Time Travel is Science Fiction

[Farsight]

You mean trolling such as this:

[The refrigerator]

That isn't trolling, that's pointing out the repercussions of paddoboy's ridiculous claim that hibernation is a form of time travel.

Farsight, I'm happy to 'take out the trash', always have been - Paddoboy, Beer with Straw, Bruce P, and Krash661 can all attest to the fact that they have, at various times, been banned by me for trolling

No you aren't. You give free rein to trolls. You preside over shameful abuse that makes this forum a laughing stock and a disgrace. You aren't doing your job. Now either shape up, or ship out, and I'll do the job.

however, the catch is, I'd be putting you out along with them.

The trouble is, that I can refer to Einstein and the evidence to back up what I say. So you aren't being a moderator are you? You're just some chemist who knows f*ck-all physics playing thought-police and siding with the woo-mongers. God help this forum with a "moderator" like you.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight, you introduced the freezer time machine in your OP.

In case you forgot:

"It’s the same kind of thing with gravitational time dilation. It's not quite the same, but it's still simple. It can be idealised via the stasis box, which is kind of like the ultimate refrigerator. Yes, it’s something out of science fiction too, just like time travel. But it’s kind of fun to fight fire with fire. No motion of any kind occurs inside this stasis box. So when I put you inside, electromagnetic phenomena don’t propagate. So you can’t see, you can’t hear, and you can’t even think. Hence when I open the door a week later, to you it’s like I opened the door just as soon as I closed it. And get this: you “travelled” to the future by not moving at all. Instead everything else moved. And all this motion wasn’t through time, or spacetime, it was through space. Yes, the stasis box is science fiction, but don’t forget, we can freeze embryos now. In the future maybe we’ll be able to freeze an adult. Then you could “travel” to the future by stepping into a glorified freezer. But you aren’t really travelling to the future. You aren’t moving. Instead everything else is."

Note that I said you aren't really travelling to the future. Paddoboy thinks you are. He just doesn't get it because he doesn't want to, because he loves his woo like a piglet loves its teat, and he just doesn't want to let it go.

 

[Farsight]

Just like you cleaned up your own site, last post there... 23 Nov. that site is not Dodge city it's Deadwood.
Look out folks, here comes marshall turkey head.

Not true, and it's always been civil, and I don't poach.

 

[Stryder]

Hey paddoboy, I just had an idear. Maybe the advanced civilization figured out that you need a separate time machine to go to the past than the future. So you need an oven and a freezer to time travel if want the option of future or past. See?

An Oven increases entropy through temperature, some Freezers (including Einsteins design) cool based upon a vacuum which is the reduction of entropy. It has little to do with time itself. Although the suggest of one MIT experiment involving the "Stiffening of Spacetime" to slow a photon down to rest involved increasing electromagnetic entropy.

This mean the measurement of time can be altered by the viscosity of the volume of spacetime. This could allow the altering of how time is viewed on two independent clocks, but doesn't change the frame of time in relationship to the universe that such a experiment was conducted.

 

[Farsight]

Do you have a reference to that MIT experiment, Stryder? I'm interested because gravity is all about the coordinate speed of light varying, wherein a concentration of energy in the guise of a star "conditions" the surrounding space, altering its metrical properties. Your measurements of space and time are then not uniform, such that your plot exhibits space-time curvature.

 

[PhysBang]

The trouble is, that I can refer to Einstein and the evidence to back up what I say.

As always, this is a lie. You never ever address any of Einstein's physics, just a few cherry-picked quotations taken out of context. Also, you never address any evidence; e.g., we have all been waiting for years for you to provide evidence for your claim that there is a proper way to calculate galaxy rotation curves that you know but no scientist working in astronomy or astrophysics does.

 

[krash661]

That isn't trolling, that's pointing out the repercussions of paddoboy's ridiculous claim that hibernation is a form of time travel.

according to you, no one is trolling. as it appears, everyone has only " pointing out the repercussions of farsight's ridiculous claim ".

No you aren't. You give free rein to trolls. You preside over shameful abuse that makes this forum a laughing stock and a disgrace. You aren't doing your job. Now either shape up, or ship out, and I'll do the job.

if you would not contaminate the site then it would not be " preside over shameful abuse that makes this forum a laughing stock and a disgrace. "

The trouble is, that I can refer to Einstein and the evidence to back up what I say. So you aren't being a moderator are you? You're just some chemist who knows f*ck-all physics playing thought-police and siding with the woo-mongers. God help this forum with a "moderator" like you.

typical mentally disabled comment. nothing more.

 

[Stryder]

The information was from 2001, Most of the old links are dead now but this is part of the pressing:
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/01/25/delaney.debrief/

(Incidentally It's not MIT, it was Harvard but I'm pretty sure there was MIT involvement)

On the topic of "Gravity" I have to admit I do have a pet theory that implies that Mass, Gravity and Spacetime aren't just codependent but interchangeable. Namely a planetary body doesn't necessarily create gravity and bend spacetime, but a manipulation of spacetime could generate a gravity well which then influences to condensing spacetime to mass. (It would explain how a star could form, however we'd still have the questions in regards to how such a manipulation would come about in the first place)

 

[krash661]

Do you have a reference to that MIT experiment, Stryder? I'm interested because gravity is all about the coordinate speed of light varying, wherein a concentration of energy in the guise of a star "conditions" the surrounding space, altering its metrical properties. Your measurements of space and time are then not uniform, such that your plot exhibits space-time curvature.

why is it called a continuum ?

 

[QuarkHead]

a concentration of energy in the guise of a star "conditions" the surrounding space, altering its metrical properties. Your measurements of space and time are then not uniform, such that your plot exhibits space-time curvature.

Consider this. Suppose that $$x_!,\,x_2,\,x_3$$ denote spatial coordinates and that $$x_4$$ denote a time coordinate.

Then corresponding to coordinate transformations $$x_j \mapsto x'_j$$ one has locally that $$x^2_1+x^2_2+x^2_3 \ne x'^2_1+x'^2_2+x'^2_3$$ and $$x^2_4 \ne x'^2_4$$. This is of course length contraction and time dilation, respectively.

However, it turns out that generally $$x^2_1+x^2_2+x^2_3 -x^2_4 = x'^2_1+x'^2_2+x'^2_3- x'^2_4$$, from which one extracts the invariant line element $$ds^2=dx^2_1+dx^2_2+dx^2_3 -dx^2_4$$.

Do you know why this becomes $$ds^2 =g_{jk}dx_jdx_k$$? as usually written?

 

[OnlyMe]

The information was from 2001, Most of the old links are dead now but this is part of the pressing:
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/01/25/delaney.debrief/

(Incidentally It's not MIT, it was Harvard but I'm pretty sure there was MIT involvement)

On the topic of "Gravity" I have to admit I do have a pet theory that implies that Mass, Gravity and Spacetime aren't just codependent but interchangeable. Namely a planetary body doesn't necessarily create gravity and bend spacetime, but a manipulation of spacetime could generate a gravity well which then influences to condensing spacetime to mass. (It would explain how a star could form, however we'd still have the questions in regards to how such a manipulation would come about in the first place)

Here is a link to Lene Hau's publication at Harvard. I did not read through to find the specific paper, but from the titles it should be there. http://www.seas.harvard.edu/haulab/publications/HauPublications_All.htm

 

[Farsight]

The information was from 2001, Most of the old links are dead now but this is part of the pressing:
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/01/25/delaney.debrief/

(Incidentally It's not MIT, it was Harvard but I'm pretty sure there was MIT involvement)

Thanks, I'll take a look at that.

On the topic of "Gravity" I have to admit I do have a pet theory that implies that Mass, Gravity and Spacetime aren't just codependent but interchangeable. Namely a planetary body doesn't necessarily create gravity and bend spacetime, but a manipulation of spacetime could generate a gravity well which then influences to condensing spacetime to mass. (It would explain how a star could form, however we'd still have the questions in regards to how such a manipulation would come about in the first place)

That sounds a bit like Inhomogeneous and interacting vacuum energy by David Wands and others. A gravitational field is inhomogeneous space typically caused by a planetary body. But with no planetary bodies around, space might be inhomogeneous anyway. The energy density of space varies from place to place. This then gets us into things like non-uniform expansion and dark matter. Interesting stuff.

 

[PhysBang]

That sounds a bit like Inhomogeneous and interacting vacuum energy by David Wands and others. A gravitational field is inhomogeneous space typically caused by a planetary body. But with no planetary bodies around, space might be inhomogeneous anyway. The energy density of space varies from place to place. This then gets us into things like non-uniform expansion and dark matter. Interesting stuff.

Everyone, please bear in mind that, "A gravitational field is inhomogeneous space typically caused by a planetary body," is strictly Farsight-fantasy and that he can't actually do any physics with this idea. (Ask him to demonstrate, if you would like, he won't produce anything one can use.)

Worse, he is clearly lying about the content of that paper, as anyone can see by simply reading the abstract.

 

[Farsight]

Consider this. Suppose that $$x_!,\,x_2,\,x_3$$ denote spatial coordinates and that $$x_4$$ denote a time coordinate. Then corresponding to coordinate transformations $$x_j \mapsto x'_j$$ one has locally that $$x^2_1+x^2_2+x^2_3 \ne x'^2_1+x'^2_2+x'^2_3$$ and $$x^2_4 \ne x'^2_4$$. This is of course length contraction and time dilation, respectively. However, it turns out that generally $$x^2_1+x^2_2+x^2_3 -x^2_4 = x'^2_1+x'^2_2+x'^2_3- x'^2_4$$, from which one extracts the invariant line element $$ds^2=dx^2_1+dx^2_2+dx^2_3 -dx^2_4$$. Do you know why this becomes $$ds^2 =g_{jk}dx_jdx_k$$? as usually written?

No. In SR the thing that’s invariant between two events can be likened to the light path length being the same in both the stay-at-home and the out-and-back parallel-mirror clocks. You stay at home and inside your clock light moves some distance back and forth like this ǁ t times. Then when you go on the out-an-back trip t is reduced because the light moves like this /\/\/\/\ instead. However light moved the same distance. But people talk about the spacetime interval being zero for a photon, which throws the baby out with the bath water. Then we have a distance squared because we’re employing something akin to Pythagoras’s theorem, and people say things like s²=x²-c²t². But really, what does it mean? What is the reality of s²? I think this is where people start to lose touch with the reality, and before you know it they’re into time machines and chronology protection conjectures. Sorry, did I miss the point of what you were getting at?

 

[Farsight]

Everyone, please bear in mind that, "A gravitational field is inhomogeneous space typically caused by a planetary body," is strictly Farsight-fantasy and that he can't actually do any physics with this idea. (Ask him to demonstrate, if you would like, he won't produce anything one can use.) Worse, he is clearly lying about the content of that paper, as anyone can see by simply reading the abstract.

Can we please moderate this dishonest abusive troll please? I'm not lying, the Einstein quotes are a matter of public record:

 

[OnlyMe]

That sounds a bit like Inhomogeneous and interacting vacuum energy by David Wands and others. A gravitational field is inhomogeneous space typically caused by a planetary body. But with no planetary bodies around, space might be inhomogeneous anyway. The energy density of space varies from place to place. This then gets us into things like non-uniform expansion and dark matter. Interesting stuff.

Part of the problem with this is that for it to be even remotely coherent, you need to clearly define the word space, as you understand it. You directly and indirectly refer to it as a medium.., an inhomogeneous space, or ether like or a gin clear medium or a continuum ..., but you never provide any fundamental description of exactly what that it is, aside from abstract ideas.

When you collect all of your conceptual misinterpretations and try to put them back into the underlying theoretical model.., GR.., you cannot recover the predictive success of GR in its original form! Thus you keep being asked to demonstrate how your theory predicts or explains anything we can observe or prove!

Basically, your conceptual changes break the currently functional theoretical model of gravity, the rest of us know of as general relativity.

 

[OnlyMe]

Can we please moderate this dishonest abusive troll please? I'm not lying, the Einstein quotes are a matter of public record:

They are also 100 years out of date. It is as if you believe nothing of significance has been accomplished sinse!

 

[OnlyMe]

Can we please moderate this dishonest abusive troll please? I'm not lying, the Einstein quotes are a matter of public record:

View attachment 104

BTW Farsight, even though that reference, includes the following, Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of Gerneral relativity... Einstein was never able to incorporate Mach's principle into his field equations.

I believe I know why, but that is not a subject associated with this thread on, Time-Travel!

 

[QuarkHead]

No. In SR the thing that’s invariant between two events can be likened to the light path length being the same in both the stay-at-home and the out-and-back parallel-mirror clocks. You stay at home and inside your clock light moves some distance back and forth like this ǁ t times. Then when you go on the out-an-back trip t is reduced because the light moves like this /\/\/\/\ instead. However light moved the same distance. But people talk about the spacetime interval being zero for a photon, which throws the baby out with the bath water

Ya know, this is either gibberish, made up, irrelevant or all three.

Then we have a distance squared because we’re employing something akin to Pythagoras’s theorem, and people say things like s²=x²-c²t²

Well, be careful talking about "distance" in spacetime. How about $$s$$ is spacetime separation - i.e. the spacetime "distance" between, say, the Boston Tea Party and the Battle of Waterloo.

What is the reality of s²? I think this is where people start to lose touch with the reality,

Now you contradict yourself. $$s^2$$ is the generalization of the "hypotenuse" in the hyperbolic Pythagorean which can only be given a value, as per Pythagoras, by squaring all terms and taking square roots of their squared sums.

Did you know that Einstein placed enormous emphasis on the invariance of the line element? (Briefly described in my last post) It formed the key to his insistence on General Covariance

PS I just remembered I ended my previous post with a question: Why is the line element $$ds^2 = dx^2_1+dx^2_2+dx^2_3-dx^2_4$$ usually written (by physicists) as $$ds^2=g_{jk}dx_jdx_k$$.

Just as I am not expecting Hell to freeze over anytime soon, so I am not expecting Farsight to even attempt an answer to this (Lest there be any doubt, I do know myself)

 

[PhysBang]

Can we please moderate this dishonest abusive troll please? I'm not lying, the Einstein quotes are a matter of public record:

Why are you referencing Einstein when you were just lying about a paper about vacuum energy by someone else? Can't you keep the lies straight anymore?