infinite universe?

[promethius]

Quite correct. In fact one reason for the impossibility of time travel being a consideration.

I agree with that. Time travel simply does not work. You can’t travel faster than light, and even if you could nothing is to say that time actually REVERSES at that point. Einstein’s theory is based on the fact that the speed of light is the universal speed limit.

Of course, you could also say that relativistic travel is a form of “time travel”, but by that same logic, we’re ALL time travelers… because we ALL go forward in time.

 

[promethius]

More on Time Dilation debunking:

msu.edu/~willi715/res-pap.htm

Your source is hideously flawed.

A list of errors:

1. time dilation has nothing to do with time travel whatsoever. At least, not unless you consider taking the time to sit and read this post to be time travel as well.
2. All variable velocities create changes in the passage of time. The difference is that at low velocities, the change is minor. The article you linked suggests that time dilation has never been observed. That is patently untrue. NASA has operated radiological clocks, the most time accurate measurement of said dimension known to man, and observed the effects of time dilation.
3. The article also states that we cannot accelerate ANYTHING to relativistic speeds. That is simply not the case. Muons, as in the experiment I referenced before, ARE traveling at relativistic speeds.
4. The article cites the flawed “twins” thought experiment. The problem with the twins thought experiment is that it’s shoddy thought. The spaceship IS different from the earth… it ACCELERATES. The effects of acceleration and jerk play a major part. For example, the acceleration is exactly the reason that the speed of light IS the universal speed limit. Light in the form of photons DOES travel at the speed of light, and has imaginary mass. How can it do this? because photons are created ALREADY traveling at the speed of light. There is no acceleration. Thus far, however, that appears to be a unique case. Hence, acceleration is a major factor in the experiment.
5. the article then fails to differentiate between the base difference that divides a dimension and its measurements and vectors. Example: he states that if we have an object we can easily observe and measure its dimensions, height, width, length, etc. He then goes on to imply that time did not exist before human perception. This simply is not the case. What didn’t exist is UNITS OF MEASUREMENT. in other words, the idea that the box could be independently measured BEFORE the existence of humans is preposterous… does he really expect me to believe that while the idea of “one second” didn’t exist, that meters did? There’s a fundamental difference between a physical property and the HUMAN measurement of that property. There is the supposition that time has no physical form as well… this is ridiculous. Of course it doesn’t, it’s a DIMENSION. Length has no physical form either. Dimensions give us a means to measure properties of physical forms. He even goes so far as to state that TIME was invented by FARMERS. Laughable. Do we really believe that pre-agricultural hunter gatherers existed with NO passage of time whatsoever? A for effort, F for stupidity.
6. incorrectly applies the Einstein example of time as a string. Einstein never stated or even implied that all moments of time exist all at once. If you don’t know what the man is saying, you shouldn’t try to tackle his theories…
7. he next presupposes that “time travel” is impossible since it is always the present. This is FINALLY something correct… only it leans on one supposition: that the relativistic traveler somehow jumps forward in time. That is not the case. The relativistic traveler exists at all times. As stated before, relativistic time dilation is only considered as “time travel” in the same way that you are time traveling right now. Further, he has distorted what Paul Davies and Einstein said. Time has three dimensions to it as well, but since human beings only exist in one dimension of time, we’re only able to SEE one dimension of time… the linear forward progression.

to be continued…

 

[promethius]

1. he goes into worthless garbage about relativistic velocity simply slowing the aging process. It’s a waste of space. Obviously some poor student was running too short on their required paper length and filled in the additional space with garbage.
2. fails to recognize that the doppler effect does not apply to light. The speed of light is a universal constant.
3. Incorrectly identifies the Muon experiment as dealing with Mesons, cites unknown confounding variables (there are none) and inaccurately states that the experiment is not accepted by the scientific community. This is not the case. Anyone with a physics degree can confirm that the Muon experiment is WIDELY taught and accepted as proof of time dilation.
4. Misunderstands the relationship of relativistic motion equations to newtons laws of motion. If you calculate the relativistic laws of motion as they approach the limit of quantum activity and enter the more general state, it becomes clear that they state EXACTLY the same thing. Einstein’s equations just more accurately describe the situation than Newton’s… (but they’re a bugger to work out, so physicists still use Newton’s laws for non-relativistic calculation).
5. His sources:

• Sarah Boxer, a biologist on aging (garbage source)
• Paul Chance, a psychologist (garbage source)
• Pat Coyne, an editor of a communications magazine (garbage source)
• Paul Davies, a physicist, whom he misquotes. (In fact, he doesn’t actually take ANYTHING out of Dr Davies works, but rather relies on the unqualified Coyne’s citation. In other words, he cheated on this source… garbage)
• A Calculus book (Garbage source, how did this even relate?)
• Marilyn Snell, a catholic historian (garbage source)
• Alexander Spence, a biologist of human aging (garbage source)
• GK Strother, a physicist, (once again though, he only quotes Strother to highlight the twin experiment and the muon experiment… in reality Strother SUPPORTS time dilation and thinks the Muon experiment was valid. This source is legitimate, but argues against this paper)
• George Zebrowski, a science fiction author (Garbage source!)
  So in all of that, not ONE source worth reading agrees with him.

Honestly, I hope whatever student wrote that peice of filth got an F, unless it was a paper on writing sardonic rejection of good science. Next time cite a source which isn’t filth.

 

[promethius]

Actually no.
In fact Einstein was way off base in his mathematical forumulas.

i suppose since I have the derivation of time dilation sitting in front of me that you can show me either:

1. where that derivation is incorrect OR
2. that you have a contending mathematical derivation which displaces the one for time dilation

to help you out, i’m looking at the boxcar laser version of time dilation derivations. This is the easiest to derive from, and so should be the easiest for you to point out an error (though I don’t believe you’ll be able to)

 

[aball1035]

1. he goes into worthless garbage about relativistic velocity simply slowing the aging process. It’s a waste of space. Obviously some poor student was running too short on their required paper length and filled in the additional space with garbage.
2. fails to recognize that the doppler effect does not apply to light. The speed of light is a universal constant.
3. Incorrectly identifies the Muon experiment as dealing with Mesons, cites unknown confounding variables (there are none) and inaccurately states that the experiment is not accepted by the scientific community. This is not the case. Anyone with a physics degree can confirm that the Muon experiment is WIDELY taught and accepted as proof of time dilation.
4. Misunderstands the relationship of relativistic motion equations to newtons laws of motion. If you calculate the relativistic laws of motion as they approach the limit of quantum activity and enter the more general state, it becomes clear that they state EXACTLY the same thing. Einstein’s equations just more accurately describe the situation than Newton’s… (but they’re a bugger to work out, so physicists still use Newton’s laws for non-relativistic calculation).
5. His sources:

• Sarah Boxer, a biologist on aging (garbage source)
• Paul Chance, a psychologist (garbage source)
• Pat Coyne, an editor of a communications magazine (garbage source)
• Paul Davies, a physicist, whom he misquotes. (In fact, he doesn’t actually take ANYTHING out of Dr Davies works, but rather relies on the unqualified Coyne’s citation. In other words, he cheated on this source… garbage)
• A Calculus book (Garbage source, how did this even relate?)
• Marilyn Snell, a catholic historian (garbage source)
• Alexander Spence, a biologist of human aging (garbage source)
• GK Strother, a physicist, (once again though, he only quotes Strother to highlight the twin experiment and the muon experiment… in reality Strother SUPPORTS time dilation and thinks the Muon experiment was valid. This source is legitimate, but argues against this paper)
• George Zebrowski, a science fiction author (Garbage source!)
  So in all of that, not ONE source worth reading agrees with him.

Honestly, I hope whatever student wrote that peice of filth got an F, unless it was a paper on writing sardonic rejection of good science. Next time cite a source which isn’t filth.

Well, Promethius,
I have a question for you…
Why do people have the “Tiber Swim Team” thing on their signatures? What does it mean?

 

[mapleoak]

More on Time Dilation debunking:

msu.edu/~willi715/res-pap.htm

i suppose since I have the derivation of time dilation sitting in front of me that you can show me either:

1. where that derivation is incorrect OR
2. that you have a contending mathematical derivation which displaces the one for time dilation

to help you out, i’m looking at the boxcar laser version of time dilation derivations. This is the easiest to derive from, and so should be the easiest for you to point out an error (though I don’t believe you’ll be able to)

Apologies, I didn’t realize until now my post above did not come through completely. Therefore what was supposed to be in jest came through as serious.
In any case, I misunderstood this thread to be discussing the possiblilty of time travel through the manipulation of the speed of matter at near light speeds (which if my previous post came through properly, would have clarified that). Sorry.

 

[The_Barbarian]

The Doppler effect does apply to light, but it has nothing at all to do with the speed of light. It has to do with the apparent shift in wavelength, depending on whether the source is moving toward you or away from you.

It is the basis for radar guns used to clock the speed of cars, for example.

 

[mapleoak]

The Doppler effect does apply to light, but it has nothing at all to do with the speed of light. It has to do with the apparent shift in wavelength, depending on whether the source is moving toward you or away from you.

It is the basis for radar guns used to clock the speed of cars, for example.

But time transformation and the Doppler effect are different considerations of light propagation. While the Doppler effect is both a speed and directional or velocity related effect, the constant of light speed is purely a speed related effect.

 

[promethius]

Well, Promethius,
I have a question for you…
Why do people have the “Tiber Swim Team” thing on their signatures? What does it mean?

Tiber swimmers are people who have “crossed the river” into rome… converts to catholicism, if you will

 

[promethius]

But time transformation and the Doppler effect are different considerations of light propagation. While the Doppler effect is both a speed and directional or velocity related effect, the constant of light speed is purely a speed related effect.

Thank you for clarifying. I was trying to mark a difference between red-shift or violet shift and doppler with sound. In red shift, if i were moving away from the planet at extremely high speeds, everything would appear to have shifted towards the red end of the spectrum… but nothing would be appearing to move slower as the article suggested because redshift does NOT cause one to perceive the speed of light any slower.

I guess a better way to say it would have been that doppler effect doesn’t affect light in the same way that it affects sound, which is why we have special names for light’s interaction with moving bodies.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

With Einstein’s bit about gravity telling space where to go, the idea is that the universe is finite, but unbounded. I remember reading an estimate of the size of the universe at 25 billion light-years in circumference. I wouldn’t go betting my house on the accuracy of that estimate, though.

Even if this relationship between gravity and space were completely correct (and some observable evidence bears it out, like light’s path of propagation being curved around gravitational fields), we still don’t have the foggiest notion what gravity or space actually are. Experiments have also shown that Einstein appears to be right about gravity affecting time. But we don’t really know what time is, either.

I certainly wouldn’t put it past God to relate space and time to gravity in order to keep the universe functional as one enormous (or, as he sees it, tiny) ball of matter and energy. Sometimes the elegance in His design is downright comical.

 

[JDaniel]

With Einstein’s bit about gravity telling space where to go, the idea is that the universe is finite, but unbounded. I remember reading an estimate of the size of the universe at 25 billion light-years in circumference. I wouldn’t go betting my house on the accuracy of that estimate, though.

Even if this relationship between gravity and space were completely correct (and some observable evidence bears it out, like light’s path of propagation being curved around gravitational fields), we still don’t have the foggiest notion what gravity or space actually are. Experiments have also shown that Einstein appears to be right about gravity affecting time. But we don’t really know what time is, either.

I certainly wouldn’t put it past God to relate space and time to gravity in order to keep the universe functional as one enormous (or, as he sees it, tiny) ball of matter and energy. Sometimes the elegance in His design is downright comical.

We know what time is. It is not that difficult. Time is the measure of motion. Nothing ethereal about it. Now, physics, relativity, evolution, and clockmakers can dabble in it all they want.

jd

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

We know what time is. It is not that difficult. Time is the measure of motion. Nothing ethereal about it. Now, physics, relativity, evolution, and clockmakers can dabble in it all they want.

jd

Yeah, but time is relative to one’s inertial reference frame. It’s not some great constant that applies equally in all situations. Within a given inertial reference frame, it is simply a fourth dimension to existence. Across reference frames, though, it gets kinda different.

Knowing what something does and knowing what it is are two very different things.

 

[JDaniel]

Yeah, but time is relative to one’s inertial reference frame. It’s not some great constant that applies equally in all situations. Within a given inertial reference frame, it is simply a fourth dimension to existence. Across reference frames, though, it gets kinda different.

Knowing what something does and knowing what it is are two very different things.

You’re saying that time may consist of more than one measurement of motion?

What I am reading and hearing about time dilation is that it is still under widespread debate. I know I’m not sure who to trust.

jd

 

[promethius]

We know what time is. It is not that difficult. Time is the measure of motion. Nothing ethereal about it. Now, physics, relativity, evolution, and clockmakers can dabble in it all they want.

jd

Actually “time” itself is not a measure of anything. Instead it’s a DIMENSION of the physical universe. The increments of measurement for time are seconds.

In other words, time is a fundamental property of existance. Whether or not a system of measuring for it is in place, time is still a dimension of existence.

Meters, Kilograms, and Seconds are measurements. Time, length, width, height are dimensions.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

What I am reading and hearing about time dilation is that it is still under widespread debate. I know I’m not sure who to trust.

Time dilation caused by extreme velocities is difficult to measure, simply because we don’t have a vehicle capable of making long trips at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. There have been some experiments that suggest the accuracy of Einstein’s general and special time-dilation predictions, like one in which muons seemed to decay, or “age” much more slowly at high velocities than standing still. There have also been experiments with clocks in aircraft that show time dilation occurs because of velocity and gravitation potential.

It’s mind-bending stuff, to be sure. An atomic clock flying at high altitude runs faster relative to clocks sitting at see level. On the plane, however, it’s running normally. I remember using the Lorentz Transformation equations to check on the the relativity of time, since it seemed so counter-intuitive. What I found was that I would have to accept light propagating slower than an olympic sprinter if time were a constant.

The experiments I’ve heard about have demonstrated time-dilation to my satisfaction, anyway. The math holds up (as far as it goes, anyway), and the effect appears to be observable and repeatable. I don’t find it shocking or anything; I don’t expect to understand God’s creative process.

Incidentally, it was stated earlier that nothing can exceed the speed of light. Not completely true, in theory. Nothing can accelerate to the speed of light, because an object’s mass increases to a limit of infinity as velocity approaches c. If an object is already moving faster than light (like the theoretical tachyon), there’s no reason to think that it couldn’t stay that way. What that would mean in terms of time-dilation is anybody’s guess. Above the speed of light, the passage of time requires imaginary numbers to represent. There’s no way of knowing what that means.

I’ve heard it postulated, however, that tachyons all travel to a parallel universe where the Cleveland Browns could win the Super Bowl.

 

[JDaniel]

Actually “time” itself is not a measure of anything.

Time is without a doubt the measure of motion. I don’t care what increments you ascribe to it.

Instead it’s a DIMENSION of the physical universe.

Perhaps it is, but, that does not diffuse what it is.

The increments of measurement for time are seconds.

For us.

In other words, time is a fundamental property of existence.

No it’s not. It is extrinsic to the exigency called “existence”. We exist in time, not because of time.

Whether or not a system of measuring for it is in place, time is still a dimension of existence.

Assert away.

Meters, Kilograms, and Seconds are measurements. Time, length, width, height are dimensions.

I agree with only six of your assertions - excluding time.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Time dilation caused by extreme velocities is difficult to measure, simply because we don’t have a vehicle capable of making long trips at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. There have been some experiments that suggest the accuracy of Einstein’s general and special time-dilation predictions, like one in which muons seemed to decay, or “age” much more slowly at high velocities than standing still. There have also been experiments with clocks in aircraft that show time dilation occurs because of velocity and gravitation potential.

Obviously, muons would appear to decay slower when subjected to something approximating the pull of gravity. They are, relatively speaking, heavy particles. Even though we don’t fully understand gravity, we still know what its affects are.

It’s mind-bending stuff, to be sure. An atomic clock flying at high altitude runs faster relative to clocks sitting at see level.

Can you point to an experiment showing these results? I’d like to read about it.

On the plane, however, it’s running normally. I remember using the Lorentz Transformation equations to check on the the relativity of time, since it seemed so counter-intuitive. What I found was that I would have to accept light propagating slower than an olympic sprinter if time were a constant.

I’d love to see these equations as well.

The experiments I’ve heard about have demonstrated time-dilation to my satisfaction, anyway. The math holds up (as far as it goes, anyway), and the effect appears to be observable and repeatable. I don’t find it shocking or anything; I don’t expect to understand God’s creative process.

Nevertheless, nowhere did I state or imply that time was a constant.

Incidentally, it was stated earlier that nothing can exceed the speed of light. Not completely true, in theory. Nothing can accelerate to the speed of light, because an object’s mass increases to a limit of infinity as velocity approaches c. If an object is already moving faster than light (like the theoretical tachyon), there’s no reason to think that it couldn’t stay that way.

It’s always exciting to discuss stuff like this. Photons achieve their speed not from acceleration to it, but, because they are already at that speed. Boggles one’s mind!

What that would mean in terms of time-dilation is anybody’s guess. Above the speed of light, the passage of time requires imaginary numbers to represent. There’s no way of knowing what that means.

Interesting. I understand.

I’ve heard it postulated, however, that tachyons all travel to a parallel universe where the Cleveland Browns could win the Super Bowl.

That is beyond the comprehension of any currently existing human beings regardless of what technology is employed. Sorry.

jd

 

[mapleoak]

You’re saying that time may consist of more than one measurement of motion?

What I am reading and hearing about time dilation is that it is still under widespread debate. I know I’m not sure who to trust.

jd

The debate about time dilation is not so much about the observable effects (which are well proven), but rather whether the observed effects indicate that the actual dimension of time itself is changeable. It is debatable whether the actual time dimension varies for objects relative to each other or that the observed effects only translate to a unit variation in a specified scientically defined concept of time. In other words with time defined as a measurement of motion, there is a definite observed elapsed variation. Does this mean that objects can move further forward into the future relative to another or is it that no matter how many units of measure elapse, relative to other objects, all matter is universally in the ‘present’ state.

 

[mapleoak]

I’ve heard it postulated, however, that tachyons all travel to a parallel universe where the Cleveland Browns could win the Super Bowl.

Sorry, but this defies all scientific logic. It is a pardoxical impossibility.