12
   

time travel paradox

 
 
validity
 
  1  
Mon 4 May, 2009 05:30 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
Stephen Hawking says it will and you say it wont, maybe you are right and he is wrong Smile
The link of micro black hole production is interesting in itself, however there is no reference to
Alan McDougall wrote:
It is true that it might have not increased its mass , but it has hugely almost infinitely increased its density
i.e. the link shows that you do not need infinite density to form a micro black hole, all you need is to move the two elementary particles to within a certain distance of each other. The link has nothing about Hawking saying that an object travelling at relativistic speeds will, from any frame of reference, collapse into a micro black hole. The only reference the work of Hawking is It was shown by Hawking in '75 that a black hole emits particles with a temperature that is inverse to its mass.

You can not use this link to play the card "Hawking is smarter than you so you must be wrong" because I am not talking about the conditions in the article. If you said "move two particles to within a certain distance of each other and a black hole will form" and I said "no they wont" I would have a difficult time argueing against it.

Agreed Feynman was a genius. I often think how amusing it may of been for him to see the perplexed look on peoples faces when they have no way to refute the implications of the work i.e. particles moving back in time.

Wormholes have an inherent problem of being unstable (except in Star Trek I believe) and speculative, but yes they do provide means to do what you describe. Although I am not convinced that any form of backwards time travel can occur in a manner that these paradoxes could occur. A fuller understanding of quantum gravity (perhaps string theory) seems to be the next page of the road map to answering these questions.

NOTE ON EDIT: was having my lunch and realised I used the pharase "Schwarzschild radius" instead of the phrase "certain distance of each other". I also made a vague sentence which I will reword and post sometime tonight. I best correct myself and I apologise for any mix up the late edit caused.
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Tue 5 May, 2009 01:50 am
@xris,
Monored

Quote:

I dont really see a paradox on it, the fact that they were born twins doesnt means they are logically bound to be alike forever


The paradox is only about how the two twins age, the one on the journey at near light speed almost stops aging, while his twin on earth continues to age at the normal rate

The wormhole statement was a suggestion about how an extremely advanced
civilization could overcome the twin paradox effect,

If you travel through a wormhole there in no time contraction effect on the traveler so he/she can come back home just like a person can now come back home from a airplane journey to another country. Like the subway you cont have to use extreme speed going through a wormhole in space, it is just a short cut to the other side of the galaxies
Saint Michael
 
  1  
Tue 5 May, 2009 07:58 am
@Alan McDougall,
Time travel is fiction based, not scientific, nor theoretical, nor philosophical. Time travel is fictional, and the members who persist in making 'theories' do it only because they are selected members of society who can benefit from the fantasies and dreams of the others.

Basically it's along these lines Einstein and what's his face Hawkins(who does this quite alot) are given so much esteem by the media that the common people forget that these stars of physics and science 'etc' are humans themselves and have their own motives.

Take me for example are you really going to believe me over two of the acclaimed smartest people on Earth? I also think Stephen Hawkins fell off his rocker years ago. All this nonsense about Black Holes, Neutron Stars, and Time Travel me oh my how the things in this universe have to be so complex!

The Universe is simple... Very Simple... but so many people try to make it things it will never be.
click here
 
  1  
Tue 5 May, 2009 08:09 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
Forward travel in time is possible, but time travel into the past impossible, it is, however, possible to go into the future. The twin paradox is when a spaceman travels at almost the speed of light to a distant star, he will age much slower than his twin brother on earth

The reason for this time moves slower on a massive object than a less massive object. As the spacecraft approached the speed of light it becomes more and more massive, exponentially at that.

Einstein said it is impossible to get up to the speed of light because the object would need all the energy in the universe to do it and time will stand still,It would rip the universe apart

Back to the twins the twin on the earth will age at the normal rate of an earthy being, the twin speeding deep into the cosmos will age much slower, when the spaceman returns, he might find his twin a very old person, or if he had gone far out into the universe at a huge speed he might come back to the earth when humans are long gone on a bleak dead dying ancient unrecognisable planet.


I don't agree with that perception of time. You are not going into the future by approaching light you are merely slowing down the decay process of your body. If we put 1 apple in the freezer and 1 apple in the sun and 4 days later we notice the apple in the sun has rotted but the apple in the freezer looks just dandy. Do we then say that the apple went into the future? Surely not.
manored
 
  1  
Tue 5 May, 2009 12:49 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:

The paradox is only about how the two twins age, the one on the journey at near light speed almost stops aging, while his twin on earth continues to age at the normal rate
I still dont see the paradox, there is no doubt on what will happen.

Saint Michael wrote:
Time travel is fiction based, not scientific, nor theoretical, nor philosophical.

Take me for example are you really going to believe me over two of the acclaimed smartest people on Earth? I also think Stephen Hawkins fell off his rocker years ago. All this nonsense about Black Holes, Neutron Stars, and Time Travel me oh my how the things in this universe have to be so complex!

The Universe is simple... Very Simple... but so many people try to make it things it will never be.
Science and logic prove it impossible, so they are yes interested and involved in time travel, as in continually proving it impossible Smile

Black holes and neutron stars werent just invented, their teories were created because there are things in space that wouldnt make sense in the previous universal conceptions.

If we dont try to discover more about the universe our knowledge on this field will not advance. It also doesnt matters if teories are wrong, because as long as they work they are acceptable and they can always be replaced later.

click here wrote:
I don't agree with that perception of time. You are not going into the future by approaching light you are merely slowing down the decay process of your body. If we put 1 apple in the freezer and 1 apple in the sun and 4 days later we notice the apple in the sun has rotted but the apple in the freezer looks just dandy. Do we then say that the apple went into the future? Surely not.
Its not travelling to the future, but the results are the same than travelling to the future, and hence its said that it is travelling to the future Smile
Saint Michael
 
  1  
Tue 5 May, 2009 02:40 pm
@manored,
manored wrote:

Science and logic prove it impossible, so they are yes interested and involved in time travel, as in continually proving it impossible Smile

Black holes and neutron stars werent just invented, their teories were created because there are things in space that wouldnt make sense in the previous universal conceptions.

If we dont try to discover more about the universe our knowledge on this field will not advance. It also doesnt matters if theories are wrong, because as long as they work they are acceptable and they can always be replaced later.


Science and Logic have nothing to do with time travel, it's commen sense.:poke-eye:
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Tue 5 May, 2009 03:28 pm
@Saint Michael,
Saint Michael wrote:
Time travel is fiction based, not scientific, nor theoretical, nor philosophical. Time travel is fictional, and the members who persist in making 'theories' do it only because they are selected members of society who can benefit from the fantasies and dreams of the others.

Basically it's along these lines Einstein and what's his face Hawkins(who does this quite alot) are given so much esteem by the media that the common people forget that these stars of physics and science 'etc' are humans themselves and have their own motives.

Take me for example are you really going to believe me over two of the acclaimed smartest people on Earth? I also think Stephen Hawkins fell off his rocker years ago. All this nonsense about Black Holes, Neutron Stars, and Time Travel me oh my how the things in this universe have to be so complex!

The Universe is simple... Very Simple... but so many people try to make it things it will never be.


Time travel can happen, I the people on the space vehicle approaching the speed of light, "from their perceptive will be living at a normal rate and so will their clocks on their space ship"

If they could observe what was happening at on earth, time will flash by at an enormous rate forests will come into existence and vanish, ice ages will come and go in minutes

Of course only at near C 99.99999999

If an earth observer could look into the speeding space ship from "their perceptive", the clock in the space ship and space men might appear to not to move, those on might have to continuing observing the space vehicle for hundreds or even thousand of years to see the clock second hand move one click forward in time. Indeed from the earth observers point of view everything on the spaceship will appear frozen in time

This effect has been proved by putting to synchronized extremely accurate atomic clocks on a high speed vehicle like a space rocket or airplane

The atomic clock on the airplane was found to go slower than than the clock that remain stationary on the surface

This is not theory it is hard empirically tested science,so we know, we don't speculate that the twin paradox will happen on space vehicles that go at enormous speeds to explore the universe, "we know it will"

Time travel to the past , but you can go into the future , but it is a one way trip you can never return near to the time you left

You even age slower at the top of a skyscraper than you would if you lived on the ground flour , the difference in time is infinitesimal of course

The universe is decidedly NOT SIMPLE it is unimaginably complex that is why only a few great mind have little comprehension about all its wonder. Look at your brain is that simple, and yes it is part and parcel of the universe

How can you know things will never be, powered heavier than air flight was considered nonsense by some scientist before the Wright brothers proved them wrong An example comment by an eminent scientist of the day If you could ever get such a contraption into the air , "how would you come back to earth safely?, "soon as you slowed down this ridiculous craft would fall to the ground like a dead bird". Thank god the Wright brothers did not listen to statements like than

Of course unlike you I don't understand all about the universe, in fact I am envious of your omniscience

You insulting statements about great physicists like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein leads me to believe you are lacking in scientific knowledge and scientific history

It is obvious to me all you really know about astrophysics is limited to what you have read in the media
validity
 
  1  
Tue 5 May, 2009 09:02 pm
@click here,
click here wrote:
You are not going into the future by approaching light you are merely slowing down the decay process of your body. If we put 1 apple in the freezer and 1 apple in the sun and 4 days later we notice the apple in the sun has rotted but the apple in the freezer looks just dandy. Do we then say that the apple went into the future? Surely not.
The idea behind this line of thinking is that not only is the process of decay slowing down, but all processes are slowing, even those processes that define the standard time interval slow down. If one second is defined as the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom and this process inside the spacecraft slows down relative to the identical process on the earth, then in the spacecraft, while it is in realtive motion with respect to the earth, time must be passing at a slower rate than time on the earth (after all they are identical processes).
Saint Michael
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2009 08:08 am
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall;61479 wrote:
Time travel can happen, I the people on the space vehicle approaching the speed of light, "from their perceptive will be living at a normal rate and so will their clocks on their space ship"

If they could observe what was happening at on earth, time will flash by at an enormous rate forests will come into existence and vanish, ice ages will come and go in minutes

Of course only at near C 99.99999999

If an earth observer could look into the speeding space ship from "their perceptive", the clock in the space ship and space men might appear to not to move, those on might have to continuing observing the space vehicle for hundreds or even thousand of years to see the clock second hand move one click forward in time. Indeed from the earth observers point of view everything on the spaceship will appear frozen in time

This effect has been proved by putting to synchronized extremely accurate atomic clocks on a high speed vehicle like a space rocket or airplane

The atomic clock on the airplane was found to go slower than than the clock that remain stationary on the surface

This is not theory it is hard empirically tested science,so we know, we don't speculate that the twin paradox will happen on space vehicles that go at enormous speeds to explore the universe, "we know it will"

Time travel to the past , but you can go into the future , but it is a one way trip you can never return near to the time you left

You even age slower at the top of a skyscraper than you would if you lived on the ground flour , the difference in time is infinitesimal of course

The universe is decidedly NOT SIMPLE it is unimaginably complex that is why only a few great mind have little comprehension about all its wonder. Look at your brain is that simple, and yes it is part and parcel of the universe

How can you know things will never be, powered heavier than air flight was considered nonsense by some scientist before the Wright brothers proved them wrong An example comment by an eminent scientist of the day If you could ever get such a contraption into the air , "how would you come back to earth safely?, "soon as you slowed down this ridiculous craft would fall to the ground like a dead bird". Thank god the Wright brothers did not listen to statements like than

Of course unlike you I don't understand all about the universe, in fact I am envious of your omniscience

You insulting statements about great physicists like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein leads me to believe you are lacking in scientific knowledge and scientific history

It is obvious to me all you really know about astrophysics is limited to what you have read in the media


Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein were Humans, just as fallible as me and you, sharing the same weaknesses as me and you. I do not partake in what the media says these days for it is mostly a jumble of nonsense made to look like sense, or degrading or upgrading celebrities (which i hate).

What if you took a moment and considered reality? :listening:

An atom is simple an atom here and now and the space in between atoms is called a void. That there is no other 'dimension' and that the Universe is infinity, I really don't see how one could travel through time other than the regular way. It's really as simple as this. If time travel were possible it would destroy the fundamentals of our society, someone would have gone back in time long ago to try and disprove all religions, or a super futuristic Army would take over Earth because of an advancing Alien race in the future was winning a war.

So, you see people can not time travel not into the future and not to the past, with the exception of freezing yourself in a cryogenics lab of sorts.



"Stephen Hawking once suggested that the absence of tourists from the future constitutes an argument against the existence of time travel-a variant of the Fermi paradox. Of course this would not prove that time travel is physically impossible, since it might be that time travel is physically possible but that it is never in fact developed (or is cautiously never used); and even if it is developed, Hawking notes elsewhere that time travel might only be possible in a region of spacetime that is warped in the right way, and that if we cannot create such a region until the future, then time travelers would not be able to travel back before that date, so "This picture would explain why we haven't been over run by tourists from the future."[10] Carl Sagan also once suggested the possibility that time travelers could be here, but are disguising their existence or are not recognized as time travelers."

Let me suggest to you the relativity of common sense, there is no time travel, there is no other dimensions, and there is no physical proof that these things exist outside hypothesis and 'theories' created by supply and demand from the populace.
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2009 01:18 pm
@Saint Michael,
Saint Michael wrote:
Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein were Humans, just as fallible as me and you, sharing the same weaknesses as me and you. I do not partake in what the media says these days for it is mostly a jumble of nonsense made to look like sense, or degrading or upgrading celebrities (which i hate).

What if you took a moment and considered reality? :listening:

An atom is simple an atom here and now and the space in between atoms is called a void. That there is no other 'dimension' and that the Universe is infinity, I really don't see how one could travel through time other than the regular way. It's really as simple as this. If time travel were possible it would destroy the fundamentals of our society, someone would have gone back in time long ago to try and disprove all religions, or a super futuristic Army would take over Earth because of an advancing Alien race in the future was winning a war.

So, you see people can not time travel not into the future and not to the past, with the exception of freezing yourself in a cryogenics lab of sorts.



"Stephen Hawking once suggested that the absence of tourists from the future constitutes an argument against the existence of time travel-a variant of the Fermi paradox. Of course this would not prove that time travel is physically impossible, since it might be that time travel is physically possible but that it is never in fact developed (or is cautiously never used); and even if it is developed, Hawking notes elsewhere that time travel might only be possible in a region of spacetime that is warped in the right way, and that if we cannot create such a region until the future, then time travelers would not be able to travel back before that date, so "This picture would explain why we haven't been over run by tourists from the future."[10] Carl Sagan also once suggested the possibility that time travelers could be here, but are disguising their existence or are not recognized as time travelers."

Let me suggest to you the relativity of common sense, there is no time travel, there is no other dimensions, and there is no physical proof that these things exist outside hypothesis and 'theories' created by supply and demand from the populace.


Your common sense is not scientific sennse and not based on science or physics of which you appear to have a very limited understanding of the very basics..

I agree Einstein you or I are fallible humans but Einstein was much less fallible in the field of physics and his great theories have been proved by emperical science, Thus my avatar

Yet you continue to make then you state that Steve Hawking said the reason that no one from the future has visted us is proof that time travel is impossible , but you forgot he said TIME TRAVEL INTO THE PAST IS IMPOSSIBLE

Then you go off at a tangent and say Carl Sagon wrote that there might be time travelers could be in our midst , this is true in the light of physics but these time travelers , could not have come back from this universe's future , that is impossible, they could only have reached our present time from their past by going into their future by the light speed time contraction effect, by going into the future, and coming out at our present time,

NO TRAVELERS CAN SOMEHOW BOUNCED BACK FROM THE YEAR 300 0000 TO 2009 THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE OBVIOUSLY IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU COULD KILL YOUR DAD AND VANISH FROM EXISTENCE ETC ETC ETC :perplexed:

I repeat time travel into the PAST is impossible for the exact reason you mentioned. But an advanced civilizational could manipulate time and space to go into the future of even into the unimaginably far future with our present understanding of astrophysics That is a fact.

I repeat never to return to the time on earth they left

How can you state as fact that there is no other dimension , that statement is preposterous

I gave you proof scientific fact that the twin paradox can happen , but only by one twin going into the future by the slowing down of time on his space vehicle , relative the Earth or source where time RELATIVE TO THE SPACE MAN OR TWIN CONTINUES AS NORMAL

For Gosh sake, read what a person posts and then comment point by pint, refuting what you think is not correct and adding your you inputs to reasonable converts us lesser souls to your take on truth

Hawking was right TIME TRAVEL INTO THE PAST IS IMPOSSIBLE, but you can manipulate time by by enormous speeds to go into the FUTURE NEVER EVER TO RETURN


THAT IS WHY HIS STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO TRAVEL BACK IN TIME, SO NO ONE CAN EVER COME FROM THE FUTURE TO VISITED US.IT IS IMPOSSIBLE GET IT NOW MY FRIEND?

The universe is not infinite if it were it could not expand the arrow of time would be pushed back to eternity and we could never have reached the present moment in time, you would not exist, the earth would not have come into existence.

The universe had a beginning the Big Bang and it will end someday , be it by the great crunch, heat entropic death or the cold dark freezing death of an ever expanding universe decaying into utter nothingness but an infinite void.

The jury is out exactly how this end will happen , but happen it absolutely will, nothing is eternal grand entropy takes good care of that Smile
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Wed 6 May, 2009 02:38 pm
@Saint Michael,
Saint Michael wrote:
Science and Logic have nothing to do with time travel, it's commen sense.:poke-eye:
Alright, try proving time travel is impossible winhout science or logic Smile

Saint Michael wrote:
Let me suggest to you the relativity of common sense, there is no time travel, there is no other dimensions, and there is no physical proof that these things exist outside hypothesis and 'theories' created by supply and demand from the populace.
The inexistence of proof is not enough to dismiss something. If someone throws a grenade at me I will have no proof it is true until it explodes, but I will jump away before-hand anyway.

Alan McDougall wrote:
The universe is not infinite if it were it could not expand the arrow of time would be pushed back to eternity and we could never have reached the present moment in time, you would not exist, the earth would not have come into existence.

The universe had a beginning the Big Bang and it will end someday , be it by the great crunch, heat entropic death or the cold dark freezing death of an ever expanding universe decaying into utter nothingness but an infinite void.
The universe is infinite. That is, indeed, impossible, but that is why the beggining of the universe is a paradox: It cant be finite because to any event to happen it requires time, so for time to start it would need a meta-time, wich would need a meta-meta-time, and so on.
click here
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2009 12:50 am
@validity,
validity wrote:
The idea behind this line of thinking is that not only is the process of decay slowing down, but all processes are slowing, even those processes that define the standard time interval slow down. If one second is defined as the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom and this process inside the spacecraft slows down relative to the identical process on the earth, then in the spacecraft, while it is in realtive motion with respect to the earth, time must be passing at a slower rate than time on the earth (after all they are identical processes).


I don't agree with that definition of time. That turns time into a physical thing. If a scientist cools down something to near 0 Kelvin would you really refer to what ever was being cooled as something passing through time slower then you are? I view time as some sort of non physical clock that is unaffected my physical things.
validity
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2009 02:32 am
@click here,
click here wrote:
If a scientist cools down something to near 0 Kelvin would you really refer to what ever was being cooled as something passing through time slower then you are? I view time as some sort of non physical clock that is unaffected my physical things.
No, the mechanism in the atom part of the atomic clock is not affected by temperature. An atomic clock at near absolute zero is an easier to use atomic clock than one at room temperature NIST-F1 - Cesium Fountain Atomic Clock

I was referring to the difference in process rate due to the constancy of the speed of light in all frames of reference.
click here
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2009 02:41 am
@validity,
validity wrote:
No, the mechanism in an atomic clock is not affected by temperature. An atomic clock at near absolute zero is an easier to use atomic clock than one at room temperature NIST-F1 - Cesium Fountain Atomic Clock

I was referring to the difference in process rate due to the constancy of the speed of light in all frames of reference.


What ever it may be is it not a physical effect on the atom that is slowing the process rate down?
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2009 07:12 am
@manored,
manored wrote:
Alright, try proving time travel is impossible winhout science or logic Smile

The inexistence of proof is not enough to dismiss something. If someone throws a grenade at me I will have no proof it is true until it explodes, but I will jump away before-hand anyway.

The universe is infinite. That is, indeed, impossible, but that is why the beggining of the universe is a paradox: It cant be finite because to any event to happen it requires time, so for time to start it would need a meta-time, wich would need a meta-meta-time, and so on.


In other words Infinite regression , with time regressing infinitely into the past it can never flow to the future. That type of universe is impossible and that and we appear to agree on that just using different semantics

The Time paradox or twin paradox is a proved fact of science!!

Quote:
Previously posted by validity

No, the mechanism in the atom part of the atomic clock is not affected by temperature. An atomic clock at near absolute zero is an easier to use atomic clock than one at room temperature NIST-F1 - Cesium Fountain Atomic Clock

I was referring to the difference in process rate due to the constancy of the speed of light in all frames of reference.


I was referring to these clocks of extreme accuracy that have been used to PROVE TIME FLOWS SLOWER IN A FASTER MEDIUM THAN ITS STATIONARY SOURCE.

Someone, not you!!, just can rap his mind around the fact that Einsteins Theory of Relativity has passed from theory to scientific fact of physics Now called Cosmological Relativity etc

In atom smashers injecting protons at colossal speed almost c down the tunnel, have found that these particles do not arrive when they should, but arrive infinitesimally later than they should if the time contraction effect did not happen
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/ask_astro/askastro_banner.jpg

Evidence for General and Special Relativity

(Submitted March 27, 1998)

I would like to know if it is true, that the theory of relativity has been proven by some scientists, who made satellite experiments?
What was there discovery and how did they prove it?

The Answer

This topic is fairly broad, so let me try to narrow it a little. "Relativity" is a rather general term that encompasses both special and general relativity. The former encompasses effects such as the changes in physical properties of objects with speeds approaching that of light, whereas the latter includes effects having to do with the bending of "spacetime" by massive bodies.

There is no one experiment which "proves" relativity, and yet so many experiments have provided consistency with the "theories", that most scientists accept them as being extremely accurate in their descriptions of reality.

"Special Relativity": The strongest direct evidence comes probably from particle accelerators, in which subatomic particles such as electrons and positrons are accelerated to within a few inches per second of the speed of light.



We can observe very clearly and accurately the changes in, for instance, the apparent masses of the particles. They are observed to increase dramatically, and in fact new and much heavier particles can be created by making counter-rotating beams of, say, electrons and positrons, collide head-on with each other. Special relativity has played a key role in the design and operation of particle accelerators for many decades.
"General Relativity":



There have been a variety of experiments over the years which have supported general relativity in ever more detail. I would say the culmination was the awarding of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics to Russell Hulse and Joe Taylor for the discovery of the binary pulsar 1913+16.



This binary star system consists of two neutron stars which are orbiting about their common center of mass about every 7.75 hrs. Over time, they are spiraling in toward each other, due to loss of energy via "gravitational radiation" - a prediction of general relativity.



Other general relativistic effects are observed, such as the "precession of the periastron". That is to say, the stars are in elliptical orbits, and the "long direction" of each ellipse is precessing with respect to a distant observer. This effect is about 4 degrees per year. (In comparison, for Mercury going around the Sun, it is about 44 seconds of arc per century.)


There are a host of other experiments which confirm different aspects of both special and general relativity..


J.K. Cannizzo
for Ask an Astrophysicis
No0ne
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2009 04:18 pm
@manored,
:detective:An example.

Object "A" starts to orbit the earth at 12:00am and orbits earth at "2x183,000mps" for 1min and ends at 12:01am.
Object "B" starts to orbit the earth at 12:00am and orbits earth at "183,000mps" for 1min and ends at 12:01am.
Object "C" is on earth heating up a cup and noodle in the microwave at 12:00am for 1min and ends at 12:01am.

Reguardless of speeds/composition/mass/gravity/ect, objects A,B,C will still move at the same rate upon a "Dementional Time Line" from a fixed start point. (Big Bang)

Reguadless of your perception, objects A,B,C will still move at the same rate upon a "Dementional Time Line" from a fixed start point. (Big Bang)


---------- Post added at 04:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 PM ----------

This is what I have defined the words "Time Travel" as.

1.Time travel in the sence of moving forward upon a time line ahead of everything els upon the time line.(To Future)
2.Time travel in the sence of moving back upon a time line behind of everything els upon the time line.(To Past)


I have re-classed "Time Travel" to "Theoretical Dementional Travel" bellow statements tell of why.
http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/3859-time-travel-paradox-8.html#post60411
You cant go forward if there is no forward to go forward to.
You cant go back if there is no back to go back to.

(*note I have not gone through the dynamics of perception in relation to time (aka sleep, dreams, salvia, light, ect) due to such things are more suited for the section "Philosophy Of The Mind")

(*Note there is no paradox.. just delustions..)
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2009 06:04 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Alan McDougall wrote:
In other words Infinite regression , with time regressing infinitely into the past it can never flow to the future. That type of universe is impossible and that and we appear to agree on that just using different semantics
Indeed, but a finite universe is impossible as well, as nothing comes out of nothing (if it did we would have to ask where "nothing" came from). So the beggining of the universe is a paradox... dang Smile
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2009 07:29 pm
@manored,
manored wrote:
Indeed, but a finite universe is impossible as well, as nothing comes out of nothing (if it did we would have to ask where "nothing" came from). So the beggining of the universe is a paradox... dang Smile


Let me try just one more time why it is possible in the light of proven physics to manipulable time to come out somewhere in the future

It is a fact if you go at near c or colossal speed toward a star some 200 light years from earth, you could arrive in the spaceships relative time in just one year and return in two years spaceship time of course.

You are still going into the future but more slowly than a person left behind on earth, where time continues to flow normally

Both persons, the one in the spaceship, and the one on earth, perceive time flowing exactly as before, each clock to them continues to tick tick just as before

Taking a hypothetical example , if you put these two clocks side by side what would you see

Earth clock tick tick ticking normally

Spaceship clock tick .................................................................tick

Clock in spaceship at near c one ticks only in once hour get it now relative to the earth clock.

Both are ticking away into the future "but at different rates" Got it yet???

I will try another hypothetical example to get over my point

We have two conveyor belts called time, one person on earth sitting on the earths time conveyor belt.

The earth conveyor belt is synchronized to move exactly 100 miles in one hour

So the guy on the conveyor belt on earth moved a hundred miles in one hour OK with that people?

The space vehicle and spaceman have on the other hand landed on a slower conveyor belt (by the effect of time contraction)

Time contraction has slowed down the conveyor on which the spacecraft is now traveling, down to a snails crawl, compared to the earth conveyor on which our earth guys still sits on, hmmmm!! lets say it takes the spaceship conveyor to go 1 mile in one hour

If these two objects, earth guy, and spacecraft don't start to run down their conveyors.

This will happen:

Thus in one hour on earth the guy on earth conveyor moves a hour ahead and advances 100 miles

Thus the spacecraft and the guy inside, moves only 1 mile ahead in one hour

Now lets reverse that

It takes one hour one hour for the conveyor on earth to advance one hundred miles

On the spacecraft it takes much longer to move a hundred miles , it takes a 'hundred hours to cross the same distance", strangely the space guy is blissfully unaware of this and thinks time is moving just as before.

Every hour on the spaceship equates to a hundred hours on earth. Or a year equates to a hundred years on earth

So our patient gentle space man goes for a two year trip out there and back journey to somewhere into our glorious universe.

He poppes up near the earth and observes from far out everything appears just as before normal blue earth shimmering in the void

Remember to him he has only been gone "two years",when he land he find in horror that there is no one to greet him , and he has arrived "two hundred years later" than he thought he would, but he was unaware of the time paradox effect , like many of you would be in the same situation and the Olympic Games of the year 2212 are in progress

This is how one could go into the future but sadly, sadly you can never ever to return to the time zone the left

So it is within possibility that in the future if you where enormously wealthy and science had advances so we could propel a space craft at these colossal speeds of near c You could arrange to see the Olympic games of the year 3009 by the very same careful manipulation of time

But going back in time an impossibility

Gosh and jolly jolly Gosh Gosh this is my final desperate attempt to explain a really simple concept of astrophysics

I like this post of mine I am going to copy and past and plagiarize my very own work

Oh I forgot the poor old twin on earth is long dead and gone even though he lived to an age of ninety

The twin on the space ship on the other hand has only aged two years etc etc

Peace and goodwill

Alan
validity
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2009 08:22 pm
@click here,
click here wrote:
What ever it may be is it not a physical effect on the atom that is slowing the process rate down?
I think the "what ever it may be" is important here. In cooling an object, some of the kinetic energy that the constituents have, is taken away. Yes, the process of moving from point A to point B is slowed down (since the do not have as much kinetic energy as before), but not all processes are influenced by temperature eg atomic resonance. The contancy of the speed of light in all frames means that time stretches and space (distance) contracts, in order for everybody (those in relative motion with an object and those stationary with respect to the obejct) to agree that light travels at the same speed. The differnece with relative motion is that the process slows down because the time component of the system is stretched (and conversely distance contracts) so that the speed of light remains the same.

No0ne wrote:
You cant go forward if there is no forward to go forward to.
I think it is more a case of I could get to the year 2100 in half the time as you :cool:
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Thu 7 May, 2009 09:06 pm
@validity,
You absolutely can go forward but you can never return to the time that you left behind, that is physics, proved physics and my last word on the matter
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/04/2024 at 01:27:26