Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Time. What exactly is time?

tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 12:21:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
We all know it when we "see" it but when asked to explain it...man oh man is it hard. So what is time? There's the operational definition of time, but it really doesn't answer the question of what time as but rather how it's measured. Any comments?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 7:57:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Time is the imaginary unit that humans use to compare two or more things that they observe to change.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 8:52:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Time is simply the occurring of events. When an event occurs, we say that time has passed because there was a point when that event had not occurred, a point when it was occurring, and a point when it had occurred. Logically, these could not be the same point.
While I think it is hypothetically possible that time is the thing in which events occur, rather than being the events themselves, given that the only method we have of determining time is by the passage of events, we are unable to distinguish between the two.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2009 9:20:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Time is what allows for things to move. Matter's existence is dependent on the vibration or movement of atoms. In order for something to move from one location to another, an interval of time must exist between. So the vibration of atoms relies on time. Vibration creates form. If there was no time, there would be no matter. This is why time is necessary in the fabric of space-time.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2009 6:32:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Time is DEATH.
Each moment PASSES AWAY, never to be relived or recaptured. (like tears in rain)
Eternity is LIFE.

The focus of this life is DEATH, we are all hurtling torward it.
The focus of the next, REAL, life is eternity.

Psalm105.4
S
e
e
k
the Lord and His strength;
S
e
e
k
His face EVERMORE!
The Cross.. the Cross.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2009 7:55:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/22/2009 8:52:52 PM, LB628 wrote:
Time is simply the occurring of events. When an event occurs, we say that time has passed because there was a point when that event had not occurred, a point when it was occurring, and a point when it had occurred. Logically, these could not be the same point.
While I think it is hypothetically possible that time is the thing in which events occur, rather than being the events themselves, given that the only method we have of determining time is by the passage of events, we are unable to distinguish between the two.

I agree. I think that Time = Change. It is also a fundamental dimension but it is not a geometric dimension like Distance. I do think that time has a geometric component when we refer to it as spacetime. Also, if time = change, this would explain why there is an apparent flow of time in only 1 direction.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 6:34:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/26/2009 10:16:50 PM, MTGandP wrote:
Time is the means by which events occur in a linear fashion.

What does that mean? What are these means? How and what makes it linear?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 11:39:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/27/2009 6:34:28 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/26/2009 10:16:50 PM, MTGandP wrote:
Time is the means by which events occur in a linear fashion.

What does that mean? What are these means? How and what makes it linear?

The fact that time flows, in one direction, makes it linear. Time doesnt suddenly increase, then flow backwards, then move forwards again. As far as our understanding goes, time flows in one direction.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 1:21:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/27/2009 11:39:46 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/27/2009 6:34:28 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/26/2009 10:16:50 PM, MTGandP wrote:
Time is the means by which events occur in a linear fashion.

What does that mean? What are these means? How and what makes it linear?

The fact that time flows, in one direction, makes it linear. Time doesnt suddenly increase, then flow backwards, then move forwards again. As far as our understanding goes, time flows in one direction.

Yes: it seems to flow in one direction and that would make it linear. But what is it that is flowing? And why not backwards?

As far as increase/decrease, time CAN relatively increase & decrease as per Special Relativity.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 1:34:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/27/2009 1:21:25 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/27/2009 11:39:46 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 7/27/2009 6:34:28 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/26/2009 10:16:50 PM, MTGandP wrote:
Time is the means by which events occur in a linear fashion.

What does that mean? What are these means? How and what makes it linear?

The fact that time flows, in one direction, makes it linear. Time doesnt suddenly increase, then flow backwards, then move forwards again. As far as our understanding goes, time flows in one direction.

Yes: it seems to flow in one direction and that would make it linear. But what is it that is flowing? And why not backwards?

As far as increase/decrease, time CAN relatively increase & decrease as per Special Relativity.

Time, or rather our recognition of change, is what is flowing. It is not flowing backwards because the laws of nature forbid it. Its like asking why doesnt gravity repel, instead of attract. It attracts because that is the law of nature.

I agree that you can artificially increase/decrease time. However, this is irrelevant as to what time normally does. When you stand at a cliff, time does not spontaneously increase. Or decrease. It only increases or decreases because of specific instances, restrictions and circumstances.

This is the same as travelling back in time. It is theorized that if you go faster than the speed of light, you can go back in time. However, this does not mean that time spontaneously reverses time. Only when specific circumstances are met, does Time do what it does. Just like any law of the universe.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 3:12:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
tkubok,
I think that you are saying that time = change, right? This is a definition that I strongly agree with. However, I am not sure about your reasons, which boil down to "it is because it is." Your question as to "Why is gravity attractive instead of repulsive" is also quite interesting but of course, it's another issue altogether.

I don't know what you mean about "artificially" increase/decrease of time as these things are quite natural and were discovered not invented; hence natural and not artificial. The increase or decrease or stoppage of time are all due to relativistic effects and I assure you that it's quite natural for a high speed electron to "feel" the difference.

Of course, I also agree that "backwards" time travel is impossible and FTL speeds are also impossible. 1st, I believe that time = change (like stated above) and if that's true then, how can one travel change? It's ludicrous! But the "travel" part is just semantics and we need to analyze this a bit further. So, if time = change then we can have more change (like time speeding up); we can have no change (like time stopping); or we can have less change (like time slowing down.) So all of these are in sync with Special Relativity. So what's left, negative change? But that's nonsense! And that is why I believe that time can't flow backwards, as "backwards change" is still change. Time just like distance, has a magnitude that is always positive or zero.

Also, I believe that even if you could travel at FTL speeds you would only "appear" to go back in time. Example, you are on earth and looking through a telescope at a point in space that is as far away as the sun (but not close to it cause you don't wanna get burned.) You do this for about 8 minutes and then you instantly teleport (i.e. FTL) to that point and look back at earth with a telescope and what would you see? You would see yourself on earth looking at the point you are at! You would see yourself doing that for about 8 minutes and then see yourself teleporting! Did any time travel occur? No. The illusion of time travel, but not time travel. When you are looking back at the earth, it's not that there is another you on earth but rather the light or image of you on earth takes 8 minutes to get to that point and you got there before the light by teleporting.

Anyways, FTL is impossible because once you reach c, you will have used up all the available time in the Universe!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 8:22:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/27/2009 3:12:33 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
tkubok,
I think that you are saying that time = change, right? This is a definition that I strongly agree with. However, I am not sure about your reasons, which boil down to "it is because it is." Your question as to "Why is gravity attractive instead of repulsive" is also quite interesting but of course, it's another issue altogether.

Well then, let me ask you another question.

Why did we decide to name the colour black, as black, and not green?

I don't know what you mean about "artificially" increase/decrease of time as these things are quite natural and were discovered not invented; hence natural and not artificial. The increase or decrease or stoppage of time are all due to relativistic effects and I assure you that it's quite natural for a high speed electron to "feel" the difference.

By artificial, i mean, only specific circumstances to which we are able to experience such events from occuring. This is the point about time. You must be an observer in order to observe time(duh) changing. Things like moving back in time are not things that occur on an everyday basis to which anyone can simply walk outside and experience. If you, for example, want to move back in time, you must build yoruself a vehicle capable of doing so. This is what i meant by Artificial.

Of course, I also agree that "backwards" time travel is impossible and FTL speeds are also impossible. 1st, I believe that time = change (like stated above) and if that's true then, how can one travel change? It's ludicrous! But the "travel" part is just semantics and we need to analyze this a bit further. So, if time = change then we can have more change (like time speeding up); we can have no change (like time stopping); or we can have less change (like time slowing down.) So all of these are in sync with Special Relativity. So what's left, negative change? But that's nonsense! And that is why I believe that time can't flow backwards, as "backwards change" is still change. Time just like distance, has a magnitude that is always positive or zero.
I dont think i ever said that Backward timetravel was impossible. Infact, in the laws of physics, NOTHING stops us from going back in time. Its just extremely hard to do so.
Also, FTL speeds are not impossible, as it has been theorized that passing an event horizon of a black hole will get you past the speed of light. So clearly that is not impossible, just hard to do.

As for negative change... No. Backward is still change. Not "negative" change. There is no "positive" either. Its just change. The only difference that is discernable, is the rate of change. If the rate is non-existant, it is non-existant. If the rate is fast, it is fast. If the rate is slow, it is slow. If, hypothetically, we were able to traverse time backwards, then the rate would stay the same, just the direction would change. It would still be no change, to slow change, to faster change.

Also, I believe that even if you could travel at FTL speeds you would only "appear" to go back in time. Example, you are on earth and looking through a telescope at a point in space that is as far away as the sun (but not close to it cause you don't wanna get burned.) You do this for about 8 minutes and then you instantly teleport (i.e. FTL) to that point and look back at earth with a telescope and what would you see? You would see yourself on earth looking at the point you are at! You would see yourself doing that for about 8 minutes and then see yourself teleporting! Did any time travel occur? No. The illusion of time travel, but not time travel. When you are looking back at the earth, it's not that there is another you on earth but rather the light or image of you on earth takes 8 minutes to get to that point and you got there before the light by teleporting.

Of course, this is all speculation and opinions. However, i kind of disagree with your explanation there, despite all this to be moot as no one has traveled back in time.

The example you are talking about, is the speed of light. Although you are sort of mixing Time travel, with space travel, ill ignore this for the sake of argument. What you have done, is time travel, and i shall explain.

You are looking through the telescope for 8 minutes. Then, at the ninth minute, you travel back in time exactly 8 minutes, to that location, which is exactly 7 lightminutes away(In other words, it takes 7 minutes for light to travel from that point, to your telescope).

Now, the question of the century. At that original starting time, when youve just peered through the telescope but see nothing, as the light from your future self has not yet reached your telescope, how many of you are in existance in the universe?

The answer? 2. Yup, thats right. The easiest analogy i can think of, is the sun going supernova. If the sun went supernova at this very instant, yet it takes 5 minutes for the light to reach our planet earth, our sun has still gone supernova, despite the fact that it takes 5 minutes for us to observe or notice that our sun has gone supernova. This is essentially why we are looking back in the past, when we look through a telescope to a distant star. If we had the ability to instantly transport ourselves, what we saw through the telescope, would be drastically different than what we saw with our naked eyes.

We couldve avoided this entire situation, however, by just simply stating that we traveled at FTL speeds, in a circle, therefore ending up at the same spot that we started, therefore proving that this is actually time travel.

Anyways, FTL is impossible because once you reach c, you will have used up all the available time in the Universe!

Although, as i said above, black holes have already been theorized to move objects faster than light, I have had a recurring problem with your entire comment, to which i shall now address.

My problem? You use the words "Impossible" too many times. This is why i keep refering to these as all hypothetical, theoretical stuff. We dont know exactly what happens when you travel at the speed of light, because, lo and behold, no one has ever accomplished such a feat. Although, theoretically, reaching the speed of light will make everything in the universe move at an infinite rate of time, we dont know whether this is the case, nor do we know whether or not we can reach FTL speeds while avoiding reaching the speed of light entirely. None of this is impossible as most have already been accepted as plausible.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 8:51:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't think time is a dimension. Matter exists whether or not there is an observer, as does the space it occupies. Time is merely the result of matter being observed and thus, does not inherently exist.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 10:12:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Datcmoto's reply to this topic got me to laugh so hard I actually had tears. You're a riot, Datcmoto. Silly man.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2009 11:43:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/23/2009 6:32:03 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

The focus of this life is DEATH,

Don't confuse the focus of your religion with the focus of this life.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 12:27:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/27/2009 11:43:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/23/2009 6:32:03 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

The focus of this life is DEATH,

Don't confuse the focus of your religion with the focus of this life.

Christianity is not a religion BUT reality: Man CHOSE death. This world, your life, revolves around death.. dead people speaking dead words (lies) into dead situations.
Most of the 'news' or any hint of excitment is to do with DEATH (middle east, micheal jackson.. divorces etc etc )
Jesus Christ says 'I am THE Life'. He is THE (only) Way, THE (only) Truth.
The Cross.. the Cross.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 8:39:53 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
tkubok,

Where do I begin. I think we do not agree on what time is. What I am proposing is that Time = change, not Time = change + a direction. Just like Distance, which is also a fundamental dimension, Time can only be 0 or positive. Just like you cannot have a distance of -10 miles, you also cannot have a time of -10 seconds. With me so far?

Your discussion as to why we named colors different names is irrelevant, as I am not talking about why we named things but rather why they function the way they do.

I now understand what you meant by artificial. However, time dilation is happening all of the time all around us but I also understand that most people probably don't realize that this is the case.

As far as backwards time travel, I completely disagree. It is true that the current physics has no explicit restrictions on travel backwards in time. It does have many implicit limitations though and doesn't explicitly mention that you can time travel either. As far as exceeding c by crossing a black holes event horizon: that's purely theoretical like wormholes. Regardless, in a singularity, the rules of physics tend to break down. This could have the effect of being able to exceed c and NOT traveling back in time as that rule will break down as well. Not a good example of being able to exceed c.

You say "As for negative change... No. Backward is still change. Not 'negative' change. There is no 'positive' either. Its just change. The only difference that is discernable, is the rate of change." I think that this is the same as what I said. The negative & positive symbolize the direction. This is standard practice in physics. My point is that this explains why time has an arrow that points only in 1 direction. The only way you could be right is if you believe that Time = change + a direction which I of course do not believe.

You say I am mixing time travel with space travel...and you are right! Why? Because it's called spacetime, and that's what's being traveled. As far as your example: it is different from mine, i.e. they are not equivalent. Furthermore, I think that your example is erroneous but I cannot be sure without more details. In my example you are looking through the telescope on earth at a point 8 light minutes away and you are observing empty space. If do this for about 8 minutes & then "teleport" the the location, you will arrive just at the same time as the images of you on earth get there. However, there is only 1 you, not 2. Also, you will continue to see the image of you for about 8 minutes because that's how long you were looking through. There is not time travel only space travel. Of course, this is hypothetical because of the teleportation which allows you to travel at infinite speed through space ONLY. But, that's my example.

In your example, I think that you are time traveling (to the past) and I do not believe it to be possible. It violates causality, requires MWI (many worlds interpretation, which I do not believe in), which really ends up being "alternate universe traveling" and not time traveling at all.

Your "sun going supernova" is not a good example of time travel as non will occur. If the sun goes super nova, it will take us about 8 minutes to see it but we would feel it a lot sooner than that! The change in gravity would be "felt" instantly!

Impossible: what I mean, is that with our current experience and knowledge of the Universe, these things are for all intent and purposes impossible. There is only speculation to the contrary vs. empirical evidence for. That's all. Don't be afraid of the word impossible. Yes I agree that everything's possible and impossibility is one of those possibilities!

I would like to hear more details about your example: (1) the earth observer is looking into the telescope, what does he see? (2) you say that the observer travels back in time 7 minutes ago to a distance of 8 light minutes, what does the observer see when he looks at earth?

looking forward to your reply.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 9:23:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 8:39:53 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
tkubok,

Just like you cannot have a distance of -10 miles, you also cannot have a time of -10 seconds. With me so far?
Unlike distance, though, time does have two distinct directions, forward and backward. While it's not possible to travel backwards in time, it is certainly possible to use negative numbers to describe events that happened in the past (though instead of saying -10 seconds from now, people would usually just say 10 seconds ago, where ago is what denotes that the measurement is in the negative direction).

Rather, it's like displacement, which has a magnitude and direction. It's possible to say that the displacement is -10m west, but most people would just say 10m east.

As far as exceeding c by crossing a black holes event horizon: that's purely theoretical like wormholes. Regardless, in a singularity, the rules of physics tend to break down. This could have the effect of being able to exceed c and NOT traveling back in time as that rule will break down as well. Not a good example of being able to exceed c.
No object with a rest mass can eveget to the speed of light, since that would require infinite energy. Even a black hole could not accelerate an object past the speed of light. So even if physics doesn't completely break down in a black hole, it won't accelerate something past c.

If do this for about 8 minutes & then "teleport" the the location.
Bad example, since that's physically impossible (something you should avoid when talking about physics).
Our best understanding of time is not that certain events happen simultaneously in some absolute sense. However, if you had a friend 8 light minutes away who as looking at you in a telescope, events that are simultaneous from your frame of reference will be 8 minutes apart in his, and vice versa. There is no "real" frame of reference that's actually correct.

Your "sun going supernova" is not a good example of time travel as non will occur. If the sun goes super nova, it will take us about 8 minutes to see it but we would feel it a lot sooner than that! The change in gravity would be "felt" instantly!
Gravity propagates at the speed of light, not at infinite speed.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 10:02:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
beem0r,

I agree with your description of time and distance. I think in that case we are saying the same thing.

As far as exceeding c: I do not disagree with you but there is the possibility that the physics for E =mc2 might break down as well. Anyways, that's pure speculation.

Teleportation is a "bad" example as i presented it, but my point was that there was no time travel to the past that was occurring. I agree that simultaneity is actually not so cut & dry as common sense might dictate.

My mistake in claiming that g is faster than c. I think I was treating it as a rigid body. My point was that there was no backwards time travel in his example.

As far as time = change, my point is that the direction is the change or the other state. In other words, that's why time has only one direction. Even if we run a movie strip backwards it's still a backwards moving movie going forward in time. (Maybe not the best analogy.) Your thoughts?

Also, what are your thoughts on MWI?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 11:32:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 8:39:53 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
tkubok,

Where do I begin. I think we do not agree on what time is. What I am proposing is that Time = change, not Time = change + a direction. Just like Distance, which is also a fundamental dimension, Time can only be 0 or positive. Just like you cannot have a distance of -10 miles, you also cannot have a time of -10 seconds. With me so far?

I agree with you so far. This is why i said it was absurd to use the terms "Negative" and "Positive".

Your discussion as to why we named colors different names is irrelevant, as I am not talking about why we named things but rather why they function the way they do.

Naming plays an important aspect. We place names on things that we recognize, that we start to have a basic understanding about. And a proper name is not only useful but necessary in order to avoid confusion. Its as if you were talking in Metric, and i was talking in imperial. We have to agree on the useage of words in order for our discussion to go anywhere.

I now understand what you meant by artificial. However, time dilation is happening all of the time all around us but I also understand that most people probably don't realize that this is the case.

I do realize that is the case. However, time dialation in terms of our current transportation mechanisms, is negatable.

As far as backwards time travel, I completely disagree. It is true that the current physics has no explicit restrictions on travel backwards in time. It does have many implicit limitations though and doesn't explicitly mention that you can time travel either. As far as exceeding c by crossing a black holes event horizon: that's purely theoretical like wormholes. Regardless, in a singularity, the rules of physics tend to break down. This could have the effect of being able to exceed c and NOT traveling back in time as that rule will break down as well. Not a good example of being able to exceed c.

I never said that we know we can time travel, or that time travel is definately possible. I was merely objecting to your useage of the word impossible . And, again, this is why i kept mentioning the word "Theoretical, hypothetical". I understand that this is all still very much hypothetical.

You say "As for negative change... No. Backward is still change. Not 'negative' change. There is no 'positive' either. Its just change. The only difference that is discernable, is the rate of change." I think that this is the same as what I said. The negative & positive symbolize the direction. This is standard practice in physics. My point is that this explains why time has an arrow that points only in 1 direction. The only way you could be right is if you believe that Time = change + a direction which I of course do not believe.

Again, we still do not know whether such things are possible, so it is hard to speculate on whether time actually has a direction. Hell, if the multiverse theory is correct, then we might even be able to include the direction of which universe we end up producing.

You say I am mixing time travel with space travel...and you are right! Why? Because it's called spacetime, and that's what's being traveled. As far as your example: it is different from mine, i.e. they are not equivalent. Furthermore, I think that your example is erroneous but I cannot be sure without more details. In my example you are looking through the telescope on earth at a point 8 light minutes away and you are observing empty space. If do this for about 8 minutes & then "teleport" the the location, you will arrive just at the same time as the images of you on earth get there. However, there is only 1 you, not 2. Also, you will continue to see the image of you for about 8 minutes because that's how long you were looking through. There is not time travel only space travel. Of course, this is hypothetical because of the teleportation which allows you to travel at infinite speed through space ONLY. But, that's my example.

OH, i understand now. So, what youre proposing, isnt exactly time travel, but rather just simply instantaneous space travel? Well, then yes, i agree that only one of you would exist.

In your example, I think that you are time traveling (to the past) and I do not believe it to be possible. It violates causality, requires MWI (many worlds interpretation, which I do not believe in), which really ends up being "alternate universe traveling" and not time traveling at all.
Could you explain why Time travel violates causality, and requires MWI or the multiverse theory?

Impossible: what I mean, is that with our current experience and knowledge of the Universe, these things are for all intent and purposes impossible. There is only speculation to the contrary vs. empirical evidence for. That's all. Don't be afraid of the word impossible. Yes I agree that everything's possible and impossibility is one of those possibilities!

Actually, no. This is the problem with saying that something is either possible or impossible.

Although id rather go with the "we dont currently know" answer, stating that it is impossible outright is to make a claim about something you do not understand at all. The real answer is "We dont know whether it is possible OR impossible". This is the definition of Impossible; it cannot be done at all. I wouldnt really care if you had said "Improbable", but i do have a problem with Impossible.

I would like to hear more details about your example: (1) the earth observer is looking into the telescope, what does he see? (2) you say that the observer travels back in time 7 minutes ago to a distance of 8 light minutes, what does the observer see when he looks at earth?
Although now that i understand what you are talking about, my original analogy has no bearing anymore, i shall answer.
1). The earth observer sees nothing, until the light reaches his telescope and he sees himself at that point.
2). The observer that travels to that point, sees the earth. What else could he possibly see? He doesnt have a telescope.

Also, i agree with beem0r. Time travel AND instant teleportation are both highly theoretical, hypothetical and neither are supported or denied by physics at this current stage.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 12:13:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
tkubok,
Great to hear from you again. I'm glad to see that we agree on may of these points. I am still not sure why you object to the term "impossible" with respect to time travel. I tried to restate it as "impossible within our current understanding." And I think that it makes sense. But I am curious: if something "impossible" has such strict restrictions for you, then what things do you consider to be impossible?

I understand now what you meant by your color naming analogy. I liked your question about gravity better, but I haven't studied gravity as in depth as I would like. It is very interesting to know why gravity and why no anti-gravity? From a logical perspective it seems unlikely. What do you think?

Violating Causality: You stated in an earlier post that time is linear. I agree. As far as violating causality, the Grandfather Paradox is the typical example. In order to get around that paradox, one can use the Many Worlds view; however, in that view time is not linear. Anyways, I vehemently disagree with the MW interpretation of time travel. Why? Because it isn't time travel at all! It's actually alternate universe traveling! Here's why:

Let's pick point A (1990), point B (2000), point C (2009), let's say these points lie in U1 (Universe 1.) As you live your life in U1, you go past point A, then B, and then C. At all these points, there was always only 1 of you in U1. Now at point C you decide to hop into your nifty time machine and go back in time to point B. You set all of your knobs and power up the flux capacitor and presto whammo you traveled back in time to B! But wait, there are now 2 of you at B BUT in U1 there was only 1. How can this be? Simple: you are NOT in U1 but in U2 (not the band!) Sure, you didn't violate causality but you're also not in the same U. Furthermore, you can NEVER go back to the point in U1 from whence you came from. I'll even go as far as saying that you can never go back to U1 at all!

I'll admit that my teleportation example was quite fantastical and not scientific at all BUT I did have a more scientific idea in mind when I wrote it. And that idea is that of warp drive. Warp drive allows for FTL travel without the FTL! Of course, warp is practically in it's fiction phase, but there is some good theoretical physics behind it.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
beem0r
Posts: 1,155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 1:31:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 10:02:34 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
beem0r,

As far as exceeding c: I do not disagree with you but there is the possibility that the physics for E =mc2 might break down as well. Anyways, that's pure speculation.
Pretty large speculation, because there's no reason at all to think it's possible for matter to exceed the speed of light (since matter already would require infinite energy just to reach the speed of light.

Teleportation is a "bad" example as i presented it, but my point was that there was no time travel to the past that was occurring. I agree that simultaneity is actually not so cut & dry as common sense might dictate.
If it was possible to move faster than the speed of light, then from your rame of reference, some things that already happened in the past relative to you would happen again relative to you. I believe you're mistakenly believing that there's some absolute time that's the "real" time, when in fact there are merely many frames of reference, none more correct than others.

My mistake in claiming that g is faster than c. I think I was treating it as a rigid body. My point was that there was no backwards time travel in his example.
It's all good. Newton made the same mistake.

As far as time = change, my point is that the direction is the change or the other state. In other words, that's why time has only one direction. Even if we run a movie strip backwards it's still a backwards moving movie going forward in time. (Maybe not the best analogy.) Your thoughts?
Clearly I think it would be valid to say that there are two directions of time, but that time always passes in the forward direction. There's a "before" and an "after." Of course, that doesn't mean it's possible to travel to before, but that doesn't change the fact that time has past and future, even if "now" is always traveling towards the future.

Also, what are your thoughts on MWI?
I think it's a possibility, but I don't think there's enough evidence to support it over the alternatves. I'm neither a single-universe or many-universe proponent.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 2:03:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
beem0r,

Thanks for your response.

In the case of the singularity, it is thought that during the inflationary period of the Big Bang, the FTL rule did not apply. Granted there was no matter but there was energy. Anyways, I have always agreed that c can be exceeded. It was tkubok that was arguing for it inside the blackhole's event horizon.

I don't see how I am saying that there is some preferential frame of reference? Where do you think that I implied that?

As far as time & it's directions: conceptually, I see how we can choose to divide states into past - present - future but what I am arguing is "why" time has a flow in only 1 direction and CANNOT flow in the other. There is a before (not anymore thought) and an after (not yet.) These are illusions.

Not single universe not multi-universe? Then what? I don't see an alternative?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 8:10:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
beem0r, I greatly disagree. How can you say that time has two directions? The fact that we can say that something in particular happened at T - X does not show that there are two directions to time. What we equate to T - X is a "moment", something that is completely conceptual. If I ate an apple, the moment that I ate the apple ceases to exist. These moments do not inherently exist, they are stored as concepts in the brain. If time truly did go in two directions, then these moments should exist without an observer. It is the act of perceiving change that gives us the illusion that time exists.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 8:51:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 8:10:19 PM, Kleptin wrote:
beem0r, I greatly disagree. How can you say that time has two directions? The fact that we can say that something in particular happened at T - X does not show that there are two directions to time. What we equate to T - X is a "moment", something that is completely conceptual. If I ate an apple, the moment that I ate the apple ceases to exist. These moments do not inherently exist, they are stored as concepts in the brain. If time truly did go in two directions, then these moments should exist without an observer. It is the act of perceiving change that gives us the illusion that time exists.

In your example, I think you are describing memory rather than time, as time does not need an observer in order for it pass. I would say that our ability to perceive time and store memories allows us to differentiate between the past - present - future.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 9:28:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 8:51:33 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
In your example, I think you are describing memory rather than time, as time does not need an observer in order for it pass. I would say that our ability to perceive time and store memories allows us to differentiate between the past - present - future.

You're right, I am describing memory. I'm going to have to rethink this a little bit more @.@ What exactly are we defining Time as? The change of matter or some nebulous measure derived from the observation that matter changes?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.