Time travel

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Dragonrider, Apr 26, 2006.

  1. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    Yes. They possibly exist, and they 100% do not.

    They do not fit into any model, GR including. What you mean to say is that some sci-fi fan physicists discovered that GR does not ~preclude~ the non-existence of wormholes. There is no mathematical construction that leads to the huge leap of, "perhaps the wormhole connects with the space-time continuum at another place". There is nothing to support this nonsense. Nada. Zip. Zilch. It was a made-up idea that has been running about in the literature for far too long. There is no support for it at all.

    When I say they could possibly exist, that is because no law has been formulated to show that this made-up scenario is impossible. It would be like finding a law that Flying Spaghetti Men are impossible (not a straw-man, an example of equivalence). We haven't discovered such a law, and I suggest that we never will. In either case. Which means that we could always find that one or the other exists. If so, it would be in SPITE of current theory, not because of the far-seeing nature of them.

    Which is why I say it is possible, but that there is 100% no wormholes in existence. I would say the same thing about most gods. Let's leave the faith out of science before the theists come into this thread screaming, "I told you so!".

    And yes, I am human. Your example is horrendous, and demonstrates a severe flaw in your logical abilities. The statement : It is still possible for humans to be incorrect. Does not imply that it is NOT possible for humans to be correct. Nor does it imply that humans are ALWAYS one or the other. Obviously I am incorrect about much. I assume I have made a dozen spelling and gramatical errors in this post. But I am not wrong about wormholes.

    You are committing many logical fallacies and being rude in the process. Throwing around phrases like "Straw Men", and not knowing what it means is a dangerous practice. And since our discussion has stopped being informative and productive, and has now degenerated to you quoting me out of context in order to win a point which isn't even germane to the overall topic, I bid you good-day.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. eburacum45 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,297
    I think that a more accurate assessment of the situation might be that 'there are no known classes of traversable wormholes at this time'. John Wheeler was thinking about wormholes ten years before he dreamt up the name 'black hole'; but he considered them impassable. Many cosmologists would accept the idea of a Wheelerian wormhole; these subatomic scale entities might exist in vast numbers in the space-time foam. But they are not traversable.
    It is only if you can somehow persuade a wormhole to be traversable then many strange things might become possible; but wishing doesn't make it so.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Hi swivel,
    I apologise for being rude. I will try to be more polite in future.

    I disagree with your assessment that wormholes and spaghetti monsters are equally improbable. I suspect (perhaps incorrectly) that your opinion is biased due to your faith in presentism.

    I also disagree with your assessment of the question of logic that was raised, but it is probably unproductive to go there (in brief, I do not assert that you are incorrect, but I do assert the possibility. You are welcome to reassert that such is not possible in this particular case, but it adds nothing to the argument).


    Again, I ask that you don't stereotype me. We don't have a chance of a productive conversation if you load me with beliefs and viewpoints which I do not necessarily have.

    My position is that the relativity of simultaneity is difficult to reconcile with a universal definable "now", and I'm interested in how you achieve that reconciliation.

    Your distinction between "t" and "real time" is interesting, and I would like to hear more. Do you hold a concept similar to Lorentz's "local time"?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Megabrain Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    103
    ...
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2006
  8. once mortal once mortal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9
    Quite right!

    Good to know that someone is taking initiatives to travel through time.The idea needs a lot of application because certain theories believe that there was a time when there were more than 3 dimensions available to us (time to be considered too!). However, the universe has cooled off a little too much for us to see or use them now.They have got packed infinitely(what the scientists consider to be wormholes!). But we are still overlooking some basic theories that are still available. I, for one, still believe that the theory of entropy is the answer for time travel. It is the only theory that works in accordance with the thoery of relativity and its extreme applications can independently of E=MC2. bELIEVE IT!
     

Share This Page