Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Time Travel-Is it possible?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 151
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?Page 7 of 20    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)

It is currently theorized that traveling into the future is possible but not the past.

Time-travel into the future happens all of the time. Every instant. Because it's all about relativity between given systems, and the perceived differences of time-frames. But time-travel into the past is impossible, because the past isn't any kind of thing or place that exists...while time-traveling into the future isn't a matter of going to some place or thing that pre-exists, but is instead a matter of the aforementioned frames of reference and systems relativity. This is why this v is true.

The plane example didn't vanish and reappear so many nanoseconds in the future, but time was recorded as having passed at different rates




The analogy is just variations in a basic chemical reaction.

Time is indeed the change in state relative to another but not chemical

[wrong with analogy]

I'd like to ask you to explain this ^, but I'm getting the impression from the other threads that you'll go through the motions while not actually doing so...
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 152
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/5/2014 1:45:11 PM
Time dilation doesn't kill you.

Freezing yourself solid does.

See the difference?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 153
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/5/2014 1:48:13 PM
^ Yes. There's a lot of difference. I'm getting the impression that few have really read through what I've previously written on this subject, and that few have really thought about what I've said. With their brains.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 154
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/6/2014 9:56:08 AM
I'll just repeat what I've already said in this thread -

- My refridgerator example was just a demonstration of what time is, and of what time-travel is, etc, to a degree (no pun intended). But, to another degree, it is still a genuine demonstration of time.

- The problem is the incorrect instinct to think that the phenomena of time has a property that it just doesn't have, namely the existence of a mysterious "time bracket" through which everything "passes equally" despite whatever else is happening...a universal, common, or underlying feature of it's occurrence. Instead, time is (deceptively) simply "things happening", and things happening is simply energy transformation...and the rate of energy transformation, of things happening, of the passage of time, is dependent of course upon many factors and subjective according to your frame of reference and whatever given system is being looked at relative to another given system. This means also that each given system has it's own time, which has no bearing or meaning, or vice versa, on the time of another.

- A slice of bologna or pizza in the fridge has much slower organic activity, but it's atomic or subatomic activity is either unaffected or not affected in nearly the same way by a simple small difference in temperature. This only means that the organic realm is one system with it's own experience of the rate of time's passage, while certain features of it's more fundamental atomic realm is another system with a different experience of the rate of time's passage. Affecting the system(s) more uniformly by moving yourself towards the speed of light, versus things like putting something into a refridgerator, is like the difference between a magnet only acting upon certain elements, while gravity can act on all elements more uniformly.

- I've acknowledged and suggested that it's at the atomic, subatomic, or quantum level where we might find some kind of universal time-bracket, but I'm already able to see problems with this idea as well.

Now...all of this that I'm saying might be called a theory that I hold on the best information and understanding that I have, everything explaining and based the best I can. I could be wrong. But the problem is that in this thread (and my other one http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts16011136.aspx) no one has shown anything wrong with my idea without revealing a complete misunderstanding of what I'm getting at, and haven't presented a "better theory" to explain what time is...using responsible scientific methodology and thinking.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 155
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:25:09 PM

No it isn't and to be quite honest it's the stupidest thing I've seen on the science forum, been here 7 years now

If after having been here for 7 years, you claim that this is the stupidest thing that you've seen on the science forum...if you think my idea is stupider than just a small percentage of some of the things that have been in here during only my humble couple of years...that's' just kinda weird. Lends some doubt to your credibility.

Most people on this page think your idea isn't just wrong but cuckoo

Are you really invoking a majority opinion in a pof forum in your favor as proof of something? Is this like a kid on the playground saying "everybody thinks you're a dork"?

We know what your getting at and it's a complete misunderstanding of what time is.

The idea then would be to present a better explanation of what time is. I haven't seen that yet.

Wrong use of energy transformation but anyway time isn't the amount of events, that's a human construct to make sense of our universe

Correct - we humans choose a certain standard of rate-of-events to, not measure time, but to use that system's time to organize and coordinate our activites.

The sun goes up, the sun goes down, that's 1 event call it a day

You're right without knowing what about or how, because you're still only trying to be adversarial in an unproductive way, so I'll explain...

...The sun going up and down (actually the earth rotating) is an event which happens via energy being transformed - energy tranformation being the one thing that all events have in common despite how different the kinds of events might be. Nothing could "happen" (for a given system) if energy wasn't flowing through different forms. This particular event does not demonstrate any "time" except for the "time" of that particular system. We use the Earth's rotation (days and nights) simply as one of those standards by which to organize and coordinate our activities, but any "time" indicated by the Earth's rotation is otherwise not indicating time for anything else. To say that you are one day older, is to say nothing at all whatsoever about the rate of time-passage for you - except that it is only to say that the Earth rotated once more during your existence as an alive human being.

My head however, is experiencing that event at a different rate to my feet, they're both experiencing the same events just with different energy levels

Not really. Once your head makes a complete rotation, your feet are there also, unless your feet somehow left your head a few miles behind you. Yet, yes, depending on what you're trying to mean by "energy level", your head had to move faster to keep up with your feet. But this is only making a statement about various parts of your body taken as separate systems. When taking your whole body as one system, on a particular "level" and totaling in all of the trillions of conceivable "systems" that make up your body, that entity, or system, experienced the rate of time-passage a particular singular way, potentially independent of any other system. And you just have to remember, all we're doing is making subjective and relative statements when saying that any system experienced a certain rate of time-passage.

Dilation is a change in energy state relative to another. Nothing to do with processes, this is where you are going wrong

It seems that you're only saying what I'm saying but in a different way. I myself occasionally point out the importance of using terminology properly, but I only do this when people abuse language in order to deceive, or to inadvertantly confuse themselves...I however do not point this out in order to pretend that we disagree when we in fact agree, or vice versa, or as a trick to appear to win an argument, etc...

...Time dilation is a change in energy state relative to another - in other words (?), alledgedly when you move something at light-speed, for example, from a stationary frame of reference the light-speed object's rate of energy transformation is slower, relatively. This could be translated into terms of "energy state", from what I understand. When I use the word "processes" I mean any "event" or occurance of any energy transformation or energy state...I have explained this more than once in this and the other thread on time.

Time is well understood in the world of grown ups, its just some people get confused between science fact and science fiction

Are you sure? Even the appropriately educated grown-ups may say that they don't completely ("well understand") these subjects. And, you're not adding anything by making statements like this and the one about everybody thinking that I'm cuckoo, etc. You don't win any relevant points that way nor prove, disprove, or explain anything.

If time is well understood (in the world of grown-ups), then, instead of pointing out that it's well understood, share with us what this understanding is. That way, we can get somewhere. Then I can see if and where I'm wrong, and learn...or this learning can happen with you, whichever.

And so, again, if you're wanting to talk about this -

- Explain what time is, with more than just making the claim of what it is.

- Explain how time is not what I'm saying that it is, with something that shows that you even understand what I'm saying, without double-talk or anything circular, etc, without just saying that you disagree. (Let alone resorting to those other pointless remarks.)

- Don't say that time is not this, without saying what it is instead.

Please, help me be a grown-up, like you. Show me how. Gimme a leg-up. Uplift this lowly not-grown-up.
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 156
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/6/2014 4:03:05 PM
If time is well understood then, instead of pointing out that it's well understood, share with us what this understanding is.

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

The concept that time is not something that can be physically traveled, that there is only the here and now, that there is no actual past or future that exists in some non-linear realm, and that how we think of time is really just our perception of physical, electrical and chemical events, is not at all new.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 157
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/6/2014 4:14:58 PM
Ok, once again I'm trying to see, and clarify, exactly where and how we disagree, but you're not helping.

You've posted a link which tells of the experiments with atomic clocks that demonstrate how time can pass at different rates for different systems...for clocks subjected to different factors (clocks: things that we could use as time-keeping for any particular purpose - notice, btw, that if you slow or speed any clock, you are not affecting time, except for the time of that system and that system only).

Notice that the fact that the aluminum ion dances at a different speed relative to another otherwise identical aluminum ion...can be alternatively described as the rate of events, or the rate of energy transformation, being different.

In addition, understand that I'm saying that whatever the rate at which the aluminum ion dances, is a "speed" which only applies to that aluminum ion - it does not indicate an actual time for anything else but itself.

And, if you want to suggest that there is an objective "time" that both aluminum ion clocks, and everything else, are subject to, then I'd like for that objective mechanism or method to be explained.

Now...I'd request that you re-read my post. I agreed, but disagreed...I keep hoping that you'll see why and how, which requires you to drop the adversarialism. In what ways your head and feet do or do not experience time differently, depends greatly on exactly what you're talking about and what subjective statement we're trying to make. Whether or not something's "time" goes faster or slower depending on any number of factors, be it gravity, elevation, speed relative to another system, temperature...are all academic technicalities - I might not have all of my details correct in this reguard, but I don't really give a hoot (I've gotten some of mine backwards). They are important, but not relevant to figuring out whether or not what I think time is, is correct, nor to presenting a better explanation of time. The fact that there is a difference between the speeds of clocks is what's important...not whether or not we all immediately understand when and how something is faster versus slower. The fact that you, according your link, do "age" faster because of being at a higher elevation, is what's important.

Here're examples of how speaking of time is riddled with twisty subjective statements: The atoms in your head may tick at a different rate than the one in your feet. But also your head is moving faster than your feet...when considered simply as a head-moving-round-the-earth system, the event of movement is higher simply by the event's nature. Your link says that time passes slower when you move faster...like when a light-speed space ship is supposed to "move into the future" because stationary systems tick away faster and the spaceship ticks away slower (do people get mixed up on which way that's meant? - the spaceship clock is moving slower **)...yet it's saying that something at higher elevation ticks faster, alledgedly because of the lessened gravitational force. So, how do we make that calculation? - your head is moving faster to keep up with your feet, so it might "tick" slower than your feet...yet, since it's at a higher elevation because of the lessened gravitational force, it might "tick" at a faster rate. Does this equal out, or what?

** The link says "when an observer is moving, a stationary clock’s tick appears to last longer, so the clock appears to run slow...a twin sibling who travels on a fast-moving rocket ship would return home younger than the other twin". I thought that if you were traveling at speed, it was your own clock that ticked slower, and a stationary clock would appear to you to tick faster (?). If the twin who was on a fast-moving rocket ship returned younger, wouldn't that be because that twin's systems...clocks...ticked away slower, and the stationary ones faster?

But, this is all still just jibber jabbering. We still haven't gotten anywhere. All you've done is again state that I don't understand what time is, without telling me what it instead is, and without telling me where and how I misunderstand. I hope I don't have to keep asking you to do so too many more times. You've also stated that I'm thinking of time as a film reel, and that I'm trying to rationalize an abstract...what does this mean? Explain what you mean by film reel, and how it's important to state that I'm trying to rationalize an abstract, in such a way that shows me that you're not just trying to make leg-pulling and chain-yanking remarks.

At some point I'm going to get tired of entertaining you, acting on good faith, and putting out all of this effort typing a jillion words while you don't really say or explain anything real...

...C'mon, man. Bring it already.



otto bonn:

how we think of time is really just our perception of physical, electrical and chemical events, is not at all new

In other words, my idea is shared by at least some others in the "world of grown-ups", as andyaa calls it, and probably held by others long before I came to understand it myself?
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 158
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/6/2014 4:56:31 PM
So, how do we make that calculation? - your head is moving faster to keep up with your feet, so it might "tick" slower than your feet...yet, since it's at a higher elevation because of the lessened gravitational force, it might "tick" at a faster rate. Does this equal out, or what?

It would depend on altitude, speed and whether the direction is eastward or westward. The exact thing you are asking about is detailed in this wikipedia page about the Hafele–Keating experiment. It's the relationship between gravitational and kinematic time dilation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

You would have to achieve a precise balance of all things considered to get them to equal out.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 159
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/6/2014 6:09:48 PM
And the red headed girl on the Wendy's commercials said "now that's better". Thanks ^

I've been thinking for a bit now that andyaa is another chat bot A.I. thingy. Is that the case?
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 160
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/7/2014 4:02:53 AM
^ The initial question was such-and-such...um, and?
Time is a human abstract? Ok, so explain that. How is time only a human abstract?
The past and future only exist in your mind...I agree. And?
The rate of entropy can be compared...huh? Compared to what? How is it important that it can be compared?

Still waiting.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 161
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/7/2014 1:32:30 PM

All you've done is again state that I don't understand what time is, without telling me what it instead is


The initial question was can we travel in time now it's define time. When you talk about your fridge you're describing entropy. The rate of entropy can be compared. I have explained what time is, it's a human abstract. Physical objects travel through space not time. The past and future only exist in your mind.


Forums at for answering questions, not teaching people

Sh!t I'm just wasting my time here.

 bamagrl68
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 162
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/8/2014 5:27:36 PM
Andyaa- If you mean that the past does not exist in the future, that is true.
We remember the past, but it does not currently exist as something we can revisit.
The laws of motion do not allow it.
Motion is continuous, therefore, it is impossible to go back in time.
Also, the future does not exist either, something that has not happened yet can not be traveled forward to.
I created this thread because I am fascinated by the concept, but simple physics preclude the possibility.
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 163
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/8/2014 6:05:06 PM
Here's a guy who believes that it may be possible to travel backwards through time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Richard_Gott

It's all completely hypothetical involving cosmic strings.

He was also featured on an episode of Sci-Fi Science with Michio Kaku for the Discovery Channel. Here's a direct link to download a lo-res copy of that episode produced for mobile phones. It's in standard AVI format and only a mere 31MB in size.

http://tv.fztvseries.mobi/videos/Doc/Discovery/Sci-Fi%20Science/Discovery.Ch.Sci.Fi.Science.06of25.How.to.Travel.Through.Time.avi
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 164
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/9/2014 2:43:09 AM
otto bonn:

Thanks. Well, string theory stuff is a bit fuzzy so far, isn't it? (Has it made any progress towards a stable theory?) I haven't read any of those two in the link - it says that if you do such-and-such you'll find that you go back in time...does either of them say how or why you go back in time with any plausibility? And, the time mirror just sounds like a type of telescope.

I like how he says the universe is like a tree that was it's own mother. Weird. I guess there is a market for this stuff...an author has to eventually write things like this for them, no?

When he says

time travel into the future at varying rates through special relativity [happens all of the time]

I'm nodding my head...at least he understands that much.

and then

he is not completely committal on the subject of time travel to the past. The book does say that nothing known excludes such travel, but he doesn't completely rule out the possibility that future research may prove it impossible

I think this depends on knowing what time is in the first place, of course, which is what I've tried to discuss here and in another thread. Since I believe that the past isn't something that is there, isn't a thing or place which exists, then I don't see any way to travel to it. I mentioned earlier in these dialogues that the only way to "go back in time" is to somehow reset and reposition, so to speak, every last bit of energy and matter into a previous state, form, and position...and you'd have to do this for the whole universe, else you'd just be doing this literal "rewinding" for a limited sphere.

From what you've confirmed, understanding time in this way isn't new...I think this would be "something known which excludes backwards time travel".
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 165
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/9/2014 4:08:08 PM
Have a look at that video too. Even though it's sized for mobile phones, it will play fine on a PC.

The cosmic strings seem to have a limit to how far back in time you could go. In the example in the video, it's said that if you took off in a spaceship and traveled though an area of space that was folded in a certain way, you could meet up with your ship before you had set out on your journey.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 166
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/9/2014 4:50:50 PM
(the vid) Ok, the problems I'm having with this -

- Remember, when we talk about "moving into the future" because of time dilation, we're not really traveling through time in the sense that we're going to a future time that pre-exists. All we're doing is "delaying" the rate of the passage of time for ourselves while everything else passes by at a then faster rate.

- It doesn't seem like they are at all explaining how or why things happen the way that they're claiming that they happen...are not showing anything that plausibly suggests that things are that way. They're just saying that they are that way. It seems like a case of the metaphor breaking down...they're creating metaphors, examples, to demonstrate how something works. But it's only the metaphor that's doing that, while there's nothing that shows that things are really like that for what they're talking about.

- Their ideas about cosmic strings, worm holes, black holes, etc, seem to be quite assumption-laden.

- This just seems to be fantasy for people who don't question scientific-sounding propositions.
 ladymercury
Joined: 5/25/2011
Msg: 167
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/9/2014 5:22:34 PM
Thanks for starting the thread bamagrl; I too am fascinated by time travel. Half the time I already believe I'm travelling in time, with stories long gone of course, and the other half I'm still working on what the hell this time thing really is. This does make the possibilities endless and all encompassing.
 Flurr
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 168
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/13/2014 5:13:27 PM
Yes, we travel through time everyday, its all about an individual perception.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 169
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/13/2014 6:39:18 PM
Be careful, faithdefender...on top of it feeling funny that you're the one to kinda-sorta come to my defense (unless you're not), you're going to go and make me and andyaa almost partly agree on something.

But this is really to just miss what's wrong with that rant a few posts back.
 63T
Joined: 5/28/2006
Msg: 170
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/13/2014 8:30:36 PM

- scientific theories are theories, nothing can prove them.

- scientific theories are not the TRUTH.

- science does not claim to state the truth.

Unenjoyable, is absolutely correct.

Examples;
The theory of electricity.
Electricity cannot be proven to exist.
We cannot see, hear, feel, or touch it.
We can only observe and feel the effects of electricity.
We can say that electricity exists, theoretically.

Gravity cannot be proven.
We cannot see, hear, feel, or touch it.
We feel the effects of gravity so it exists, theoretically.

Theory can be supported or challenged by hypothesis but never proven.
Theory is always "open-ended".
 OTTO BONN
Joined: 4/20/2006
Msg: 171
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/13/2014 9:11:14 PM


Electricity cannot be proven to exist.
 63T
Joined: 5/28/2006
Msg: 172
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/15/2014 8:48:55 PM
Faithdefender;

It’s a fact, electricity exists.... ...It’s a fact, gravity exists.

This is incorrect, scientifically.
With the exception of reference to mathematics, science does not "prove" anything.
There exists empirical evidence or facts to support theories of electricity, gravity, etc,.
However, this is not to say that gravity, electricity and any other theories are, or will ever be "proven", scientifically.
If you wish to believe that electricity or gravity exists, fine. But, that is not the domain of science.
A recognized phenomenon is not scientific "proof" of it's existence.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 173
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/16/2014 3:02:27 AM
Well, all of you are right, mostly.

But then, those details, those tiny bits of definitive discrepancy, do matter. Do make all of the difference. Darn it. Hate it when those things crop up.

So does this mean that it's a scientific matter, not a "philosophical" one, for me to question "Do I really exist?"?

Yes, we travel through time everyday, its all about an individual perception.

Interestingly, this is talking about how there is always travel into the future, because of dilation, and about subjectivity due to the relativity of frames of reference.
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 174
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/16/2014 3:43:28 AM
Since theory is the formal and objective study of something, I'd say that stress theory "can exist". And not even all of these being "mechanically" oriented.

http://engineerbiki.blogspot.com/2012/09/theories-of-failure-stress-and-strain.html

http://www.severehypertension.net/hbp/more/theories-of-stress/

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/38637_Chapter1.pdf

http://www.expertsmind.com/questions/maximum-shear-stress-theory-distortion-energy-theory-30183505.aspx

http://www.transtutors.com/homework-help/mechanical-engineering/materials-strength/failure-theories/maximum-shear-stress-theory/

 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 175
view profile
History
Time Travel-Is it possible?
Posted: 1/16/2014 1:29:57 PM
^ I think what you're saying is that such a thing would naturally fall under another umbrella, and that going by the official and appropriate criteria or methods for deciding such a thing, there is no formally declared or recognized "stress theory". That it wouldn't make sense, technically. But I was thinking that anything can be studied, as far as that part goes. For that matter, generally speaking, nothing is really off limits for science. Whether or not stress is a force, or a number, it can still be studied. Hopefully. It just might not warrant having a "stress theory". And, even though someone might be "talking about something else" when speaking of stress, in psychology it still might be equally valid to speak of a theory of stress, though still not formally according to my initial explanation. (?)
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Time Travel-Is it possible?