclude?
The only thing that is an assumption on my part is that the human race may still be around in 3 billion years. The Sun will certainly become a red giant, and life on Earth will certainly become Impossible. Those are as near fact as one could ever hope.
What do you propose as the definition of time travel? I think you are asserting that the post 1344 scenario is "time travel" so then can you, as requested at end of 1344, comment if the cosmic ray daughter muons reaching the earth surface is also a case of "time travel"
You seem to be asserting that all cases of SR's predicted time dilation are also cases of time travel? - If that is the case is there any difference between "time dilation" and "time travel"? Please comment.
Clearly I don't need to postulate "time travel" if that, by your definition is any way different from SR's predicted "time dilation" which explains both the post 1344 results & the muon facts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Agreed.
Agreed again, with three additives....The naysayers also have clinging to their coat tails, the opinions by a troll that time dilation itself does not exist, which admittedly is taking there cause beyond logic and sensibility, while all I'm stating is that Time travel is not forbidden by GR and the laws of physics and that the equations of GR give theoretically possible solutions.
The third being that time dilation as a form of time travel, seems to be accepted by mainstream physics in general as a legitimate form.
One trollish individual is saying that.
Agreed except to say again, that the affirmative position, so far from the links I have seen, seems to accept relativistic time dilation as a form of time travel.
Last edited:
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
When did the stay at home twin die? If the journey started in the year 1600, what year did the stay at home twin die? 1601?
Modern Newton scholars reject the notion that all Newton was doing was applying a test of simplicity with his rules of reasoning. (See the Cambridge Companion to Newton.)
Since 1905, the simplicity argument consistently applied to the time dilation of SR has been that there is no one correct, but completely undetectable or physically differentiable, frame of reference (along with its plane of simultaneity); that objects experience time differently. This makes the passage of time (for each entity) indispensable to SR.
That they are the same thing with different names (reference to it). That is why he discussed the Common Time measured by various clocks like rotation of the earth and even "astronomical time" (our sidereal time) much more extensively than his "absolute time" which unlike these "observable" times was "not sensible."
I see that as a matter of perception. It's similar in a way to how we do not notice time dilation at Earthly scales. The effects are too small, infinitesemal actually.
But if we look at the scenario of the twin thought experiment, if the travelling twin goes at 99.999% "c" and returns 12 months later by his mechanical onboard clocks and his own biological clocks, he will return to an Earth around 230 years in the future. He will have missed all the natural progressions that have taken place, the new technology, and decay and birth of new living cells. It would be like taking Captain Cook when he discovered Australia in 1770, being immediatly transported to the year 2000, with powered flight, TV, phones etc etc.
How can that not be time travel?
Technically yes, but effects at sub relativistic speeds and normal gravity, are indistinguishable. Clearly, most mainstream do accept relativistic time dilation as a form of time travel.
Strange, posts between 1320 and 1349 seem to be missing.
And well they should as Newton's test was not for "simplicity" but for "necessity" - prostate ONLY what is necessary to "explain the appearances of things."
The only thing that I am proposing is that the definition you are using is wrong because the majority of examples in science fiction do not involve a discontinuity in the time experienced by the time traveler.
Think what you want - the only things I've said on the matter is that the two are indistinguishable and that if we use the reasoning you are propounding (ockhams razor) then we are forced to conclude that they are the same thing.
Take triplets. Put one in the TARDIS and send him on a 10 second trip that takes him 40 years into the future, put the second in a really fast rocket that takes him on a 40 year round trip that takes 10 seconds according to the clocks onboard his ship. There is no 'mundane' experiment that the stay at home twin could do to determine which triplet was which when they arrived at their destination 40 years later.
This assertion exists in your head - so far all I've done is point out flaws in your reasoning without offering a hypothesis of my own.
So does that mean that you finally accept what others have been telling you?
Tell me something.
If I create a wormhole and 'move' one end if he wormhole so that it is near a black hole and therefore time dilated relative to the other end. One end of the wormhole will age 10 years, but the other end will only age five years. The two ends of the wormhole are connected in time-space, however, one end is younger than the other. The 'accepted' explanation is that passing through the wormhole will take you five years into the future, or the past - depending on which direction you move. What behavior does your hypothesis predict?
I agree that a jump in time from 1770 to year 2000 is time travel. That jump is what I have been using to distinguish "time travel" (my definition of it) from what certainly is real, is predicted by SR and is often observed, "time dilation"
But the same effect is achieved by time dilation also, as I have detailed. They are both forms of time travel.
Your definition of what is and isn't time travel, does not seem to be the accepted mainstream position.
I almost always try to answer direct questions put to me by someone worth my time to answer, like you. I wish you would clearly tell if the cosmic ray muons reaching the earth are "time travlers" or not.
But here my answer; however first note I can not do the GR tensor calculations needed, so just give my opinion. Also I think the question is very "academic" as I understand from others that in the basically "flat space" of our universe creation of a "worm hole" requires more "exotic mater" than there is any indication of it existing. But I will play your game:
Assuming you stay at the end of the worm hole which is near the BH for 5 years by your clock there, and that transit to the other end where 10 years have passed during your five years of dwell takes Y years (or S seconds, etc) then when you come out at the end not near the BH you will be 10+Y years in the future but only 5+Y years older.