Time travel is impossible because time is not real

a reply to: Boadicea

Truth is you are exactly wrong, at least according to the physicists. I posted two answers from Google, the very first ones. I didn't have to search to prove a point that's just what came up. Try it yourself. I typed in, speed of light time travel (or something like that). I have always thought that time is just a measurement of motion. I maybe still do but was puting forward the theory that speed affects time in a real paradoxical way because it is something I have come across before and it does defy logic.
All you have been doing is prevaricating around with what we all regard as common sense and avoiding the point I was making. It's no big deal but it might be that you are missing something if you haven't even heard of that paradox.

originally posted by: Gothmog

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.

Then I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say... zip nada zilch! And you apparently aren't interested in explaining yourself. And that's okay.

To be honest, I don't really even care about the topic! I'm surprised my basic comment has even gotten the response it has!!!

a reply to: Boadicea

Um... I'm not sure what you mean.

You stated:

Time dilation is about the tools (clocks) that we use to measure time and their accuracy, as affected by different factors.

That is wrong. Time dilation is not about accuracy of the tools (clocks) that we use to measure time.

a reply to: midicon

Oh my dear lordy!!! Prevaricating? Really???

I have made very clear distinctions between several integral factors. I have defined terms. I have differentiated between increments of time and measurements of time and physical effects of time. I have differentiated between fact and theory. I have cited and linked sources.

That is not prevaricating. It's disagreement.

And I really don't care anyway. So we shall agree to disagree and be done with this discussion.

Well, apparently the faster an object moves, it can travel forward through time even though it only a small jump. So the closer an object reaches light speed, it should ether get burn up an become some dense material that can smash stuff, or does it just go through things? FTL figurative problem is trying to avoid dilation without jump future forward where as one preserved more or less the closer they get to a fissure.

All the while, black holes warp the crap out of it, where it the closer, the more slower you'd decay I guess, while everything out of range supposed to constant.

Just my two cents

a reply to: Boadicea

Fair enough, I wasn't looking for an argument.

Regards Midicon.

a reply to: moebius

Time dilation is not about accuracy of the tools (clocks) that we use to measure time.

From Wikipedia:

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. After compensating for varying signal delays due to the changing distance between an observer and a moving clock (i.e. Doppler effect), the observer will measure the moving clock as ticking slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own reference frame. A clock that is close to a massive body (and which therefore is at lower gravitational potential) will record less elapsed time than a clock situated further from the said massive body (and which is at a higher gravitational potential).

Clocks are created/built to denote specific increments of time according to a specific value. It they are not correctly denoting those specific increments of time according to that specific value, then they are not accurate.

Obviously, outside factors can affect the proper function of the watch. When that happens, and the watch does NOT denote the proper increments of time according to the proper value, then the time reflected is inaccurate.

Such is the theory for traveling the speed of light. It does not change time. It does not mean that time is not real. It means that our ability to quantify and qualify time changes under different conditions.

I am now done with this discussion.

a reply to: Boadicea

In the end its about perspective mate.

Well, that and entropy.

Light speed changes length and mass, hence the reason it cannot be superseded.

Space-time, on the other hand, that's a different story or rather tapestry of sorts.

Here is a time theory i crafted.


Time is actually a circle. It has no end or beggining.

It starts with the end of the universe and ends with it ending, imediately starting again in an endless timeless circle.

There is no past, present and future because everything has happened endless ammounts of times and it will keep happening for endless more. The momemnt we die we are born again endlessly and everything is the same.

The slight variations, the people who see the future. This is just the past , or should we say, the past loop.


Exactly - Endless loop. People who see the future just see what happened last time. Peole who think things are slightly differnt just remmember their past timeline.



This is also what you can say.. Fate. it is fate because every single possibility has happened already and we always do the same exact things because the world never changes and everything is the exactly same.

And this cycle.. It will continue forever just as it has been done so far.

a reply to: Gothmog

Correct, the universe likely just began 1/infinity of a second ago.

That is essentially this very moment now.

I wonder if my writing on this is what inspired the OP? If so - cool. Love the topic.

a reply to: muzzleflash
Then there wouldn't have been time for this conversation!

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

originally posted by: neutronflux
Actually, I believe time is real. Many equations require time to accurately solve for problems relating to our universe.

I came across the old, “time is an illusion” argument in another thread.

So. If time is an illusion, then time travel would be an illusion. Therefore true time travel is impossible.

Was this argument in a 9-11 thread -asking for a friend

Just found that thread about time being weird www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: yuppa

So none of which being a complete impossibility?

Hard yes, energy-intensive maybe.

In the post???

Something is only impossible until it's not.

Improbable as the case may be to date.

Space-time is malleable, and we are apt to bend most things, into, our out, of shape.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: ARM1968

In short , we can't explain the world around us as we don't know enough about it and how it works .

Actually People created time is a illusion BUT UNIVERSAL TIME is real. Decay is how we measure universal time in some instances.

Yes that's a more accurate description.

a reply to: andy06shake

lol have fun andy!

a reply to: Boadicea

Hi!

Okay, so here's my understanding of how it works:

Do you remember back in high school physics class when they'd give you a problem involving an airplane's heading and airspeed, the windspeed and direction, and ask you to determine its ground speed and direction of travel? This is an operation called "vector addition" and is a very simple form of the sorts of maths involved in General Relativity(GR). From the plane's perspective, it's going a certain speed and direction, but the medium through which it travels is also moving, so from the perspective of the ground, where the plane will want to find an airstrip where and when it expects to, the movement of the medium must be taken into account.

GR (in my understanding) asserts that a component of a reference frame's motion is expressed in the direction of time(t), just as other components of that motion is expressed in the directions of x, y, and z. A curious consequence of this is that the faster a reference frame moves(when compared to another frame with a different velocity), the greater the magnitude of that motion in the direction t, thus faster frames experience, well, for a lack of a better expression, more seconds per second.

Now, logically we could merely be talking about the observation of passing time. For instance, say a spacecraft leaves Earth, headed out into deep space, at .99c. An antenna pointed back at earth is broadcasting sputnik-like clicks one per second according to the on-ship clock. Earth could do the same thing, pointed out at the spacecraft, result would be the same. Now, because the spacecraft is travelling .99c, those second-span ticks would arrive at Earth at very nearly 2-second intervals, because the origin of the pulse has gained almost a light-second per second in distance. Then again, this is a turn and burn mission, so after the halfway point, the spacecraft is travelling back towards Earth at .99c, so those second-span pulses now are arriving at Earth just over .5 .01 seconds apart, and wouldn't you know it? When they land back on Earth there is no difference between the clocks. I think this is the idea you're trying to express, that while there is an illusion of time passing at different rates, once the observer and the observed are rejoined the clocks should be back in sync. However, this is not what we observe, and here is why:

Areas of higher spacetime curvature, that is to say higher gravitational potential, also cause light to be delayed, simply because the light has further to go, when compared to regions of more "flat" spacetime. The kinetic energy of an object contributes to it's energy, and thus its mass, and so an object approaching c gets more and more massive, curving spacetime more and more. The object, having traversed this region of highly curved spacetime, experiences a time dilation that is persistent throughout all external frames, because it has physically traveled a further distance than it would have at a lower speed, and the difference between those distances occurred in the direction of time, rather than a spatial distance. Make sense?

best!
z

a reply to: Boadicea

Accuracy has nothing to do with a time difference between two clocks or time dilation.

Think of it like target practice. Accuracy is the grouping of shots regardless of the target (you can have a tight grouping that is not on target). Precision is hitting what you aim at. Therefore, two nuclear clocks can be totally accurate but if one stays in one spot and another flies around the globe then the time on both clocks will be different because of closeness to a gravity well and on at a higher altitude; the accuracy did not change between clocks... it is the accuracy that allows a measurable difference in the first place!

Anyhoo, just wanted to let you (and everyone else) know that you need to be specific about these terms to say meaningful things.

a reply to: neutronflux
Time is like all magical and stuff brah!

Time is not an illusion, time is a word we use to describe basically things that are in motion and there relations to each other, for the most part, and among other things, but it is not a thing in itself. If it was, then it would not matter at all who you are or how fast your moving or going at the speed of light or any of it.

If time was a thing in itself, then everything would be the same, and everywere time would be exactley the same. Its why on the other side of the world people are just getting up, when somewere else there going to sleep, there simply on a different time zone.

Time is a construct. Its all relative.

That whole people in space probe going to speed of light in relation to people back on earth, is exactly that as well. That's why its called the "theory" of "relativity" Because it all relative to who and what is either observing it, or measuring it.

And also its a theory.

As you would likley be burned to a crisp long before you even reach a fraction of that speed in a space ship. Hell at even a fraction of that speed a rock in space would likley go through your ship like a hot knife through butter, at the very least it would be a quick end. And at half the speed of light? Well chances are that hitting a gas or plasma cloud, would be like you driving your car full speed, into a brick wall.


And not only that but what tools and functions are they measuring and keeping track of it all with, can and does effect time. An atomic clock just measures decay in certain atomic structures, on earth we go by day and night cycles which is based on the rotation of the earth and its path around the sun. The two are synced together, to keep things in...Well in sync as a whole.

If you lived on a planet with two suns. Well that timezone would be different, simply because it would be organized differently. And also, your internal circadian rythm would be different, and also, you would be physically different as the effects of having two suns, would not only change your very DNA, but the planet as well.

Etc, etc, etc. So its all relative you see. Time is a construct, its something we attribute to the space and matter around us, in relations to us, and others, and things, be they in motion, or not.

I would explain it to you, but I have no time for it.

a reply to: Boadicea

Oh yeah! One other thing, one other really important thing:

Bear in mind that time is all backwards! The only universal reference frame we have is the advent of the universe itself, which is expressed in terms of t minus. Everything we do, every action we take, every machine we make, it all leverages this principle of entropy, which is the natural decay of things from a state of order to a state of disorder. For conventions sake we label work in a manner that expresses a positive, because it is convenient to work in the domain of non-negative real numbers. An apple, for instance, is the result of the decay of a star emitting solar energy which then is further decayed during the process of photosynthesis to produce simple sugars, you get my point. The electron's negative charge might be the most fundamental example of this principle: our forward progress is based upon the negative progress of the system as a whole. When one takes that into account, one might express an absolutely stationary object as expressing the entirety of it's kinetic energy in the time domain, and yet the only stationary object we can describe is the the singularity immediately preceding the big bang. That epoch was nominally followed by an expansionary period during which stuff greatly exceeded the speed of light, before coalescing into what we now call matter, having bounds set upon its speed. I'm probably just belaboring the point now.

Time is backwards, that's my point. It is a negative quantity, which means when considered as a positive quantity the spatial qualities of motion must then be considered negative.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

They would not be different because they traveled in time. They would be different because atomic clocks just track decay in certain atomic structures. If you fly around a gas giant, or black hole. Well what would happen?

That atomic structure would not be the same as it would be effected by gravity or a thousand other physical properties, and the particle may decay at a faster rate, or even a slower rate. Heck you can have the same effect if you get close to the sun and the energy and radiation will likely fry your clock to a crisp.

You could also pick said clock up and throw it on the ground to get the same effect.

Once its broken, that does not mean time has stopped. It just means you got a broken clock. And if gravity and the suns radiation can have that much an effect on something so minute as atomic structure. What effect do you think it would have on a meat based creature flying by in space?

I will give you a clue. You will not likely live for a thousand more years, just like bathing yourself in radiation and then getting a spider to bite you will not somehow turn you into spider man. It will likley just make you bald, and a few other things in the process.

Which is why radiations shielding is important. As for that whole gravity effects time. Well considering they don't really know what gravity is. I think its stretching it a bit, or a whole lot. But even if gravity effected time.

You know what that would mean?

That means you would have to get some sort of gravity shielding so as to be on the same time table as everybody else. Or else your clock will be useless, and likely be drifting through space till the oxygen runs out.

Lets just say you wont be living that extra 1000 years as you travel at a fraction of light speed, if our oxygen runs out because nobody is keeping track of how, were, and when, it all effects everything, because the clocks are somehow magically running slower, because time is somehow going slower.

What does that mean, that you will burn through the oxygen slower as well? How? By magic?

After all if time is going slower, because your going faster. Isnt that a contradiction in itself right there? And even if it did happen. Then two things happened, everything else is going slower and so is all of physical matter effected...Or?...Your clock is broken.

The whole thing is as Spock would say. Highly illogical.

So your clock going around the earth is not effected by time. Its purpuse is to keep track of time. What its effected by is not time, its effected by physical matter or something else like radiation or heck that thing you call gravity which seems to have an effect on things, you know besides keeping things down, and the properties of the very tools your using itself would be effected, and even likely the particles or gravity is having an effect on said physical properties, just like it does on human bodies or anything else as well.

And those effects are expressed in units of measurements called time.

Its not traveling faster in time, its still going around the planet which is going around a sun. So were is it going? Has it traveled to the future of earth. Or has it just made some laps around and gone back to were it came from?

So how can it be traveling faster in time, if its still basically just around the orbit of the earth? Has it left the solar system? has it entered another dimension, one were time goes slower or faster? If it was traveling faster in time. Would not its speed be faster as well? Would not the Sun and Earth change as well.

But I suppose traveling 20 seconds faster in a few days timeframe, is somehow time traveling. So by that logic if we keep it going around in orbit round and round around the earth for a million years. Will it have traveled two million years into the future of earth?

But at the end its still just something that is going around the earth. Like the moon, or space junk, or everything else up there.

But when they get back to earth, they would not have traveled forward in time. They would have just made a few laps around the earth, and well? There back, with an offset clock, and likely need crutches for a week or so.

If they stayed there for 20 years, they likely would be blind and there bones would be so hollow that they would crumple the first minute they set foot on earths gravity again.

As they say, time is relative, because it's more or less a measurement that describes physical properties, which can be anything from people, to cars, to the earths spin, to the radiations in space, to battery life, to anything and everything which is in relation to eachother. Time is a word we use to describe and measure the effects all those things and how they relate to eachother, in any given situation and in any relatable quantitative state.

Basically time does not create space or are onething. Space is, and time is something we and everybody use to describe its effects on us when compared to something else. Its all relative brah!