Time travel is impossible because time is not real

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: Boadicea

Still wrong.

Really? The earth sped up/slowed down for some one traveling near or at the speed of light? REALLY???

When one returns from travelling at that substantial speed then one might find that there is no one left alive that we once knew. Check it out for yourself.

And how exactly shall I do so? Who will take me on this journey at/near the speed of light?

It is paradoxical I know but that is what the physicists claim. For people on Earth, and on the ship, time appears to move as normal but upon the return there is a substantial difference. Not only in the measuring devices but in real time that has passed.

No. The earth maintains its known speed in its known orbit and travels its known distance. Everything you are referring to is (first and foremost) greatly theoretical in nature, and involves how we observe or measure or experience "time," so it is related to time, but is not time in and of itself.

a reply to: Boadicea

Are you mad? Who said anything about the Earth changing speed? Of course it maintains it's orbital velocity I haven't said anything like that.
Travelling at the speed of light (or a substantial part thereof) affects the passage of time for the ship's occupants. They of course will age at the normal rate for themselves (as time is relative to them) but upon the return they will find a lot more time has passed on Earth.
I did say it was paradoxical. When I said, check it out, I only mean through Google or some such.

ETA, another first hit on Google,

Five years on a ship traveling at 99 percent the speed of light (2.5 years out and 2.5 years back) corresponds to roughly 36 years on Earth. When the spaceship returned to Earth, the people onboard would come back 31 years in their future--but they would be only five years older than when they left.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: Boadicea

Are you mad? Who said anything about the Earth changing speed?

Time, in practice and by definition, is determined by our measurement of planetary movement, specifically the earth's orbit around the sun. So time is no different for someone traveling at the speed of light or otherwise. The earth does not speed up or slow down in its orbit, so time remains constant for everyone.

And, of course, it is impossible for anyone to travel at the speed of light, so this is theory anyway.

Travelling at the speed of light (or a substantial part thereof) affects the passage of time for the ship's occupants. They of course will age at the normal rate for themselves (as time is relative to them) but upon the return they will find a lot more time has passed on Earth.

Again, time itself remains constant for EVERYONE -- traveling the speed of light or otherwise. What changes -- in theory -- are the potential/predicted physical effects for someone traveling the speed of light.

a reply to: Boadicea

One needn't travel at the speed of light just a substantial percentage of it. I posted those two results from Google but you have conveniently ignored them. I have already said that the passage of time on the ship and on Earth appears as normal but upon the return there has been a substantial difference. Maybe you can't grasp this but I'll try again...

"Five years on a ship traveling at 99 percent the speed of light (2.5 years out and 2.5 years back) corresponds to roughly 36 years on Earth. When the spaceship returned to Earth, the people onboard would come back 31 years in their future--but they would be only five years older than when they left."

This shows that time somehow has an intrinsic quality of it's own and is not just a relative measurement of movement. I don't make this claim the physicists do.

Please don't repeat all that same stuff as I understand your points. Why not just address the quote I have posted. Oh and why do you keep talking about the Earth speeding up or slowing down? No one has said anything remotely concerning that.

a reply to: midicon

"Five years on a ship traveling at 99 percent the speed of light (2.5 years out and 2.5 years back) corresponds to roughly 36 years on Earth. When the spaceship returned to Earth, the people onboard would come back 31 years in their future--but they would be only five years older than when they left."

Based on what?

a reply to: NormanDBates

I suppose based on what physicists claim. I typed in Google and that was the first item on the menu, I didn't follow the link as I already knew of this concept and was really hoping it would just show what I was trying to say. I don't claim that this is what is in any way, just that time may be not just a measurement of movement but somehow intrinsic to space for want of a better way of puting it. Nothing more. I'm just getting a reply saying the Earth doesn't speed up or slow down which isn't relative to anything I've said.

a reply to: midicon

"Five years on a ship traveling at 99 percent the speed of light (2.5 years out and 2.5 years back) corresponds to roughly 36 years on Earth..... Please don't repeat all that same stuff as I understand your points. Why not just address the quote I have posted. Oh and why do you keep talking about the Earth speeding up or slowing down? No one has said anything remotely concerning that.

Okay. Skool me: How exactly can five years -- which is literally five orbits of the earth around the sun -- on a ship be 36 years -- literally 36 orbits of the earth around the sun -- on earth?

How exactly does five orbits turn into 36 orbits???

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: ARM1968

The universe is only a few seconds old - maybe.

Not even that according to some popular theories that state all space/time occurred at the very instant the universe was born.

Time is a creation. Was time effected by the fall?

Time is a dimensionless value used in mathematics to describe motion. If time travel were possible, to travel to a specific time in the past one would need to know the position of every particle in the universe at that time. For travel to the future one would need to know with exact certainty the position of every particle in the universe to get to a specific time. The state of the universe would need to be manipulated somehow.

If time is thrown out of the mix, then all physical theories to date got out with it.

IMO, its not possible.

a reply to: Boadicea

That's why I say it is paradoxical. I don't make that claim the physicists do so how can I 'skool' you? I'm not talking about some new age fringy stuff but as far as know that is the current thought.

Hang on I've re-read your comment. Five years at high velocity equals thirty six years on Earth. Now you might say yes but the clocks on the ship are moving at a different rate which is true, but it is also true that real time has passed at a different rate. That is what the physicists claim. I think (if memory serves) that this theory was proven by the measurement of the passage of time on quartz clocks on satellites.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Gothmog

Time is a constant.

Not so.


www.google.com.au...

Einstein's theory of relativity states that time and space are not as constant as everyday life would suggest. He suggested that the only true constant, the speed of light, meant that time can run faster or slower depending on how high you are, and how fast you are travelling.

wiki

A physical constant, sometimes fundamental physical constant or universal constant, is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and have constant value in time.

And constants are


www.quora.com...

The term mathematical constant usually refers to some particular number whose value is fixed by purely mathematical definition. Common examples are e and π.

A mathematical constant can be contrasted with a mathematical variable. For example, in the formula A=πr2, A and r are variables.

A mathematical constant can also be contrasted with a physical constant whose value is fixed by empirical measurement. Examples of physical constants include Newton's gravitational constant G and Planck's constant h.

Time is a constant relative to the universe. Einstein was speaking of his time dilation in the Theory of Relativity . The one that states that time slows for an object traveling at speeds near light speed.
Get it ?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: midicon

"Five years on a ship traveling at 99 percent the speed of light (2.5 years out and 2.5 years back) corresponds to roughly 36 years on Earth..... Please don't repeat all that same stuff as I understand your points. Why not just address the quote I have posted. Oh and why do you keep talking about the Earth speeding up or slowing down? No one has said anything remotely concerning that.

Okay. Skool me: How exactly can five years -- which is literally five orbits of the earth around the sun -- on a ship be 36 years -- literally 36 orbits of the earth around the sun -- on earth?

How exactly does five orbits turn into 36 orbits???

You are using invalid comparisons.
Learn how Einstein developed the Time Dilation theory .

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: Boadicea

That's why I say it is paradoxical.

It is theoretical. A theory. No one has ever traveled at the speed of light.

Hang on I've re-read your comment. Five years at high velocity equals thirty six years on Earth.

No. Five years is five years. Five years is five orbits of the earth around the sun. "Five years at high velocity" is still the equivalent of five orbits around the sun.

Now you might say yes but the clocks on the ship are moving at a different rate...

I'm not saying that, but you seem to be...

...which is true, but it is also true that real time has passed at a different rate.

Nope. The earth continued the same path around the sun at the same speed as always -- that increment of time we call a "year".

All that tells us is that the tools we use to measure that time lapse do not function the same in a ship at the speed of light as they function on earth at the established rate of movement/rotation. But that pertains to the how of measuring time, not time itself.

That is what the physicists claim. I think (if memory serves) that this theory was proven by the measurement of the passage of time on quartz clocks on satellites.

a reply to: Gothmog

You are using invalid comparisons.
Learn how Einstein developed the Time Dilation theory.

Time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two clocks, either due to them having a velocity relative to each other, or by there being a gravitational potential difference between their locations.

Time Dilation

I don't see where I'm using "invalid" comparisons. Time dilation is about the tools (clocks) that we use to measure time and their accuracy, as affected by different factors.

a reply to: Boadicea

Accuracy refers to closeness of the measurements to a specific value. Time dilation is not about accuracy.

a reply to: Boadicea

You miss the whole point, which is that the traveller upon his return will find that more time has elapsed for the people on Earth. Not by using a clock but that everyone has aged more. He has travelled for what is (biologically speaking) five years and those on Earth have aged thirty six years (biologically speaking). Now you can argue that thirty six years on Earth is thirty six times round the sun and that's fine but when the traveller returns he will only have aged the equivalent of five years. In effect he has time travelled to the future.

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: Boadicea

Accuracy refers to closeness of the measurements to a specific value. Time dilation is not about accuracy.

Um... I'm not sure what you mean. But clocks and watches are not about time dilation.

Clocks, watches, etc., are built to designate specific increments of time in accordance with an established and set event; specifically, the orbit of the earth around the sun.

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: Boadicea

You miss the whole point...

I am missing nothing.

...which is that the traveller upon his return will find that more time has elapsed for the people on Earth. Not by using a clock but that everyone has aged more.

So I'm exactly right. Time has not changed. Time is real. But the effects of traveling at the speed of light (or not) during that specific time frame is much different for those who do and those who don't.

He has travelled for what is (biologically speaking) five years and those on Earth have aged thirty six years (biologically speaking). Now you can argue that thirty six years on Earth is thirty six times round the sun and that's fine but when the traveller returns he will only have aged the equivalent of five years. In effect he has time travelled to the future.

Nope. Time is what it is. Only the physical effects differ, which are accounted for by plenty of other factors.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Gothmog

You are using invalid comparisons.
Learn how Einstein developed the Time Dilation theory.

Time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two clocks, either due to them having a velocity relative to each other, or by there being a gravitational potential difference between their locations.

Time Dilation

I don't see where I'm using "invalid" comparisons. Time dilation is about the tools (clocks) that we use to measure time and their accuracy, as affected by different factors.

You were comparing to revolutions of the Earth around the Sun
Doesn't work that way.
This reply has zilch to do with your post I replied to.
And I know full well what time dilation is.
Else , I would not have posted as I did.

a reply to: projectvxn

Love to spitball the proclivities of possible time-travel with you but I'm about a 3rd the way through a lite of Grey Goose the now.

Let's just say we live in very interesting times.

So about Sunday before any meaningful response or rebuttal.

Tick, tock, tick, tock and all that jazz.