Physics Forums (http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   >Time travel is temporarily possible, at low speed :-) (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=102960)

 kleinwolf Dec6-05 02:31 AM

>Time travel is temporarily possible, at "low" speed :-)

This is easy : just go west, faster than 40000km/24=1'666km/h...then starting at 0:00 you arrive before the sun at the next parallel and hence before 0:00...but I don't know if it possible to make that sense of humour recharged of fuel for a long time...

 Pengwuino Dec6-05 02:41 AM

That's not time travel....

 matthyaouw Dec6-05 04:08 AM

I can travel through time. If I lay down and a darkened room and try to relax entirely, I suddenly find that it is several hours later. How cool is that?

 zoobyshoe Dec6-05 04:59 AM

I'd be extremely surprised to find there was anyone anywhere who wasn't constantly traveling through time.

 tribdog Dec6-05 07:05 AM

oh, there has been a few times late at night when I'd already replied to every post and I could have sworn that time stopped while I waited for someone to reply so I could post again.

time in fact doesn't exsist but only metaphysically can it be proven that it is a man made object to fool the "observer"

 Archon Dec15-05 07:07 PM

Quote:
 Quote by MohammadK time in fact doesn't exsist but only metaphysically can it be proven that it is a man made object to fool the "observer"
Ok...Prove it.

 tribdog Dec15-05 09:42 PM

I would if I had the time

Prove it huh?

well to prove that itself time exsists is in such a way to prove a wavefucntion properties of time this in its paradoxal form is like proving your exsistence.....Can you prove you exsist? The Ultimate question to every answer.

 Aether Dec22-05 06:24 PM

Quote:
 Quote by MohammadK well to prove that itself time exsists is in such a way to prove a wavefucntion properties of time this in its paradoxal form is like proving your exsistence.....Can you prove you exsist? The Ultimate question to every answer.
I think, therefore I am.

 rachmaninoff Dec22-05 06:36 PM

I think I am; therefore, I am I am.

I think therefor I am?

You know if you really spend some time and thought about it " I think therefor I am" doesn't really prove your exsistence, exsistence realtive to space and time had other atributes to itself concerning you true state of living to non-living. Did you exsist 200 years ago when you great grandparents would have given birth to your grand parents and they giving birth to YOUR parents and you in a state of a pre-exsisting embryo. Think about it.

 Pengwuino Dec22-05 08:28 PM

I am.... yet i don't think much.

 SpaceTiger Dec22-05 10:50 PM

Quote:
 Quote by kleinwolf This is easy : just go west, faster than 40000km/24=1'666km/h...then starting at 0:00 you arrive before the sun at the next parallel and hence before 0:00...but I don't know if it possible to make that sense of humour recharged of fuel for a long time...
This totally ignores the grandfather paradox. If, using your method, I travel back in time and kill my grandfather, there's just no way I'll be able to get back and deposit his money into my account before the bank closes.

 Smurf Dec23-05 05:04 AM

Quote:
 Quote by Aether I think, therefore I am.
Fallicious argument. In order to think you first have to exist so that sentence is really saying "I exist, therefore I exist". That's begging the question.

You also used it wrong, Descartes used all of it as a premise, not as an argument in it's self. He later changed it to "I am, I exist." to clear up the misunderstanding because people kept thinking he was infering something.

Joke time!

Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he would like another. "I think not," he says and vanishes in a puff of logic.

 Aether Dec23-05 06:33 AM

Quote:
 Quote by Smurf Fallicious argument. In order to think you first have to exist so that sentence is really saying "I exist, therefore I exist". That's begging the question. You also used it wrong, Descartes used all of it as a premise, not as an argument in it's self. He later changed it to "I am, I exist." to clear up the misunderstanding because people kept thinking he was infering something.
OK, you are correct.

So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. -- Descartes

 honestrosewater Dec24-05 01:02 AM

Quote:
 Quote by Smurf Fallicious argument. In order to think you first have to exist so that sentence is really saying "I exist, therefore I exist". That's begging the question.
If you take 'I think, therefore I exist', or 'P | Q', as an argument with 'P' as the premise and 'Q' as the conclusion, it certainly can't be circular because it isn't valid. However, if you add the premise 'P -> Q' (P implies Q), as you did in asserting that in order to think you first have to exist, it becomes an instance of Modus Ponens, '(P -> Q), P | Q', which isn't circular. You are correct, in a way, that '(P -> Q), P | Q' and 'Q | Q' are saying the same thing in that they are both valid arguments and have corresponding tautologies and theorems in classical logic. '(P -> Q), P | Q' becomes '(((P -> Q) & P) -> Q)' and 'Q | Q' becomes '(Q -> Q)'. In the same way, 'P | Q' corresponds to '(P -> Q)', which is what I had always thought he was asserting. But it seems he was just saying that 'Q' is a performative tautology, i.e., that 'I exist' is always true when the thing that 'I' refers to asserts that 'I exist' is true. Makes me wonder what kinds of things can make assertions. I mean, my printer doesn't make an assertion when it prints 'I exist'... or does it? hmmm...

Um, and I might incur the wrath of the stupid joke gods, but that joke seems to rely on the fallacy of denying the antecedent, '(P -> Q), ~P | ~Q'. Or maybe that was the joke. hmmm...
Now, if he had said 'I do not exist'... :rofl: Yeah. Good stuff.

 All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 PM.