I've decided to remove the content of this post as it seems to only be resulting in the flaming of the original author which was not my intention.
continued... Removed - If Farsight's writing brings no relevant discussion other than flaming it doesn't serve the purpose it was intended to.
No, he commented on the original post and it does sound a lot like something he's write but this is JohnDuffields explanation, Full credits given of course.
John Duffield is Farsight, one of the resident crackpots of the forum. What you posted is total garbage, a waste of server storage and bandwidth.
Ah I wasn't aware the two were the same. I found it to be an interesting interpretation, what is it about his logic that you see as so far off?
Hi guys. Anybody got a problem? Anybody want to talk about time? How about you Tach? Dufoe: I'm John Duffield. Sorry if it wasn't clear.
Given that time can be observed to pass in the conventional sense, and clocks show it passes at different rates in different energy density environments, can we say that time simply passes, and the rate at which we measure it to pass depends on the energy density of the environment in which the clock is observed?
Nothing I haven't said already. For example here's an old Time Explained on this forum. I did a few versions, improving them in response to feedback. In a nutshell, time doesn't really flow and you can't literally travel through it, so time travel is science fiction. In addition closed timelike curves don't offer any prospect of time travel because spacetime is an abstract mathematical space which models all times at once. You can draw a worldline in it to represent motion through space over time, but you can't move through it. A closed timelike curve gives at best something like Groundhog Day. All in all time travel makes for some great movies, but it isn't physics.
