Time Travel question

[devilof76]

We could make **** up all day, every day, the government could pay us for it, and by the time we're done, we'd have so much bull piled up, we'd know more than anyone...ever.

 

[ShadowX81]

It's fantastical, and it's useless.

And good for the asshats with their revolutionary ideas of the past not being an absolute. I'll take outdated ideas over retarded ones any day of the week. They can feel free to call their horse**** knowledge if they like. They are the ones with the taxes (er, guns) to back their claim of authority.

Who am I to judge...

Except its not fantastical, and you have no clue what you are talking about.

Hell, I was a freaking poli-sci major and even I know that every word you just said is 100% incorrect. Not a different opinion, not less likely, but factually inarguably wrong.

Your ideas of physics are so ridiculously outdated that you might as well have just said that the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[devilof76]

The problem with my idea of physics is that it's an idea of physics.

I have no idea what imaginary science you and your professors are talking about, but you may want to start researching tarot cards, magic crystals, and raindances because primitive mystics have advanced knowledge of what you're talking about, and it's possible that you could save us cattle a lot of money.

The truly stupid thing about what you're claiming is that the ideas you're propounding are ancient, and pre-scientific. You expect me to accept your superstitious concept of the universe as new? What a hoot.

 

[ShadowX81]

So you admittedly have no clue what you are talking about, yet you pretend to know more than those that do? People with legitimate degrees, well respected careers, tenure, and state funding really know less than you?

You compare their work to witchcraft, and yet they are the ones with the jobs as scientists. Not you.

 

[devilof76]

Argumentum ad verecundiam, bub.

And just because I don't know **** about witchcraft, doesn't mean I have no good reason to not believe in it.

 

[ShadowX81]

A statement which might have some weight if you had even a fraction of the qualifications needed to make such a judgement.

In this case, you really do have no good reason not to believe in it.

Il tell you what, you take Dr. Mallet's theory and explain to me scientifically why it is impossible, and il take back everything I said.

 

[devilof76]

How about the fact that it's metaphysically impossible?

Even better, instead of asking me to prove a negative, why don't you explain to all of us how it's possible to send a particle back to a configuration of the universe that no longer exists, or forward to a configuration that has yet to exist.

It's pretty easy for you to sit there explaining to me that the king knows better because his throne places him high above me, but so far I'm the only one presenting any real content on this subject. All you seem to be able to do is point to examples of other people who said things that support you. You ain't said ****.

 

[ShadowX81]

Except you haven't said anything other than the fact that it is impossible, which is inarguably wrong. We knew this 70 years ago. Unless of course you would like to put forth that you are smarter than Einstein (which at this point wouldn't surprise me). You have presented not one piece of content nor one fact. My sources are still more legitimate than your unsubstantiated opinions.

Time, like anything else is a force which can be bent and affected by other forces. Gravity and acceleration especially have noticeable effects on time. Its pretty much established at this point that time passes at different points and different places, and your perception of it can be easily affected through rapid acceleration (as was the case with the Apollo astronauts). These are basic takeaways from the theory of relativity.

Time travel to the past is admittedly harder to explain, I recommend reading into the "light clock" theory. Honestly I just got off of work and am way too tired to type out a lengthy explanation tonight. Nor do I think you are in the mood to read a giant wall of text right now.

You make claims that you are in more of a position of scientific authority than those in accredited positions, yet you admittedly don't possess the knowledge to refute their theories.

 

[toylion]

Except you haven't said anything other than the fact that it is impossible, which is inarguably wrong. We knew this 70 years ago. Unless of course you would like to put forth that you are smarter than Einstein (which at this point wouldn't surprise me). You have presented not one piece of content nor one fact. My sources are still more legitimate than your unsubstantiated opinions.

Time, like anything else is a force which can be bent and affected by other forces. Gravity and acceleration especially have noticeable effects on time. Its pretty much established at this point that time passes at different points and different places, and your perception of it can be easily affected through rapid acceleration (as was the case with the Apollo astronauts). These are basic takeaways from the theory of relativity.

Time travel to the past is admittedly harder to explain, I recommend reading into the "light clock" theory. Honestly I just got off of work and am way too tired to type out a lengthy explanation tonight. Nor do I think you are in the mood to read a giant wall of text right now.

You make claims that you are in more of a position of scientific authority than those in accredited positions, yet you admittedly don't possess the knowledge to refute their theories.

I don't usually get involved in these type of arguments, but what your point? Do you honestly expect to change anyone else beliefs? You made your point, and some of use don't agree with it and that's that. End of discussion. You're not going to convince anyone to believe what you believe.

 

[ShadowX81]

And why is this directed at me? Why not tell him that?

Him and Devil_666 are the ones being extremely insulting to the people that actually do this for a living.

 

[devilof76]

Time isn't a force. It's a relationship between the movements of two or more objects. There is no cosmic graph paper labelled 'time' through which we're moving. There are objects in space, they move, and we measure the change in those movements relative to ourselves.

Objects have identity. They are what they are, and not what they are not; they have a specific limited nature, and they are individual. Two rocks may be identical, but one is not the other, and vice versa.

Any given moment in time consists of all objects in the universe being in a specific place relative to all other objects. The perpetual change that this arrangement undergoes may be regarded as a forward movement in abstract terms, but there is no metaphysical vector along which that movement occurs. There is only the motion of bodies.

Your hypothetical rationale states that one of these bodies may be moved from the place it is in, relative to the places all other bodies are in, to a place it occupied further back along this non-existent vector, when all of the other bodies were in their previous locations. This is regarded as more difficult than moving the body forward on the vector in relation to the sum of other bodies in locations where they have yet to occupy.

If those bodies are located in the present, and the timetravelling body is going elsewhere, what is it going to exist in relation to in either the past or future? For it to be a past or future, there has to be a present relative to either. For there to be a present, the universe you expect to be waiting in the past or future can't be where you need it to be. How do you and your geniuses propose that the present be in the present, and in the past and future as well?

Is that enough content for you? Go ask Einstein, then come back with an answer. Thanks.

 

[toylion]

And why is this directed at me? Why not tell him that?

Because I agree with them both. Time Travel is not possible. And nothing you say will ever convince me it is.

 

[ShadowX81]

My point isn't that its impossible or possible. As stated earlier, I have no scientific background necessary to really make that call. (However time moving at a relative rate is inargueably true).
What I am saying is that this is a legitimate field of research, and if you are going to tear apart their scientific theories, you better have equally scientific evidence to prove it.

As far as im concerned there is no room for "beliefs" in science. Only theories and the evidence to back them up. We aren't arguing politics or philosophy here. In the end there is a definitive correct answer.

Your hypothetical rationale states that one of these bodies may be moved from the place it is in, relative to the places all other bodies are in, to a place it occupied further back along this non-existent vector, when all of the other bodies were in their previous locations. This is regarded as more difficult than moving the body forward on the vector in relation to the sum of other bodies in locations where they have yet to occupy.

If those bodies are located in the present, and the timetravelling body is going elsewhere, what is it going to exist in relation to in either the past or future? For it to be a past or future, there has to be a present relative to either. For there to be a present, the universe you expect to be waiting in the past or future can't be where you need it to be. How do you and your geniuses propose that the present be in the present, and in the past and future as well?

Is that enough content for you? Go ask Einstein, then come back with an answer. Thanks

That's not really scientific content, more of a personal theory on your view of the world.

The main problem with the idea you are putting forward is that you see a specific time as a "place", like its own isolated dimension. Therefore anything that "visits" would be an alien displacement in this dimension. Taken out of its own reality and placed right back down into another. In reality whatever is traveling never goes anywhere physically. Its merely the forces that act upon it causing your perception of it to change.

 

[Devil_666]

My point isn't that its impossible or possible. As stated earlier, I have no scientific background necessary to really make that call.

You don't need a scientific background to smell BS. And your kooky buddy Doc Brown's pet project reeks of it. In the end, after all the time AND tax payer money that idiot is gonna waste on this nerd fantasy the result will be the most expensive and stupid Sci-Fi prop ever. Maybe he'll get a couple grand for it on EBay though. So I guess it's worth it.

 

[Frank]

Suprised no one has posted about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor
lol
Caught his "story" on coast to coast a few times

Titor was the ultimate sci-fi conspiracy troll of all time and space.

 

[devilof76]

That's not really scientific content, more of a personal theory on your view of the world.

The main problem with the idea you are putting forward is that you see a specific time as a "place", like its own isolated dimension. Therefore anything that "visits" would be an alien displacement in this dimension. Taken out of its own reality and placed right back down into another. In reality whatever is traveling never goes anywhere physically. Its merely the forces that act upon it causing your perception of it to change.

No, the universe is a place. It's where all the things are, as a matter of fact. You know, those things you perceive, and which you seem to think your perception somehow makes them be what they are.

And thank you for bringing other dimensions into this. I didn't think time travel was enough. Now we can talk about parallel universes and other contributions LSD made to the scientific community (wait...I think the good Reverend Blackthorn already did).

If you think that there is no philosophy underlying your assertion that my picture of the universe is 'outdated', or that what your professor is passing off as science has no ideological roots, then I have a used concentration camp to sell you. I promise it hasn't been used in a while. Or perhaps you like a more sciency locale out in the Gulag.

The fact is, your scientists have a philosophical problem leading them to make these insane mistakes. Scientific method is the province of philosophy and when the philosophy is corrupt, the science doesn't fall far from that tree. The more you talk, the more that becomes evident.

 

[Solidus]

No, the universe is a place. It's where all the things are, as a matter of fact. You know, those things you perceive, and which you seem to think your perception somehow makes them be what they are.

And thank you for bringing other dimensions into this. I didn't think time travel was enough. Now we can talk about parallel universes and other contributions LSD made to the scientific community (wait...I think the good Reverend Blackthorn already did).

If you think that there is no philosophy underlying your assertion that my picture of the universe is 'outdated', or that what your professor is passing off as science has no ideological roots, then I have a used concentration camp to sell you. I promise it hasn't been used in a while. Or perhaps you like a more sciency locale out in the Gulag.

The fact is, your scientists have a philosophical problem leading them to make these insane mistakes. Scientific method is the province of philosophy and when the philosophy is corrupt, the science doesn't fall far from that tree. The more you talk, the more that becomes evident.

Furthermore, there needs to be actual empirical evidence to back up a lot of claims. Many scientists in the present day, would be better off writing fan fiction novels for Star Trek, than wasting their lives being shunned by their peers.

 

[devilof76]

The craziest thing is, these are the ascendant species. Philosophy is such a disaster that every advance in quantum theory reinforces the nonsense that the crackpots have been peddling since the 20's. Then there's state funding to keep pet theories alive. Basically, anything that supports the idea that sense perception and rationality are subjective--and that reason is an illusion--gets a kiss, roses, and a fat check. Nothing that private money would support, obviously. Private money has to worry about things like waste and where it will come from. State funding is straight up extortion and graft (being a New Yorker with a brain, I don't really need to tell you that).

Junk science that's above most people's heads gets a reputation just by virtue of being too mathematically complex to judge.

[ame="https://www.amazon.com/What-Bleep-Do-We-Know/dp/B0006UEVQ8/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1376734956&sr=1-1&keywords=what+the+bleep+do+we+know"]This[/ame] had a box office of $16 million ($4000 budget, 200 theaters domestic) and shipped a million dvd's in its first six months.

Thankfully, rational scientists are still dominant. I don't know how long that will last.

 

[Blackthornone]

I don't usually get involved in these type of arguments, but what your point? Do you honestly expect to change anyone else beliefs? You made your point, and some of use don't agree with it and that's that. End of discussion. You're not going to convince anyone to believe what you believe.

Not everyone is equally as closed minded. Some people think it might be possible, or don't know, and are actually willing to objectively judge/examine logical arguments on the subject. Even if someone isn't totally convinced, they might glean some piece of interesting new data. The better question is why do people who believe time travel to be completely impossible and have their minds made up, and have no interest in listening to arguments concerning it even bother to go into a thread about it. Do they do this to troll? What is the point? Just to say it's nonsense more than once?


I have zero interest in basketball, so I never post in basketball threads. I don't go into threads with subjects I have no interest in. It would be wrong of me to go into the basketball, baseball or football threads and say they have no redeeming social value as spectator activities and why don't people get off their butts to play these games themselves and get some exercise. They could get more self esteem that way, and stop worshiping other people just because they can play a game well.
I don't do that. Why would anyone jump in to this thread and claim that time travel is impossible, with little more explanation than that, just to state their opinion without explanation? To troll, to flex their egos.

 

[Blackthornone]

Time isn't a force. It's a relationship between the movements of two or more objects. There is no cosmic graph paper labelled 'time' through which we're moving. There are objects in space, they move, and we measure the change in those movements relative to ourselves.

Objects have identity. They are what they are, and not what they are not; they have a specific limited nature, and they are individual. Two rocks may be identical, but one is not the other, and vice versa.

Any given moment in time consists of all objects in the universe being in a specific place relative to all other objects. The perpetual change that this arrangement undergoes may be regarded as a forward movement in abstract terms, but there is no metaphysical vector along which that movement occurs. There is only the motion of bodies.

Your hypothetical rationale states that one of these bodies may be moved from the place it is in, relative to the places all other bodies are in, to a place it occupied further back along this non-existent vector, when all of the other bodies were in their previous locations. This is regarded as more difficult than moving the body forward on the vector in relation to the sum of other bodies in locations where they have yet to occupy.

If those bodies are located in the present, and the timetravelling body is going elsewhere, what is it going to exist in relation to in either the past or future? For it to be a past or future, there has to be a present relative to either. For there to be a present, the universe you expect to be waiting in the past or future can't be where you need it to be. How do you and your geniuses propose that the present be in the present, and in the past and future as well?

Is that enough content for you? Go ask Einstein, then come back with an answer. Thanks.

Time is the medium in which things change. The distance between objects is space. You are correct that time isn't a force, but it isn't "a relationship between the movements of two or more objects."

"There is no cosmic graph paper labelled 'time' through which we're moving.": how can you know?

Most objects are not durable enough to have a permanent concise identity. Only ideas can have concise identities.

Objects are not absolutely individual. All things are connected, and related, whether directly or indirectly.


"For it to be a past or future, there has to be a present relative to either. " -Certainly, but that is just a factor of language. There can still be certain states of matter and energy in a certain configuration in various "spots". You are talking about human perspective relative to moments in time, and not the moments in time themselves.

"If those bodies are located in the present, and the timetravelling body is going elsewhere, what is it going to exist in relation to in either the past or future? For it to be a past or future, there has to be a present relative to either. For there to be a present, the universe you expect to be waiting in the past or future can't be where you need it to be. How do you and your geniuses propose that the present be in the present, and in the past and future as well? "
The implication of what you are saying here is that you can't time travel because things would be in different places in the past and future. However, you are also implying that things are always in the same place, in the same state, which if true, would mean that there is essentially no time. At least, there would be no movement of objects relative to each other, and no change in the state of any objects.

Going to another point of the movement or state of objects is the whole point of time travel.