Time Travel discovered

Your contention that time is created must mean time flows in reverse. Should I accept that time does not exist, then the creation of the entity (time) must mean one would travel into the past for eternity. ETERNITY!
 
Typing error. I meant it exists for eternity. If it doesn't exist, then a time-traveller would traverse forever. There must be a beginning of time.
 
Throbber said:
Typing error. I meant it exists for eternity. If it doesn't exist, then a time-traveller would traverse forever. There must be a beginning of time.
Click to expand...

What is so hard to understand

TIME DOES NOT EXIST

Hence no such entity as time traveller can exist

Throbber said:
You are stating God's creation put an end to time, hence it does not exist.
Click to expand...

Noooooo that is not what I am saying

And that statement can be taken two ways both of which are incorrect by virtue of

TIME NOT EXISTING in the first place so there was nothing to come to a end

:)
 
The only way I can understand your statement that, "time does not exist", given God's decree that, "Nothing lasts forever", is if such a statement put an end to time, which is all that existed previously. ☺ Time is a potential. ☺ It's what COULD be, what MAY be, not what IS.
 
Throbber said:
The only way I can understand your statement that, "time does not exist", given God's decree that, "Nothing lasts forever", is if such a statement put an end to time, which is all that existed previously. ☺
Click to expand...

ex·ist
\ig-ˈzist\
  • :to have actual being: to be real
  • :to continue to be or to live
Mirriam-Webster

Anything which is real is detectable

TIME has never been detected or measured

If if if it happens I will change my belief

You might like to think about what equipment would be required to detect TIME

I'm not that familiar with what god says about his person but I am certain many of his followers say "god has always existed and always will"

But can this thread keep to time pleessee

:)
 
The existence of a being put an end to, "time" which continues for eternity. His non-interventionism gives access to that. Should it continue for that, "time", it returns and becomes, "Nothing." The only difference I can see between the Devil and a time-traveller is the admission of guilt. ☺
 
Throbber said:
The existence of a being put an end to, "time" which continues for eternity. His non-interventionism gives access to that. Should it continue for that, "time", it returns and becomes, "Nothing." The only difference I can see between the Devil and a time-traveller is the admission of guilt. ☺
Click to expand...

Since you seem to be ignoring my plea to keep thread to TIME your on your own and don't look for anymore response from me

:)
 
Neither produce time-travel. ☺ There's only one way to time-travel, but an infinite number of ways to do it. ☺
 
Michael 345 said:
https://amp-abc-net-au.cdn.ampproject.org/v/amp.abc.net.au/article/10178386?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-09-02/block-universe-theory-time-past-present-future-travel/10178386

Even though I maintain TIME does not exist I am fine with pointing out various other views

This one I really cannot follow

If anybody reads and is motivated to explain, if they understand and can explain, happy to listen

:)
Click to expand...

The idea of a block universe or just the lame mystery of the supposed "flow" which people project upon it? The former is actually mundane convention (for the applicable physicists and cosmologists, anyway). Although it can be modeled as a field rather than a hypersolid ("block-universe" is probably too simple or basic a conception). Treating time as the fourth dimension was in vogue among mathematicians in the late 19th century, but it arguably didn't acquire meat until Minkowski and then Einstein's second go-around (GR). So that's why you might see the expression bandied about as if it's a theory of its own, due to a pre-physics history before the 20th century and one of philosophy of time's items: Eternalism.

The two accounts below (along with the quotes -- especially the quotes) make it as everyday clear as it can be made without drowning in the disciplines' non-mediated expertise.

Regarding the "mysterious flow" that Davies refers to or the changes we seem to be experiencing -- that's explained by cognition over the whole worldline of one's existence being divided up into distinct units of consciousness which only apply to the information and memories of each particular brain state or chunk-sequence of neural differences. There's no biological state of the human body or its extended 4D version that offers awareness of one's entire life as an unbroken whole, only each incremental stage of difference in that existence which we interpret as a moment in time or a change. Hermann Weyl in a quote at the bottom refers to consciousness crawling along the worldline of one's body (from one brain state to the next brain state), but that's merely a helpful metaphor for those who still don't get the other yet. No "flow" is needed -- just what the devil do people believe would be flowing? Soul or spirit stuff, hopping from one figurative frame of a cinematic film to the next?

This Paul Davies' article titled That Mysterious Flow might only be temporarily free / open at Scientific American before they snip it again.

What is a block universe? From space and time to spacetime
https://plus.maths.org/content/what-block-time

Horowitz, Arshansky, & Elitzur: It seems that Einstein's view of the life of an individual was as follows. If the difference between past, present, and the future is an illusion, i.e., the four-dimensional spacetime is a 'block Universe' without motion or change, then each individual is a collection of a myriad of selves, distributed along his history, each occurrence persisting on the world line, experiencing indefinitely the particular event of that moment. Each of these momentary persons, according to our experience, would possess memory of the previous ones, and would therefore believe himself identical with them; yet they would all exist separately, as single pictures in a film. --"On the Two Aspects of Time: The Distinction and Its Implications“ in Foundations of Physics

Max Tegmark: A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity... If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime --the bird perspective-- these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog [perspective] sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described by Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta --a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds [in its view] to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds.

Robert Geroch: "There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as 'moving through' space-time, or as 'following along' their world-lines. Rather, particles are just 'in' space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle." --General Relativity from A to B

Paul Davies (again): "Peter Lynds's reasonable and widely accepted assertion that the flow of time is an illusion (25 October, p 33) does not imply that time itself is an illusion. It is perfectly meaningful to state that two events may be separated by a certain duration, while denying that time mysteriously flows from one event to the other. Crick compares our perception of time to that of space. Quite right. Space does not flow either, but it's still 'there'." --New Scientist, 6 December 2003, Sec. Letters

Hermann Weyl: "The objective world simply IS, it does not HAPPEN. Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling upward along the life line [worldline] of my body, does a certain section of this world come to life as a fleeting image in space which continuously changes in time." --Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science

Brian Greene: In day to day life, physicists view time in the same way that everyone else does. And that makes it all the more surprising when we examine how time appears in our current theoretical frameworks, because nowhere in our theories do we see the intuitive notion of time that we all embrace. Nowhere, for example, can we find the theoretical underpinnings for our sense that time flows from one second to the next. Instead, our theories seem to indicate that time doesn't flow --rather, past, present, and future are all there, always, forever frozen in place. --A Conversation With Brian Greene​


~
 
Michael 345 said:
TIME does not exist (full stop)
PAST does not exist
FUTURE does not exist
NO THICKNESS NOW is the moment which contains all of the stuff in existence
It doesn't exist - just stop there
Click to expand...
For the record - here in a hard science subforum - that there's no misinterpretation : The above the poster's personal opinion. It has no scientific basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top