A SIMPLE EXPLANATION of why TIME TRAVEL doesn't work

by Terry 81 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  stevenyc

  Jeffro: Who is Jethro?
  
  Well my friend, that would be ... uh ... the wine?!?!?
  
  steve
• 

  Jeffro

  Demonstrated when and where?

  Einstein mathematically proved that time is relative to the observer and speed. His theory was then demonstrated with atomic clocks and jets.
  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/hotsciencetwin/

  I am familiar with Einstein's work. That is not proof of travel "backward and forward" through time. In particular, it has nothing to do with moving backward through time at all. And it only suggests that the forward rate of time can be affected by going really really fast for a really really long time - hardly practical, and not 'time travel' in the colloquial sense.
• 

  stevenyc

  Jeffro, if you had a super-fast vehicle traveling around the plant for say ... 10 years. The clocks on the super-fast vehicle would be some time behind the clocks on the Earth. The time of that vehicle would be behind the time of the planet. If you had been watching this vehicle from the Earth for ten years, and then jumped up and into the vehicle, the "correct" calendar date would be BEFORE the calendar date you just left. You would have gone back in time. If the person flying that super-fast vehicle came back to earth, the "correct" calendar date on Earth would show a date in the future.
  
  That is time travel.
  
  steve
• 

  skyking

  I have not read the post before me. I have to say scientist have already prove time travel and had done it. They put an atomic clock on a jet plane and then went for a ride. Guess what time the clock on the plane speed up slightly.

  The universe never dissolved and then reassembled. I am still a live and so are you. So there is one huge hole in your theory, Man has already done it.
• 

  stevenyc

  skyking, the clock on the jet actually was behind the clock on the Earth. The jet clock was relatively slower, but on the jet, the clock was absolutely perfect (at least as much as was humanly possible).
  
  The faster we move, the slower time gets. If we travel at the speed of light, time pretty much stops. Because we can't go faster than light, we can't reverse time, however, we can go forward or backward in time depending on the observer.
  
  Then there is the event horizon of a black hole. The point at which the gravity of the black hole is so intense that light i pulled in. If light were to accelerate at this point (which is impossible) then the photons would be going back in time, but at a different point in space.
  
  
  steve
  
  P.S. at this point I think I'm gonna pass the bong to someone else. I've started the 'talkies'
• 

  Jeffro

  Jeffro, if you had a super-fast vehicle traveling around the plant for say ... 10 years.

  That's one big plant!

  The clocks on the super-fast vehicle would be some time behind the clocks on the Earth. The time of that vehicle would be behind the time of the planet. If you had been watching this vehicle from the Earth for ten years, and then jumped up and into the vehicle, the "correct" calendar date would be BEFORE the calendar date you just left. You would have gone back in time. If the person flying that super-fast vehicle came back to earth, the "correct" calendar date on Earth would show a date in the future.

  Aside from the simplification of 'jumping up into the vehicle', which would also require a significant amount of time to get to, even if you boarded the ship and it displayed a time that is prior to the observer's time, you are still there now. You are not observing past events, for which some future had already occurred, irrespective of from where those events are observed. Additionally, it remains unproven whether it is actually time that has progressed at a different rate, or whether the speed of the ship has affected the motion of the particles on board so that time appears to be going at a different rate because the particles of matter used to measure it are moving at a different rate(relative to the ship).
  

  That is time travel.

  No, it isn't.
• 

  stevenyc

  Jeffro, yep it is a big plant.
  
  
  It is time travel from the OBSERVERS point of view. I'm not saying it currently is a practicable vacation possibility, but it has been demonstrated and true.
  
  steve
• 

  Jeffro

  It is time travel from the OBSERVERS point of view. I'm not saying it currently is a practicable vacation possibility, but it has been demonstrated and true.

  At its absolute best, it's an extremely expensive parlour trick. It has only been demonstrated that matter (hence any onboard device used to measure time) inside an accelerated vessel moves more slowly relative to the vessel. The fact that when the ship comes back to Earth, it arrives in the present of both the ship and the observer rather than some time in the actual past indicates that time travel has not actually occurred.
• 

  stevenyc

  OK, this is the last hit on the bong, and then I'm done for tonight.
  
  The plant is real - really - really big and has billions of people living on it
  
  You are in a domino for ten years, flying around the plant in your domino at super-fast speeds
  
  Then you stop your domino and check out the people of the plant
  
  The big observers question would be ..... WHOS RETRO LOOKING !
  
  
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  OK, this is the last hit on the bong, and then I'm done for tonight.
  The plant is real - really - really big and has billions of people living on it

  Well, one thing is clear. There is definitely a plant involved, and someone's been smoking too much of it.

  You are in a domino for ten years, flying around the plant in your domino at super-fast speeds
  Then you stop your domino and check out the people of the plant
  The big observers question would be ..... WHOS RETRO LOOKING !

  Yes, because geeks who fly around plants in dominos are usually soooooo up-to-date with fashion. The observers would have thought the pilot looked retro before he left.