Wolv1's questions about causality and particles

But, you are trying to compare two different things to establish your pseudo scientific argument. Sorry to burst your bubble, there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Length and time are both dimensions. Don't you know any relativity?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know the math, does that help?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In your own case, apparently not.

 

With a change in position in space in any dimension there is always a change in time, but not always a change in the other dimensions.

That shows that time is not exactly like the other dimensions at all.

 

They may not be identical, but they are - as the saying goes -close enough for government work.

 

No theory can be proven possible. That is a basic tenet of science.

You should be talking about hypotheses unless you have a theory of time travel which, for practical purposes, is a hypothesis supported by evidence.

 

I see. Well then, carry on and I'll be happy to demonstrate how your hand waving creates great masses of hot air, at the appropriate time. You can thank me then.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Even in your own words "The Notion".

Just read the Wiki article and perhaps you'll understand I'm not tarring the thoughts on time travel as woo-wooism, I merely pointing out that it's Fringe.

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

One day when something is "proven" then we can place it in with the mainstream, until then though it's borderline. Like I mentioned previously it's going beyond the topic itself by quagmiring over details.

 

It is not fringe science. Why wont you listen? Do you work in academia, or even better, research in GR?

 

Lets put it like this GR might not be Fringe, Time Travel is.

 

A discussion about closed time-like curves in GR is not fringe science.

 

Can't you see there isn't an argument here, I'm agreeing with you about GR just pointing out that Time Travel is Fringe. Otherwise like I believe Hawking put "We'd have holiday makers from the future hanging out in the past"

 

But talking about closed timelike curves is akin to talking about time-travel!

 

I'm pretty sure that Mallet attempted to utilise CTC to generate proof, he went through all the rigmarole, the publicity, news casts etc. All the way up to the initial date of his overall "Event" and then suddenly complete obscurity. Did he Succeed or Fail? I'm sure you could hunt round and find information on that verdict, the point was that whatever the result it was not publicised with the same ferocity as the intention of doing it.

 

Time travel is only possible into the future, not back to the past. I am sorry...

 

Proof of what?!?! Look, I don't mean to sound rude, but the more you dodge around this the more it becomes apparent that you're not particularly clued up in this area. Why are you so unwilling to accept correction on a subject you don't know much about?

 

I'm just going to ignore the arguments, I've made my point, you've made yours. That's pretty much it, no point causing some circular argument scene, there is enough of them on the forum.

 

But since you're a mod, it's important you're able to make the distinction between genuine science and pseudo-babble. Perhaps in future you should consult BenTheMan.

 

Fringe is not Pseudo-babble, it's merely potential Protoscience that's "A little out there". By all means start a thread up entitled "Closed Timelike Curves" and I'm sure it will be discussed with the Merit it deserves in regards to GR, however Ambiguous threads like this are more generalised and would only lose face once people start to hound it with Belief, Conviction, lies and other assorted misconceptions. (I other words it would of sat in Physics for a day or two and probably got scrapped anyway.)