Time Travel is Science Fiction

You post and say what you like undefined.
In actual fact your posts sound an awful lot like dmoe's posts....Inane claims, inane comments.

But again, I certainly do not posit one FoR, and that Interpretation, is not in any way suggested.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your highly confusing posts and regurgitated claims are just distractions undefined.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In essence SR/GR, the two greatest theories of the 20th century, and the laws of physics in general, do not disallow time travel.
And as of now, both have a perfect batting record.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But not in time travel

Which neither can do

 

That is why the abstract mathematical RELATIVITY 'analytical construct' involves AT LEAST TWO FoRs for its logics and assumptions and interpretations to be considered AT ALL.

What happens in the LOCAL FoR where clock stops (maximal REAL GR effects) is not controlled/determined by any REMOTE observers' clock/biological state/rate that is not equally affected. The locally stopped time/clock FoR is what it is ABSOLUTELY as AFFECTED by local GRAVITY potential/acceleration effects. Period. What REMOTE observers 'see' from any light-conveyed information is NEITHER HERE NOR THERE when ONLY the LOCALLY stopped CLOCK/TIMING FoR effective reality LOCALLY THERE is concerned.

Please rid yourself from any illusions that any REMOTE and theoretical 'seeing' and 'calculating' and hypothesizing has any REAL effect on the LOCALLY STOPPED CLOCK/TIMING state you are SURMISING about 'observing remotely' from a theoretical standpoint ONLY.....unless YOU TOO are in that SAME stopped clock/timing frame of reference absolutely affected by the local EH gravity conditions. Which FoR is RELATIVELY NO LONGER THERE as a 'relativity FoR construct' element, since the timing/ticking rate of clock there is NIL, hence making all claims that some RELATIVITY frame of reference existing THERE 'exists' and the clock's owner is 'still processing/operational' AS the local observer, is invalid assumption. Since relativity construct is overriden by the timing factor/information/process being effectively/logically/absolutely REMOVED from the RELATIVITY 'space-TIME' analytical construct.

Understand, paddo, everyone? Once the TIME part of the 'space-TIME' analytical construct is rendered effectively ZERO VALUE/RATE, then the 'space-TIME' analysis is effectively NOT APPLICABLE CONTEXT for the analysis, as NO TIME ELEMENT means no 'space-TIME' context, only ENERGY-SPACE context. See now the subtlety involved? And why the next step is to move away from the abstract space-time analytical construct and onto the overarching, real, physical ENERGY-SPACE analytical construct that covers ALL contexts using PHYSICAL REALITY perspectives/elements?


PS: Again, paddo, your zealous repetition of miss-the-point rhetoric and links does nothing for elucidating/advancing the actual issue at hand. Please stop cluttering up every post with simplistic irrelevancies which EVERYONE has seen before ad nauseam over the YEARS of internet discussions from all sorts of angles/perspectives. PLEASE, paddo...I don't have time to waste on those OLD CHESTNUT 'glib explanations/retorts' from old orthodoxy that is evolving as we speak; and nor do many others who want to concentrate on the actual NEW question/issue being discussed NOW. OK?

 

Wrong. It is a legitimate theoretical prediction of relativity.

 

Again, according to relativity, clocks/time/aging processes are not seen to stop or even slow down in any local FoR, within that local FoR.

With all due respect, it is you that is suffering illusions. I'm with the mainstream....You are proposing some new outcome, not me. :shrug:

 

You actually seem to have plenty of time on your hands, by the length and pedantic nature of your posts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Theoretical is the key word

Because thats all it is , theoretical

Nothing substantsive in the real world

 

How would you know that 'in fact' unless you were at that location with your clock? Irrespective of remote theoretical 'predictions' from a space-time construct that has the time part ELIMINATED if the clock stops at that GR frame/location?

Did you understand the thrust and import of the GREEN TEXT in my last post pointing out the effective local energy-space reality which trumps the hypothetical remote space-time theoretical predictions....always?

 

When subtle and complex new ideas/issues are being discussed, one necessarily requires to be careful to explain properly and fully the subtle scientific aspects actually involved in the context of the OP and its thrust/implications; and not just continue like some to regurgitate cut-and-paste glib old news besides the points being raised/discussed.

Try it sometime, paddo.

PS: Again, did you understand the subtle nature and import of the following observations of the reality applying there?...

 

All of [well most of] science is theoretical.
Some aspects of it more theoretical then others....eg:
We all know that when we jump up in the air, we will most probably come back down again....according to Newtonian laws...It's still a theory though, albeit a well supported theory with strong foundations.
Theories like the BB, Evolution, SR/GR are also well supported and have past all tests. Any changes, that are to be made [unlikely] will be tinkering around the edges.
eg: Any future validated QGT will almost certainly encompass the BB and GR, while extending the parameters of each.

 

Oh I certainly do take notice of details when required.
What you need to realize, is that sometimes, overly zealous would be scientists, in trying to present an illusion of knowledgable detail, fail to see the forest for the trees.

Best of luck with your model, interpretations, and peer review.

My position has not changed.

 

You seem to be saying that one frame has preference over another.
I disagree, and see all FoR's as valid.
And as far as I know, that is a postulate of relativity.

 

Hmmmm.....

 

But why won't you do so on this occasion? I asked:

It behoves you, as claiming to already know what mainstream says, to indicate whether that added subtle aspect/implications attending space-time analyses in that local EH context I just pointed out in green, has affected your 'belief' and 'understanding' in any way shape or form, based on the new ideas/science aspects presented logically and scientifically argued therein. Please say one way or the other, explaining precisely why, just so we can know whether you actually have taken notice of the subtle details involved in this instance. Thanks.

Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Read/Think again on the implications of that above in green, please.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually time travel is only allowed in Einstein's SR & GR in that it slows the time experienced by the traveler so that he might reach a more distant future than he could normally. But this is not true time travel, where the traveler can choose to go to the past or future at will. The General Theory of Relativity as formulated by Einstein which is the framework of all mainstream relativity does NOT predict TRUE time travel, it forbids it. It would require faster than light motion which is not allowed by the first of Einstein's two initial postulates. All valid solutions to GR have within them a constraint which dictates causality.

The theoretical framework I think you are referring to is probably Godel Spacetime (or one of it's variants) which is very much different than that of General Relativity. It is not a "theory" which is explicitly forbidden, but it can't make any testable predictions and can't be falsified so the mainstream mostly consider it an "oddity" or an exercise. But the mathematicians love it for it's challenging educational and instructive value. Science fiction writers love it because it gives them a bigger selection of playgrounds.

If I misunderstood your position I apologize, I might be reading what you are contending incorrectly.

 

To brighten your day rivers, the theoretical prediction of the possibility of time travel according to relativity, is certainly no where as well supported as the BB, SR/GR or evolution, but still an obviously pretty good theoretical prediction, based on what we have observed in particle accelerators, muons and synchronised atomic clocks on planes.

 

Hi Declan Lunny

I don't think you have misunderstood me, but I'm still of the opinion that time travel is a prediction of SR/GR.
As an example, how about the twin paradox...which isn't really a parodox anyway, but you know what I mean.

From where I am sitting, unless one can say with absolute certainty, that we will never reach relativistic speeds, we cannot say time travel is not permitted.

The example an old relativist gave me on another forum, was if you and I were twins, and I set off at 99.999%c, for 6 months, turned around and came back at the same 99.999%c [ignoring acceleration/decelleration for simplicity], I would be coming back to an Earth about 230 years in the future, with only 12 months expired on my clock.
I see this as time travel.

 

No, it's not "TRUE" time travel because you cannot select ANY date in the past - not even by one minute.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!