I was out having a smoke, pondering in my thoughts and started thinking about time travel. Suppose we made a time machine, which according to some recent study, is very possible and people are already making time travel machines which should theoretically work using lasers to bend matter in a circle, creating a "worm hole" which should allow you to go back in time. But theoretically, it will only allow you to go back as far as the time that the machine was turned on. This doesn't conflict with my idea though.
So here is my theory, suppose you could go back in time. Now say you have a 100$ bill sitting on a table for a year or so. You pick up the 100$ and then go back in time, with the 100$ in your wallet, to the end of that year when the 100$ bill is sitting on the table. Theoretically, since at that point in time, since you still haven't moved the 100$, it should still be there on the table, with it being in your pocket as well.
I figure you could repeat this process, always moving a little bit further back in time to pick up the 100$ bill, basically duplicating it through time travel over and over. Theoretically you would have to move a little bit further back in time because if you return to a time which is later then a previous time you picked up the 100$ bill, it may not be there at all.
If this works, it could solve all resource problems. You could do this with Metals, Liquids, Gas, Medicine, basically anything.... And what excites me the most about this theory is that we could duplicate anti-matter particles. We can make anti-matter in labs but to make a handful of them would bankrupt the world. Anti-matter is one of, if not the best sources of energy in the universe that we know of and if you could make 1 anti-matter atom and then duplicate it over and over, we could power the world for virtually nothing and make long distance space travel a very real possibility.
On June 19 2008 10:12 G5 wrote: which according to some recent study, is very possible and people are already making time travel machines which should theoretically work using lasers to bend matter in a circle, creating a "worm hole" which should allow you to go back in time. But theoretically, it will only allow you to go back as far as the time that the machine was turned on.
Do you have a source for this? I was arguing about the possibility of time travel with a friend and if you have a valid source I'd like to rub it in his face
On June 19 2008 10:12 G5 wrote: which according to some recent study, is very possible and people are already making time travel machines which should theoretically work using lasers to bend matter in a circle, creating a "worm hole" which should allow you to go back in time. But theoretically, it will only allow you to go back as far as the time that the machine was turned on.
Do you have a source for this? I was arguing about the possibility of time travel with a friend and if you have a valid source I'd like to rub it in his face
the cool part is that the moment you have a working time machine, you won't even have to test it to know that it's working. a dude is just gonna show up inside of it with a shitload of useful stuff
That sounds a lot safer than going back in time :p
It's wayyy to far ahead for us to seriously consider this, but probably not the first time someone thought of taking things from the future to benefit the present.
There are two ways to think about time travel possibility: 1) you can go back in time and change things 2) there is only one timeline, so if someone decided to time travel from 2008 to 1954, then during the "original" 1954, that person was there already.
1) seems impossible because the notion of change means the original timeline between the point of departure and destination ceases to exist because you weren't there originally. 2) this seems like the only logically consistent time travel concept, but if time travel were possible, we would have likely met a time traveler already. So it appears we will never discover time travel.
IIRC grandfather paradox is a grandpa travels at near speed of light and comes back after a while, the grandson would be older than grandpa.
The best time travel paradox is this I say:
1) Suppose that something can go faster than speed of light. 2) And that causes it to go back in time.
Now you use this new thing to call someone in Andromeda galaxy. You call at noon, but it goes back in time and reaches you alien girlfriend at 11 AM. When she responds, it comes back to earth at 10 AM!
If you put a gap far enough you're suppose to hear stuff before you are even a cell. XD
Now on your topic. G5:
If you took that money, it would be stealing from this dot. (That's what I'll refer a moment of time because basically one dot in an infinite line, which is what I belive.)
So in your theory, you'll be screwing 1000000 dots to make one better. Also you assume that a series of infinite dots is how time works.
To go even further. If you go back in time to pick up the 100$ bill the 2nd time, with the 1st 100$ bill in your hand. As soon as you pick up the 2nd one, does the 1st one disappear because as soon as you picked it up the 2nd time, it wasn't there for you to pick it up the 1st time. Or does it make another dimension in which case makes the 1st theory plausible. When you go back in time, is there 2 of you in the world? Would you actually be cloning yourself? I would assume the answer is yes but who knows... It is really mind boggling when you get deep into it.
Why would time travel destroy the physical laws of conservation? There has to be a consequence and logically, it would not only disappear from your wallet upon a double-dipping, but maybe alter your memories, or maybe turn you into a glom of antimatter. If you could take it freely, either the one you already have materialized from nowhere-land, or reality immediately instantiates a parallel thread of reality, identical up to the point where you took the dollar (fork() -> exec() lol).
Either way, something originates instantaneously from nothing. It would make more sense if you imploded.
And there's better time paradoxes than this. I cannot fathom time travel as possible.
On June 19 2008 10:49 Wala.Revolution wrote: IIRC grandfather paradox is a grandpa travels at near speed of light and comes back after a while, the grandson would be older than grandpa.
This is wrong.
It says a man travels back in time and kills his grandfather before the grandfather meets the grandmother. The paradox is that the grandparents wont conceive the man's father and thus he will never exist. This is the same thing that was examined in "Back to the Future" in which Marty's parents are in danger of never meeting and thus Marty starts "fading away" from existence. And this is why I rejected the notion of "change" in time travel, because paradoxes like these arise. If someone did time travel to a certain point in time, he was always there at that time.
One movie that gets this right is the original Terminator. In the "present" 1984, Reese travels back from the future to save Sarah Conner. It was not the case that the original 1984 passed, there were no terminators, and then something happened and the Terminators decided to go back and change the past so 1984 had a "re-do". 1984 ALWAYS had Reese and the Terminator. One funny thing about this, though, is that since this timeline cannot be changed, and John Connor existed in the future, it is a certainty that Sarah Conner survived. So if you think about it, Sarah Conner doesn't need to run from the Terminator because it's already set that she survives. But she doesn't know that, and neither does John, and that's why Sarah survives.
On June 19 2008 10:33 yn01_ wrote: so if i went back and killed thomas edison would we have light right now
This is totally inconsistent with the proposal in the OP.
He is talking about going into the future and taking an item back in time... not changing the past. Of course you can make arguments that there will still be connections or whatever, but I think you just missed one key difference upon a brief inspection.
Edit: ahole-surprise beat me to the grandfather paradox.
The other paradox mentioned is known as the twin paradox: if one were to travel near the speed of light, they would age slower than usual to someone in Earth's reference frame, yet the person on Earth would appear to age slower to the person traveling near the speed of light.
G5, if you went back in time to pick up the $100 bill, would you not see yourself pick up the $100 bill as you laid it down 1 year ago?
Wouldn't this mean that you already know you would go back in time to pick up the $100 bill?
This also means that there would be two of you existing at the same point in time; one of you would have just placed down the $100 bill, and the other would've just went back in time to grab the $100 bill.
You cannot go back to grab $100 bills at earlier and earlier points on the timeline, because taking the bills at an ealier point in time would mean that the bill would not exist at a later point in time when you went back to grab the bill.
What you are assuming is that there are infinite universes, and that everytime you go back to take a bill, you are actually shifting into a different universe. By altering each universe by taking the bill at different points in time, you are actually creating more sets of infinite universes for each universe that you visited; each set of universes would have the bill being taken at a different point in time.
Therefore, yes, you can obtain limitless amounts of bills, but not in the same way that you thought.
On June 19 2008 11:26 blue_arrows wrote: G5, if you went back in time to pick up the $100 bill, would you not see yourself pick up the $100 bill as you laid it down 1 year ago?
Wouldn't this mean that you already know you would go back in time to pick up the $100 bill?
This also means that there would be two of you existing at the same point in time; one of you would have just placed down the $100 bill, and the other would've just went back in time to grab the $100 bill.
You cannot go back to grab $100 bills at earlier and earlier points on the timeline, because taking the bills at an ealier point in time would mean that the bill would not exist at a later point in time when you went back to grab the bill.
What you are assuming is that there are infinite universes, and that everytime you go back to take a bill, you are actually shifting into a different universe. By altering each universe by taking the bill at different points in time, you are actually creating more sets of infinite universes for each universe that you visited; each set of universes would have the bill being taken at a different point in time.
Therefore, yes, you can obtain limitless amounts of bills, but not in the same way that you thought.
He is going forwards in time to get the bill, not backwards.
I was out having a smoke, pondering in my thoughts and started thinking about time travel. Suppose we made a time machine, which according to some recent study, is very possible and people are already making time travel machines which should theoretically work using lasers to bend matter in a circle, creating a "worm hole" which should allow you to go back in time. But theoretically, it will only allow you to go back as far as the time that the machine was turned on. This doesn't conflict with my idea though.
So here is my theory, suppose you could go back in time. Now say you have a 100$ bill sitting on a table for a year or so. You pick up the 100$ and then go back in time, with the 100$ in your wallet, to the end of that year when the 100$ bill is sitting on the table. Theoretically, since at that point in time, since you still haven't moved the 100$, it should still be there on the table, with it being in your pocket as well.
I figure you could repeat this process, always moving a little bit further back in time to pick up the 100$ bill, basically duplicating it through time travel over and over. Theoretically you would have to move a little bit further back in time because if you return to a time which is later then a previous time you picked up the 100$ bill, it may not be there at all.
If this works, it could solve all resource problems. You could do this with Metals, Liquids, Gas, Medicine, basically anything.... And what excites me the most about this theory is that we could duplicate anti-matter particles. We can make anti-matter in labs but to make a handful of them would bankrupt the world. Anti-matter is one of, if not the best sources of energy in the universe that we know of and if you could make 1 anti-matter atom and then duplicate it over and over, we could power the world for virtually nothing and make long distance space travel a very real possibility.
Didn't Stephen Hawking said that time travel didn't exist based solely on the fact that if it did exist, we would be flooded already with time tourists? Like, it would only be possible to not have had contact already with time tourists if we were the more advanced time line of all, that being statistically almost impossible, given there should be infinity time lines or something like that.
On June 19 2008 11:26 blue_arrows wrote: G5, if you went back in time to pick up the $100 bill, would you not see yourself pick up the $100 bill as you laid it down 1 year ago?
Wouldn't this mean that you already know you would go back in time to pick up the $100 bill?
This also means that there would be two of you existing at the same point in time; one of you would have just placed down the $100 bill, and the other would've just went back in time to grab the $100 bill.
You cannot go back to grab $100 bills at earlier and earlier points on the timeline, because taking the bills at an ealier point in time would mean that the bill would not exist at a later point in time when you went back to grab the bill.
What you are assuming is that there are infinite universes, and that everytime you go back to take a bill, you are actually shifting into a different universe. By altering each universe by taking the bill at different points in time, you are actually creating more sets of infinite universes for each universe that you visited; each set of universes would have the bill being taken at a different point in time.
Therefore, yes, you can obtain limitless amounts of bills, but not in the same way that you thought.
On June 19 2008 10:51 G5 wrote: To go even further. If you go back in time to pick up the 100$ bill the 2nd time, with the 1st 100$ bill in your hand. As soon as you pick up the 2nd one, does the 1st one disappear because as soon as you picked it up the 2nd time, it wasn't there for you to pick it up the 1st time. Or does it make another dimension in which case makes the 1st theory plausible. When you go back in time, is there 2 of you in the world? Would you actually be cloning yourself? I would assume the answer is yes but who knows... It is really mind boggling when you get deep into it.
On June 19 2008 10:12 G5 wrote: which according to some recent study, is very possible and people are already making time travel machines which should theoretically work using lasers to bend matter in a circle, creating a "worm hole" which should allow you to go back in time. But theoretically, it will only allow you to go back as far as the time that the machine was turned on.
Do you have a source for this? I was arguing about the possibility of time travel with a friend and if you have a valid source I'd like to rub it in his face
On June 19 2008 10:49 NastyMarine wrote: All i Know is that once the shit comes out, I'm buying an ounce of some bomb chronic and just keep going back in time to re-up and smoke out
oh dear. Who let the (pseudo-scientists) out? Stuff like this rests easier on philosophy than science. But then you'd have to have regard to A and B theories of time, which i'm sure someone out there has a clearer idea of it than me.
On June 19 2008 12:12 GeneralStan wrote: Ramen said it best. The complete lack of time travelers from the future seems to indicate that traveling back in time is impossible
Yeah except I said it before him in this very thread.
if time travel was indeed possible, and you used some machine or whatever to travel back in time, where, in regards to space, would you appear?
like if a person is in NYC and uses a time machine to travel back a year ago. Where will he appear? in the same spot in NYC? but that would assume that you appear in the same place, and a year ago, you werent on that spot in space, cuz the earth, solar system, and galaxy have all moved away from that place in space.
On June 19 2008 12:15 ieatkids5 wrote: i propose a question to be discussed
if time travel was indeed possible, and you used some machine or whatever to travel back in time, where, in regards to space, would you appear?
like if a person is in NYC and uses a time machine to travel back a year ago. Where will he appear? in the same spot in NYC? but that would assume that you appear in the same place, and a year ago, you werent on that spot in space, cuz the earth, solar system, and galaxy have all moved away from that place in space.
edit - punctuation
good question. trial and error? And to reiterate what i believe G5 said - in order for time travel to work, the machine has to be 'turned on' and can only be used as far back as the machine was on. So in-theory you would have a safe 'exit' i suppose
On June 19 2008 12:12 GeneralStan wrote: Ramen said it best. The complete lack of time travelers from the future seems to indicate that traveling back in time is impossible
Or that we simply can't tell them from the rest of us because they have disguised themselves cleverly to fit in.
Seriously though until I watched that youtube vid linked I made up my mind on time travel and found that traveling back in time would be impossible but traveling forward in time would not. Then again I really don't find his theory that strong to begin with but its the only time travel theory I've found to even remotely explain how one would travel back in time.
On June 19 2008 12:12 GeneralStan wrote: Ramen said it best. The complete lack of time travelers from the future seems to indicate that traveling back in time is impossible
Yeah except I said it before him in this very thread.
It's ok, you were the original one to post it. You can have all the credit Both GeneralStan and I are sorry for this. Our bad.
Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH?
On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote: Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH?
On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote: Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH?
Time does exist. That's the premise of pretty much the entire Theory of Relativity. I remember there was an experiment in which we proved the existence of time and space when we proved that it took longer for a light to get to us when passing through a giant mass than it did when there was no mass present. It is because of the space time continuum that we have entropy and energy conservation. I'm no expert but I stayed long enough in my physics class to know that time does exist.
On June 19 2008 11:51 RamenStyle wrote: Didn't Stephen Hawking said that time travel didn't exist based solely on the fact that if it did exist, we would be flooded already with time tourists? Like, it would only be possible to not have had contact already with time tourists if we were the more advanced time line of all, that being statistically almost impossible, given there should be infinity time lines or something like that.
imagining what you said makes me feel all strange.. it somehow disappoints me that even after millions and billions of years, we'd still have no time travelers...
On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote: Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH?
Time does exist. That's the premise of pretty much the entire Theory of Relativity. I remember there was an experiment in which we proved the existence of time and space when we proved that it took longer for a light to get to us when passing through a giant mass than it did when there was no mass present. It is because of the space time continuum that we have entropy and energy conservation. I'm no expert but I stayed long enough in my physics class to know that time does exist.
No you can't assert that time exists based on science. This is a serious logical fallacy to make. The issue here is the conception of time, and mahini may well be right. This is why its important to look at whether you think time is a flowing medium (that only exists in the now) or whether time is a static medium (with past, present future imprinted and immovable). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series
On June 19 2008 11:51 RamenStyle wrote: Didn't Stephen Hawking said that time travel didn't exist based solely on the fact that if it did exist, we would be flooded already with time tourists? Like, it would only be possible to not have had contact already with time tourists if we were the more advanced time line of all, that being statistically almost impossible, given there should be infinity time lines or something like that.
imagining what you said makes me feel all strange.. it somehow disappoints me that even after millions and billions of years, we'd still have no time travelers...
a bit scary..
Well no need to be disappointed yet. I think the problem with time travel (if it exists) is that it needs two time travel machines (one at the destination and another at the current location) to distort space and time for a person to travel through. So as the video said, we cannot expect time travelers to visit us until we've made a viable time machine.
On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote: Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH?
On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote: Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH?
Time does exist. That's the premise of pretty much the entire Theory of Relativity. I remember there was an experiment in which we proved the existence of time and space when we proved that it took longer for a light to get to us when passing through a giant mass than it did when there was no mass present. It is because of the space time continuum that we have entropy and energy conservation. I'm no expert but I stayed long enough in my physics class to know that time does exist.
No you can't assert that time exists based on science. This is a serious logical fallacy to make. The issue here is the conception of time, and mahini may well be right. This is why its important to look at whether you think time is a flowing medium (that only exists in the now) or whether time is a static medium (with past, present future imprinted and immovable). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series
I'm not sure I follow you completely but I'll try to answer as best as possible. It is true that we do not fully comprehend time itself and in order to answer your question we would need to know if parallel universes exist. Of course, we have no idea if they do or not. However, that does not take out the fact that time does exist and is intertwined with space and matter. You must also remember that "science" is only concerned with the observable and testable world. And within that observable and testable world we see that time does exist. So in essence, what you consider a "logical fallacy" is not at all a logical fallacy but rather the limitation of science.
Time travel has never and will never exist. Time is not a "space" to be traveled, rather it is a function of our invention. The universe doesn't have a concept of time, we do. These wormhole theorists are jokes of scientists, sort of like the people who think we can create black holes with particle launchers. Wormholes? Really? How the hell do you know they take you "backwards" in "time"? So dull.
Addendum:
From that website (which I hadn't read before posting, just confirmed what I already believed/knew..
"Time, in this view, is not something that exists apart from the universe. There is no clock ticking outside the cosmos. Most of us tend to think of time the way Newton did: “Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably, without regard to anything external.” But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe. In fact, says Lloyd, clocks don’t really measure time at all.
“I recently went to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder,” says Lloyd. (NIST is the government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardizes time for the nation.) “I said something like, ‘Your clocks measure time very accurately.’ They told me, ‘Our clocks do not measure time.’ I thought, Wow, that’s very humble of these guys. But they said, ‘No, time is defined to be what our clocks measure.’ Which is true. They define the time standards for the globe: Time is defined by the number of clicks of their clocks.”
Rovelli, the advocate of a timeless universe, says the NIST timekeepers have it right. Moreover, their point of view is consistent with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. “We never really see time,” he says. “We see only clocks. If you say this object moves, what you really mean is that this object is here when the hand of your clock is here, and so on. We say we measure time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself. And the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, but we represent that as if everything is evolving in time."
On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote: Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH?
I read that article and there's one thing in there that kinda confuses me. It says that physics as we know would function just as well with time going backwards... But then that would mean the universe would be getting more ordered as a result (because we have reverse entropy) and hence we'd be creating energy without any work breaking the law of conservation of energy. I see what they're trying to get at, but if time were backwards we'd break the 2 most fundamental law of thermodynamics unless I'm misreading that passage.
Isn't there some theory or something that says that it is impossible for an object to be in two different places at the same time? Wouldn't it cause them to cancel each other out, or cause the universe to implode or something?
On June 19 2008 14:13 Ozarugold wrote: Isn't there some theory or something that says that it is impossible for an object to be in two different places at the same time? Wouldn't it cause them to cancel each other out, or cause the universe to implode or something?
No... you're probably thinking of the pauli exclusion principle which states (basically) that it's impossible to have two identically particles in the SAME place at the same time. Pretty common sense, really.
There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present.
Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
The grandfather theory proves time travel wrong. You could, however, get frozen in time while time keeps moving past you, therefore traveling to the future... but the past is impossible.
On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote: There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present.
I don't think I understand most of what you're saying. I have no idea where you got that definition of "dimension" from. When scientists state that time is a dimension, what they are referring to is that time itself is affected by space and inherently intertwined with it in a space-time continuum. We've proven time and time (no pun intended) of this inherent relationship. Also, you're really confusing with what time is all about. It is not universally constant, but rather relative. If I stand next to a black hole you will see me freeze as if time has stopped, but to me time will not have stopped.
Also, time does not stop for something going at the speed of light. It may look like it has stopped to an observer, but for the object going at the speed of light it will not have stopped. Again, time is relative not universal. If it were universal as a whole, then we would not see the gravitational effect on time, which is the basis for the Theory of Relativity. Once you get that you'll see that no scientist is confusing time with aging (although they are related no doubt).
Lastly time travel is a whole new different ballgame. For it to be possible, we'd be talkin about multiple dimensions which are so far unproven yet. Mathematically, however, it seems that people have been finding ways to get time travel possible in the distant future, although I'm not too sure about this stuff.
On June 19 2008 14:13 Ozarugold wrote: Isn't there some theory or something that says that it is impossible for an object to be in two different places at the same time? Wouldn't it cause them to cancel each other out, or cause the universe to implode or something?
No... you're probably thinking of the pauli exclusion principle which states (basically) that it's impossible to have two identically particles in the SAME place at the same time. Pretty common sense, really.
Ah yeah...that was it...I forgot what it was called so I tried to remember it as best I could but my memories a bit rusty. I remember talking about this while watching Back to the Future and I know the word 'implosion' came up alot yet I can't remember why...
On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote: Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists.
Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time.
I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science.
On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote: There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense.
Just because we can't change the rate at which we travel in time doesn't mean it's not a dimension. I tried to think of a metaphor but I failed T_T
On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote: There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present.
What is your minimum sufficient condition of existence? Are you saying by contrast that the current moment does exist? I have semantical disagreement with you.
On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote: Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists.
Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time.
I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science.
Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept.
The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings".
Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.
I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence.
If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable?
Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical.
Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically.
On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote: Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH?
I read that article and there's one thing in there that kinda confuses me. It says that physics as we know would function just as well with time going backwards... But then that would mean the universe would be getting more ordered as a result (because we have reverse entropy) and hence we'd be creating energy without any work breaking the law of conservation of energy. I see what they're trying to get at, but if time were backwards we'd break the 2 most fundamental law of thermodynamics unless I'm misreading that passage.
Entropy is the arrow which shows us the direction time is going in. If time were going backwards, entropy would point the other way. Entropy is an equation that has time as a variable, not just an abstract concept that says the universe must move towards disorder.
Also, space and time are both dimensions. Think about dimensions on a 2-coordinate, x/y graph. It goes on forever. It isn't necessarily filled by anything. The dimensions are simply there to allow stuff to happen within them. Space and Time work just like X and Y. You can pinpoint a molecule by denoting its location in 3-dimensions and the time it was there in the same way you can specify the x and y coordinates on a graph.
But that doesn't mean that space or time physically exist. They are abstract concepts which we have defined.
On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote: There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present.
What is your minimum sufficient condition of existence? Are you saying by contrast that the current moment does exist? I have semantical disagreement with you.
There is an apple. It has physical existence. You vaporize it with a giant laser. Now the apple does not exist. None of the atoms are gone. Every atom of the apple still exists, but the apple does not. The apple was not only its atoms, but also the configuration of its atoms. Once the configuration of those atoms is changed enough that they no longer satisfy the definition of "the apple", the apple no longer exists.
A reasonal physical definition of "a moment in time" would be the precise physical configuration of the universe at that moment. Once the moment has passed, that precise configuration is gone and no longer exists.
It no longer is accessible. It surely still exists in that exact configuration, if only it were possible for time itself to move back to that point.
And it might be. Who is to say that because we are only capable of moving in one direction that something not bound by space or time cannot simply observe the moment from outside of the four dimensions we have found?
On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote: Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists.
Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time.
I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science.
Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept.
The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings".
Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.
I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence.
If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable?
Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical.
Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically.
I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real?
I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you).
Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world.
I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept.
On June 19 2008 17:32 5HITCOMBO wrote: It no longer is accessible. It surely still exists in that exact configuration, if only it were possible for time itself to move back to that point.
And it might be. Who is to say that because we are only capable of moving in one direction that something not bound by space or time cannot simply observe the moment from outside of the four dimensions we have found?
This is the dilemma of this thread. Is time real, in the sense that we can have a "t"-coordinate, that we may have in ACTUAL existence a present, past and future which we may visit? Or is time un-real, always flowing and changing, and hence existing only in the present? This is the ancient greek debate between Heraclitus and Parminedes, which is extended to "eternalism" and "presentism". http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#PreEteGroUniThe
On June 19 2008 17:32 5HITCOMBO wrote: It no longer is accessible. It surely still exists in that exact configuration, if only it were possible for time itself to move back to that point.
And it might be. Who is to say that because we are only capable of moving in one direction that something not bound by space or time cannot simply observe the moment from outside of the four dimensions we have found?
Occam's razor. There is no reason to suppose the continued existence of past moments, the advance existence of future moments, or beings that live outside of the universe.
If you mean to say, "You can't prove it!"... well, yeah. I can't prove that electrons don't have tiny little elves driving them, either. I can't prove that you're not a brain in a jar being fed a computer-generated hallucination, either.+ Show Spoiler +
You are, actually. But it is calculated with over twelve nines of surety that you will dismiss this revelation as a joke and continue to serve our purposes.
beep
Occam's razor, or the principle of least silliness (as I like to call it), guides me to scrub unnecessary details from the model. It's the full logical development of the same principle I use to dismiss the possibility of secret goblin parties in my fridge.
On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote: Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH?
I read that article and there's one thing in there that kinda confuses me. It says that physics as we know would function just as well with time going backwards... But then that would mean the universe would be getting more ordered as a result (because we have reverse entropy) and hence we'd be creating energy without any work breaking the law of conservation of energy. I see what they're trying to get at, but if time were backwards we'd break the 2 most fundamental law of thermodynamics unless I'm misreading that passage.
Entropy is the arrow which shows us the direction time is going in. If time were going backwards, entropy would point the other way. Entropy is an equation that has time as a variable, not just an abstract concept that says the universe must move towards disorder.
I disagree. Entropy is a spontaneous flow of objects towards messiness. The reason why entropy is increasing is of course due to the flow of time. If that time were reversed, then entropy would start decreasing. Let's take my room for instance. At the beginning it was quite clean but now it is rather dirty. Okay, let's travel back in time and suddenly my room is cleaning itself up. In other words, entropy is spontaneouly decreasing without any change in condition (except for the flow of time) which would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote: Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists.
Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time.
I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science.
Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept.
The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings".
Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.
I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence.
If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable?
Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical.
Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically.
I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real?
I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you).
Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world.
I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept.
I believe, when you speak of time that we have tested, you speak of observable time, that is, the measurement of the concept of time. If not, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it.
Would be great for recources like oil, gas, etc.... When it comes to just money, maybe win the next TSL. At least it would take less time to practice for TSL than traveling back in time one year again and again...
On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote: Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists.
Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time.
I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science.
Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept.
The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings".
Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.
I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence.
If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable?
Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical.
Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically.
I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real?
I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you).
Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world.
I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept.
I believe, when you speak of time that we have tested, you speak of observable time, that is, the measurement of the concept of time. If not, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it.
Of course we're going to measure time. Just like we're measuring height, weight, etc we need to measure time to test it. When I say "observable" I'm referring to the fact that we can see the effects of gravity on time through measurements. And just because we're measuring time does not mean it does not "exist". Feel free to make that argument again, but I've already talked explicitly about my definition of "existence". I'd love to hear yours.
On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote: There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present.
What is your minimum sufficient condition of existence? Are you saying by contrast that the current moment does exist? I have semantical disagreement with you.
There is an apple. It has physical existence. You vaporize it with a giant laser. Now the apple does not exist. None of the atoms are gone. Every atom of the apple still exists, but the apple does not. The apple was not only its atoms, but also the configuration of its atoms. Once the configuration of those atoms is changed enough that they no longer satisfy the definition of "the apple", the apple no longer exists.
A reasonal physical definition of "a moment in time" would be the precise physical configuration of the universe at that moment. Once the moment has passed, that precise configuration is gone and no longer exists.
Existence ends when the atoms dissipate? Let me understand your paradigm; you believe numbers do not exist, correct? What if I were to destroy all of the coconuts in the entire world: would the fruit "coconut" still exist? I would argue that since everyone knows exactly what a coconut is, it exists abstractly as a type definition. That there exist an instantiation of a particular type is irrelevant to its existence. This is significant because it differentiates between meaningful and non-meaningful references ("Pegasus is flying" is a meanginful statement, whereas "arfb32lkdfy is flying" is garbage). When you reduce existence to extension as you have done, yes, you lose that dimension and the ability to quantify across time. But reality is a shared experience; we can make meaningful references to previous reality configurations.
This is a little off-course for time travel. Even using my own semantics, visiting the past would require its actual extension in addition to existence. And as you mentioned, there is no reason to believe that reality is perpetually cloning itself into discrete extensions.
Say you build your time machine. You perfect it in such a way that it can transport people back in time. Your first experiment is sending YOURSELF back in time 5 minutes. You plan everything out, and 5 minutes before you start, you come out of the machine and shout "IT WORKS". Now, 5 minutes later you have to get into the machine, go back in time 5 minutes, and shout "IT WORKS". But for 5 minutes of time, there are two yous.
Now, which one will continue its existence? The initial you has to get into the time machine, while the you that came out will continue life in a normal way. Isn't there going to be a weird loop?
Maybe I should have named them You and Future You or something, but I guess you all understand what I mean.
Also, there was this episode of the outer limits that stuck to my mind ever since I saw it. There was this ET race that gave humans means to travel through huge distances in space in seconds. (something like teleportation). It worked by analyzing the person, creating a perfect clone on the other side, and then destroying the initial one. Think about that for a second. In theory, the clone would have your DNA, your looks, all your memories, the way you think, everything. Would you do it? Of course not, because the initial you would die. This is, of course, a psychological issue, but I think it can relate to the topic at hand. Would you go back in time if that could mean the end of YOU and the continued existence of another, identical YOU?
On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote: There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present.
What is your minimum sufficient condition of existence? Are you saying by contrast that the current moment does exist? I have semantical disagreement with you.
There is an apple. It has physical existence. You vaporize it with a giant laser. Now the apple does not exist. None of the atoms are gone. Every atom of the apple still exists, but the apple does not. The apple was not only its atoms, but also the configuration of its atoms. Once the configuration of those atoms is changed enough that they no longer satisfy the definition of "the apple", the apple no longer exists.
A reasonal physical definition of "a moment in time" would be the precise physical configuration of the universe at that moment. Once the moment has passed, that precise configuration is gone and no longer exists.
Existence ends when the atoms dissipate? Let me understand your paradigm; you believe numbers do not exist, correct? What if I were to destroy all of the coconuts in the entire world: would the fruit "coconut" still exist? I would argue that since everyone knows exactly what a coconut is, it exists abstractly as a type definition. That there exist an instantiation of a particular type is irrelevant to its existence. This is significant because it differentiates between meaningful and non-meaningful references ("Pegasus is flying" is a meanginful statement, whereas "arfb32lkdfy is flying" is garbage). When you reduce existence to extension as you have done, yes, you lose that dimension and the ability to quantify across time. But reality is a shared experience; we can make meaningful references to previous reality configurations.
This is a little off-course for time travel; clearly previous configurations do not have extension, or else you couldn't arrive "there". Doesn't mean past moments don't "exist" though.
Okay I'm going to sleep now. Anyhow don't want to budge into between you two, but I believe neither of you are wrong or right given the fact that you each have a different definition of "existence". If you are going to ask a general question (Does the coconut still exist), then you must be willing to accept different answers based on different definitions. Your answer was one of many different possiblites. If you are looking for a specific answer, then the onus is on you as the asker to make your question more clear and precise.
I think the argument that we would be flooded with 'time tourists' if time travel worked is ridiculous... as the moon is not flooded with 'moon tourists', even though we've been there. Time travel will surely be prohibitively expensive long enough that by the time it's commercially available nobody will want to or be able to come here (i.e. when we're a Type III civilization that covers the galaxy). There's also the possibility that you can only go back to the point when the time machine was created.
On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote: Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists.
Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time.
I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science.
Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept.
The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings".
Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.
I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence.
If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable?
Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical.
Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically.
I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real?
I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you).
Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world.
I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept.
I believe, when you speak of time that we have tested, you speak of observable time, that is, the measurement of the concept of time. If not, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it.
Of course we're going to measure time. Just like we're measuring height, weight, etc we need to measure time to test it. When I say "observable" I'm referring to the fact that we can see the effects of gravity on time through measurements. And just because we're measuring time does not mean it does not "exist". Feel free to make that argument again, but I've already talked explicitly about my definition of "existence". I'd love to hear yours.
And I've already told you. Prove it.
For reference, I'm talking about how time, without the existence of anything to observe it, can't exist. You can get all philosophical and interpret that as you please (tree falling in woods crap), but if there is nothing to observe time, time does not exist.
On June 19 2008 18:26 berkguyyy wrote: If you are going to ask a general question (Does the coconut still exist), then you must be willing to accept different answers based on different definitions. Your answer was one of many different possiblites. If you are looking for a specific answer, then the onus is on you as the asker to make your question more clear and precise.
I've made a distinction between coconut-the-thing and coconut-the-concept, and my wording is "Does the fruit 'coconut' still exist?" to make clear that I refer to the latter, thus avoiding the semantic ambiguity, and fulfilling said-onus. His answer will tell me something about his idea of abstracts. I am not talking about a particular coconut as your statement implies, as he already answered that question with the apple example.
I think everyone in this thread is trying to make decent points except berkguyyy, who is just not understanding our logical arguments.
Time, by simple definition, is not a place to travel to or from. It is exactly one thing. A way to order a sequence of events. How can we make this ordering more precise? Well, what is one constant that never really changes much? The rotation of the planet we are on. So we developed a way to measure in perfect increments the passage of rotations of the planet.
At no point in the definition of this "system" we developed does any notion of spacial awareness come into play. In fact, the only "existence" of past is the physical evidence we make of it. Books, photos, memories, etc.. And the future is just a concept. There is no "leaping into the future". You can't move "forward" through time in any other method than freezing yourself in some sort of cryo-stasis and waiting until the moment. That is the closest feasible "time travel".
There are so many more exciting and frankly useful areas of science it really is a waste that intelligent people even waste their time on this.
The only direction in which we, as humans that are composed of multiple atoms, can travel in time is forward using relativity (ie going .9c relative to your brother, you come back a few years later in your time and he is very old while you are just a few years older!).
The only things that can really travel backwards are elementary particles (ie a proton is a positron travelling backwards in time). Plus causality would be totally clusterfucked and Hawking would shit his pants.
But I do like your money theory, although something bugs me about the conservation of mass. Because, if you could just keep on picking up an infinite number of dollar bills then that means there is new matter being created or copied and that means that the energy in the Universe could approach infinity, which kind of is a big "fuck you" to thermodynamics.
On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote: Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists.
Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time.
I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science.
Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept.
The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings".
Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.
I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence.
If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable?
Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical.
Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically.
I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real?
I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you).
Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world.
I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept.
I believe, when you speak of time that we have tested, you speak of observable time, that is, the measurement of the concept of time. If not, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it.
Of course we're going to measure time. Just like we're measuring height, weight, etc we need to measure time to test it. When I say "observable" I'm referring to the fact that we can see the effects of gravity on time through measurements. And just because we're measuring time does not mean it does not "exist". Feel free to make that argument again, but I've already talked explicitly about my definition of "existence". I'd love to hear yours.
And I've already told you. Prove it.
For reference, I'm talking about how time, without the existence of anything to observe it, can't exist. You can get all philosophical and interpret that as you please (tree falling in woods crap), but if there is nothing to observe time, time does not exist.
Time exists, and humans have definied a second as (from wiki, of course) the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
But if humans weren't here to measure time, things still move in time with respect to each other. Reactions take place over time. Objects move with velocity and acceleration, which are all in respect to time. Just because humans can't stamp a unit of measurement on it if we aren't around doesn't mean it's not there. Because if that was the case, it means that the universe would just stop if humans weren't around.
On June 19 2008 22:35 FzeroXx wrote: I think everyone in this thread is trying to make decent points except berkguyyy, who is just not understanding our logical arguments.
Time, by simple definition, is not a place to travel to or from. It is exactly one thing. A way to order a sequence of events. How can we make this ordering more precise? Well, what is one constant that never really changes much? The rotation of the planet we are on. So we developed a way to measure in perfect increments the passage of rotations of the planet.
At no point in the definition of this "system" we developed does any notion of spacial awareness come into play. In fact, the only "existence" of past is the physical evidence we make of it. Books, photos, memories, etc.. And the future is just a concept. There is no "leaping into the future". You can't move "forward" through time in any other method than freezing yourself in some sort of cryo-stasis and waiting until the moment. That is the closest feasible "time travel".
There are so many more exciting and frankly useful areas of science it really is a waste that intelligent people even waste their time on this.
You are acting like we know how time works. We dont. It could be that there is no flowing time at all and that every moment is just a state and what we call time is just a rapid succession of such states. It could be that time and the universe is a multidimensional tree structure where in every instant the universe splits into two such that every possible chain of events has/will happend in one of them. Maybe we live in such a universe and maybe time travel is possible. There would be no time traveling paradoxes in a universe like that. Maybe we live in such a universe and timetravel is impossible. Maybe our direction and speed in this universe is bounded in some way. Maybe there is just one timeline that is predetermined. Maybe a designer planned it before head, maybe its just random but still a mechanic universe.
Some of those theories are more propable than others and me myself I believe in the tree structured universe. However there are leading phycisists who are both of your and of berkguyyys opinion so dont say he doesnt understand your arguments. He and I understand them very well. We just dont have the same idea of how the universe works.
You guys suck. You've taken over control of the thread with an argument that only 2-3 people care about, and none actually knows much about. It's theorycrafting anyway. The OP asked "what if" we would invent the said time machine, how would we use it to bla bla bla. What's the point in trying to prove that we can't invent it? And this will sound cliché, but there will always be skeptics who will say that the earth is flat, that people can't fly, that the moon landing was a hoax, that 640kb of RAM should be enough for everybody, and so on.
It's not like any of you guys will go "oh ok, you're right". So stop making me read long posts about boring stuff and get back to the topic at hand, which was actually quite interesting until this argument started.
If time travel existed, doesn't that mean future people could warp back here already?
Unless there is some secret time-travelling society...people come back from the future for kicks and have to blend in..and are only allowed to do so at the highest level of society, and it requires lots of training in order for them ever to come back, because if someone notices something bizarrely odd about someone they might be like "OMFG FUTURE TRAVELLERS!" and be called insane...and shit.
On June 19 2008 23:02 Smurg wrote: If time travel existed, doesn't that mean future people could warp back here already?
Unless there is some secret time-travelling society...people come back from the future for kicks and have to blend in..and are only allowed to do so at the highest level of society, and it requires lots of training in order for them ever to come back, because if someone notices something bizarrely odd about someone they might be like "OMFG FUTURE TRAVELLERS!" and be called insane...and shit.
Well, so far, the video in the OP says that if we were to invent a machine that could sort-of twist time and create a worm-hole that things could pass through, it would only allow you to go back in time to the point that the machine was initially turned on.
Meaning that if we invent it and leave it on, we could go back from the future to when it was turned on. So that would mean that the minute we turn it on, some dude will come through with a baseball bat and smash it into pieces, then yell "DO NOT DO THAT AGAIN!!! YOU DON'T KNOW HOW FUCKED UP THIS WILL GET".
On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote: Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists.
Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time.
I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science.
Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept.
The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings".
Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.
I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence.
If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable?
Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical.
Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically.
I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real?
I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you).
Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world.
I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept.
I believe, when you speak of time that we have tested, you speak of observable time, that is, the measurement of the concept of time. If not, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it.
Of course we're going to measure time. Just like we're measuring height, weight, etc we need to measure time to test it. When I say "observable" I'm referring to the fact that we can see the effects of gravity on time through measurements. And just because we're measuring time does not mean it does not "exist". Feel free to make that argument again, but I've already talked explicitly about my definition of "existence". I'd love to hear yours.
And I've already told you. Prove it.
For reference, I'm talking about how time, without the existence of anything to observe it, can't exist. You can get all philosophical and interpret that as you please (tree falling in woods crap), but if there is nothing to observe time, time does not exist.
It's not about being philosophical or proving. I told you that in my definition time exists because it can be measured and tested in the realm of science. In my defintion you do not need to actually see time to know that it exists because science has gone far along enough such that they know matter and visible light (only thing we can "see") is a mere fraction of the universe. I asked you to to define your terms (especially existence and concept) because if you don't define exactly where you stand then truthfully you're just running around in circles spewing whole bunch of prove this and prove that. So tell what exactly is your definition of these two terms?
On June 19 2008 18:26 berkguyyy wrote: If you are going to ask a general question (Does the coconut still exist), then you must be willing to accept different answers based on different definitions. Your answer was one of many different possiblites. If you are looking for a specific answer, then the onus is on you as the asker to make your question more clear and precise.
I've made a distinction between coconut-the-thing and coconut-the-concept, and my wording is "Does the fruit 'coconut' still exist?" to make clear that I refer to the latter, thus avoiding the semantic ambiguity, and fulfilling said-onus. His answer will tell me something about his idea of abstracts. I am not talking about a particular coconut as your statement implies, as he already answered that question with the apple example.
I really don't see why you just don't ask if the concept of coconut exists. Just because you put it into quotation does not automatically make the reader hone into the concept of coconut. The quotation could mean a lot of things and truthfully I don't think anyone would pick up where you are getting at until after the question has been elaborated on.
Now, it seems like both of you have different definitions and both are correct. Yours is a bit more abstract while his is more physical. When he gave the apple example, he defined "existence: pretty well by saying that it is dependent on the physical presence of the object. You gave an abstract example, but that requires a different definition from what he gave. In essence, both of you are wrong as both of you are correct.
Lastly, your position is a bit ambiguous because I'm not sure about the difference meaningful and non-meaningful references. You gave that Pegasus examples, but as you know many people especially in the non-Western world do not know of Pegasus. Where do you draw the line between meaningful shared experiences and non-meaningful shared experiences?
no, you cant make a fortunate this way because there is a loop. you would drop the $100, a past you would pick it up, the money is STILL YOURS. you drrop $100 = -100. your past picks up $100 = +100.
thats how i see it, because the 'picked' cash will vanish.
time travel isnt possible. If it would be, someone from the future would have told us.
If an infinite number of years lie before the humansociety and at any random time timetravel will get invented, still an infinite number of timetravellers will timetravel, thus its just not possible that noone told us until now.
quod erat demonstrandum => timetravel is impossible
On June 20 2008 00:44 sanftm00d wrote: time travel isnt possible. If it would be, someone from the future would have told us.
If an infinite number of years lie before the humansociety and at any random time timetravel will get invented, still an infinite number of timetravellers will timetravel, thus its just not possible that noone told us until now.
quod erat demonstrandum => timetravel is impossible
Either that or timetravel needs both an entrance and an exit to work
You could argue that the human race ends before we "invent" time travel, but it would still be possible for some smarter race? LoL, this thread ended 2 pages ago.
1) We will never be able to time travel since "time" doesn't exist per se to begin with. 2) Because if we would one day be able to, there would be evidence left behind by past timetravellers, or they would have coexisted amongst us already in one form or another.
On June 20 2008 01:16 Luhh wrote: 1) We will never be able to time travel since "time" doesn't exist per se to begin with. 2) Because if we would one day be able to, there would be evidence left behind by past timetravellers, or they would have coexisted amongst us already in one form or another.
Theres ton of evidence, i remember reading a story about a guy who made tons in the wall street, was arrested and then vanished from his prison cell after saying he was a time traveller.
On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote: There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present.
What is your minimum sufficient condition of existence? Are you saying by contrast that the current moment does exist? I have semantical disagreement with you.
There is an apple. It has physical existence. You vaporize it with a giant laser. Now the apple does not exist. None of the atoms are gone. Every atom of the apple still exists, but the apple does not. The apple was not only its atoms, but also the configuration of its atoms. Once the configuration of those atoms is changed enough that they no longer satisfy the definition of "the apple", the apple no longer exists.
A reasonal physical definition of "a moment in time" would be the precise physical configuration of the universe at that moment. Once the moment has passed, that precise configuration is gone and no longer exists.
Existence ends when the atoms dissipate? Let me understand your paradigm; you believe numbers do not exist, correct? What if I were to destroy all of the coconuts in the entire world: would the fruit "coconut" still exist? I would argue that since everyone knows exactly what a coconut is, it exists abstractly as a type definition. That there exist an instantiation of a particular type is irrelevant to its existence. This is significant because it differentiates between meaningful and non-meaningful references ("Pegasus is flying" is a meanginful statement, whereas "arfb32lkdfy is flying" is garbage). When you reduce existence to extension as you have done, yes, you lose that dimension and the ability to quantify across time. But reality is a shared experience; we can make meaningful references to previous reality configurations.
This is a little off-course for time travel. Even using my own semantics, visiting the past would require its actual extension in addition to existence. And as you mentioned, there is no reason to believe that reality is perpetually cloning itself into discrete extensions.
I clearly stated that I was speaking of physical existence, which is quite different from meaning as an abstract concept.
You are either arguing that Pegasus has a physical existence, or you are spouting irrelevant nonsense. In either case, you are a silly person and it is your duty in life to amuse children.
On June 20 2008 00:44 sanftm00d wrote: time travel isnt possible. If it would be, someone from the future would have told us.
If an infinite number of years lie before the humansociety and at any random time timetravel will get invented, still an infinite number of timetravellers will timetravel, thus its just not possible that noone told us until now.
quod erat demonstrandum => timetravel is impossible
if they decided not to tell us ? then your whole theory makes no sense what so ever
Why would that 100$ bill just be sitting there on the table? Clearly, if you were planning to go back and take it, then a future version of you would have already gone back and took it, so basically the money would be gone the instant you put it down, taken by a different time-frame of you.
On June 20 2008 02:55 Juicyfruit wrote: Why would that 100$ bill just be sitting there on the table? Clearly, if you were planning to go back and take it, then a future version of you would have already gone back and took it, so basically the money would be gone the instant you put it down, taken by a different time-frame of you.
Clearly, you need a second time machine so you can go forward and take it from the future version of you.
That's why the first thing you should do with any time machine is go back a few minutes in time and steal your own time machine before you use it.
On June 20 2008 00:44 sanftm00d wrote: time travel isnt possible. If it would be, someone from the future would have told us.
If an infinite number of years lie before the humansociety and at any random time timetravel will get invented, still an infinite number of timetravellers will timetravel, thus its just not possible that noone told us until now.
quod erat demonstrandum => timetravel is impossible
if they decided not to tell us ? then your whole theory makes no sense what so ever
infinite time means infinite time, thus it is certain that any decision that can be made will be made: they will decide not to tell us maybe, but an infinite number of years later they will certainly decide to tell us :-)
the theory only makes no sense if humansociety is not to exist an infinite time, which cant be discussed...
On June 20 2008 02:55 Juicyfruit wrote: Why would that 100$ bill just be sitting there on the table? Clearly, if you were planning to go back and take it, then a future version of you would have already gone back and took it, so basically the money would be gone the instant you put it down, taken by a different time-frame of you.
Clearly, you need a second time machine so you can go forward and take it from the future version of you.
That's why the first thing you should do with any time machine is go back a few minutes in time and steal your own time machine before you use it.
Then you'll have two!
But that means as soon as you finish your machine, a future version of you is going to come and steal your machine from you.
Which means you can't travel back in time, which means your future you must have had his machine stolen as well from an even more distant future you, which means he couldn't have went back in time to steal from you, which then means you could go back and steal from your past, but then means the future you could steal it from you...
time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
On June 20 2008 03:56 Juicyfruit wrote: time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
Time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you go back rather than forward.
This becomes obvious as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
It doesnt have to. If you believe in tree structured time then when you travel back in time you arrive in the universe where you arrive from the future which is different from the one where you dont come back from the future. Since time would fork in every instant you cant mess anything up since every possible chain of events happends in some fork.
On June 20 2008 03:56 Juicyfruit wrote: time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
Time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you go back rather than forward.
This becomes obvious as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
It doesnt have to. If you believe in tree structured time then when you travel back in time you arrive in the universe where you arrive from the future which is different from the one where you dont come back from the future. Since time would fork in every instant you cant mess anything up since every possible chain of events happends in some fork.
Then it's not time travel, is it? It's sliding to alternative realities which happen to be identical to past or possible future times in your reality.
On June 19 2008 15:15 rei wrote: Berkguyy i think the author is trying to say we can interpurt time by counting from 60 second to 1 second instead of counting from 1 second to 60 seconds when we are counting 1 minute. the point it's trying to make is that time is just a concept made by men to measure relationship between two events.
But yes that was an interesting read, let's just suppose that human concept of time is incorrect. Which means that the relationship between two events have something we human can not observe yet, which also means that it is outside of human's understanding at this point.
Now the hypothesis: let's suppose this something is actually phases or dimensions that happens between these two events, and because our brain can not intepurt these dimensions, we just simply do not see them, but it doesn't mean they are not there.
Now let's design an experiment: How do we test if the gap between two events actually have something we human can not intepurt yet? The answer would be let's try to find two events that have a very very very very small gap, so small that it goes below plancks scale. The smaller the better because we are trying to test something other than time between the two events actually exist, if we make time very very vyer small we might just find something other than time.
The hypothesis is wrong if we can't find anything at all, which means there is nothing other than time between the gaps.
The hypothesis is right if we find that the relationship between event 1 and event 2 does not need to involve the concept time in order to explain how to get from event 1 and event 2.
If you think about it though, everything is a concept by men. You, me, Earth, gravity, time, chili cheese fries, democracy, etc. That does not mean that it does not exist. For instance, have you actually seen justice? No you have not. You may have seen systems adhering to justice, but you have not seen justice itself. And yet, you know that it exists.
Moreover, time is more than just an idea, it actually has physical properties. It can be dilated and manipulated just like matter and space. The reason why time is so hard to understand is that it is relative. My observation of two events from a specific inertia reference frame may differ from yours. It is not as simple as counting 1 to 60 or 60 to 1 because again of the relativity of time.
I don't think I follow your experiment paragraph. Once you get into subatomic particles (you'd have to for that small a time frame), it's not so easy to say event 1 causes event 2. You might have heard of quantum physics and stuff but that deals with chances and probabilities of positions. I'm not too knowledgeable in this field, but I don't think your experiment would work at all. Not to mention, if it's outside the realm of human understanding then it's not science. When I mention everything about time, I'm talking only within the realm of science. Anyone could bring up things outside the realm of science, but that would mean there's no evidence supporting that statement whereas there is for the statements that do stay in the realm of science.
Every wiki I've tried to read about time were based on relative perception. Stuff like event A happens at a certain instance but Subject A and Subject B perceive event A at different instances. Which umm, doesn't really help define time all that much or how time can be manipulated. I'm sure perception of time can be manipulated but not "time" itself -- because it's just a concept.
The only concrete definition I could find was something like "the measurement of cyclic somethings".
Time is a component of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects.
I don't see how time can be in physical existence. That's like saying space physically exists. Space doesn't exist, space is just a measurement of things that do exist. Space can be defined as a measurement of physical existence because it measures physical existence.
If time exists in the way you claim, in a physical form, how is it definable?
Also, why are you bringing up justice? Justice does not exist, we are not trying to travel through justice. Justice is what humans use to measure optimal moral reprehension, which, in and of itself, is abstract and not at all physical.
Time exists physically in the very same way numbers exist physically.
I think we gotta pause and start defining some of the terms we're using here. I personally do not feel you made it clear that your definition of "existence" is matter (or so it seems from your post above). If it is, then I really can't start discussing things with you until you take off those blindfolds. And personally, I don't see how you justify that nonmatter things are merely concepts whereas matter is not. Why are matter not concepts? How are you defining what a concept is? Where are you drawing the line? And what's to say that concepts cannot be real?
I'll at least do my part and make my stance very clear. When I talk about something "existing" I'm talking about it fitting into the realm of science. What that means is that it is testable, observable, and within the realm of our understanding. That includes the four fundamental forces of nature (they'd only be concepts to you), dark matter (only concepts to you), and space-time (again only concepts to you).
Now according to my definition, time exists because it has been tested and proven time and time again to have certain properties that we understand. First, it is inherently intertwined with space and matter. Matter and space affects time, and time affects matter and space. Secondly, time is completely relative. My time and your time could be completely different depending on our inertia reference frame. So while time is not "matter" is definitely exists because it is testable and its effects are observable. It has specific qualities and is intertwined with the physical world.
I brought up justice just to show that everything is a concept by man according to my definition. Even matter to me is a concept because I believe that concepts are what we perceive to be. I don't hold matter in a special position to not make it a concept.
I believe, when you speak of time that we have tested, you speak of observable time, that is, the measurement of the concept of time. If not, I'm going to have to ask you to prove it.
Of course we're going to measure time. Just like we're measuring height, weight, etc we need to measure time to test it. When I say "observable" I'm referring to the fact that we can see the effects of gravity on time through measurements. And just because we're measuring time does not mean it does not "exist". Feel free to make that argument again, but I've already talked explicitly about my definition of "existence". I'd love to hear yours.
And I've already told you. Prove it.
For reference, I'm talking about how time, without the existence of anything to observe it, can't exist. You can get all philosophical and interpret that as you please (tree falling in woods crap), but if there is nothing to observe time, time does not exist.
It's not about being philosophical or proving. I told you that in my definition time exists because it can be measured and tested in the realm of science. In my defintion you do not need to actually see time to know that it exists because science has gone far along enough such that they know matter and visible light (only thing we can "see") is a mere fraction of the universe. I asked you to to define your terms (especially existence and concept) because if you don't define exactly where you stand then truthfully you're just running around in circles spewing whole bunch of prove this and prove that. So tell what exactly is your definition of these two terms?
Oh wow, all I'm asking you to do is back up your claims. Time doesn't exist as an object. We can't physically pass through it or manipulate it. This is my stance. We may be able to manipulate our understanding of the concept of time but we can never manipulate time itself because it exists only as a concept.
On June 20 2008 03:56 Juicyfruit wrote: time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
Time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you go back rather than forward.
This becomes obvious as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
It doesnt have to. If you believe in tree structured time then when you travel back in time you arrive in the universe where you arrive from the future which is different from the one where you dont come back from the future. Since time would fork in every instant you cant mess anything up since every possible chain of events happends in some fork.
Then it's not time travel, is it? It's sliding to alternative realities which happen to be identical to past or possible future times in your reality.
Yeah. Thats how I believe timetravel would work :e
On June 20 2008 00:44 sanftm00d wrote: time travel isnt possible. If it would be, someone from the future would have told us.
If an infinite number of years lie before the humansociety and at any random time timetravel will get invented, still an infinite number of timetravellers will timetravel, thus its just not possible that noone told us until now.
quod erat demonstrandum => timetravel is impossible
if they decided not to tell us ? then your whole theory makes no sense what so ever
infinite time means infinite time, thus it is certain that any decision that can be made will be made: they will decide not to tell us maybe, but an infinite number of years later they will certainly decide to tell us :-)
the theory only makes no sense if humansociety is not to exist an infinite time, which cant be discussed...
thats just wrong your logic about infinity is full of flaws
Go Rent the movie "Primer". Its about some guys who accidentally create a time travel machine. (I don't really wanna spoil the movie) but basically what they end up doing is creating a fail safe machine that is always on and then use the other ones to move around in time and invest in stocks. Its really trippy/crazy movie. If I say much more it will ruin the movie.
BoT, about the OP. It can be argued that once you take the bill from the end of the timeline and try and go back and grab it at a previous time, the first one might dissapear from your pocket. Besides, they would all have the same serial number
On June 20 2008 11:07 intotherei wrote: what if time travel does exist and the reason we don't see people from the future is because they are invisible or something like that!
and they dont wanna tell us time travel is possible b/c they don't want to ruin the surprise
Well I think if there was time travelers it would be really controlled. Also Some one from the future would not want to alter the time line. It may prevent them from ever being born. Theres too many problems really. It would be safest to just let things be.
People from the future may also carry new viruses and diseases which could really be harmful to our current selves. A good movie that brought up an issue like this was a really old B movie called Apex. It dealt with time travel and how a man from the future accidentally transmitted a deadly virus to people of our current time line.
On June 20 2008 11:07 intotherei wrote: what if time travel does exist and the reason we don't see people from the future is because they are invisible or something like that!
and they dont wanna tell us time travel is possible b/c they don't want to ruin the surprise
Then we'd better slash our throats open with a razor. Preferably Occam's brand.
On June 20 2008 03:56 Juicyfruit wrote: time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
Time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you go back rather than forward.
This becomes obvious as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
It doesnt have to. If you believe in tree structured time then when you travel back in time you arrive in the universe where you arrive from the future which is different from the one where you dont come back from the future. Since time would fork in every instant you cant mess anything up since every possible chain of events happends in some fork.
Then it's not time travel, is it? It's sliding to alternative realities which happen to be identical to past or possible future times in your reality.
But what if that's the only way to "time travel"?
I mean, the idea that we only have one timeline is ridiculous. Even the most elementary book on the subject (A Brief History of Time) explains this. The point we are at has a time cone going both into the future and into the past that is basically every possible combination of events that could have resulted in the current state of the universe and every possible state which can arise from this moment.
So, if you don't believe in multiple, "alternative" realities, you don't believe in time travel. Simple as that. If you do, "time travel" is possible, but only in this limited sense.
On June 19 2008 12:52 mahnini wrote: Time doesn't exists it's just something we use to measure our lives by how can we travel through something that doesnt exist it make zero sense how can people overlook the fact that 2 seconds ago doesnt exist it was just what we use to measure how long ago something happened huh HUH?
I read that article and there's one thing in there that kinda confuses me. It says that physics as we know would function just as well with time going backwards... But then that would mean the universe would be getting more ordered as a result (because we have reverse entropy) and hence we'd be creating energy without any work breaking the law of conservation of energy. I see what they're trying to get at, but if time were backwards we'd break the 2 most fundamental law of thermodynamics unless I'm misreading that passage.
Entropy is the arrow which shows us the direction time is going in. If time were going backwards, entropy would point the other way. Entropy is an equation that has time as a variable, not just an abstract concept that says the universe must move towards disorder.
I disagree. Entropy is a spontaneous flow of objects towards messiness. The reason why entropy is increasing is of course due to the flow of time. If that time were reversed, then entropy would start decreasing. Let's take my room for instance. At the beginning it was quite clean but now it is rather dirty. Okay, let's travel back in time and suddenly my room is cleaning itself up. In other words, entropy is spontaneouly decreasing without any change in condition (except for the flow of time) which would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics is an equation that uses delta time (change in time over time) as a variable. Because we observe the universe moving "forward" in time, it tends to positive entropy. If the direction of time is reversed so that the change in time is "negative", the equation states that entropy will also be negative, and thus, more ordered.
Mathematically, it is entirely possible. Who's to say that at a certain point, the universe won't spontaneously collapse back in on itself, going "backwards" in time?
A quote from wikipedia:
Absolute versus Statistical reversibility
Thermodynamics defines the statistical behaviour of large numbers of entities, whose exact behavior is given by more specific laws. Since the fundamental laws of physics are all time-reversible,[2] it can be argued that the irreversibility of thermodynamics must be statistical in nature, that is, that it must be merely highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a system will lower in entropy.
On June 20 2008 03:56 Juicyfruit wrote: time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
Time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you go back rather than forward.
This becomes obvious as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
It doesnt have to. If you believe in tree structured time then when you travel back in time you arrive in the universe where you arrive from the future which is different from the one where you dont come back from the future. Since time would fork in every instant you cant mess anything up since every possible chain of events happends in some fork.
Then it's not time travel, is it? It's sliding to alternative realities which happen to be identical to past or possible future times in your reality.
But what if that's the only way to "time travel"?
I mean, the idea that we only have one timeline is ridiculous. Even the most elementary book on the subject (A Brief History of Time) explains this. The point we are at has a time cone going both into the future and into the past that is basically every possible combination of events that could have resulted in the current state of the universe and every possible state which can arise from this moment.
So, if you don't believe in multiple, "alternative" realities, you don't believe in time travel. Simple as that. If you do, "time travel" is possible, but only in this limited sense.
Remember John Titor?
A Brief History of Time is an odd book. It explains some mainstream concepts, and it explains some of Hawking's weird pet theories. It doesn't really tell you which are which.
It explains some interesting theories which were being looked into at the time it was written, and it explains some well-proven ideas, and it doesn't really tell you which are which.
It's not some Tome of Truth. It's a very speculative book.
People who believe in alternate realities are disregarding Occam's Razor. It's good to consider the possibility, but it's hardly something we should assume.
On June 20 2008 03:56 Juicyfruit wrote: time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
Time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you go back rather than forward.
This becomes obvious as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
It doesnt have to. If you believe in tree structured time then when you travel back in time you arrive in the universe where you arrive from the future which is different from the one where you dont come back from the future. Since time would fork in every instant you cant mess anything up since every possible chain of events happends in some fork.
Then it's not time travel, is it? It's sliding to alternative realities which happen to be identical to past or possible future times in your reality.
But what if that's the only way to "time travel"?
I mean, the idea that we only have one timeline is ridiculous. Even the most elementary book on the subject (A Brief History of Time) explains this. The point we are at has a time cone going both into the future and into the past that is basically every possible combination of events that could have resulted in the current state of the universe and every possible state which can arise from this moment.
So, if you don't believe in multiple, "alternative" realities, you don't believe in time travel. Simple as that. If you do, "time travel" is possible, but only in this limited sense.
Remember John Titor?
A Brief History of Time is an odd book. It explains some mainstream concepts, and it explains some of Hawking's weird pet theories. It doesn't really tell you which are which.
It explains some interesting theories which were being looked into at the time it was written, and it explains some well-proven ideas, and it doesn't really tell you which are which.
It's not some Tome of Truth. It's a very speculative book.
People who believe in alternate realities are disregarding Occam's Razor. It's good to consider the possibility, but it's hardly something we should assume.
Stephen Hawkings has since lectured on the impossibility of a time machine. He has a number of reasonings some very hard to understand. One of his core principles is that Time Travel, is nothing more than motion. It is, as the name suggest "Travel".
If you could move the Universe back to where it was 10 seconds ago.. you would have effectively traveled back in time. If you move yourself back to exactly where you were 10 seconds ago. Then the rest of the Universe has traveled back in time relative to you. Time travel, like everything else, is relative.
Now consider where the Earth was 10 seconds ago. It was about 300 KM away. So even if you could travel back in time, just that small amount, you would appear in the middle of space. Where you would die an undoubtedly painful death.
I was out having a smoke, pondering in my thoughts and started thinking about time travel. Suppose we made a time machine, which according to some recent study, is very possible and people are already making time travel machines which should theoretically work using lasers to bend matter in a circle, creating a "worm hole" which should allow you to go back in time. But theoretically, it will only allow you to go back as far as the time that the machine was turned on. This doesn't conflict with my idea though.
So here is my theory, suppose you could go back in time. Now say you have a 100$ bill sitting on a table for a year or so. You pick up the 100$ and then go back in time, with the 100$ in your wallet, to the end of that year when the 100$ bill is sitting on the table. Theoretically, since at that point in time, since you still haven't moved the 100$, it should still be there on the table, with it being in your pocket as well.
I figure you could repeat this process, always moving a little bit further back in time to pick up the 100$ bill, basically duplicating it through time travel over and over. Theoretically you would have to move a little bit further back in time because if you return to a time which is later then a previous time you picked up the 100$ bill, it may not be there at all.
If this works, it could solve all resource problems. You could do this with Metals, Liquids, Gas, Medicine, basically anything.... And what excites me the most about this theory is that we could duplicate anti-matter particles. We can make anti-matter in labs but to make a handful of them would bankrupt the world. Anti-matter is one of, if not the best sources of energy in the universe that we know of and if you could make 1 anti-matter atom and then duplicate it over and over, we could power the world for virtually nothing and make long distance space travel a very real possibility.
On June 19 2008 10:12 G5 wrote: which according to some recent study, is very possible and people are already making time travel machines which should theoretically work using lasers to bend matter in a circle, creating a "worm hole" which should allow you to go back in time. But theoretically, it will only allow you to go back as far as the time that the machine was turned on.
Do you have a source for this? I was arguing about the possibility of time travel with a friend and if you have a valid source I'd like to rub it in his face
Pretty sure that if backward time travel was possible, then every other day some neo-human would be stepping out of a time machine in the sky with rayguns and all, declaring that they were from the future.
On June 20 2008 19:29 Wonders wrote: Pretty sure that if backward time travel was possible, then every other day some neo-human would be stepping out of a time machine in the sky with rayguns and all, declaring that they were from the future.
you need to watch the videos zlol
i'll summarize: backwards time travel is theoretically possible by creating a time machine, but you could only travel back to the point in time when the machine was built. since we have yet to build one, nothing can travel back to us.
i read to page 3 and i think ill get a seizure if i read any further. sry for any redundancy but PLZ let physics out of this. im fine with arguing about philosophical consequences of time travel but my blood is curdling when i read some of the so called scientific arguments. its like so many people here have read this or that illustration about some phenomenon or law, understood the part they found interesting, ripped it ouf context and smashed it in an unfitting way into this discussion.
The physicians, most of them agree that traveling back in time is impossible. And that's easy to understand for anybody, with the paradoxes that were mentioned. Now traveling in the future is possible, in theory. But once you are there, in the future, you can't go back. That's all.
Some sort of traveling (for human) in the future could be the cryogenics, meaning you get frozen and revitalize in the future. Just like in futurama. But if you want for an object somehow to disappear and then, in the future to appear, then we need to decide what's happening with that matter, where it goes. Perhaps the fourth dimension is needed.
As about the people that say about nonexistence of the time, perhaps they should think about the notion of speed.
Also, nothing's wrong with the way to see the time as linear. There's certainly the past which we cannot change, as we can't go there. Although we could get the information about it. And there's future - the other direction. Now you can make your own way of seeing the time, like something circular, or anything else. But basic things remain the same. You can't mix the past and the future. And you can't change the past, which is just getting bigger and bigger as the *time goes on*.
How is a thread about time travel 8 pages long lol...
I hope to sweet Jesus you people aren't serious XD We all learned time travel is impossible when we realised we live in reality, and we all learned it would have been a bad idea anyway since Doc in Back to the Future destroyed the time machine.
Edit: Now I can't get the back to the future theme out of my head..
well before that plan actually goes to plan (harvesting natural resources) it should probably be planned now and performed in the future. Because you can't just go back to like 1900s and be like o hai allyourbasearebelongtous
On June 20 2008 23:43 arbiter_md wrote: The physicians, most of them agree that traveling back in time is impossible. And that's easy to understand for anybody, with the paradoxes that were mentioned. Now traveling in the future is possible, in theory. But once you are there, in the future, you can't go back. That's all.
Some sort of traveling (for human) in the future could be the cryogenics, meaning you get frozen and revitalize in the future. Just like in futurama. But if you want for an object somehow to disappear and then, in the future to appear, then we need to decide what's happening with that matter, where it goes. Perhaps the fourth dimension is needed.
As about the people that say about nonexistence of the time, perhaps they should think about the notion of speed.
Also, nothing's wrong with the way to see the time as linear. There's certainly the past which we cannot change, as we can't go there. Although we could get the information about it. And there's future - the other direction. Now you can make your own way of seeing the time, like something circular, or anything else. But basic things remain the same. You can't mix the past and the future. And you can't change the past, which is just getting bigger and bigger as the *time goes on*.
My god, there's so much wrong with this post that I don't know if I even need to point it out.
Perhaps the fourth dimension is needed for time travel? No shit, idiot; the fourth dimension is time.
You don't seem to have a solid grasp of the "notion of speed" if you're using it to prove that time exists.
Is the future getting "smaller and smaller" as *time goes on*?
Either there is one timeline or multiple timelines. One timeline allows us to go back and change things, multiple does not.
The "no one has come back to us from the future" argument only disproves the single timeline argument, and thus does not disprove time travel altogether.
I personally don't have an opinion on the matter, other than although it seems impossible half of the everyday technologies we use would have us burnt at the stake for witchcraft not too long ago, so who knows what the future (or the past ) holds ?
lets say that today i traveled to the past (take 1999 for example...) and saved the life of someone i care of....
in this "new time" the person is alive... and i (me in 1999 ) dont even know that this person would die and would continue my life until june/21/2008... and today i would have no reason to go back in time. but if i dont travel back, the person would have died... oh fuck...
Except you would see that it was taken the moment you set it down, if you did indeed take it in the future.
Basically it would go
1. You set bill down. 2. Your future self comes and takes it immediately
So basically there would be no bill for the later selfs to get "again", it would have been gone already.
btw, the original poster was right about backwards time travel being impossible besides for the wormhole loophole, and even that's just a side effect of general relativity. Assuming we could even build a stable wormhole (out of antimatter, which by its nature annihilates normal matter on contact), and assuming we could somehow drag one end of it to near the speed of light and bring it back safely, our current laws of physics aren't really good enough to predict what might happen.
And as for time travel into the future...well look at a clock
EPT
Both GeneralStan and I are sorry for this. Our bad.![[image loading]](http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/Photos_4_web/Conan2000.jpg)
