possible time travel

[Reaper]

All of this is so incredibly simple. It's quite amazing how people' date=' even those who pride themselves on their rationality, can cling to baseless beliefs that have absolutely no evidential support whatsoever.

[/quote']

 

 

You would know all about THAT now wouldn't you .

[Spyman]

Spyman: ... If you doubt me, try showing me some evidence.

Farsight, if you have read through this thread, you must have realised that I am NOT in doubt at all. I have in fact a firm belif that you are wrong, which is an opinion I am fully entitled to have. Further I am in NO WAY obligated to have to show you anything and my ability to support evidence don't affect my faith nor reality.

 

There is two BIG distinctions between personalitys here: First, I can become convinced that I am totally wrong and Secondly, I don't care if others share my opinion or not, I am here to learn not to teach.

 

Thus I am not inclined to waste my time arguing with you.

[Farsight]

Ah, so you can't show me any evidence? Of course you can't. There isn't any. But fine. You believe what you like. You cling on to that faith.

 

Would anybody else like to show me some evidence for possible time travel? Forwards or backwards? No? Because you can't. There isn't any. Don't you get it yet? Has the penny still not dropped after all this time? I demand evidence. You can't give it. Do I have to spell it out?

 

Time travel is crackpot.

[Mr Skeptic]

Ah, so you can't show me any evidence? Of course you can't. There isn't any. But fine. You believe what you like. You cling on to that faith.

 

Would anybody else like to show me some evidence for possible time travel? Forwards or backwards? No? Because you can't. There isn't any. Don't you get it yet? Has the penny still not dropped after all this time? I demand evidence. You can't give it. Do I have to spell it out?

 

Time travel is crackpot.

 

Several theories leave open the possibility of time travel (to the past), under very special circumstances. Now, these are hard to do things, so it is unlikely that we will just find things traveling backward in time. Now, there are three possibilities here:

1) time travel is possible but difficult

2) the specific circumstances allowing for time travel are, in fact, impossible to attain

3) the allowance for time travel is a bug in the theories

 

Now I personally don't believe in time travel, so I think that either 2) or 3) are true. But since I have no evidence that time travel is impossible, I cannot say this for sure. So that is just my opinion.

 

Farsight, do you have evidence to support your position that time travel is impossible? I can point out lots of things that are possible but have never happened. Just because you haven't seen something happen doesn't mean its not possible.

[Spyman]

I demand evidence.

LOL - Or else ...

 

 

 

Farsight, do you have evidence to support your position that time travel is impossible?

Farsight is not talking about movie time travel, he doesn't belive that we move forward in time at all.

Yes, we say "time flows", but it simply doesn't.

 

 

 

Now I personally don't believe in time travel

Time travel as in movies or time travel as my opinion (below) or time travel as Farsights (above) or ... ?

I view spacetime in 4D, there is motion of objects between all four types of coordinates, both in space and time.

[Farsight]

Several theories leave open the possibility of time travel (to the past), under very special circumstances. Now, these are hard to do things, so it is unlikely that we will just find things traveling backward in time. Now, there are three possibilities here:

1) time travel is possible but difficult

2) the specific circumstances allowing for time travel are, in fact, impossible to attain

3) the allowance for time travel is a bug in the theories

 

Now I personally don't believe in time travel, so I think that either 2) or 3) are true. But since I have no evidence that time travel is impossible, I cannot say this for sure. So that is just my opinion.

 

Farsight, do you have evidence to support your position that time travel is impossible? I can point out lots of things that are possible but have never happened. Just because you haven't seen something happen doesn't mean its not possible.

Yes. Time dilation, as evidenced by various clock experiments and the GPS clock frequency adjustment. We know that time dilation is actually measured. We can thus be confident that we will observe it within other more difficult experiments such as the "twins paradox" and the "hammer and the nail" aka "the train and the tunnel". We can then be confident that events A and B can suffer from a simultaneity reversal and can be deemed to occur in sequence B A by some suitable oberver. This means that the "time" between A and B is subjective rather than objective, so time isn't something real that you can travel through, and it isn't something that's actually "flowing" from both A to B and from B to A.

 

LOL - Or else ...

 

It's not like that. I demand evidence before I am of the opinion that some theory or model looks correct, and I keep an open mind about any further evidence that will further shape my view.

 

You demand no evidence before you "believe" in something, and then you won't listen to evidence of the contrary.

 

Spot the difference?

 

No, I do not believe that we move forward in time at all. And you can't show me any evidence that we do. We move through space. Not time. We employ our motion through space to derive an abstract dimension called time, which is a dimension in that it is a measure. But if offers no freedom of movement, and we can not in fact move through it. I'll say it again: we move through space.

[Spyman]

You demand no evidence before you "believe" in something, and then you won't listen to evidence of the contrary.

Read my Post#52.

 

If you have any questions regarding the interpretation of it's contents, please ask...

(Because obviously you failed to understand everything in it.)

[Edtharan]

No, I do not believe that we move forward in time at all. And you can't show me any evidence that we do.

The phrasing of that statement indicates that even if we could find evidence of time travel you would not accept it. So what would the point be of us even attempting to give you evidence?

 

I demand evidence before I am of the opinion that some theory or model looks correct

How about indirect evidence? If there was some phenomena that we could measure, that was not time travel, but it relied on the assumptions that our current model of time is correct and that, that model allowed time travel in certain circumstances, would you accept that as evidence?

 

Well, if you will accept that indirect evidence then I give you the evidence of Light and how it bends in a gravitational field.

 

For light to behave as it does in a gravitational field, space must be curved into a 4th dimension and that dimension must act as a time dimension. According to all observations made on the behaviour of light within a gravitational field, this has to be the way it really is, otherwise light would not follow the path it does in a gravitational field, it would curve either more or less than it does.

 

You demand no evidence before you "believe" in something

I require evidence before I will accept something. I also require evidence to stop believing in something too. The reason being is that before you dismiss something as false, you should have reason to believe that it is false. You have provided no correct evidence for us to not accept the current theory of time (which there is evidence for, just not direct evidence), and neither have you provided any evidence that your alternative is correct.

 

So, by your own claim: we should not just accept something without any evidence for it. I challenge you to present evidence that the current theory is incorrect before we accept that it is incorrect.

 

Ah, so you can't show me any evidence? Of course you can't.

We have multiple times, but you don't seem to accept it. Why is that?

 

My evidence:

1) Light curves by a specific and predictable amount in a gravitational field.

 

2) This can only be explained if space is curved into the 4th dimension and that dimension is actually Time. If it is only space that is distorted (twisted), then either the gravitational field will be too strong or weak (this is why Newtonian gravity has been shown to be incorrect - among other reasons), or the Light would curve by different amounts (or not at all).

 

Can you come up with an explanation that gives as accurate a result for the curvature of light in a gravitational field as the current theory. If not, then your alternative can't be correct as it would be giving results that differ to reality.

 

I know that as part of your presented alternative you have proposed that the velocity of Light needs to be variable, but this has knock on effects over a large swathe of physics. If light could have a variable speed, then calculations like the amount of energy released by matter/antimatter annihilations would be different for different observers, or many other effects which have not been observed (which means that if any alternative requires it then the alternative has to be incorrect).

[Mr Skeptic]

No, I do not believe that we move forward in time at all. And you can't show me any evidence that we do. We move through space. Not time. We employ our motion through space to derive an abstract dimension called time, which is a dimension in that it is a measure. But if offers no freedom of movement, and we can not in fact move through it. I'll say it again: we move through space.

 

Well, my device for measuring changes in time says I am moving forward in the time dimension at a rate of one second per second. Tick, tock, tick, tock.

 

a link, make of it what you will:

[Mwatersupci]

Another reason why we need faith for science. Sometimes the irrational is actually rational, Moderation in all things. In my oppinon Time is Like Space. Just a different aspect of the same thing. It can go forward or backward depending on which way your faceing.