Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
37 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Pressie (6 members, 31 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,949 Year: 18,985/19,786 Month: 1,405/1,705 Week: 211/446 Day: 9/98 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time traveler caught on film in 1920?
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5829
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 61 of 104 (589199)
10-31-2010 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dawn Bertot
10-30-2010 9:31 PM


Re: Fail
The obvious question would be what happens after that last frame, where she turns and it appears she is talking. Is there anymore footage after that frame? Is this where the gentleman chose to stop the film?

No one knows. We can only judge the footage on its own merits which is, by my estimation, about as compelling as an old episode of Dr. Who.

Sad skeptics dont think like creationist, you could have figured a simple thing like that for yourselves

Oh, and what is the creationist take on this?


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-30-2010 9:31 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1241 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 yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1241 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 responded

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

    
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 64 of 104 (589214)
10-31-2010 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by onifre
10-31-2010 2:48 PM


What abbout gravity would that work, we do now that the stronger the gravity the slower the time that is why the clocks in the sattelites orbeting the planet haveto be resynced whit our time every so often. If they would not do that then gps would not work.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by onifre, posted 10-31-2010 2:48 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Taz, posted 10-31-2010 7:02 PM frako has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Taz, posted 10-31-2010 7:04 PM frako has responded
 Message 68 by onifre, posted 11-01-2010 12:43 PM frako has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 65 of 104 (589220)
10-31-2010 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by frako
10-31-2010 5:05 PM


frako writes:

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


Asymptote.

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

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 66 of 104 (589221)
10-31-2010 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by frako
10-31-2010 5:05 PM


frako writes:

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


Asymptote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by frako, posted 10-31-2010 5:05 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by frako, posted 10-31-2010 8:22 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 67 of 104 (589223)
10-31-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Taz
10-31-2010 7:04 PM


Asymptote.

you are saying that gravity can bring time close to a standstill but not actualy stop it and it can never make it go backwards any evidence on this.

one could easely test it though mesure the gravity on our nearby planets and mesure the speed of time there and look at the graph it would point to.

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Taz, posted 10-31-2010 7:04 PM Taz has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1241 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 yet responded

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

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 104 (589300)
11-01-2010 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by onifre
10-31-2010 2:48 PM


Another episode of "people without physics degrees argue general relativity"
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.

No, you're literally bending time by bending spacetime. See? It's right there in the name. Your bending your personal time relative to the time experienced by someone not accelerating.

It's not "time" travel it's "shorter distance" travel.

But you're going a longer distance that the person in the nonaccelerating reference frame, because you're accelerating and they're not.

How in the past?

Via closed timelike curves.

You only experience time in the forwad direction, such that "in the past" is nonsensical.

Right. And as you traverse a closed timelike curve, you experience your own time going in a forward direction - the watch on your wrist ticks from 12:00 to 12:01 - but time outside of the curve is experienced in a backwards direction - the clock on the wall ticks from 12:00 to 11:59.

Time travel into the past, in other words. It's a permissibile solution to the Lorentz transformations in general relativity.

I'm not trying to measure time with speed, I'm saying that time is experienced differently at greater speeds.

Not precisely true. Time is experienced differently as a result of acceleration. Time is perceived differently as a result of speed. The difference I'm eluding to is the difference between observing a timepiece in your own frame of reference and observing a timepiece in someone else's frame of reference.

To illustrate - if you and I have synchronized watches, and you accelerate to near the speed of light and then come back, your watch is behind mine, because you've "traveled into the future"; you've experienced less passage of time than I have. If you and I have synchronized watches and you pass me on the Starlight Express at a constant rate of speed, then when you look at my watch, you see it ticking slower than your own. But when I look at your watch, I see it tick slower than mine.

Right, but this does not mean that one can go backward in time

No, you're right, the Twin Paradox is not how someone travels backwards in time, it's how someone travels forward in time. Closed timelike curves are how someone could theoretically travel backwards in time. Don't get confused, I'm talking about two separate phenomena but both are consequences of general relativity.

Only for things with mass, which can experience it.

Conveniently, everything in the universe except for spacetime has mass.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by onifre, posted 10-31-2010 2:48 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by onifre, posted 11-01-2010 5:03 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 104 (589302)
11-01-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by onifre
11-01-2010 12:43 PM


I think I see where you're getting hung up.

There is no universal time for it to slow down.

That doesn't make time travel impossible, because nobody wants to travel backwards in "universal time." They want, generally, to travel backwards or forwards in time relative to something else, like the rest of the world. This is permissible under general relativity as I've explained.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by onifre, posted 11-01-2010 12:43 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 11-01-2010 5:06 PM crashfrog has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1241 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 responded

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

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1241 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 responded

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

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 104 (589320)
11-01-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by onifre
11-01-2010 5:03 PM


Re: Another episode of "people without physics degrees argue general relativity"
One of the effects of curved space is time dilation, time is not actually bent.

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.

CTC's are allowed in sub-microscopic scales, because there, GR breaks down.

Completely wrong. You're just making things up, now. Closed timelike curves exist as a necessary consequence of general relativity, so by definition they can't exist where general relativity doesn't apply. The quantum scale is precisely the very last place we should expect to see a closed timelike curve, because that's precisely where general relativity is the least descriptive.

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.

But there is no way, currently, to by-pass Hawking's Chronology protection conjecture (CPC)

There's no way to bypass it if the conjecture is true (by definition, because the conjecture is merely "time-travel is impossible on any but sub-atomic scales.") If the conjecture is false, then it's not necessary to bypass it.

Word salad.

No, a description of what a closed timelike curve is. I'm sorry you didn't understand it, but maybe you need to read up on your Lorentz transformations.

Except for a photon of course, that has zero mass and experiences zero time, right?

Photons in motion have mass as a consequence of their velocity.

You don't have to have a degree in physics to be well educated in relativity and cosmology.

So what's stopping you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by onifre, posted 11-01-2010 5:03 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by onifre, posted 11-01-2010 6:12 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 104 (589321)
11-01-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by onifre
11-01-2010 5:06 PM


How about relative to someone on Alpha Centauri?

But there isn't anyone on Alpha Centauri.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 11-01-2010 5:06 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by onifre, posted 11-01-2010 6:20 PM crashfrog has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1241 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 responded

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

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019