Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Stopping Time?

seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2012 10:32:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Would it theoretically be possible to vibrate your atoms at a significant fraction of the speed of light in a way so that you don't fall apart and then slow down or stop time?
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2012 11:26:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/22/2012 10:32:19 AM, seraine wrote:
Would it theoretically be possible to vibrate your atoms at a significant fraction of the speed of light in a way so that you don't fall apart and then slow down or stop time?

Without boiling yourself? I doubt it. Also, internal motion and external motion are perhaps different concepts. If all your atoms are vibrating near c and you are not moving very fast as a whole, then I don't believe you, as a whole, are going to experience time dilation and the whole bit.
Rob
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2012 4:40:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/22/2012 10:32:19 AM, seraine wrote:
Would it theoretically be possible to vibrate your atoms at a significant fraction of the speed of light in a way so that you don't fall apart and then slow down or stop time?

To go a bit further....

Speed of atoms has another name. Heat. To Slow down time significantlyll, yoy need the atoms to move very near c, this is the same as being incredibly hot. Your atoms would behave a bit like those in a particle accelerator :)

If you wanted to slow down, or stop time, you can just fly near the speed of light. It is achievable, theoretically, and does not have the nasty side effects of death and disintegration.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 3:21:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/22/2012 10:32:19 AM, seraine wrote:
Would it theoretically be possible to vibrate your atoms at a significant fraction of the speed of light in a way so that you don't fall apart and then slow down or stop time?

Atomic vibration is the source of strong atomic force. It is essentially a codifier for how the atom intermingles with other atoms, and what they manifest as.

Atomic vibrations don't have a speed; they have a frequency.

The relativity to which you're referring is directional speed -- in other words, one need be moving in either a straight line or a consistent curve, rather than oscillating.

Of course, moving in a curve with add further dynamics that have its own affect on relativity distinct from moving in a straight line.

On this note -- you do realize that all of the electrons orbiting your atoms are moving at the speed of light? And, in fact, that may have some bearing on your conception of time -- it is actually a fact that time moves slower, the more massive an object is.

In other words, time on Earth is slower than time for a satellite orbiting Earth, due to the Earth's mass.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2012 7:14:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Time is a perception. If you hit the big pause button on the Cosmic remote, there would still be time.

Like it was said earlier, slowing down the movement of molecules would effect temperature more than time.

Matter takes a very interesting form when frozen close to absolute zero.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2012 4:40:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/23/2012 7:14:01 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Time is a perception. If you hit the big pause button on the Cosmic remote, there would still be time.

Like it was said earlier, slowing down the movement of molecules would effect temperature more than time.

Matter takes a very interesting form when frozen close to absolute zero.

"Time perception" is one thing and "time" the physical property is another. Do not confuse the two. If you hit the pause button on the "Cosmic remote" then there would NOT be any time. This is true by definition alone. Furthermore, there is no way that you can prove that time is elapsing if you hit the "Cosmic remote"; ergo, it is not.

I agree that increasing the speed (vibration) of your molecules & atoms will simply increase your temperature and not do much for you in the way of time.

Someone earlier mentioned the Strong Nuclear force. This has nothing to do with heat or the vibration of atoms & molecules as this is governed by the Electromagnetic Force. The Strong nuclear force is confined to the nucleus of an atom and is EXTREMELY far away from any orbiting electrons.

And I agree, it is quite interesting to see what happens to matter as it cools to (close to) absolute zero! Look up Einstein-Bose Condensate. What happens when you cool say 10 atoms to very near absolute zero? They form 1 super atom! There ceases to be distinction between individual atoms! But you can never quite reach absolute zero because the environment always leaks in! There is of course one way to reach absolute zero...when the entire Universe reaches it!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:30:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/22/2012 10:32:19 AM, seraine wrote:
Would it theoretically be possible to vibrate your atoms at a significant fraction of the speed of light in a way so that you don't fall apart and then slow down or stop time?

We could never stop time.... never.. ever... ever..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2012 4:34:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/4/2012 4:30:19 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 1/22/2012 10:32:19 AM, seraine wrote:
Would it theoretically be possible to vibrate your atoms at a significant fraction of the speed of light in a way so that you don't fall apart and then slow down or stop time?

We could never stop time.... never.. ever... ever..

I could prove this may in a personal message.. But a brother has to make a living.

The Fool..... in a plane..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 9:32:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I can't really see it being possible to stop time. If time was stopped, no one could tell. If someone could perceive it, there would still be time.

Now, if you did freeze time miraculously, and you were the only thing not frozen.. you would immediately die. You wouldn't be able to breathe, and it would effect the amount of pressure being put on your body. You'd also probably overheat because there is no way for any energy to transfer out of your body. You would not be able to move.

Now, even if you could somehow avoid these problems, you wouldn't be able to perceive anything around you.if time stops, so does vibration, and we sense the world entirely through vibration.

Stopping time would be physically impossible and definitely impractical. Absolute zero is probably the closest you can get to stopping time.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2012 3:38:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 9:32:13 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I can't really see it being possible to stop time. If time was stopped, no one could tell. If someone could perceive it, there would still be time.

Now, if you did freeze time miraculously, and you were the only thing not frozen.. you would immediately die. You wouldn't be able to breathe, and it would effect the amount of pressure being put on your body. You'd also probably overheat because there is no way for any energy to transfer out of your body. You would not be able to move.

Now, even if you could somehow avoid these problems, you wouldn't be able to perceive anything around you.if time stops, so does vibration, and we sense the world entirely through vibration.

Stopping time would be physically impossible and definitely impractical. Absolute zero is probably the closest you can get to stopping time.

Relativity, my friend.

Relativity.

The perception of inertial frames by the observer.

That makes it possible for time to stop for you, but not for anyone else. How does this distinguish from a hallucination, for example, you say? Because, you literally would not age.

So, is perpetual motion the source of immortality? Perhaps, but what's living if you can't stop for a moment and live it?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 1:41:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/5/2012 9:32:13 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I can't really see it being possible to stop time.
In order to even begin to answer that question, one must define time first. How do you define time?

If time was stopped, no one could tell. If someone could perceive it, there would still be time.
Clearly true. But again: you nee to define it before we can even begin to conceive of how to stop it.

Now, if you did freeze time miraculously, and you were the only thing not frozen.
Then you didn't freeze time. This is a paradox or a contradiction that you are pondering here. As such, anything goes because it is simply an exercise in fantasy.

Stopping time would be physically impossible and definitely impractical. Absolute zero is probably the closest you can get to stopping time.
In order to make these statements (which you contradict yourself in above), we need to know what we're talking about here: i.e. a definition for time. I actually agree with your last statement: Absolute zero is the end of time!

The only way to reach absolute zero is for the Universe to reach absolute zero, otherwise the environment will leak in. If the Universe reached absolute zero (heat exhaustion) then there is nothing outside to leak in! There is no outside of everything. This state is called the Omega State. In the Omega State, the Universe is completely full and an undivided whole where all is one and one is all! At this state there is no time because all of the time in the Universe has been used up.

Similarly, if you were to reach light speed, then time would stop for you because you will have used up all of YOUR available time in the Universe. However, relative to others you will simply be observed as traveling at c. This I assume is not what you mean by stopping time: I assume you mean stopping time in ALL frames of reference. Hence your use of "Cosmic Remote Control."
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 5:21:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So what exactly are we disagreeing on?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 7:06:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 5:21:39 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
So what exactly are we disagreeing on?

The fact that, scientifically speaking, if you were to stop time, you literally must be moving and thus, couldn't be frozen.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 9:44:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 7:06:52 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/8/2012 5:21:39 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
So what exactly are we disagreeing on?

The fact that, scientifically speaking, if you were to stop time, you literally must be moving and thus, couldn't be frozen.

eh.. to much pride to ask a Fool eh. pride is blinding.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 10:50:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 9:44:53 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/8/2012 7:06:52 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/8/2012 5:21:39 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
So what exactly are we disagreeing on?

The fact that, scientifically speaking, if you were to stop time, you literally must be moving and thus, couldn't be frozen.

eh.. to much pride to ask a Fool eh. pride is blinding.

You met Freedo? Potential soulmate, methinks. It just so happens that he's been about lately, too...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 1:14:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 7:06:52 PM, Ren wrote:
At 2/8/2012 5:21:39 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
So what exactly are we disagreeing on?

The fact that, scientifically speaking, if you were to stop time, you literally must be moving and thus, couldn't be frozen.

I thought I stated this clearly.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 1:50:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am here, I like to be asked, questions.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 4:32:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 5:21:39 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
So what exactly are we disagreeing on?
Didn't you say it's not possible?

I can't really see it being possible to stop time.
It's possible for time to stop, it all depends how you define time.

I ask again: How do you define time?

Stopping time in ALL frames of reference is possible through heat exhaustion of the Universe. Stopping time in specific reference frames is also possible by traveling at c.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 5:26:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The later can't really be tested as thoroughly as we'd like.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 8:10:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 4:32:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/8/2012 5:21:39 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
So what exactly are we disagreeing on?
Didn't you say it's not possible?

I can't really see it being possible to stop time.
It's possible for time to stop, it all depends how you define time.

I ask again: How do you define time?

Stopping time in ALL frames of reference is possible through heat exhaustion of the Universe. Stopping time in specific reference frames is also possible by traveling at c.

It's possible for time to stop, it all depends how you define time

anything is possible if it depend on how you define. it. lol ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 11:45:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 5:26:50 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The later can't really be tested as thoroughly as we'd like.

Bosons are just the big stars of this forum over the last week, aren't they?

Anyway, thanks to the Hadron Collider and study on Bosons, that proposal has been rather thoroughly tested. It was one of the first things we tested, given the primary thing it can do is accelerate subatomic particles like bosons to speeds close enough to C that they begin acting funny -- with quantum jumps and whatnot -- that confirm relativity.

However, that's to satisfy your "thorough" qualifier. Because, regarding simply testing, we've long since done that with atomic clocks at high speeds (although not speeds so close to C), which likewise confirmed relativity of inertial frames.

I mean, it makes sense; our brains work using electrical impulses and we can only perceive reality at 40 frames per second. Accordingly, both relativistic and generalized time can be altered, or in other words, time can be altered both perceptively and actually.

Because, as I said before, it can even affect aging.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2012 11:47:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/12/2012 8:10:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/10/2012 4:32:01 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/8/2012 5:21:39 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
So what exactly are we disagreeing on?
Didn't you say it's not possible?

I can't really see it being possible to stop time.
It's possible for time to stop, it all depends how you define time.

I ask again: How do you define time?

Stopping time in ALL frames of reference is possible through heat exhaustion of the Universe. Stopping time in specific reference frames is also possible by traveling at c.

It's possible for time to stop, it all depends how you define time

anything is possible if it depend on how you define. it. lol ;)

Given the actual definition of actual time, no, not anything is possible. For example, we can't transcend any meaningful duration of time forward (that isn't comparable to the rate at which it is already moving), and we certainly can't travel a moment back.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 5:50:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
: At 2/10/2012 5:26:50 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The later can't really be tested as thoroughly as we'd like.
Sure it can, a photon travels at c. Ergo, a photon experiences a timeless existence! Granted WE cannot experience a timeless existence, but then again that's a contradiction so it's not possible. Experience requires time: if there is no time then experience has no meaning. It becomes undefined.

******************************
: At 2/12/2012 8:10:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
It's possible for time to stop, it all depends how you define time
Yes, that is what I said.

anything is possible if it depend on how you define. it. lol ;)
If one defines a contradiction, it is still not possible. (However, a contradiction lacks definition!) The point I am making is for the person to DEFINE time.

**********************************
: At 2/12/2012 11:47:22 AM, Ren wrote:
Given the actual definition of actual time, no, not anything is possible.
He meant as long as one defines something properly, it is possible in the strictest sense. In other words, so long as there are no contradictions, it is possible.

For example, we can't transcend any meaningful duration of time forward (that isn't comparable to the rate at which it is already moving)...
Huh? Are you saying that Time Dilation does not occur?

...and we certainly can't travel a moment back.
Strictly speaking, there is nothing in physics that says that it's not possible. But again, it depends how you define time. In physics, time is not really defined it's operationally defined (defined by how it's measured but not what it is.)

I propose the following definition of time: time = change. In other words, the progression of time IS change in any physical system. If there is no change, there is no time. This is has the benefit of being true! Given any physical system, if there is no change to it one CANNOT show that time has elapsed, ERGO time has not elapsed.

As you can see with this definition, time is not something that you "travel": one does not travel change. Another benefit to this definition is that it makes the concept of "time travel to the past" a contradiction! This would then show that time travel to IS indeed impossible. Why? Because you can have more "change" (time going faster), less "change" (time going slower), or no "change" (time stopping); but you CANNOT have "negative change" as that is a meaningless concept (i.e. a contradiction). And thus time travel to the past is not possible!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 5:57:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/13/2012 5:50:55 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:

For example, we can't transcend any meaningful duration of time forward (that isn't comparable to the rate at which it is already moving)...
Huh? Are you saying that Time Dilation does not occur?

No. I worded that very specifically. I said that we can't travel any meaningful duration of time forward. In other words, you cannot jump ahead 1000 years to see what's going on here on Earth within your lifetime. You will never have enough time to travel at the highest speed man can achieve in a vehicle. Although time dilation does occur, the extent to which we've empirically experienced time dilation is tantamount to the splash you'd make from bellyflopping in the middle of the Pacific ocean.

...and we certainly can't travel a moment back.
Strictly speaking, there is nothing in physics that says that it's not possible. But again, it depends how you define time. In physics, time is not really defined it's operationally defined (defined by how it's measured but not what it is.)

We cannot travel a moment back in the real force (and possibly, dimension) that we know as time.

.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 6:09:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/13/2012 5:57:32 PM, Ren wrote:
No. I worded that very specifically. I said that we can't travel any meaningful duration of time forward. In other words, you cannot jump ahead 1000 years to see what's going on here on Earth within your lifetime. You will never have enough time to travel at the highest speed man can achieve in a vehicle. Although time dilation does occur, the extent to which we've empirically experienced time dilation is tantamount to the splash you'd make from bellyflopping in the middle of the Pacific ocean.
Yes, but these are TECHNOLOGICAL limitations not PHYSICAL limitations.

We cannot travel a moment back in the real force (and possibly, dimension) that we know as time.
I agree, but for different reasons. Like I said, there is NOTHING in physics that says that you CANNOT travel back in time.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 6:14:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/13/2012 6:09:31 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/13/2012 5:57:32 PM, Ren wrote:

Yes, but these are TECHNOLOGICAL limitations not PHYSICAL limitations.

Ohhh, I see your point.

We cannot travel a moment back in the real force (and possibly, dimension) that we know as time.
I agree, but for different reasons. Like I said, there is NOTHING in physics that says that you CANNOT travel back in time.

Well, actually, I think this issue is a little different.

Rather than limitations in our understanding or technological limitations, I think this is more a physical one. Hawking presented some suppositions regarding it, and it made enough sense -- such as the fact that a wormhole reaching into the past would release so much radiation from feedback that it would probably kill everything around it before it collapsed.

Or, the fact that there's no meaningful direction that we can travel that would cause us to go backward. Travelling in a straight line always translates as forward (no matter what direction you're facing), thus causing you to always move with the current of time. Perhaps time is the definition of a vector direction? This would explain why you must transcend both distance and time to travel.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 6:25:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/13/2012 6:14:10 PM, Ren wrote:
Rather than limitations in our understanding or technological limitations, I think this is more a physical one. Hawking presented some suppositions regarding it, and it made enough sense -- such as the fact that a wormhole reaching into the past would release so much radiation from feedback that it would probably kill everything around it before it collapsed.
The radiation part might also be a technological limitation; one need not send living things through. Also, there are other "proposed" ways to time travel to the past that do not involve a worm hole.

Or, the fact that there's no meaningful direction that we can travel that would cause us to go backward.
How about exceeding c? FTL speeds.

Travelling in a straight line always translates as forward (no matter what direction you're facing), thus causing you to always move with the current of time. Perhaps time is the definition of a vector direction? This would explain why you must transcend both distance and time to travel.
I agree.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 12:54:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/13/2012 5:50:55 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
: At 2/10/2012 5:26:50 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
The later can't really be tested as thoroughly as we'd like.
Sure it can, a photon travels at c. Ergo, a photon experiences a timeless existence! Granted WE cannot experience a timeless existence, but then again that's a contradiction so it's not possible. Experience requires time: if there is no time then experience has no meaning. It becomes undefined.

******************************
: At 2/12/2012 8:10:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
It's possible for time to stop, it all depends how you define time
Yes, that is what I said.

anything is possible if it depend on how you define. it. lol ;)
If one defines a contradiction, it is still not possible. (However, a contradiction lacks definition!) The point I am making is for the person to DEFINE time.

**********************************
: At 2/12/2012 11:47:22 AM, Ren wrote:
Given the actual definition of actual time, no, not anything is possible.
He meant as long as one defines something properly, it is possible in the strictest sense. In other words, so long as there are no contradictions, it is possible.

For example, we can't transcend any meaningful duration of time forward (that isn't comparable to the rate at which it is already moving)...
Huh? Are you saying that Time Dilation does not occur?

...and we certainly can't travel a moment back.
Strictly speaking, there is nothing in physics that says that it's not possible. But again, it depends how you define time. In physics, time is not really defined it's operationally defined (defined by how it's measured but not what it is.)

I propose the following definition of time: time = change. In other words, the progression of time IS change in any physical system. If there is no change, there is no time. This is has the benefit of being true! Given any physical system, if there is no change to it one CANNOT show that time has elapsed, ERGO time has not elapsed.

As you can see with this definition, time is not something that you "travel": one does not travel change. Another benefit to this definition is that it makes the concept of "time travel to the past" a contradiction! This would then show that time travel to IS indeed impossible. Why? Because you can have more "change" (time going faster), less "change" (time going slower), or no "change" (time stopping); but you CANNOT have "negative change" as that is a meaningless concept (i.e. a contradiction). And thus time travel to the past is not possible!

Einstien: a contradiction lacks definition!. contra diction ;)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 4:17:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 12:54:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Einstien: a contradiction lacks definition!. contra diction ;)
I have not said otherwise but you are missing the point. The point is for the person to SHOW us their definition of time so that we may analyze it a check for any CONTRADICTIONS within said definition. Contradictions are not always so obvious and that is why it's best when people detail their positions by giving definitions.

On an aside note: the Many Worlds Interpretation allows for plenty of time travel in any direction and with no grandfather paradoxes!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 6:54:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 4:17:42 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/14/2012 12:54:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Einstien: a contradiction lacks definition!. contra diction ;)
I have not said otherwise but you are missing the point. The point is for the person to SHOW us their definition of time so that we may analyze it a check for any CONTRADICTIONS within said definition. Contradictions are not always so obvious and that is why it's best when people detail their positions by giving definitions.

On an aside note: the Many Worlds Interpretation allows for plenty of time travel in any direction and with no grandfather paradoxes!

The Fool: I must have been fooled again. :(
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL