| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"George Orwell" |
| Date: |
27 Jun 2005 08:12:11 AM |
| Object: |
Time travel |
This really works?
www.science.howstuffworks.com/time-travel.htm
.
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
27 Jun 2005 10:33:47 AM |
|
|
"George Orwell" <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote in message
news:01632b7fe0c1801cf01eb931c2c1be03@mixmaster.it...
This really works?
www.science.howstuffworks.com/time-travel.htm
You mean is time travel possible? Answer - nobody knows. Some people have
proposed "situations" that suggest or imply time travel might be possible -
but they typically all require vast amounts of energy (more energy than we
could ever hope to produce or control) or have similar "problems". They are
theoretical ideas rather than serious practical proposals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zigoteau" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
28 Jun 2005 06:29:33 AM |
|
|
Hi, Colin,
You mean is time travel possible? Answer - nobody knows. Some people have
proposed "situations" that suggest or imply time travel might be possible -
but they typically all require vast amounts of energy (more energy than we
could ever hope to produce or control) or have similar "problems". They are
theoretical ideas rather than serious practical proposals.
Of course time travel is possible! I do it every day, in my handy
Boson-Fermionic Energy-Conjugate Dilator, which I often refer to as a
BED. When I get into it, I set the time on the dial that I want to
travel to, to an accuracy of a minute. It has given me every
satisfaction.
One of the fantastic features of the Boson-Fermionic Energy-Conjugate
Dilator is its built-in analog computer that ensures that the spatial
coordinates are changed appropriately, so as to take account of the
velocity of the earth relative to the center of the Galaxy. Other,
inferior, models of time machine on the market transport you in time
all right, but keep your spatial coordinates unchanged, so that you
find yourself on arrival in total vacuum. In the Boson-Fermionic
Energy-Conjugate Dilator, the possibility of this has been ruled out to
a confidence level of 99.9999%.
A fantastic optional feature of the Boson-Fermionic Energy-Conjugate
Dilator is the entertainment facility, crafted by evolution so it never
fails to please.
Software included. Terms and conditions apply.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
27 Jun 2005 10:46:21 AM |
|
|
In article <v%Uve.131451$BH4.7146643@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
You mean is time travel possible? Answer - nobody knows.
Ineducable idiot.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
27 Jun 2005 12:25:20 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:sp70c1d04rhkisfuffq7lflr6amtn2jljq@4ax.com...
In article <v%Uve.131451$BH4.7146643@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
You mean is time travel possible? Answer - nobody knows.
Ineducable idiot.
Nope that won'r pass the Turing test.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
27 Jun 2005 12:12:42 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
In article <v%Uve.131451$BH4.7146643@phobos.telenet-ops.be>,
"CWatters" <colin.watters@pandoraBOX.be> wrote:
You mean is time travel possible? Answer - nobody knows.
Ineducable idiot.
Kneejerk plagiarist.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/savain.jpg
DING!!! Savain DING!!!
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
27 Jun 2005 12:29:08 PM |
|
|
In article <42C0338A.950509EA@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[crap]
Baez... sniff... kiss... ahahaha... *****-kissing idiot. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
27 Jun 2005 08:46:09 AM |
|
|
In article <01632b7fe0c1801cf01eb931c2c1be03@mixmaster.it>, George
Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
This really works?
www.science.howstuffworks.com/time-travel.htm
It's all crackpottery because time does not change. Why? because to
describe a change in time would require a meta-time, and a
meta-meta-time for the meta-time, ad infinitum.
Kurt "lunatic" Godel was the fist crackpot to claim that GR does not
forbid time travel. He was wrong of course since nothing can move in
spacetime. The amazing thing is that Einstein agreed with the
fruitcake. This tells me that Einstein did not understand his own
chicken ***** theory and gives credence to accusations that he was a
mediocre plagiarizer.
The newest con artists to claim that time travel is possible via
wormholes is Kip Thorne of CalTech in Pasadena and the little crackpot
in the wheelchair, Stephen Hawking.
Again, nothing can move in spacetime. And time does not change.
Time travel Crackpot List:
Kip Thorne
Stephen Hawking
Richard Feynman
John Wheeler
Albert Eisntein
Kurt Godel
Carl Sagan
Michio Kaku
Brian Greene
etc...
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr Pixie" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
12 Jul 2005 04:06:17 PM |
|
|
"Traveler" <traveler@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0i00c11ljlu9ct6ls7k3ke7dkc2ulnfog7@4ax.com...
In article <01632b7fe0c1801cf01eb931c2c1be03@mixmaster.it>, George
Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
This really works?
www.science.howstuffworks.com/time-travel.htm
It's all crackpottery because time does not change. Why? because to
describe a change in time would require a meta-time, and a
meta-meta-time for the meta-time, ad infinitum.
Kurt "lunatic" Godel was the fist crackpot to claim that GR does not
forbid time travel. He was wrong of course since nothing can move in
spacetime. The amazing thing is that Einstein agreed with the
fruitcake. This tells me that Einstein did not understand his own
chicken ***** theory and gives credence to accusations that he was a
mediocre plagiarizer.
The newest con artists to claim that time travel is possible via
wormholes is Kip Thorne of CalTech in Pasadena and the little crackpot
in the wheelchair, Stephen Hawking.
Again, nothing can move in spacetime. And time does not change.
Time travel Crackpot List:
Kip Thorne
Stephen Hawking
Richard Feynman
John Wheeler
Albert Eisntein
Kurt Godel
Carl Sagan
Michio Kaku
Brian Greene
etc...
The main important thing is that the constancy of the speed of light implies
a 4-dimensional manifold, which is not constant. It must be or there would
be a detectable ether QED.
There are many posters on here who try to claim that there are unresolvable
paradoxes in special relativity - sorry but these always spring from
misunderstanding.
General relativity has been tested extremely precisely and it works, so
really it is difficult to sensibly argue with results like that.
I suggest that instead of wasting time on off-the-wall ideas which you may
think might debunk relativity, you learn to accept the 4D manifold and
develop your understanding from there. Once you learn to think in terms of
this manifold, many aspects of physics fall into place in a very beautiful
and natural way.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
27 Jun 2005 12:58:21 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
It's all crackpottery because time does not change.
That doesn't even make sense. Time "changing" is what you make time
travel impossible. Time "not changing" means it's "already there", and
the only objective meaning to "not changing" and "already there" is
that you can get there. If you can't get there, then it ain't already
there, and the "not changing" part is out the window.
It's supposed to be
no time travel <-> IS changing
time travel <-> NOT changing.
Not
no time travel <-> not changing
time travel <-> is changing!
Why do you keep putting it backwards?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
27 Jun 2005 05:59:21 PM |
|
|
In article <1119895101.620951.263440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
markwh04@yahoo.com wrote:
Traveler wrote:
It's all crackpottery because time does not change.
That doesn't even make sense. Time "changing" is what you make time
travel impossible.
Well, since it does not change, time travel is not possible. As simple
as that.
Time "not changing" means it's "already there",
No. It means that time is not a physical dimension. It is abstract,
i.e., in our minds. Kind of like the unemployment rate. It's useful as
an abstraction but it does not exist. Since time does not exist, all
we have left is the changing present. There is no past and no future.
It's all ***** from a bunch of time travel religionists.
and
the only objective meaning to "not changing" and "already there" is
that you can get there. If you can't get there, then it ain't already
there, and the "not changing" part is out the window.
Nonsense.
It's supposed to be
no time travel <-> IS changing
time travel <-> NOT changing.
If your time coordinate is not changing (cannot change) how can there
be time travel, moron?
Not
no time travel <-> not changing
time travel <-> is changing!
More stupid nonsense.
Why do you keep putting it backwards?
You're the one who has it *****-backwards. You come up with a cockamamie
argument to try to prove a stupid point while ignoring the argument
(see the post you're replying to) that proves logically that time
cannot change. You're either an *****-kisser or you are a religious
idiot with *****-for-brains.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr Pixie" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
12 Jul 2005 04:21:27 PM |
|
|
No. It means that time is not a physical dimension. It is abstract,
i.e., in our minds. Kind of like the unemployment rate. It's useful as
an abstraction but it does not exist. Since time does not exist, all
we have left is the changing present. There is no past and no future.
It's all ***** from a bunch of time travel religionists.
This is where you are wrong - time is not abstract - it is just as real as
space, let me explain:
Time can be considered as the 4th dimension of a manifold because:
Consider a flatland - that is a 2D world - so what would be the 3rd
dimension in flatland? Imagine if a sphere descended onto flatland from
above - the flatlanders would see a point, which grows to a circle and then
back to a point. What has actually happened is that the 3D sphere passed
through the 2D flatland. So what is the sphere from the flatlander point of
view? - its an arrangement of circles of different radii arranged one on top
of the other - lots of 'slices', one on top of the other to make a solid
object. This 'slices' of space thing is important - hold that thought! - and
notice that the slices are small changes of 'the next dimension'.
Now, in our world we have 3 space dimensions that we can see. So what would
a 4th dimension be like? - well, by analogy with flatland, a 4th dimension
should be slices of 3D space, arranged one above the other. As we said
before, the slices should be small changes of the next dimension - now, what
do we know in our world that changes, small bits as it goes? That's right -
its TIME! Therefore time really is a 4th dimension, and therefore you can
think of it as a geometric dimension, just as you think of space, and the
geometrical way to do this is with a 4D manifold.
How's that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
12 Jul 2005 09:16:22 PM |
|
|
It's hard to define what is meant by time travel, given that no one
knows what time and space are. If time and particle vibrations are one
of the same then time travel doesn't make any sense.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
12 Jul 2005 09:21:00 PM |
|
|
It's hard to define what is meant by time travel. If time and particle
vibrations are one and the same, then it doesn't make much sense.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
12 Jul 2005 04:13:41 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
That doesn't even make sense. Time "changing" is what you make time
travel impossible.
Well, since it [sic] does not change,
The only way to know whether it actually IS changing or not is to
actually go there and see that it hasn't changed! It...
time travel is not possible.
.... then you've automatically cut off your only way to prove it.
As simple as that.
As simple as that.
Time "not changing" means it's "already there",
No.
Yes.
It means that time is not a physical dimension.
Irrelevant.
It is abstract, i.e., in our minds.
Everything is abstract.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MobyDikc" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
27 Jun 2005 02:57:14 PM |
|
|
Traveler wrote:
Kurt "lunatic" Godel was the fist crackpot to claim that GR does not
forbid time travel.
Right, he showed that the theory allows it.
He never said he himself was a time traveler, or was convinced it was
really possible as far as I know, he simply showed that it can be done
in theory.
This is important because if it can't be done in experiment, then
there's something missing in GR, or it is flat out wrong.
I would expect that an opponent of GR like yourself would be thankful
of KG because he found something in GR that could be used to falsify
it. If it weren't for him, the consequence might not have been
discovered and you would lack that weapon for attacking the theory.
Of course, you're an ill-tempered usenet poster so my expectations are
rather pointless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
27 Jun 2005 09:38:42 PM |
|
|
In article <1119902234.532066.326600@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"MobyDikc" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote:
Traveler wrote:
Kurt "lunatic" Godel was the fist crackpot to claim that GR does not
forbid time travel.
Right, he showed that the theory allows it.
No he did not. That's my point. GR does not allow time travel of any
sort. Everything is frozen in spacetime from beginning to end. This is
why Sir Karl Popper called spacetime "Einstein's block universe" in
which nothing ever happens.
He never said he himself was a time traveler, or was convinced it was
really possible as far as I know, he simply showed that it can be done
in theory.
No he did not. That's what makes Godel a crackpot in my book (I won't
even go into this voodoo lunacy about incompleteness). Nothing can
move in spacetime. This is an irrefutable fact and Godel was a fucking
crackpot in my book. So are Kip "wormhole" Thorne and the little con
artist in the wheelchair.
This is important because if it can't be done in experiment, then
there's something missing in GR, or it is flat out wrong.
Experiment can never prove that time travel is impossible. Only logic
can. Godel was a fucking idiot, period. ahaha... And those who worship
him and turned him into some sort of god are a bunch brain-dead *****
kissers.
I would expect that an opponent of GR like yourself would be thankful
of KG because he found something in GR that could be used to falsify
it.
But you are wrong, my friend. I am not an opponent of GR. Sure, I
think it's a chicken ***** theory since it explains next to nothing as
to what makes things fall. But I think it says none of the *****
(like time travel) that relativists (many famous ones among them) have
claimed for it. They don't understand their own chicken-***** theory.
GR is just a math trick, that's all, in he tradition of Newtonian
"physics" which is really not physics but math engineering. Physics is
strictly about particles, their properties and their interactions.
Everything else is either abstract or voodoo including space and time.
If it weren't for him, the consequence might not have been
discovered and you would lack that weapon for attacking the theory.
I attack relativists, not relativity. They're a bunch of fucking con
artists. But I do find relativity to be as boring as Newtonian
mechanics. Again, they are chicken ***** theories devoid of explanatory
power. Four hundred years after Newton, physicists still don't know
what causes motion. It's fucking pathetic, to say the least.
Of course, you're an ill-tempered usenet poster so my expectations are
rather pointless.
I'm ill-tempered for a reason. The assholes must know that they and
their religion get no respect from a growing number of people around
the world.
Contrary to what we've been taught to believe for a century, there is
no spacetime and nothing moves in spacetime along curved geodesics so
as to create gravity. Now a few (not all) are changing their tune but
the historical record is clear about the ***** we've been fed for
so long.
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
28 Jun 2005 01:47:35 PM |
|
|
That article is rather badly written. For instance the 2nd sentence
in: "According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, time slows
as an object approaches the speed of light. This leads many scientists
to believe that traveling faster than the speed of light could open up
the possibility of time travel to the past as well as to the future."
is pure crap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
28 Jun 2005 09:05:55 PM |
|
|
Paul Cardinale wrote:
That article is rather badly written. For instance the 2nd sentence
in: "According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, time slows
as an object approaches the speed of light. This leads many scientists
to believe that traveling faster than the speed of light could open up
the possibility of time travel to the past as well as to the future."
is pure crap.
Yes, that's pretty bad. My advice to the original poster: Use the
website as a means to finding out what a few of the technical words for
what you're interested in are, then use that to look for more reputable
websites on the subjects. If you're interested enough, check out an
academic library.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Traveler" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
29 Jun 2005 08:21:01 AM |
|
|
In article <1120010755.686018.261920@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Jim Black" <ghytrfvbnmju7654@mail.com> wrote:
Paul Cardinale wrote:
That article is rather badly written. For instance the 2nd sentence
in: "According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, time slows
as an object approaches the speed of light. This leads many scientists
to believe that traveling faster than the speed of light could open up
the possibility of time travel to the past as well as to the future."
is pure crap.
Yes, that's pretty bad. My advice to the original poster: Use the
website as a means to finding out what a few of the technical words for
what you're interested in are, then use that to look for more reputable
websites on the subjects. If you're interested enough, check out an
academic library.
ahahaha... More reputable websites talking about time travel through
wormholes? That's a good one. ahahaha... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha... ahahaha... aaaaa....
Phew! Physics is so much Phucking Phun! ahahaha... Thanks for the
laughs, Mr. *****-kisser. ahahaha...
Louis Savain
The Silver Bullet: Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix it
http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orion" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
28 Jun 2005 09:06:10 PM |
|
|
The definition of time clearly does not allow time travel. Time is part
of a fundamental abstract conceptual framework (together with space and
number) within which we sequence events, quantify their duration, and
compare the motions of particles. In this view, time does not refer to
any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that
is a "container" for events.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Time travel |
29 Jun 2005 09:42:26 AM |
|
|
In article <1120010770.711521.297830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Orion <danny99@bezeqint.net> wrote:
The definition of time clearly does not allow time travel. Time is part
of a fundamental abstract conceptual framework (together with space and
number) within which we sequence events, quantify their duration, and
compare the motions of particles. In this view, time does not refer to
any kind of entity that "flows", that objects "move through", or that
is a "container" for events.
If time travel is impossible, that's not the reason. You can't rule
something out with a definition.
--
"No other major companies were working on [computer-controlled homes], and
that was exactly the problem. Microsoft does best when it has a
successful competitor it can copy and then crush." -- Marlin Eller,
"Barbarians Led by Bill Gates", 1998
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
