Time travel is impossible because time is not real

a reply to: Itisnowagain

There is a working theory of space time. Is that a false statement? What is the working theory of only space with no time called?

a reply to: Itisnowagain


a reply to: galadofwarthethird


You can hem haw all you want.

This article articulates the points I am trying to make.

Relativistic Time

www.exactlywhatistime.com...

An event is both a place and a time, and can be represented by a particular point in space-time, i.e. a point in space at a particular moment in time. Space-time as a whole can therefore be thought of as a collection of an infinite number of events. The complete history of a particular point in space is represented by a line in space-time (known as a world line), and the past, present and future accessible to a particular object at a particular time can be represented by a three dimensional light cone (or Minkowski space-time diagram), which is defined by the limiting value of the speed of light, which intersects at the here-and-now, and through which the object’s world line runs its course.


Snip

According to Einstein, then, time is relative to the observer, and more specifically to the motion of that observer. This is not to say that time is in some way capricious or random in nature – it is still governed by the laws of physics and entirely predictable in its manifestations, it is just not absolute and universal as Newton thought (see the section on Absolute Time), and things are not quite as simple and straightforward as he had believed. Some commentators, like the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, have suggested that there may be a need to distinguish between the reality of time and our measurement of time: according to this line of thinking (which, it should be mentioned, is not a mainstream position in physics), time itself MAY be absolute, but the way we measure it must be relativistic.

Are you confused by quantum physics and time?

That is one of the problems of our time. Rectifying quantum physics with relativity.

Problem of time

en.m.wikipedia.org...


In theoretical physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.[1] This problem raises the question of what time really is in a physical sense and whether it is truly a real, distinct phenomenon. It also involves the related question of why time seems to flow in a single direction, despite the fact that no known physical laws seem to require a single direction.[2]

You can try to talk In absolutes. And you can ignore the problems of rectifying quantum physics with relativity. But it really is all relative. And you ignoring the true problems of what you post, and your posting with false authority is very unbecoming.

So. I guess your first choice is to pick quantum physics or relativity. Then whatever you pick, rectify time with the other theory.

a reply to: neutronflux
Interesting that I have answered all your questions. Yet you are not able to even answer a simple question of mine. You keep posting things from other websites, even without understanding what our posting about. And just so you know, I took a minute or two to look at some of that stuff.

Seems scientists themselves cant quite grasp what there saying, but then again, everything seems to be a copy and paste job from ages ago.

And so, I will answer these questions. But this is it, its quite obvious you have no clue what you read beyond maybe memorizing some things and repeating them over and over.

How do you land on the moon again if you don’t have the right point in space and the right point in time?

You do it the way NASA does it. On a dark and dingy set and with lots of editing.

Oh conspiracy.

Unless your talking about other stuff.

It will be a long long long long time before any of you land on the moon, much less Mars, and much less go at the speed of light to your nearest galaxy for a visit.

But on how you get to the moon. Thats simple the moon is pretty big and visible, you figure out its trajectory, and just factor in everything else. And I should hope since the moon has been going around the earth for the past billions or so years in pretty orderly fashion, and is pretty dam visible even with a #ty telescope, that they can come up with a point and place they want to take off from and to. Then they can assign a time and place to it all.

But all of that would be the least of your issues when and if your trying to go to the moon. In fact it would be kind of hard to miss that trajectory, and the issue of toilet paper may be a bigger problem for all would be moon goers.

The moon has been so consistent every day and night. So much so in fact that I can go outside right now, and point up at it. But when I am pointing at it, i'm not pointing at a point it is in time. I'm pointing at a point in space as it orbits round and round, like the dials of a clock, pretty sure at that point if you got the distance, you can pick your point in time.

Then they can pick the time they want to go...And don't forget to bring snacks and maybe a go pro camera and a few other things.

Where is that proof where you cancel the change in time to define the change in distance for the speed of light.

When you go the speed of light to somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy. Then we will talk, till then. Your just pulling smoke out your ass. As that is a whole sentence that means nothing and at best is without context, at worst its tarded, and make believe, cant even go to the moon, much less light speed.

Besides you know in calculations. In that case, you can calculate any way you want, as its hard to be wrong on something you will never ever see in a thousand human lifetimes. The magic of make believe.

May as well find proof for the change in distance of a leprechauns pot of gold in relation to the speed of light as it orbits Jupiter.

Why does it take an electromagnet single from a galaxy 100 light years from earth a hundred years to get to earth.

Dont know why don't you send an electromagnet single to a galaxy 100 light years away, and follow it back to earth. See what happens along its trajectory. I am thinking this electromagnet single is a like just maybe a big magnet that has been shot into space? So ya! just follow its trajectory for a that few 100 light years, and you will solve the mystery of the disappearing electromagnet single.

Unless you meant a electromagnetic signal from 100 light years away. Not single. Unless its a single signal.

Oh in that case. The same still stands, as likely any signal will be lost in any number of ways. And by electromagnetic signal, I assume radio waves, possible photon/light, maybe gamma. Or who know. In all cases, see the above, as it will likely apply, just follow it along its trajectory for a mere 100 light years.

And you will find its interference along its trajectory.

And since you would be going at light speed, that would be a measly 100 years away.

If your going slower then light speed, like say rocket or car speed, likley hundreds of thousands of if not millions of years, and that is if you dont make any waystops along to way. In either case, humanity will also be likely extinct by then.

And if you mean why your able to detect electromagnetic signals from space in form of radiowaves or backround radiation or photon waves. Well, thats because there kind of everywere, and are kind of hard to miss. And also, you do know that humanities detaction of how far and fast particles really travel such vast distances that the sun might go nova and poof gone in that timespan....Is at best in its infancy.

Lets just say in another few thousand years, they may find out that in the past few thousand years, they were all just a bunch of morons. Kind of like how these past few thousand years, has figures out that some of the things going on and believes a few thousand years ago were frooty loops, leaches, and casting bones to see the future and all.

How is witness a change in time anymore of an a illusion than witnessing a change in distance?

A change in time and a change in distance are the same thing in as they relate to eachother.

But lets say your going to go for a 200 mile drive roadtrip to see uncle bob.

You can change your change in time, simply by rearranging your trajectory, taking a different highway or road, or even a waystop along the way, or maybe you want to visit that waffle house that along the highways.

Or you can even cancel the whole trip and do it on another day like say next week or next year. All of that will change your change in time.

But you cant change your change in distance as no matter when you choose to go there, or if or not you stop for gas or detours, today or next year, it will still be the same distance way. Unless uncle bob comes to you. Then the parameters for distance and time change.

or maybe you mean traveling through spacetime to get to the destination of the year 30030, then your distance is kind of what? How much of a distance does it take to get to the year 30030?

Might look up the paradox of motion? And it’s purposes solutions?

You might want to go learn basics. As there is no paradox of motion, there is a paradox of time in proportion to some motion, but motion is simple and there is no paradox to it. There is only.... Point A...to....Point B.


So now are you going to answer the questions I had in posts back?

Let be ques, I can totally see the future brah....The answer is nah...Must be to hard for you I guess.

How can people say time is not real?
Time is very real.

You can test this by snapping your fingers on your right hand right now and waiting 5 seconds and snapping your fingers on your left hand. If time doesnt exist, why didnt you snap your fingers on both hands at the exact same moment?

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Many words, and you didn’t say a single coherent thing?

So. Your just going to ignore what I posted. Interesting. Again.

You can hem haw all you want.

This article articulates the points I am trying to make.

Relativistic Time

www.exactlywhatistime.com...

An event is both a place and a time, and can be represented by a particular point in space-time, i.e. a point in space at a particular moment in time. Space-time as a whole can therefore be thought of as a collection of an infinite number of events. The complete history of a particular point in space is represented by a line in space-time (known as a world line), and the past, present and future accessible to a particular object at a particular time can be represented by a three dimensional light cone (or Minkowski space-time diagram), which is defined by the limiting value of the speed of light, which intersects at the here-and-now, and through which the object’s world line runs its course.


Snip

According to Einstein, then, time is relative to the observer, and more specifically to the motion of that observer. This is not to say that time is in some way capricious or random in nature – it is still governed by the laws of physics and entirely predictable in its manifestations, it is just not absolute and universal as Newton thought (see the section on Absolute Time), and things are not quite as simple and straightforward as he had believed. Some commentators, like the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, have suggested that there may be a need to distinguish between the reality of time and our measurement of time: according to this line of thinking (which, it should be mentioned, is not a mainstream position in physics), time itself MAY be absolute, but the way we measure it must be relativistic.

Are you confused by quantum physics and time?

That is one of the problems of our time. Rectifying quantum physics with relativity.

Problem of time

en.m.wikipedia.org...


In theoretical physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.[1] This problem raises the question of what time really is in a physical sense and whether it is truly a real, distinct phenomenon. It also involves the related question of why time seems to flow in a single direction, despite the fact that no known physical laws seem to require a single direction.[2]

You can try to talk In absolutes. And you can ignore the problems of rectifying quantum physics with relativity. But it really is all relative. And you ignoring the true problems of what you post, and your posting with false authority is very unbecoming.

So. I guess your first choice is to pick quantum physics or relativity. Then whatever you pick, rectify time with the other theory.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

So. Are you going to argue the quantum physics model of time and rectify it with the relativistic model of time?

Or you going to argue spacetime, which “ still governed by the laws of physics and entirely predictable in its manifestations,” and rectify it with the quantum model of time?

a reply to: neutronflux
What is the point of arguing over 'theories'?
Why not look with the eyes and hear with the ears?

Have you ever seen or heard anything that is not present?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
What is the point of arguing over 'theories'?
Why not look with the eyes and hear with the ears?

Have you ever seen or heard anything that is not present?

How do you land on the moon again without knowing it’s location in space and time?

How do you define the speed of light without time?

What is the name of that theory again where time is totally drop from existence, with no modeling of time? Vs how time is modeled in relativity, or how time is modeled in quantum physics.

Time is part of this reality. Is that false.

a reply to: AquaAscending


Nice Post.
As for time, now is the time, and in this construct the only time that matters is now.

a reply to: neutronflux
Forget it.
You are not answering my questions so why should I even consider yours.

Go back to your flat earth threads.
This is not the science forum

a reply to: neutronflux
What does the word reality mean?
It means what actually exists.

What actually exists?

Only this that actually is.

Time is an idea that happens now.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
What does the word reality mean?
It means what actually exists.

What actually exists?

Only this that actually is.

Time is an idea that happens now.

I would think being able to launch a probe to land on Jupiter’s moon Europa at a given point in space at a given point in time would be a very real event? Or at least as real as you posting a comment in a point in time? And if your post is not real, delete your post from time?

a reply to: neutronflux
What is real?
Is it what can be seen, heard, tasted or touched?
Can you touch or see or hear the past or future?
Or is future and past just words appearing presently?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
What is real?

Again

I would think being able to launch a probe to land on Jupiter’s moon Europa at a given point in space at a given point in time would be a very real event? Or at least as real as you posting a comment in a point in time? And if your post is not real, delete your post from time?

a reply to: Itisnowagain


What is the name of that theory again where time is totally dropped from existence, with no modeling of time? Vs how time is modeled in relativity, or how time is modeled in quantum physics.

Time is part of this reality. Is that false.

a reply to: neutronflux
Can you see or hear or touch the past or future...... or are past and future just words appearing presently?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Itisnowagain


What is the name of that theory again where time is totally dropped from existence, with no modeling of time? Vs how time is modeled in relativity, or how time is modeled in quantum physics.

Time is part of this reality. Is that false.

Theories and models are not fact btw.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Itisnowagain


What is the name of that theory again where time is totally dropped from existence, with no modeling of time? Vs how time is modeled in relativity, or how time is modeled in quantum physics.

Time is part of this reality. Is that false.

Theories and models are not fact btw.

Do you have an actual theory backed by actual experimentation concerning time? Or do you have your own self important opinion backed by no credible experimentation? So, in other words your just BS’n?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: neutronflux
Can you see or hear or touch the past or future...... or are past and future just words appearing presently?

Are you talking quantum physics or relativity?

a reply to: neutronflux
Neither....
You are not in a science forum!