Time Travel is Science Fiction

Well, you certainly convinced me to purchase a copy of ''A World Without Time'', so I don't see why not.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks again tashja...Thorne's thoughts on time and the mainstream opinion that it aligns with GR and its equations is well know, still that will not stop farsight from lying about it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thorne's views on time travel are well known.
And he certainly did not need to publish his own book, did he?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have Prof. Thorne's book, and the chapter in question (Messaging the Past), is labeled with his red S-for speculation pyramid symbol throughout, with only one EG-for educated guess symbol. On page 269 he says:

I think he's still undecided about time-travel.

 

I probably agree. The point is though, that he and all reputable physicists do know that GR, do not forbid it, and its equations give possible theoretical solutions.

 

Thank you. Certain parties and I have been saying the same all along from the start of this thread.

 

Oooh, did I mention that some of it is hard-going philosophy?

I think he'd dug himself into a hole. Now he's coming out with the "nobody knows" ploy. Even though people have known about time is change since ancient Greece. Bah, Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture is useless erudite garbage for mugs and suckers. It's totally superfluous. You can't travel to the past because you don't even travel to the future. On Hawking's superfast train you enjoy no local motion, as per the stasis box or refrigerator. You "time travel to the future" by not moving whilst everything else does. So you aren't time travelling, any more than this little fella:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

By the by, has anybody seen Interstellar? I haven't, and from what I've heard, I just don't fancy it. It seems to be one of those movies where science fiction is presented as science fact. It isn't like Star Trek where the science is somewhat incidental. In Interstallar it's absolutely central to the story. Only it's bad science. Anyway, spoiler alert, see Scott Aaronson's blog where he raises some issues. Quantum data, LOL. Quantum woo more like. Because when you understand time, you understand the speed of light, then gravity, then black holes.

 

There's a whole thread on it. Has been for months. Click here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanks Landau. Ouch, I fancy it even less now. Shame. Like I was saying in the OP, I can enjoy a science fiction movie without getting uptight about the science being dodgy. But that's because it's a movie with a decent story and the time travel or whatever is a plot device. I mean, nobody worried about the time travel in Terminator. When the science is dodgy but totally central to the movie, meh, it really takes the edge off for me. Like, I just don't enjoy Doctor Who. It always ends up with some crisis wherein he's got ten seconds to save the world, and I'm there saying but he's got a time machine.

 

So your response to the considered opinion of one of the greatest scientists in the field is to reference ancient Greece?

You constantly talk about evidence, yet you use only the craziest, wackiest things and lies.

 

The only person here who has peddled a book is you, Farsight.

 

It isn't considered opinion. It's baloney. Look here at Kip Thorne's chapter on "Messaging the Past". Backward time travel is governed by the laws of quantum gravity. One location in our brane. Gravitational forces can carry messages into our brane's past. When falling into and through the tesseract. FFS. Have you ever heard such hogwash?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Er, no. I'm not the one using the craziest wackiest things and lies. If I peddled trash like this on this forum, I'd be booted into pseudoscience so fast my feet wouldn't touch the sides. And you're defending it. Jesus H Christ. No wonder you prefer to remain anonymous.

 

Have you worked through the physics? You are even trying to give the impression that Thorne originated that position, when it is clear that he is presenting the work of someone else. That is again you being deceptive.

Look, we both know that you haven't worked through any of the relevant physics. The problem here is that you want to look like a big, important man, but in reality, you haven't done the necessary work to understand this stuff and you resort to insulting those who have done the work.

Again, your response to contemporary physics was to trot out the opinions of people from over 2000 years ago. Not smart.

And you have been booted there.

Since you have a history of both doxxing and threatening legal action against those who point out your deceptive practices and intellectual short-comings, of course I wouldn't reveal my identity to you.

You are a bad person.

 

Theorists are the dreamers of science. There would be little real progress or advancement without them and yet until their theories are taken up by those who can implement them, in some real physical way by either practical observation or engineering, they remain the stuff of dreams and imagination, we call theories.

 

I think that last line you quoted,

Only the laws of quantum gravity know for sure.​

is telling, in that since there is not yet any successful model of quantum gravity... We do not yet know what those laws are!

 

This is a science thread Farsight, provide some credible reference to support your comments or take your own woo to the Fringe! And just so you get the point a half page picture of a frozen chicken is not a credible reference or proof, when you are responding to the opinions of the likes of Hawlking and Thorne. It is abusive of the discussion as a whole.

 

Why did you even bring up a movie in this thread? Not a documentary or interview, a movie intended as entertainment, rather than education!

 

AGAIN FARSIGHT CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. The word brane in the quote you chose should have given you a hint that the comment was made in a purely theoretical context!

Many of the comments from practical and theoretical physicists are grounded in one or another theoretical context. Few say anything intended as an absolute statement or definition.

I wouldn't say all of what you post is pseudoscience, but it certainly qualifies as Alternative. You really don't have to wait to make the move!

 

well you are wrong, like farsight, you are not in the trenches. have you ever been in any kind of lab, that's not your college virtual lab ?

why would that be ?