Time Travel is Science Fiction

[paddoboy]

people don't often say what something is not, unless asked. At your link here is what Thorne does say:
"These time travel phenomena have been tested in the laboratory. Muons — short-lived elementary particles — travelling around and around in a storage ring at 0.9994 of the speed of light, at the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, New York, have been seen to age 29 times more slowly than muons at rest in the laboratory. And atomic clocks on the surface of the Earth have been seen to run more slowly than atomic clocks high above the Earth's surface — more slowly by about 4 parts in 10 billion." (I added the bold.)

I.e. he calls aging more slowly a time travel phenomena or a FORM of time travel and I ave agreed with that for 55+ years. Yes you can reach a future data with less biological (or Thorne's "personal time") laps than most biologically age to reach that same date.

Sure. I still don't see him say it is not time travel, nor do I see him saying that time travel possibilities are not valid.


The article concludes....
Progress in the quest to understand quantum gravity has been substantial over the past two decades. Complete success will come, I am convinced, within the next two decades or so — and it will bring not only a clear understanding of whether backward time travel is possible, but also an understanding of many other mysteries, including how our Universe was born.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Now what misinterpretations can you fabricate for that paragraph?"
At this stage of the game in misinterpretations, you are catching up to Farsight...not quite there as yet, but getting close.

 

[Billy T]

Billy, as I tell most alternative hypothesis trolls, if you see the laws of physics and GR forbidding time travel, then gather what you have and get it peer reviewed, and stop your childish nonsensical analogies and misrepresentations, which you have been repeating from day one.

I told you in post 1414, what GR allows relating to "time travel" (aging more slowly than 24 hours per day is permited, not going to some not yet existing future date.

 

[paddoboy]

I told you in post 1414, what GR allows relating to "time travel" (aging more slowly than 24 hours per day is permited, not going to some not yet existing future date.

No, that's pure fabricated avoidance.
* The laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel, and the equations of GR give theoretical solutions.
* Any sufficiently advanced civilisation could achieve it....
* All the professional links that tashja supplied, plus my own support exactly that proposition.

 

[brucep]

Nice dream, but I still like Santa Claus's sled pulled by team of rain deer better.

What's a rain Deer? The deer breed that pulls Santa Sleigh on a rainy Christmas Eve?

 

[brucep]

I told you in post 1414, what GR allows relating to "time travel" (aging more slowly than 24 hours per day is permited, not going to some not yet existing future date.

Explain how you can age slower than 24 hrs per day? Try logic this time.

 

[Farsight]

No, and now you are being once again, deliberately obtuse. Firstly, yes Time travel is Sci/Fi at this point in our technological know how.....But we both know that the laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel...

Er, no. I understand GR, and I know that it forbids time travel, because there's no motion in spacetime, so you can't traverse a closed timelike curve. Like Yourgrau said, Wheeler got it wrong, and it was all downhill from there.

Your typical derision of accepted scientific theories is as usual way off the mark. You need to realise that before electricity, the many devices we have now, TV, radio, phones, etc etc etc would have been perceived as magic at one time not really that long ago.

No they wouldn't. Some guy would say hey, that's clever, how does that work, and I'd say it works rather like lightning, the sound of which is what we call thunder.

The other point you need seriously educated on is Kerr BH's and ring singularities. Since most stars do rotate, its logical then to see the BH's that some of these stars will form, will also be spinning.

Start a thread, and let's talk about it. Only there's a little problem, in that the coordinate speed of light at the event horizon is zero.

Therefore besides such phenomena as ergospheres created due to those spins, we also have the singularity affected, so that it forms a ring type structure. If a path can be precisely taken to pass through this ring equidistant from all parts of the ring, the gravitational effects will cancel out, and we maybe able to pass through unharmed.

It's like a furnace door. You won't pass through unharmed.

So accepting that, its reasonable to assume that a sufficiently advanced civilisation may achieve such fantastic time travel methodology.

Not when you understand it it isn't. When you understand it, it isn't reasonable, it's stupid. It's woo peddled by quacks on the make with a book to plug. And besides, where are all these time travellers then?

Farsight, you are like the cocky on the biscuit tin....you just aint in it. And while you continue to avoid the hard questions, queries and facts, you'll continue to always be on the outside looking in.

Aw go play with your time machine.

 

[Farsight]

Every now and then I click on Paddoboy to see this ignored members posts. I keep hoping perhaps he's learned something, but no. He still thinks time dilation is time travel. He still religiously believes in Kip the Mighty Mainstreamer and he still refuses to think for himself. Although he admitted TT is Sc-Fi and has been told by moderators even that there is no need to keep repeating his fallacious mantra about GR not being forbidden by Aussie Rules Football (or something) he goes on arguing for TT by GR and now by medical organ freezing (time dilation) He writes: "Simple time dilation as has been detailed is the most likely form of time travel."

Sad, isn't it? I suppose paddoboy has shown you the time traveller in his very own refrigerator?

 

[PhysBang]

Er, no. I understand GR, and I know that it forbids time travel, because there's no motion in spacetime, so you can't traverse a closed timelike curve. Like Yourgrau said, Wheeler got it wrong, and it was all downhill from there.

Yourgrau actually agrees that there is time travel, what he disagreed with is that anyone could use the closed time-like loops of Godel's spacetime to experience new events. This is Wheeler's mistake, according to Yourgrau, not that GR doesn't allow time travel.

Your mistake is thinking that Yourgrau's use of "space" is anything llike your understanding of "space". You, and Yourgrau, don't like the consequences of Godel's work (neither, it seems, did he), but that doesn't mean that the consequences aren't there or are wrong.

Yet Yourgrau is quite clear that GR allows time travel, you really should read the book. Right near the start, he writes, "Godel, the union of Einstein and Kafka, had for the first time in human history proved, from the equations of relativity, that time travel was not a philosopher's fantasy but a scientific possibility."

Or, say, this passage, "But was Godel really in error? Amazingly, the editors of the Proceedings had not seen fit to consult the author himself before publishing a report of his alleged error concerning an elementary concept of relativity theory. Might it not have been Chandrasekhar and Wright, not Godel, who had made a mistake? This possibility seems not to have occurred to the editors, yet it turned out to have been the case, a fact demonstrated not by a physicist but by a philosopher, Howard Stein, who showed clearly that time travel in the Godel universe could take place only under great acceleration, which could be provided by a spaceship, not along the free-fall path of a geodesic. More astonishing yet, however, Stein could not get the correction of Chandrasekhar and Wright accepted for publication. Only when Godel himself intervened did the fact finally make it into print that his argument for the possibility of time travel was relativistically valid."

No they wouldn't. Some guy would say hey, that's clever, how does that work, and I'd say it works rather like lightning, the sound of which is what we call thunder.

Can you show us how any of your physics ideas work so that we can use them in a physics application? So far you haven't been able to do this.

 

[Billy T]

Explain how you can age slower than 24 hrs per day? Try logic this time.

Aging is a biological not clock process. I assumed you knew that, especially as I said in post 1415:
"GR does allow some to only age 22 hours biologically while going to a calendar date most need 24 hours per day of biological aging to reach."

In earlier posts, I noted that I eat a very healthy diet, never smoked, exercise almost every day, etc. so most guess my age as 20 years less than the number you get by subtracting my birth date from the current date. I.e. there are many simple ways, in addition to what SR makes possible to age at a rate of less than 24 hours /day. (To age more slowly that some like to call "time travel" if done by means of a round trip on fast rocket ship instead of by good diet, exercise, etc.)

Also there are other procedures, which I don't follow, to age faster than 24 hours per day (little sleep, fast foods rich in un-healthy fats, no exercise, diet without fruit, smoking and excessive alcohol drinking).

I forget who* said: "Yes, I am burning my candle at both ends. It will not last the night; but Oh, it gives such a lovely light."
We all make a choice, perhaps unconsciously, about the rate we age.

If you read (and understand) the physics in this post: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/time-travel-is-science-fiction.140847/page-71#post-3252458
You will see I have already "time traveled" by the slower rate of aging definition, more than twice as far into the future as is physically possible via SR's time dilation.
And I don't think my time travel journey is over yet, as I am in good health, with excellent mental processes and have about a 25% chance of celebrating my 100th birthday (and that chance grows more likely with every year passing year, if I have not yet died!)

*It was as I recall a musician, with drug use problems and very vulgar speech patterns, - I only cannot recall his name. I liked the guy - sometimes wondering, while spending years to earn my Ph. D., if his was not the smarter choice - we all must die some day.

 

[paddoboy]

Er, no. I understand GR, and I know that it forbids time travel, because there's no motion in spacetime, so you can't traverse a closed timelike curve. Like Yourgrau said, Wheeler got it wrong, and it was all downhill from there.

Er no you don't understand GR. But I certainly understand your misinterpretations of it.
Wheeler and all since have got it right, that's why its accepted by the mainstream.

No they wouldn't. Some guy would say hey, that's clever, how does that work, and I'd say it works rather like lightning, the sound of which is what we call thunder.

Of course they would, and it would be even more magical the further back in time you went. Don't be so naive.

Start a thread, and let's talk about it. Only there's a little problem, in that the coordinate speed of light at the event horizon is zero.

See that brick wall over there? I would actually get more intelligent responses talking to that.
And of cousre the speed of light is never seen to be stopped, and is always "c" from ones own FoR.

It's like a furnace door. You won't pass through unharmed.

You just made that up, didn't you?

Not when you understand it it isn't. When you understand it, it isn't reasonable, it's stupid. It's woo peddled by quacks on the make with a book to plug. And besides, where are all these time travellers then?

Aw go play with your time machine.

But as has been shown, you don't understand it. And of course quackery, lies, and misinterpretations is what you peddle for your much sort after attention.

 

[Farsight]

No, you peddle quackery and lies. So it's back on ignore for you.

 

[OnlyMe]

No, you peddle quackery and lies. So it's back on ignore for you.

There is no general mainstream consensus. The subject is controversial even amount those physicists who doable with the concept(s) involved. Paddoboy has taken one side of the controversey and he is entitled to his POV reguadless of your opinions.

That said! Where is the science in your last few posts? Or is your intent to try and see how many discussions you can drive to the Fringe?

P.S. Why don't you do everybody a favor and put the Science section on ignor for awhile?

 

[Farsight]

There is no general mainstream consensus.

Yes there is. The general mainstream consensus is that time travel is science fiction. I'm the one talking science here, with the logic and the references and the careful explanation. Paddoboy is ignoring all that and clinging to his popscience woo. And scraping the bottom of the barrel saying hibernation is time travel. FFS! He absolutely deserves some frozen-Chicken ridicule. And you still can't fault the OP, can you? Bah.

 

[PhysBang]

Yes there is. The general mainstream consensus is that time travel is science fiction. I'm the one talking science here, with the logic and the references and the careful explanation.

And yet I demonstrated above how you were lying about one of your critical references. How can you defend yourself without apologizing to us about misleading us about the Yourgrau book?

 

[Farsight]

And yet I demonstrated above how you were lying about one of your critical references.

No you didn't. Beat it, you abusive ad-hominem lying troll.

How can you defend yourself without apologizing to us about misleading us about the Yourgrau book?

I didn't. And by the way, the book is called A World Without Time. Which doesn't auger too well for time travel, now does it?

 

[paddoboy]

Er, no. I understand GR, and I know that it forbids time travel, .

Er no you don't. GR and the laws of physics do not forbid time travel...You can repeat your lies and delusions up all day, but in essence that's all they are...lies and delusions.
The laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel, and in fact the GR equations give the theoretical methodology as to how it can be achieved.

 

[Farsight]

Er no you don't. GR and the laws of physics do not forbid time travel...You can repeat your lies and delusions up all day, but in essence that's all they are...lies and delusions. The laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel, and in fact the GR equations give the theoretical methodology as to how it can be achieved.

You keep spouting your little mantra, paddoboy. Whatever gives you comfort. LOL.

 

[paddoboy]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/Sagan-Time-Travel.html
"Time travel into the indefinite future is consistent with the laws of nature."

http://plus.maths.org/content/time-travel-allowed
In brief: The laws of physics allow members of an exceedingly advanced civilisation to travel forward in time as fast as they might wish. Backward time travel is another matter; we do not know whether it is allowed by the laws of physics

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/13/opinion/opinion-time-travel-paul-davies/
Yes it can, at least in a limited sense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/what-is-time-sean-carroll_n_2339539.html


http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2013/sep/23/lee-smolin-on-the-nature-of-time


http://mkaku.org/home/articles/the-physics-of-time-travel/


http://www.garvandwane.com/cosmology/timetravel.html
Time travel is no fantasy! It is a very real and intriguing phenomenon. The laws of physics do not forbid time travel.


"Once confined to fantasy and science fiction, time travel is now simply an engineering problem."
Michio Kaku
http://www.garvandwane.com/cosmology/timetravel.html


To be fair, I have tried very very hard, and have gone through ten pages to try and find any reference from Farsight on his views on time travel......
Not a one!!!
I have lost all faith and confidence in the Internet! [tic mode on of course]

 

[paddoboy]

You keep spouting your little mantra, paddoboy. Whatever gives you comfort. LOL.

Not mine sonny...I stand on the shoulders of giants, and you are only a midget.
Live with it, because that dear friend is the reality of it all!

 

[PhysBang]

And by the way, the book is called A World Without Time. Which doesn't auger too well for time travel, now does it?

So why does the author flat out write the passages I posted above? E.g., "Godel, the union of Einstein and Kafka, had for the first time in human history proved, from the equations of relativity, that time travel was not a philosopher's fantasy but a scientific possibility."

And why do you never address the specific passages when passages are pointed out to you that demonstrate the opposite of your claims?

I have often recommended to you that you read the things that you cite. This is another example of where you are shown to be trying to deceive others by selectively using a citation that says the opposite of your conclusion.