159 replies to this topic

[StarMountainKid]

HerNibs said:

There is no "there" to go to and nothing to observe unless I'm leaving an infinite number of Xerox copies of myself behind me every nanosecond.

I think you are, but this seems to be a minority view of one.

[keninsc]

You know Nibs, if you aren't willing to explore a different idea then it's all going to remain the same for you.

That's not intended to be a dig, put down or bashing, although it could sound like it. I'm just saying you're completely locked into this whole the past doesn't exist and the future is the same thing, and please keep in mind that it's a perfectly legitimate position to hold since the subject is one that only exists in theory.......and some movies.

However, if you're going to hold a singleness of mind then the discussions aren't going to really take off.

Just saying.

Edited by keninsc, 04 January 2013 - 10:04 PM.

[HerNibs]

keninsc, on 04 January 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

You know Nibs, if you are willing to explore a different idea then it's all going to remain the same for you.

That's not intended to be a dig, put down or bashing, although it could sound like it. I'm just saying you're completely locked into this whole the past doesn't exist and the future is the same thing, and please keep in mind that it's a perfectly legitimate position to hold since the subject is one that only exists in theory.......and some movies.

However, if you're going to hold a singleness of mind then the discussions aren't going to really take off.

Just saying.

Not being singleminded at all.  (IMO)  Just a simple logistical question.

Time travel to where and what would be there?

I think this would have to be answered prior to any one actually attempting to time travel.

Basically the answer would be "Step 1".  Most people discussing time travel seem to head right to "Step 3"

Nibs

[HerNibs]

To put it another way -

If I'm going to travel to London I'm going to be sure that London actually exists before I leave.

How I get there and what I do when I arrive would be the next steps.

Nibs

[keninsc]

I completely get what you're saying, but what is this London? Place you speak of, I'm at a complete loss.

[HerNibs]

keninsc, on 04 January 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

I completely get what you're saying, but what is this London? Place you speak of, I'm at a complete loss.

  I read about it in a book about Harry Potter.  Since it's in a book, it must be real.

Nibs

[keninsc]

Ok, I'll have to get this book and read up on this place then.

[NiteMarcher]

The title of this first video below may fool you, but there is a part concerning possible time travel--problem is, you'll have to watch the whole movie to get to the main part of interest.  The movie overall, I found to be quite interesting.  One of the photos in this documentary, also reminded me of a description and photo shown by Phillip Corso Jr, who also discussed the possibility of time travel.




P. Corso documentary (10 min) :

[joc]

I've been thinking more about Gravity warping Space and Time...[deal with it or not... ]

I am just going to go along for a moment with the conventional thinking that Space/Time 'warps' with gravitational pulls.

So, the question is...and this does have to do with time travel...what if Space is already warped and it is this 'warpedness' of space that causes Gravity to begin with?   If that were the case, then time events could be readily predicted by those who could 'interpret' the warp.  (by whatever means they had to be able to do that...pyramids, whatever).  Because the Warps were constant...Time lines would be 'fixed' and the only thing really changing would be the 'substance', i.e. matter, light, etc. of the Universe, as it was swirled into the Warps.  One might be able then to traverse the 'warp' in the opposite direction or speed up on the 'warp' (think of it as a highway that never changes) to get ahead of the rest of the matter.  If you 'slowed down' and were then behind the time line, you would be in the past...speeding up on the Warp Highway, would put you in the future.
<back to my regularly scheduled sanity>

[StarMountainKid]

HerNibs said:

f I'm going to travel to London I'm going to be sure that London actually exists before I leave.

If I may interject myself into this conversation...Good point. We must know the past exists before we even consider building a time machine.  Put another way, the past must exist for our time machine to exist. If the past does not exist, the technology to construct a time machine does not exist.

One reason I think the past does exist is, there is no universal 'now' in the universe, even between individual people in ordinary circumstances. . If you and I are walking in the park, and you are walking a little faster than I am, your 'now' is different than mine.

It's the old twins paradox, you can skip this, but there is a reason I repeat it here.

In an extreme example, you on earth and me traveling in a space ship accelerating from the earth and approaching the speed of light, from my perspective in the space ship my clock is ticking slower than your clock on earth. From my perspective, your clock on earth is ticking faster than my clock. Our 'now's' do not coincide. Your 'now' at any given moment will be in my future, my 'now' at any given moment will be in your past.

When I decelerate and land back on earth, more time will have passed on earth than on my space ship. I have only been in my space ship for one year, but when I land twenty years will have passed on earth.

Now, if time does not exist, what allows for this temporal discrepancy? If time does not exist, no past, no future, only change representing the eternal present, how can we explain the above situation?

As a thought experiment, In my space ship, because of time dilation,if my present moment is in your past on earth, and I look down and observe you, while for you on earth that moment I am watching you has already occurred in your past, does not your past exist for me to observe it?

Edited by StarMountainKid, 05 January 2013 - 02:43 AM.

[joc]

StarMountainKid, on 05 January 2013 - 02:39 AM, said:

If I may interject myself into this conversation...Good point. We must know the past exists before we even consider building a time machine.  Put another way, the past must exist for our time machine to exist. If the past does not exist, the technology to construct a time machine does not exist.

One reason I think the past does exist is, there is no universal 'now' in the universe, even between individual people in ordinary circumstances. . If you and I are walking in the park, and you are walking a little faster than I am, your 'now' is different than mine.

It's the old twins paradox, you can skip this, but there is a reason I repeat it here.

In an extreme example, you on earth and me traveling in a space ship accelerating from the earth and approaching the speed of light, from my perspective in the space ship my clock is ticking slower than your clock on earth. From my perspective, your clock on earth is ticking faster than my clock. Our 'now's' do not coincide. Your 'now' at any given moment will be in my future, my 'now' at any given moment will be in your past.

When I decelerate and land back on earth, more time will have passed on earth than on my space ship. I have only been in my space ship for one year, but when I land twenty years will have passed on earth.

Now, if time does not exist, what allows for this temporal discrepancy? If time does not exist, no past, no future, only change representing the eternal present, how can we explain the above situation?

As a thought experiment, In my space ship, because of time dilation,if my present moment is in your past on earth, and I look down and observe you, while for you on earth that moment I am watching you has already occurred in your past, does not your past exist for me to observe it?

Instead of using the example of you accelerating to near the speed of light...let's use the example of light itself.  If our Sun suddenly burned out...we wouldn't have a clue for 8 minutes.  So, if you were riding on that last beam of light from the sun...your perspective would be: omg, the sun is gone as you looked behind you...eight minutes later I would be omg, why is it so dark and cold?  But both perspectives are existing at the same time.  Again, you cannot ride that beam of light back to the sun before it burned out.  It isn't there anymore.  Unless that is a fixed point...unless Time is a fixed point and every single thing that happens is happening all the time on it's own point.  I just don't see it.

[keninsc]

[joc]

Edited by joc, 05 January 2013 - 04:06 PM.

[keninsc]

I thought Joc didn't think time was real at all?

[joc]

keninsc, on 06 January 2013 - 02:31 AM, said:

I thought Joc didn't think time was real at all?

joc, on 05 January 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

What joc said was, Time is a measurement...hence, the ruler.
Reality is an interesting thing and it is different to every person.  What about the rest of the Animal Kingdom Keninsc?
Do they consider time?  They live totally in the moment.  They have no concept of time passing.  Maybe my dog anticipates me returning I don't know...but it isn't the same conceptualization of Time that we have.  We are aware of the difference of things.  We measure everything...how fast, how slow, how long, how short, how light, how heavy...humans are obsessed with measurements.
We measure everything...and the measurement of speed involves Time calculations.  We have an illusive obsession with Time.  One cannot really put ones finger on what Time actually is...and so...I say it is a measurement and nothing more.  If anyone can put their finger on what Time actually was...then one might be able to have an intelligent conversation on the Traversing of Time back and forth.  But no one can, you can't, I can't.  It is like putting your finger exactly on when Now is.