Time Machine will not be invented

[Magnethos]

Brin
Thank for the link, I'm reading it and at the moment I have found it interesting.

The problem with serious discussion about time travel is that we need to understand in other way to understand how the universe works. People that have studied in university use the classic point of view of science, valid, but incomplete to fully understand the time travel physics. And the people that haven't studied in university cannot fully explain physics in a correct way.
So, what happens? People with an university degree have a classic, proven, point of view about physics and usually they don't want to believe in these kind of "para-physics", because almost always this non conventional point of view is rated as esoteric science, pseudoscience, etc...
In the pseudoscientific world there are a lot of charlatans, of course. For that reason, pseudoscience is classified as a non-sense way to understand physics. But the true key is that someones in the pseudoscience world seems to be right. But they are very little known. So, speaking about time travel could be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

These kind of paraphysics include:
Quantum electrodynamics, vorticular physics, quantum numerology, vibratory chemistry, hyperdimensional physics, unified field theories, etc...
Another obstacle is that is very difficult to find information about these fields. The little I know, I have learned reading books in 5 different languages since 1920 to the actuality. And I have found very little amount of books. And you need to know about chemistry, physics, electrical engineering...
Almost an impossible task to achieve.

The only way is to read all kind of things with an open mind, get the points in common that the information has and put in practice very simple experiments. The only experiment I've proposed, is to interact with matter using non-electromagnetic waves, aka pure potential waves.
With this experimentation, it could be possible to learn how to affect matter with electrical currents. And, understand than materialization and dematerialization could be possible.
I've also some books in Italian that explains how to access to the memory of solid objects, reading past events.

 

[Studiot]

The problem with serious discussion about time travel is that we need to understand in other way to understand how the universe works.

There is another way, but it depends what you mean by time travel.

Look at posts, 8, 9 , 12 and possibly 38 ( can't find the post I referred to now in 38)

 

[pallidin]

Time travel, to the past, seems wholly plausible if considered as being only observational.

 

[Magnethos]

There is another way, but it depends what you mean by time travel.

Look at posts, 8, 9 , 12 and possibly 38 ( can't find the post I referred to now in 38)

With time travel, I mean transport a physical object from the actual space-time to other time.
For example, send an object from here in this time-frame reference to, for example, 1920.
I know, for example that time travel can also be achieved using non physical matter in the astral plane.

I will look at those post in a few hours, because I need to leave right now.

 

[Studiot]

With time travel, I mean transport a physical object from the actual space-time to other time.
For example, send an object from here in this time-frame reference to, for example, 1920.

This is the sticking point, because as the referred posts show it is an inappropriate view of physical objects.

It views the existence of a physical object on the time axis as though it was a string of discrete or individual beads, whereby you could pluck one out and move it somewhere else along the string.

Of course the reality is that the single time axis enjoys the same level of continuity as the three space axes. All the beads are, in reality, indivisible or fused together, so you have to move them all or destroy the object.

The referred posts examine the associated question

If we were to accomplish time travel ( = time displacement) what would that involve, by analogy with what we can accomplish ie spatial dispacement.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is the sticking point, because as the referred posts show it is an inappropriate view of physical objects.

It views the existence of a physical object on the time axis as though it was a string of discrete or individual beads, whereby you could pluck one out and move it somewhere else along the string.

Of course the reality is that the single time axis enjoys the same level of continuity as the three space axes. All the beads are, in reality, indivisible or fused together, so you have to move them all or destroy the object.

The referred posts examine the associated question

If we were to accomplish time travel ( = time displacement) what would that involve, by analogy with what we can accomplish ie spatial dispacement.

I don't see where you're having difficulty. Yes, time is as continuous as any of the spatial dimensions. My car, headed North along Hwy 400 is going from [y t] to [y' t']. I can easily move it smoothly from [y' t'] back to [y t''] if I want. (I add the t > t' > t'' element simply for completeness since it can't remain stationary in the t dimension.)

By analogy, my stationary car (and everything else) is going from [x y t] to [x y t']. Why would I not be able to move it smoothly from [y t'] back to, say [y' t]? (In this case, I translate it through y so it does not end up on top of itself.)

No beads.

 

[Studiot]

Dave, because your car is not a point (x,y.z,t) to be moved to another point either say (x',y,z,t) or (x,y,z,t')

It has physical extents. Let us call it a parallelpiped {(x,(x+h));(y,(y+l));(z,(z+k))}.

If you wish to time travel this car from t to t' you not only have to move the point {x,y,z} but also {(x+h);(y+l);(z+k)} along with all point in between.

There is a second difficulty, alreadymentioned in the listed posted, but this explanation directly address your query.

 

[JaredJames]

Dave, because your car is not a point (x,y.z,t) to be moved to another point either say (x',y,z,t) or (x,y,z,t')

It has physical extents. Let us call it a parallelpiped {(x,(x+h));(y,(y+l));(z,(z+k))}.

If you wish to time travel this car from t to t' you not only have to move the point {x,y,z} but also {(x+h);(y+l);(z+k)} along with all point in between.

There is a second difficulty, alreadymentioned in the listed posted, but this explanation directly address your query.

My car sits on my driveway, very much stationary. It traverses the t dimension constantly, but none of the others.

EDIT: before anyone says "but your car is moving because the earth/galaxy etc is, let's take it as a fixed, completely stationary point.

 

[Studiot]

constantly

What forever?

 

[JaredJames]

What forever?

Does time stop?

 

[Studiot]

Does time stop?

No of course not. But your car only occupies a fraction of the time axis. It has duration in time, just as it has extents in space.
I have prepared a set of sketches for discussion purposes. Moving your car along the time (my X) axis is like fig 2 not like figs 3/4

 

[JaredJames]

How long it remains on the time axis as a car is irrelevant. The matter/energy always exists, just in a different form.

If the car doesn't move in the x,y,z frames, it still moves through t. On basic principle, if a time machines were possible, why would you not be able to move backwards through t instead of forwards without moving the other three (or at least only enough to compensate so you don't run into the car again)?

Anyone seen the film The Time Machine? The guy builds a time machine and it shows him moving through time (forward or back) with the machine staying completely stationary all except time. (They ignored 'collisions' with other objects). That is the sort of thing myself (and DaveC I believe) is referring to.

 

[Studiot]

How long it remains on the time axis as a car is irrelevant.

I can't begin to guess what you mean by this. Just because you don't appreciate the point, doesn't give you the right to declare it irrelevant.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sorry; I've gotten lost. What exactly is the problem again?

 

[Magnethos]

I know for some people the next information would be irrelevant. Check the next video, of a scientist explaining what is time.
Remember, it's non-oficially accepted, but this other version to ear to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmjMVXO506A&feature=related"

Start in 5:50, before nothing is very important.

Update #1

This is the sticking point, because as the referred posts show it is an inappropriate view of physical objects.

It views the existence of a physical object on the time axis as though it was a string of discrete or individual beads, whereby you could pluck one out and move it somewhere else along the string.

Of course the reality is that the single time axis enjoys the same level of continuity as the three space axes. All the beads are, in reality, indivisible or fused together, so you have to move them all or destroy the object.

The referred posts examine the associated question

If we were to accomplish time travel ( = time displacement) what would that involve, by analogy with what we can accomplish ie spatial dispacement.

There would be another option that we need to look at.
We can have different types of "time travel", and I think the time axis would be more than 1.
When saying about time travel, we usually think about selecting a portion of the X, Y, Z (space entity in a reference) and sending it backward or forward in time.
But we could also make time travel in the present space. Imagine that the given object (a cat) is in the present space but it gets older or younger faster than the normal rate.

I mean, you can accelerate or decelerate the time flow of a given X,Y,Z object in the present (in a selected space reference/frame). So, anything that exist in the present space frame is coupled to the speed of the time flow present. You can modify the speed of time in the present space. It would be like "Time Reversal" an object. It won't be look like time travel, but it would be like rejuvenating/aging.
I don't know how to explain it.

 

[Studiot]

@magenthos?
So you are saying our time dimension is a bivector produced by a more complicated physical entity or set of entities?

 

[Magnethos]

Studiot
Something like that, yes. Time and Space are coherent representations of the virtual state.
I have to read more about that. I can think something about that, but just right now I don't know how to explain it.

 

[Studiot]

Time and Space are coherent representations of the virtual state.

Not sure what you mean here I have never heard of this.

For those who are interested, Wiki give a good exposition of Bi vectors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivector

Nevertheless none of this affects what I had to say or my analogies.

 

[DaveC426913]

But we could also make time travel in the present space. Imagine that the given object (a cat) is in the present space but it gets older or younger faster than the normal rate.

I mean, you can accelerate or decelerate the time flow of a given X,Y,Z object in the present (in a selected space reference/frame). So, anything that exist in the present space frame is coupled to the speed of the time flow present. You can modify the speed of time in the present space. It would be like "Time Reversal" an object. It won't be look like time travel, but it would be like rejuvenating/aging.
I don't know how to explain it.

You could speed up an object (cat gets old), you could slow down an object (cat is in stasis), but you could never reverse time this way - you could never "make the cat get younger" - even in principle.

Consider the cat's memories as one example. Let's pretend you put the cat in your time chamber and switch it on. The cat is still seeing the walls of the test chamber, which means it is still moving forward in time - new things being sensed new memories are being implanted in its brain. It's brain is growing, just like its body is.

In order for the cat to be traveling backward through time, it would have to be experiencing everything in reverse - it is pulled out of the time box, food is pulled from its mouth, it is put back in its cage, where it sucks its urine back into its body. The cat's memories get younger even as its body gets younger.

Even if the cat in the chamber is moving backward through time, how can this happen? A half hour ago, it was stretched out to its full length, sleeping under its favourite smelly blanket. The chamber is only a foot long. How can the cat be in the chamber, having moved back a half hour (and therefore back to sleeping, and under its fuzzy blanket that it can smell) if its new space does not accommodate everything it was expereincing?



Time travel in the sense of speeding up and slowing down time is pretty straightforward - it can be done with SR and GR tricks.

No, when people speak of time travel, they are almost always talking about moving backward in time.

 

[JDługosz]

No of course not. But your car only occupies a fraction of the time axis. It has duration in time, just as it has extents in space.
I have prepared a set of sketches for discussion purposes. Moving your car along the time (my X) axis is like fig 2 not like figs 3/4

Your idea, interesting for a bad Sci-Fi movie as an unusual twist on the idea, doesn't actually make sense.

Imagine the example done with a salt crystal. You say you move the "birth" and "death" positions of the salt crystal to new locations. But, why does the time machine care about your concept of the crystal being "the thing" to move? The atoms existed before they came together to form that crystal. The "birth" has no physical meaning. The sodium atoms, for example, were in the ocean, then underground, then an ocean again, then part of a cell, etc. Does the entire world-line of each sodium atom get so-translated?

Well, what about the "birth" of the atom? It was forged in a star out of primordial hydrogen and electrons. Do all those particles get translated too?

 

[Studiot]

You say you move the "birth" and "death" positions of the salt crystal to new locations.

And every temporal (or spatial) point in between.

But, why does the time machine care about your concept of the crystal being "the thing" to move?

Because that is the defined object to be moved. If I pick a sugar cube out of the sugar bowl and put it in my tea (spatial movement) I do not care that this sugar was once sap in a plant or a liquid in a sugar factory tank or that it touches the side of the bowl or other sugar cubes.

But I still move the whole cube, not a part of it.

Consider this experiment.
I have a stack of blocks on the table.
I remove one of them and place it by the side of the stack. ( a spatial movement )

If it is the top one there is no further disturbance in the universe (spatial consequences)
If it is the bottom one the whole pile comes tumbling down and there are spatial cause and effect consequences, because there are blocks depending upon the bottom one, but not the top one, for support.

There seems to be an argument which runs that a temporal movement of the block will create a paradox ( temporal consequences) therefore time travel is impossible.

I am simply saying that if a block is moved in time or space there may be cause and effect consequences. However the time axis seems to be jam packed full, compared to the space axes where it may be possible to arrange movement without consequences. Perhaps we could posit a totally isolated block that could be moved in time with no effect on the rest of the universe?

 

[Ash Small]

And every temporal (or spatial) point in between.



Because that is the defined object to be moved. If I pick a sugar cube out of the sugar bowl and put it in my tea (spatial movement) I do not care that this sugar was once sap in a plant or a liquid in a sugar factory tank or that it touches the side of the bowl or other sugar cubes.

But I still move the whole cube, not a part of it.

Consider this experiment.
I have a stack of blocks on the table.
I remove one of them and place it by the side of the stack. ( a spatial movement )

If it is the top one there is no further disturbance in the universe (spatial consequences)
If it is the bottom one the whole pile comes tumbling down and there are spatial cause and effect consequences, because there are blocks depending upon the bottom one, but not the top one, for support.

There seems to be an argument which runs that a temporal movement of the block will create a paradox ( temporal consequences) therefore time travel is impossible.

I am simply saying that if a block is moved in time or space there may be cause and effect consequences. However the time axis seems to be jam packed full, compared to the space axes where it may be possible to arrange movement without consequences. Perhaps we could posit a totally isolated block that could be moved in time with no effect on the rest of the universe?

This is the pont I was trying to make using PEP, Studiot.

Every particle has it's place in the universe and in history. If anything went back in time it would go back to where it was at that time.

If one were to travel back in time one would not be aware of it, as the future would not have happened yet.

 

[Magnethos]

I like very much the theory, but I have a question...
Does anyone start trying some kind of electronic test? I say you that because I have some books (some of them very old and very rare), that describes theories about the matter, time, etc...
My question is if someone want to collaborate with me into replicating these experiments and working together in the development of the devices.

The first experiment would be a device to alter matter using radiations. Basically it consists in a non-hertzian wave generator (potential waves transformer), a circuit and a computer program to measure the composition of the object through resonant properties, and a "spark gap" to put between the object we want to be irradiated. This is absolutely experimental and it requires some knowledge in the electronic field.

 

[DaveC426913]

This completely fails to grasp the very concept of time travel.

Every particle has it's place in the universe and in history.

This is an utterly philosophical belief of choice, bereft of any physics-esque teeth.

It is also tautological. 'Time travel is impossible because I've defined it in a way that says time travel is impossible.'

If anything went back in time it would go back to where it was at that time.

Why? Time is a dimension. I can go from y to y' and back to y again. We are simply talking about going from t to t' and back to t again. No one said x or z have to remain fixed in either case.

If one were to travel back in time one would not be aware of it, as the future would not have happened yet.

That is not time travel.

If one goes somehere, by definition, one takes one's mind with one.

Consider the analogy to traveling back in space. If I go to the cottage, do I only have with me the things I brought last time I came back from the cottage? No. A change in direction does not imply an undoing of the previous direction. This trip to the cottage is with the current me. I have new luggage in my trunk and new tires on my car.

As it is with time travel, I travel in time, meaning I bring all my current thoughts with me.

 

[Ash Small]

This completely fails to grasp the very concept of time travel.



This is an utterly philosophical belief of choice, bereft of any physics-esque teeth.

It is also tautological. 'Time travel is impossible because I've defined it in a way that says time travel is impossible.'


Why? Time is a dimension. I can go from y to y' and back to y again. We are simply talking about going from t to t' and back to t again. No one said x or z have to remain fixed in either case.


That is not time travel.

If one goes somehere, by definition, one takes one's mind with one.

Consider the analogy to traveling back in space. If I go to the cottage, do I only have with me the things I brought last time I came back from the cottage? No. A change in direction does not imply an undoing of the previous direction. This trip to the cottage is with the current me. I have new luggage in my trunk and new tires on my car.

As it is with time travel, I travel in time, meaning I bring all my current thoughts with me.

Dave, I appreciate the points you make, but consider this:

If you travel from (x,y,z,t) to (x',y',z',t'), you pass through every point on the x-axis between x and x', similarly for the y,z and t axes.

If you then take a different route back to (x,y,z,t), you again pass through every point on each axis between (x',y',z',t') and (x,y,z,t).

When traveling along the t axis you either get older or younger, depending on your direction.

You cannot travel along the time axis in either direction without your age changing.

If you are getting older you are traveling forwards in time, not backwards.

 

[DaveC426913]

When traveling along the t axis you either get older or younger, depending on your direction.

You cannot travel along the time axis in either direction without your age changing.

This is not true.


If I travel West 10 miles, then East 8 miles, I personally have traveled 18 miles (and so has every aspect of my car), even if to an outside observer it appears I have only traveled 2. (The observer does not see gross distance and duration of trip, observer only sees net result).

If I travel 10 years into the future (at 1 year per year, like everyone else does), then travel 8 years back into the past (at 1 year per year), I will be 18 years older, not 2.

So that even if I travel 8 years back into the past taking only 8 seconds instead of 8 years to do so, I personally am now 10 years+8 seconds older.

 

[Ash Small]

This is not true.


If I travel West 10 miles, then East 8 miles, I personally have traveled 18 miles (and so has every aspect of my car), even if to an outside observer it appears I have only traveled 2. (The observer does not see gross distance and duration of trip, observer only sees net result).

If I travel 10 years into the future (at 1 year per year, like everyone else does), then travel 8 years back into the past (at 1 year per year), I will be 18 years older, not 2.

So that even if I travel 8 years back into the past taking only 8 seconds instead of 8 years to do so, I personally am now 10 years+8 seconds older.

Dave, That's like saying if you run five miles every morning and five miles every evening, after two weeks you'll be 140 miles away. (this is not the case for any of the joggers I know.)

If you travel 10 years into the future then 8 years into the past you will only be two years older.

We both have a different opinion here. How do we ascertain which of us is correct?

 

[Time Machine]

Quote from Dave
...despite the fact that it's a one-way trip in time.

If you let 100 years go by while you take only 6 years to travel to Gliese 581, all your loved ones are dead forever.
It is important to keep in mind that there is dilation in only one direction. You can slow time via GR but you cannot speed it up. Free space, away from massive bodies is the fastest time is going to travel. Moving into a gravity well will slow time for you, but there'e no counterpart. There is no flatter space or negative curvature.[/QUOTE]

Having given this some thought, I think that according to what you have said above that there may be the possibility of a return journey.

I will re-itterate my idea in the interests of this posts coherency...

On the basis that time is variable according to gravity intensity, I can see that "a" concept of time travel could be realized in that slower time may be created IF gravity could be controlled.
When traveling in very fast time/gravity variables, such as found in outer space, in a slow time/gravity controlled craft, to spell it out, your time would be happening at a much slower rate than time outside the craft.
On the basis that there is no "flatter space" or "negative curvature", could the possibility of an all the way round trip exist?
If your time on the craft were set at a slower rate than Earth's time and the rate, or rates, that time happens at in space were known, a clever mathematician could theoretically navigate the craft in a "round trip" back to Earth not long after it's departure without the need for anything to be in two places at the same time and one's loved one's would still be alive.
The crafts speed would be a factor in these calculations.

There is of course the considerable problem of controlling gravity. As my input to such a discussion would be zero, I realize that it would be unfair of me to ask anyone else to embark in such and will now leave the subject alone.

 

[Time Machine]

Brin
Thank for the link, I'm reading it and at the moment I have found it interesting.

The problem with serious discussion about time travel is that we need to understand in other way to understand how the universe works. People that have studied in university use the classic point of view of science, valid, but incomplete to fully understand the time travel physics. And the people that haven't studied in university cannot fully explain physics in a correct way.
So, what happens? People with an university degree have a classic, proven, point of view about physics and usually they don't want to believe in these kind of "para-physics", because almost always this non conventional point of view is rated as esoteric science, pseudoscience, etc...
In the pseudoscientific world there are a lot of charlatans, of course. For that reason, pseudoscience is classified as a non-sense way to understand physics. But the true key is that someones in the pseudoscience world seems to be right. But they are very little known. So, speaking about time travel could be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

I whole-heartedly agree with you statement above and would like to add:
Early man encountered many round things before a slight change in perception and perspective in the way of looking at these things brought about the advent of the wheel.

 

[JaredJames]

Dave, That's like saying if you run five miles every morning and five miles every evening, after two weeks you'll be 140 miles away. (this is not the case for any of the joggers I know.)

Do you know what displacement is in comparison to distance travelled? If I run five miles to work every morning and five miles home every evening, after a week I will have traveled 50 miles in distance, however I will have a net displacement of 0 miles.

If you travel 10 years into the future then 8 years into the past you will only be two years older.

We both have a different opinion here. How do we ascertain which of us is correct?

If you travel within a time machine, your own personal timeline isn't affected by the changes in time around you.

If you have a time machine and travel 8 years back. Everything outside the time machine will become 8 years younger, everything inside remains at their current age plus the journey time. This is the concept you aren't grasping here. This is what people mean when they say time travel (reference: any movie involving time travel).

 

[Time Machine]

If you travel within a time machine, your own personal timeline isn't affected by the changes in time around you.

If you have a time machine and travel 8 years back. Everything outside the time machine will become 8 years younger, everything inside remains at their current age plus the journey time. This is the concept you aren't grasping here. This is what people mean when they say time travel (reference: any movie involving time travel).

Personally I think the field is wide open for all kinds of time travel. Using a (theoretical if only gravity could be controlled) slowing of time in the craft, one could control how much older one became on the journey.

 

[JaredJames]

Personally I think the field is wide open for all kinds of time travel. Using a (theoretical if only gravity could be controlled) slowing of time in the craft, one could control how much older one became on the journey.

Well the larger the gravity field the slower that time passes. But on the flip side, the higher the gravity, the less likely you are to survive.

All kinds of time travel? Maybe. But we are discussing a time machine. A time machine where your age (inside the machine) changes exactly the same as everything outside, is pointless.

 

[Time Machine]

Well the larger the gravity field the slower that time passes. But on the flip side, the higher the gravity, the less likely you are to survive.

All kinds of time travel? Maybe. But we are discussing a time machine. A time machine where your age (inside the machine) changes exactly the same as everything outside, is pointless.

O.K. You got me there. The definition was indeed a "Time Machine" and from the OP as well.
I shall busy myself now with trying to figure out how to "create time."
Don't expect a timely answer on that one.

 

[Time Machine]

Well the larger the gravity field the slower that time passes. But on the flip side, the higher the gravity, the less likely you are to survive.

All kinds of time travel? Maybe. But we are discussing a time machine. A time machine where your age (inside the machine) changes exactly the same as everything outside, is pointless.

No change on the "creating time" project, but just to ask did you actually read my method of time travel post? Because what I was suggesting (not withstanding the considerable gravity control problem) was that one's age would stay at the same rate or perhaps (taking into consideration intensity of gravity survival rate) slightly slower while everything else went past very quickly in fast time/gravity variables, out in space.

 

[JaredJames]

No change on the "creating time" project, but just to ask did you actually read my method of time travel post? Because what I was suggesting (not withstanding the considerable gravity control problem) was that one's age would stay at the same rate or perhaps (taking into consideration intensity of gravity survival rate) slightly slower while everything else went past very quickly in fast time/gravity variables, out in space.

I haven't, if you point me to it I'll certainly have a gander at it.

I must say, the whole "body ageing normally whilst time goes very fast outside the craft" premise is basically traveling really fast. No gravity involved.

If I travel at 0.99C, time to me would pass 'normally' and I would age as per usual. It would take circa 8 years to reach proxima centuri and come back. However, to those who remained on Earth it would have been significantly longer. So, put simply, I aged (and lived) 'normally' wrt my time frame, and it went quickly outside of the ship (from my perspective).

 

[Time Machine]

I haven't, if you point me to it I'll certainly have a gander at it.

I must say, the whole "body ageing normally whilst time goes very fast outside the craft" premise is basically traveling really fast. No gravity involved.

If I travel at 0.99C, time to me would pass 'normally' and I would age as per usual. It would take circa 8 years to reach proxima centuri and come back. However, to those who remained on Earth it would have been significantly longer. So, put simply, I aged (and lived) 'normally' wrt my time frame, and it went quickly outside of the ship (from my perspective).

It's the last post on page 8.

 

[JaredJames]

It's the last post on page 8.

 

[Time Machine]

Oh, I don't see why you should be grumpy. I have included these links about time and gravity. If you don't get where I'm coming from, I won't push my point.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html

http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/58548.aspx#ixzz11ulsv9o7

http://www.astroengine.com/?p=24201

 

[pallidin]

Hate to tell you this, but, distortions in time/space are possible, yet this in no way provides for "time travel"
It's a local event ONLY.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, That's like saying if you run five miles every morning and five miles every evening, after two weeks you'll be 140 miles away. (this is not the case for any of the joggers I know.)

Really? Ask your jogger friends how many miles they've jogged - how many miles of jogging they have actually experienced in that two weeks.

Do you think they will say 0? Or do you think they will say 140? You tell me.

Time travel is about what the individual doing the traveling experiences on their journey.

We both have a different opinion here. How do we ascertain which of us is correct?

See above.

 

[JaredJames]

Oh, I don't see why you should be grumpy. I have included these links about time and gravity. If you don't get where I'm coming from, I won't push my point.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-bad-news-if-you-own-a-penthouse-2088195.html

http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/58548.aspx#ixzz11ulsv9o7

http://www.astroengine.com/?p=24201

The grump is because you said page 8 and there isn't one. Didnt like the joke.

 

[Time Machine]

The grump is because you said page 8 and there isn't one. Didnt like the joke.

No, that's not true. If you go to the top of this page and look directly under the google adds, there is a page 8. Click on it, I'm the last one at the bottom. I was wondering. I would have posted it again for you but didn't want to get accused of repeating myself and violating rules.

 

[JDługosz]

No, that's not true. If you go to the top of this page and look directly under the google adds, there is a page 8. Click on it, I'm the last one at the bottom. I was wondering. I would have posted it again for you but didn't want to get accused of repeating myself and violating rules.

Change "Number of Posts to Show Per Page" in your display options for this site. Pagination, like space warping, is a local phenomenon only.

 

[Time Machine]

Hate to tell you this, but, distortions in time/space are possible, yet this in no way provides for "time travel"
It's a local event ONLY.

You go to space in a normal craft and time is moving fast, so fast that your loved one's are dead when you return.
You go to space in a gravity controlled craft using slow time, you come back and your loved one's are alive.
Now what is not time travelish about that?
Goodness gracious how I wish I could do maths!

P.S. It's like there's the numbers, I can see what needs to be done, (I think) I just don't know how to do the sums.

 

[Brin]

Thank for the link, I'm reading it and at the moment I have found it interesting.
The problem with serious discussion about time travel is that we need to understand in other way to understand how the universe works.

Yes, but huge sweeping changes to the geometry of space isn't what makes a "new way to understand." Very tiny changes to fundamental understanding has dramatic effects on the rest of physical understanding and by the very fact that what we do know is already really accurate, it is the case that even tinier changes are what we should be looking for.

People that have studied in university use the classic point of view of science, valid, but incomplete to fully understand the time travel physics. And the people that haven't studied in university cannot fully explain physics in a correct way.

Your statement reeks of begging the question and besides that is nonsense. It even has a hint of presupposing that people who don't know university physics are somehow better in some way (this really makes no sense).

So, what happens? People with an university degree have a classic, proven, point of view about physics and usually they don't want to believe in these kind of "para-physics", because almost always this non conventional point of view is rated as esoteric science, pseudoscience, etc...

No, that really isn't it. It's just that, if your idea looks like poor or commits logical fallacies it will be called on those things. You'll notice that no one ever straight up rejected your notions, but simply explained it as "It doesn't work like that." Know why? Because it doesn't work like that. The thing with these new and radical ideas is that the authors dive in with all the confidence in the world, and a really odd and deep-seated assumption that what they are saying is right. There is no concern for the truth of the statement, no effort wants to be spent in understanding what really is. Ultimately, there is no humility. It's as though these authors unassumingly believe that they're right and the dogmatic experts are wrong.

In the pseudoscientific world there are a lot of charlatans, of course. For that reason, pseudoscience is classified as a non-sense way to understand physics. But the true key is that someones in the pseudoscience world seems to be right. But they are very little known. So, speaking about time travel could be like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

"Someone in the pseudoscience world seems to be right."
REALLY? Well gosh mate, someone in the REAL science world seems to be right. What now?

These kind of paraphysics include:
Quantum electrodynamics, vorticular physics, quantum numerology, vibratory chemistry, hyperdimensional physics, unified field theories, etc...
Another obstacle is that is very difficult to find information about these fields. The little I know, I have learned reading books in 5 different languages since 1920 to the actuality. And I have found very little amount of books. And you need to know about chemistry, physics, electrical engineering...
Almost an impossible task to achieve.

... you think QED, and Unified Field Theories are paraphysics? You even put QED and UFT next to something called "Quantum numerology." Nope, not even close.

The only way is to read all kind of things with an open mind, get the points in common that the information has and put in practice very simple experiments. The only experiment I've proposed, is to interact with matter using non-electromagnetic waves, aka pure potential waves.
With this experimentation, it could be possible to learn how to affect matter with electrical currents. And, understand than materialization and dematerialization could be possible.
I've also some books in Italian that explains how to access to the memory of solid objects, reading past events.

To those who find the following points in opposition to what they think:
You terribly missed the point as to why I posted that link. To have a serious discussion regarding time travel (or anything) we must all be speaking the same language. Otherwise, too much is lost in semantics and in understanding what is already well accepted. Good arguments and thus new discoveries, be they conventional or not, must ultimately and unfailingly break down into a series of trivially true statements (be they mathematical in nature, or not). If we don't understand mass, and electromagnetism, etc. in the same fashion then it might as well be the case that we're not even speaking english.

So, I posted those links to show you guys what the experts are saying. If we're going to try to understand time travel in any such way, it's best for us to speak the language of the people who have thought about it the most, and have been the most thorough. These people have really followed each concept through to its logical end, especially the basic ones we have been discussing here. It's their life, they do it 40+ hours a week.

One more thing, I really want to stress the following point: Being non-educated in physics does not make you open-minded or better in any way (seriously, why should it? If I don't go to art-school am I better at drawing/painting than an artist? If I don't major in history, am I somehow made more aware of historical fact?). Creativity is a property that belongs to the individual, not to the profession. If you take a creative person and teach them physics - do they all of a sudden lose their creative nature? No, of course not, that'd be absurd.

If you are going to do physics, at least make an effort to understand the arguments that already exist, and why they are explained in the ways they are, this is the beginning of developing a keen understanding of a field that you seem to be interested in. Not knowing, making a mistake, these are all part of the process of learning and they should be accepted and welcomed. Science isn't about speaking the most amount of jargon or discussing the most esoteric of ideas, it's about understanding a spinning top or the steam on my windows, or the green on the plants. It's simple, and it's about observing and understanding.

 

[Time Machine]

... you think QED, and Unified Field Theories are paraphysics? You even put QED and UFT next to something called "Quantum numerology." Nope, not not even close




To Magnethos and Time Machine

Brin, could I please disassociate myself here. You have used my post to quote Magnethos. It is my fault for leaving too much of his original post in mine, I do admit. Let me clear this up. I agree with Magnetos in that he says that everybody has something to offer despite the origins of their knowledge. I do not know about metaphysic's. I was going to look it up, but had to go to work. The only thing that sprang to mind was deja-vu.
My addition to the post concerned "the advent of the wheel". A valid comment when thinking about adjusting one's perspective.
I have huge respect for established physics, a subject I find compelling.

 

[Brin]

I removed both yours and Magnethos's name, and even though we mention them here, the arguments above are irrelevant as to who I am talking to. I think they stand OK in isolation, though I look like a rambling mad man. I also suffer largely by going off topic. I hope the moderators will just see it as a note that I am defending my post with regards to time travel.

 

[quantum1423]

I was discussing this topic with my friend, and reached this conclusion:
Time travel is impossible because of three reasons:

1. You cannot be dead and alive at the same time (unless you're the cat in the box)
If time machines exist, they can surely send video signals back in time. Therefore, if you put a CCTV beside your friend, go back in time with the cable, and plug it in in a TV of the past, watch your friends actions in the present, and kill your friend in the past, your friend will be dead and alive at the same time. The camera excludes the "Schrodinger's Cat" proposition.

2. The Law of Mass Conservation
If one molecule of gas goes back to, say, 1990, team up with two molecules of gas and goes into the time machine in 2010 back into 1990, team up with four molecules and goes into the time machine 20 years later, and so on, the mass of the universe will go up indefinitely.

3. Strange paradoxes exist
If you are about to detonate a bomb, go to the future and dismantle it, get back, and detonate, will you see yourself go dismantle it? If so, what if you detonate just a bit faster and destroy your future self? Will you teleport a moment later into the explosion? Probably not.

 

[Brin]

I was discussing this topic with my friend, and reached this conclusion:
Time travel is impossible because of three reasons:

1. You cannot be dead and alive at the same time (unless you're the cat in the box)
If time machines exist, they can surely send video signals back in time. Therefore, if you put a CCTV beside your friend, go back in time with the cable, and plug it in in a TV of the past, watch your friends actions in the present, and kill your friend in the past, your friend will be dead and alive at the same time. The camera excludes the "Schrodinger's Cat" proposition.

2. The Law of Mass Conservation
If one molecule of gas goes back to, say, 1990, team up with two molecules of gas and goes into the time machine in 2010 back into 1990, team up with four molecules and goes into the time machine 20 years later, and so on, the mass of the universe will go up indefinitely.

3. Strange paradoxes exist
If you are about to detonate a bomb, go to the future and dismantle it, get back, and detonate, will you see yourself go dismantle it? If so, what if you detonate just a bit faster and destroy your future self? Will you teleport a moment later into the explosion? Probably not.

It's like you and your friend didn't read the thread. There different types of time travel theories, some fail some haven't been defeated yet.

You haven't given any definitive reason as to why time travel in general is false.

Note that the parallel universes version of time travel still survives your theories.

I.e. you can't travel backwards on your own timeline, but you can travel sideways to timelines like yours, until you find a timeline like the one that shows your past. In this case, you gruesome acts of violence and conservation theories don't really challenge anything other than the local law.

 

[JaredJames]

1. You cannot be dead and alive at the same time (unless you're the cat in the box)
If time machines exist, they can surely send video signals back in time. Therefore, if you put a CCTV beside your friend, go back in time with the cable, and plug it in in a TV of the past, watch your friends actions in the present, and kill your friend in the past, your friend will be dead and alive at the same time. The camera excludes the "Schrodinger's Cat" proposition.

There are a number of hypothesis which circumvent this issue and make time travel possible. So far as a "cable back to the past" goes, that would require a system which allowed the cable to occupy a set of points from present to past. Whether that is possible, let alone would work I am not sure, but the premise sounds wrong.
I suppose you could record a dvd now and take it back to 2000 and show it to the person in it. But again, there are a number of hypothesis which allow for this so it isn't a certainty that it would prevent time travel.

2. The Law of Mass Conservation
If one molecule of gas goes back to, say, 1990, team up with two molecules of gas and goes into the time machine in 2010 back into 1990, team up with four molecules and goes into the time machine 20 years later, and so on, the mass of the universe will go up indefinitely.

Not so, if it goes back to 1990, it does not exist at 2010 anymore (instantaneously). From 1990 to 2010, yes, there would be an additional particle in existence, but once the point at which you send the particle back is reached, the balance is restored. You certainly haven't 'created mass'. This may create some problem with the maths, but it doesn't write off time travel.

3. Strange paradoxes exist
If you are about to detonate a bomb, go to the future and dismantle it, get back, and detonate, will you see yourself go dismantle it? If so, what if you detonate just a bit faster and destroy your future self? Will you teleport a moment later into the explosion? Probably not.

As per point 1.