Some of the arguments in favor of backward and sped-up forward time
travel (other than the fact that everything in the Universe seems to
be moving forward in time(s), whether local or global, at some similar
"rates" at least locally) are:
This complete crackpottery, sorry. Nothing moves either forward or
backward in time. There is only the changing present. Changing time or
moving in time is an oxymoron. Nothing can move in spacetime either.
Time travel would never have gotten so much press had it not been for
the nonsensical spacetime concept. I blame the relativists.
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Louis Savain
I would agree that timetravel is nonsense. Just as being in two places at
once is nonsense.
If you allow timetravel either forward or backward then you arwe allowing
the possibility of the infinitely looping reflexively causalality, which is
really a problem if you ask me. An example -
Action B at time t2 causes A at t1, and A at t1 causes B at t2. The cause
and the effect are the same in this example, A causing B, and B then causes
A, over and over and over to infinity. I dont think that this would ever be
possible except as a purely mathematical construction on the quantum scale,
and the existence of such a process would neccesarily be either
indeterminate at best, or strictly nonexistent otherwise.
How could such a thing possibly happen ? Simple. How can the past interfere
with the future ???
http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/ggp/
????????
Simply allow time to be probabilistic and it all makes sense. What does this
mean ? That time is probabilistic ? Is that just a random jumble of words
strung together ? NO. What it means is that the Now can only be measured to
within some small value near Planck time, and to get more precise than that
one MUST use probability because that is the only correct way to explain the
behaviour of the time dimension for such a small interval.
The same thing goes for length. When you get down to a certain scale, the
exactness of the length of the segment which actually even exists is a
matter of probability. That is the precise point at which one must have the
concept of existential indeterminacy, and Sartre was a boob.
Convert the length dimension into time and you get this >>>
http://faculty.physics.tamu.edu/ggp/
Now, unless you have some means by which we might all be able to comprehend
"slits in time", all I can say is that time MUST be probabilistic. It is
EASY to imagine how length might be probabilistic, and clearly we have an
experiment whoch PROVES than time is probabilistic as well. Length and time
being EQUIVALENT per GR and Einstein himself !!!
Col. Tomoko Plankenzawa USAF Ret.
.
|
