Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time traveler caught on film in 1920?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 30 of 104 (588985)
10-29-2010 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by frako
10-29-2010 7:24 AM


I doubt time travle is possible to many paradoxses.
There is no such thing as a universal time to travel from or to. It's not that time travel is impossible, it's that there is no such thing as time outside of experienced time to travel to or from. It's nonsensical.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by frako, posted 10-29-2010 7:24 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 4:58 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 36 of 104 (589017)
10-29-2010 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
10-29-2010 4:58 PM


Relativity makes the notion of time travel not only possible, but inevitable.
Not in the sense that you're thinking of - as in, sci-fi time travel where you can actually go back or forward to a date "in time." There are no "dates in time."
Since time is a unit of measuring distance, you can shorten the distance (with worm holes, black holes, etc.) and reduce the amount of experienced time.
The notion of time travel into the past is that you experience time in a backward direction
First, there is no universal time to go backward from. You experience time at 300,000,000m/s temporally, that is, not moving at all. If you increase you speed spacially, you will (hypothetically) go no faster than the speed of light - or, 300,000,000m/s - (obviouslly nothing with mass can do that so you will go as fast as 99.999etc, the speed of light. Never actually reaching that c.) Time is experienced relative to the speed travelled by any object with mass, that is all "time" is. Currently you are travelling (temporally) at the speed of light, spacially maybe you're sitting down.
Second, time doesn't have directions because it is only experienced and not an actual 'thing." So there is no forward or backwards "in time," that is nonsensical to express.
All of these things are experimentally-verified consequences of general relativity.
If I'm not mistaken I believe Special Relativity deals with the speed of light and time.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

"I am sure all of your friends are charmed by your flavored words, but they hardly are of any use in a discussion among gentlemen. ~ JBR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 4:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2010 7:25 PM onifre has replied
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 8:53 PM onifre has replied
 Message 46 by Just being real, posted 10-30-2010 2:05 AM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 38 of 104 (589024)
10-29-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by New Cat's Eye
10-29-2010 7:25 PM


This is what a virgin looks like
I did retain some info from back in my school dayz, I haven't burnt every cell out. Plus thanks to cave and Son I got to brush up on it.
But if you want a nerd, something I have never been described as so thanks? Here's one of your kind:
Don't you play this game?
- Oni

"I am sure all of your friends are charmed by your flavored words, but they hardly are of any use in a discussion among gentlemen. ~ JBR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2010 7:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 8:53 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 62 of 104 (589201)
10-31-2010 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
10-29-2010 8:53 PM


Re: This is what a virgin looks like
Who I bang.
Me too
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 8:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 63 of 104 (589203)
10-31-2010 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
10-29-2010 8:53 PM


And so, if I take ten minutes but the world around me spins forward for ten years due to a time dilation effect from speed or high gravity, that's functionally time travel to the future.
If you bend spacetime you are shortening the space, you're not messing with time - it has the effect of experiencing a shorter time when measured - but it's not the same as "time" was bent.
It's not "time" travel it's "shorter distance" travel.
We live in a universe where "time travel", to some points in the future and perhaps some in the past, is a physical possibility.
How in the past? You only experience time in the forwad direction, such that "in the past" is nonsensical. There is no way to rewined the internal clock of the time experienced.
I don't understand what you're trying to say at all, not least of which because you're trying to measure time with speed, which makes no sense at all.
I'm not trying to measure time with speed, I'm saying that time is experienced differently at greater speeds. Which you seem to agree with.
But suffice to say that speed-related time compression is very much a real thing, and accelerating at great speed to take advantage of dilated time to "arrive in the future" - that is, experience a short passage of time while the rest of the universe experiences a great passage of time - is experimentally verified.
Right, but this does not mean that one can go backward in time - OR, more to what you're saying, arrive somewhere in the past. Nor can you travel at enough speed to get to an event before it happens. That's what the figures in the other post were addressing.
Time is a very real component of the universe; it's a characteristic of the spacetime which the universe is comprised of.
Only for things with mass, which can experience it. It's only a function of measuring the distance traveled, like from now to...right now.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 8:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 10-31-2010 5:05 PM onifre has replied
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 1:34 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 68 of 104 (589295)
11-01-2010 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by frako
10-31-2010 5:05 PM


is there a possibility of a gravitational field being strong enough to slow down time beyond the point of stopping it and make time go backwards
There is no universal time for it to slow down. It would need to be relative to you and how you experience time relative to someone elses time. But in no case will you ever experience time in a backward fashion, you would need to exceed the speed of light for that, which would violate the laws of physics.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 10-31-2010 5:05 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 1:36 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 71 of 104 (589317)
11-01-2010 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
11-01-2010 1:34 PM


Re: Another episode of "people without physics degrees argue general relativity"
No, you're literally bending time by bending spacetime.
That's nonsense. One of the effects of curved space is time dilation, time is not actually bent.
Via closed timelike curves.
You don't understand CTC enough to apply it to classical mechanics the way you are so grossly and incorrectly doing. CTC's are allowed in sub-microscopic scales, because there, GR breaks down.
But there is no way, currently, to by-pass Hawking's Chronology protection conjecture (CPC) that prevents time travel in classical mechanics.
Time travel into the past, in other words. It's a permissibile solution to the Lorentz transformations in general relativity.
Word salad.
Time is experienced differently as a result of acceleration. Time is perceived differently as a result of speed.
Let me ask, at what speed if light travelling? And what amount of time does light experience?
Conveniently, everything in the universe except for spacetime has mass.
Except for a photon of course, that has zero mass and experiences zero time, right?
Another episode of "people without physics degrees argue general relativity"
You don't have to have a degree in physics to be well educated in relativity and cosmology.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 1:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 5:15 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 72 of 104 (589318)
11-01-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by crashfrog
11-01-2010 1:36 PM


They want, generally, to travel backwards or forwards in time relative to something else, like the rest of the world.
How about relative to someone on Alpha Centauri?
This is permissible under general relativity as I've explained.
All you have done is shown that you don't know what you're talking about.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 1:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 5:15 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 75 of 104 (589325)
11-01-2010 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by crashfrog
11-01-2010 5:15 PM


Ok, lets actually get into this.
No, time is actually bent by gravity, that's why the have to calibrate GPS satellites to correct for the distorted time we experience on the surface of the Earth.
Are you sure that doesn't have to do with the difference in speed between the satellites and the Earth? Are you sure???
Are you sure gravity isn't the result of curved spacetime and not the other way around? Are you sure???
Closed timelike curves exist as a necessary consequence of general relativity, so by definition they can't exist where general relativity doesn't apply.
No, they exist because there isn't a full theory of quantum gravity. Einsteins relativity equations are local, and you have local chronology protection in Minkowski spacetime - there is no getting around that. The problem comes in because the Einstein equations provide no such nonlocal constraints.
This is corrected by adding additional principles to the spacial and temporal topology, but when not done, sci-fi enthusiast like to use this "issue" as evidence for time travel.
One example of a macroscale closed timelike curve would be a wormhole where one mouth has been accelerated to near the speed of light (say, by rotation.) Passing through such a wormhole would allow you to observe yourself emerging from one mouth of the wormhole before you'd actually entered the other.
From the wiki page where you got this:
quote:
It is thought that it may not be possible to convert a wormhole into a time machine in this manner; the predictions are made in the context of general relativity, but general relativity does not include quantum effects.
Without a full QG theory this is still sci-fi.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 5:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 6:32 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 76 of 104 (589327)
11-01-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by crashfrog
11-01-2010 5:15 PM


But there isn't anyone on Alpha Centauri.
Say there was, what would they see?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 5:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 6:24 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 79 of 104 (589330)
11-01-2010 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
11-01-2010 6:24 PM


CF writes:
But there isn't anyone on Alpha Centauri.
Oni writes:
Say there was, what would they see?
CF writes:
What would who see what?
You said no one travels back in time relative to a universal time, but relative to someone on Earth. So I asked, relative to someone on Alpha Centauri, what would they see - time wise?
If you travel back in time relative to someone on Earth, using Einstein's field equations as you have suggested, what would in be relative to someone (hypothetically) in Centauri? Remembering that Alpha Centuari is 4.4 light years away.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 6:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 6:36 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 80 of 104 (589331)
11-01-2010 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
11-01-2010 6:24 PM


Double post
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 6:24 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 84 of 104 (589335)
11-01-2010 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by crashfrog
11-01-2010 6:32 PM


Re: Ok, lets actually get into this.
Oni writes:
Are you sure that doesn't have to do with the difference in speed between the satellites and the Earth?
CS writes:
Yes, quite sure.
Then you need to research that again, because it is actually the difference in speed of both objects (earth and the satellite).
In general relativity gravity and curved spacetime are equivalent.
Gravity is the result of curved spacetime; which is curved by mass.
I'm free to respond that in general relativity as we currently understand it, travel into the past is permissible under certain (practically impossible) circumstances.
But you are not, at all. GR is local, that's the issue crashfrog. Einstein's field equations are local and have chronology protection. The only way to get your time travel to circumvent this is by pulling the wool over people who don't understand relativity.
Your time travel hypothesis is only acheived by grossly misrepresenting relativity and not recognizing that they are local field equations.
Currently, so is a full theory of quantum gravity.
It may not even be necessary.
Semiclassical QG works fine to represent reality, and it has chronology protection. Classical relativity works fine to represent reality also, and it too has chronology protection.
A full QG theory might actually help your time travel hypothesis.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 6:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 7:02 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 87 of 104 (589341)
11-01-2010 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
11-01-2010 7:02 PM


Re: Ok, lets actually get into this.
I'm not CS.
My apologies for insulting Catholic Sci like that, I changed it.
Look, Oni, these are elementary matters that are covered in Brief History of Time as well as other books.
Lucky for me I actually sat in these classes and didn't get my info from only laymen books.
I mean you didn't even know what a Lorentz transformation was.
I think you can search this site and find that I know what it is quite well. That I ignored it because it wasn't relevant is another thing.
Well, it's a good thing a comedian showed up to educate us all on general relativity.
I wasn't always this funny. There was a time I went to college for reasons other than to tell jokes and fuck college chics - wait, I always went to fuck college chics. But you get what I mean.
What a tool you've become, lately.
Lately? Where the fuck have you been?
Besides, don't take this so serious. Geez
Maybe, but unlike you I'm not prepared to draw conclusions from theories that don't yet exist.
Ok, crashy. I see you've gotten sand all up in 'yo vagina because a comic schooled you on relativity, so I'll let you go on your way thinking you're smart and all that. Stick to debating creationist where you actually do well.
I don't pretend to be an expert on any of this, but I do have some (still) have some grasp on it. If you weren't acting like such a little whiny cunt we could actually discuss it further. But fuck it now.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 7:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 88 of 104 (589342)
11-01-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by cavediver
11-01-2010 7:23 PM


Re: Arggghhhhhh
Thanks for the corrections Cave. I was wondering when you'd chime in to shut us up.
Anyway, crashfrog has allowed his ego to get in the way of a interesting discussing, so I will bow out of further talks on this with him. Unless of course you wish to correct anything I wrote directly, then lets discuss.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by cavediver, posted 11-01-2010 7:23 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2010 8:14 PM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024