Political Crossfire Forums

Pi_314 · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 95

It's important to note that there is no past, nor is there a future. Only the present exist and there is no escaping it ever.

Hyde · Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:50 pm Post subject:

Anarko-Kapitalizt wrote: The best way to change the past is to rewrite the past.

it worked swell in 1984. :lol:

Hyde · Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject:

Pi_314 wrote: It's important to note that there is no past, nor is there a future. Only the present exist and there is no escaping it ever.

you sound so confident. may i ask why? is it a just random personal belief you felt like taking up or is there a thought process behind it?

Some Loser · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 2

Some misinformed quotes:

Fido wrote:
“Then if you had the energy to travel at the speed of light and beyond you would expand absolutely, essentially becoming light with no guarantee your atoms would re-associate properly. Then, you could get to the future sooner, but to go back in time would require even greater speeds, perhaps in excess of C squared -becoming energy itself.”

Fido wrote:
“It is a matter of energy, which at present is beyond our reach. To get to the future sooner you have to travel at the speed of light or faster. The past is falling away from us at the speed of light. To catch it, and get into it you would have to travel at twice the speed of light to catch up. So far as we know the speed of light is an absolute quantity and the reason only light travels at that speed is that matter, mass, increases absolutely with absolute speed becoming in its individual parts the most basic form of energy- light.”

You seem to have a very superficial (and often incorrect) understanding of physics. Most of your writing is lost in senseless pseudo-scientific speak. There is a vague hint of truth in some of it which I would like to clarify though.

I know what I have written below is long, but please read it to gain a further insight into “time travel” as we call it. I am not directing this at you only but rather to everyone and anyone who is interested in the truth of the matter.

First off, yes time travel is possible. We are all doing it right now. Look at the clock and watch the numbers change. No, I am not being sarcastic. Sometimes the answers to the seemingly tough questions are surprisingly simple. You need to change your view of what time is exactly. The question isn't "Can we travel through time?" (which we obviously can and do) but rather "Can we change the rate at which we travel through time?". (As far as going into the past, I will get to that.)

If you are having trouble with what I say, then I suggest you study some modern physics - particularly Einstein's special theory of relativity. It states (in simple terms) that the rate at which we travel through time depends on how fast we are traveling through space. Essentially, the faster you move in space, the SLOWER you move through time. In our day to day lives, we never notice this because we are all traveling at more or less the same speed in the big scheme of things.

If you think that I am just speaking pseudo-science-techno-babble, think again. Special relativity is not seriously doubted by any reputable scientist today. It has been substantially verified time and again. In one experiment (see Hafele-Keating experiment), two atomic clocks were synchronized (actually four were used for redundancy, but I digress). One was kept on the ground, and the other was put in a jet sent around the world. When the jet came back, the clocks were no longer synchronized proving the "relativity" of time just as Einstein had predicted (according to the Lorentz transformation). In fact, even the tube televisions that we all have in our houses wouldn't work right if they didn't take special relativity into account. There are countless examples of this in other modern technologies as well.

To reiterate and further elaborate, Einstein found that traveling faster through space causes us to travel more slowly through time. We can therefore travel "into the future" by moving very quickly (because if time slows down for us, the rest of the world will "reach the future" before we do). There is something called the twin paradox where one twin is kept on earth and the other is sent in a very fast spaceship on a mission to a distant star and back. When the astronaut twin returns, he is younger than his brother because time elapsed more slowly for him during his trip. Thus he is now "in the future" so to say. Don't be fooled though. We are always traveling into the future. This example only serves to illustrate the effects of very extreme differences in time travel rates.

A quick look at Einstein's equations immediately reveals that time can be slowed all the way down to zero at a particular speed. In a beautiful realization of nature's workings, it so happens that the speed at which this occurs is exactly equal to the speed of light! So if you can travel at the speed of light you can slow your rate of time travel all the way to a stop. Mathematically speaking, you could even go backwards in time (into the past) if you were to travel faster than light speed.

Unfortunately for you though (or perhaps fortunately?), traveling even at the speed of light is simply impossible. This is due to another related concept called "relativistic mass". It turns out that your mass also increases as your speed does. Furthermore a plot of your mass versus speed reveals an asymptotic relationship with a limit at the speed of light. In other words, at the speed of light you would have infinite mass. Therefore it would require an infinite amount of energy to get you to accelerate to that speed which makes it impossible (there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe).

Oh yes, and there are ideas of wormholes and such things that might allow travel into the past. I’m not terribly familiar with them but those ideas have not reached anywhere near the degree of robustness that special relativity has seen (i.e. they are still entirely theoretical).

Thank you for reading.

sparsely · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2295 Location: Passamaquoddy

Pi_314 wrote: It's important to note that there is no past, nor is there a future. Only the present exist and there is no escaping it ever.

Yeah, that's what I was saying. ;-)

Towie · Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject: Re: cant go into the past

Some Loser wrote: Some misinformed quotes:

Fido wrote:
“Then if you had the energy to travel at the speed of light and beyond you would expand absolutely, essentially becoming light with no guarantee your atoms would re-associate properly. Then, you could get to the future sooner, but to go back in time would require even greater speeds, perhaps in excess of C squared -becoming energy itself.”

Fido wrote:
“It is a matter of energy, which at present is beyond our reach. To get to the future sooner you have to travel at the speed of light or faster. The past is falling away from us at the speed of light. To catch it, and get into it you would have to travel at twice the speed of light to catch up. So far as we know the speed of light is an absolute quantity and the reason only light travels at that speed is that matter, mass, increases absolutely with absolute speed becoming in its individual parts the most basic form of energy- light.”

You seem to have a very superficial (and often incorrect) understanding of physics. Most of your writing is lost in senseless pseudo-scientific speak. There is a vague hint of truth in some of it which I would like to clarify though.

I know what I have written below is long, but please read it to gain a further insight into “time travel” as we call it. I am not directing this at you only but rather to everyone and anyone who is interested in the truth of the matter.

First off, yes time travel is possible. We are all doing it right now. Look at the clock and watch the numbers change. No, I am not being sarcastic. Sometimes the answers to the seemingly tough questions are surprisingly simple. You need to change your view of what time is exactly. The question isn't "Can we travel through time?" (which we obviously can and do) but rather "Can we change the rate at which we travel through time?". (As far as going into the past, I will get to that.)

If you are having trouble with what I say, then I suggest you study some modern physics - particularly Einstein's special theory of relativity. It states (in simple terms) that the rate at which we travel through time depends on how fast we are traveling through space. Essentially, the faster you move in space, the SLOWER you move through time. In our day to day lives, we never notice this because we are all traveling at more or less the same speed in the big scheme of things.

If you think that I am just speaking pseudo-science-techno-babble, think again. Special relativity is not seriously doubted by any reputable scientist today. It has been substantially verified time and again. In one experiment (see Hafele-Keating experiment), two atomic clocks were synchronized (actually four were used for redundancy, but I digress). One was kept on the ground, and the other was put in a jet sent around the world. When the jet came back, the clocks were no longer synchronized proving the "relativity" of time just as Einstein had predicted (according to the Lorentz transformation). In fact, even the tube televisions that we all have in our houses wouldn't work right if they didn't take special relativity into account. There are countless examples of this in other modern technologies as well.

To reiterate and further elaborate, Einstein found that traveling faster through space causes us to travel more slowly through time. We can therefore travel "into the future" by moving very quickly (because if time slows down for us, the rest of the world will "reach the future" before we do). There is something called the twin paradox where one twin is kept on earth and the other is sent in a very fast spaceship on a mission to a distant star and back. When the astronaut twin returns, he is younger than his brother because time elapsed more slowly for him during his trip. Thus he is now "in the future" so to say. Don't be fooled though. We are always traveling into the future. This example only serves to illustrate the effects of very extreme differences in time travel rates.

A quick look at Einstein's equations immediately reveals that time can be slowed all the way down to zero at a particular speed. In a beautiful realization of nature's workings, it so happens that the speed at which this occurs is exactly equal to the speed of light! So if you can travel at the speed of light you can slow your rate of time travel all the way to a stop. Mathematically speaking, you could even go backwards in time (into the past) if you were to travel faster than light speed.

Unfortunately for you though (or perhaps fortunately?), traveling even at the speed of light is simply impossible. This is due to another related concept called "relativistic mass". It turns out that your mass also increases as your speed does. Furthermore a plot of your mass versus speed reveals an asymptotic relationship with a limit at the speed of light. In other words, at the speed of light you would have infinite mass. Therefore it would require an infinite amount of energy to get you to accelerate to that speed which makes it impossible (there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe).

Oh yes, and there are ideas of wormholes and such things that might allow travel into the past. I’m not terribly familiar with them but those ideas have not reached anywhere near the degree of robustness that special relativity has seen (i.e. they are still entirely theoretical).

Thank you for reading.

Thank you very much. If I had the time, I would have written something very similar. I hope everyone can now just stop pointing out stupid ideas that were part of the mass stupidity that teh television blabs out to us. People really need to verify facts before they start spitting them out. You are a very informed student of the sciences.

I have a bit more experience in wormholes, so I will fill in that portion. The Schwarzchild wormhole theory, the theory you all quote without citing, clearly states that, though these wormholes may exist, they are infinitely unstable and would fly apart as it formed. ( http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html#instability )

It also states that no traveller could ever move through it, since there is a quantum singularity at it's center. (see directly below above link)

You can read all about the real theory of universe connecting wormholes on said page ( http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schww.html )

Furthermore, the only "traversable" wormholes would need to be manufactured, which is only possible within our universe. ( http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/5803/tra.html )

The "exotic matter" is more commnly known as phantom energy or Cashmir energy at present. ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0916_050916_timetravel_2.html ) If you bothered to read that link, you would now be saying that time travel is possible, which it is. The problem is that it can only go forward for us. The "link from past to future" is one way, as you would move forward in time no matter which way you go.

If somehow you managed to enlarge a small scale quantum foam to attempt Prof. Thorne's experiment, there is only one guarentee, and that is that you would find yourself in another point in the universe, at roughly the same time you left, or distanly in the future, depending on speeds. But, you would certainly not find yourself in a time before you left.

The funny part is that Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture proves that the universe shall never allow time travel. ( www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps3.html )

He leaves the door open for string theory, but the problem is that his CPC was proven by Matt Visser in From Wormholes to Time Machines: Remarks on Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture.

This does not rule out relativistic travel, but does rule out changing the past in our universe. And since the Schwarzchild wormholes are impossible to traverse, it is apparent that you can NEVER change the past, nor can you change any past.

Pi_314 · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 95

Hyde wrote: Pi_314 wrote: It's important to note that there is no past, nor is there a future. Only the present exist and there is no escaping it ever.

you sound so confident. may i ask why? is it a just random personal belief you felt like taking up or is there a thought process behind it?

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of. This is a law of sorts. (My law)

Meaning you can't be in two places at the same time. Only one time is allowed, and there is no time like the present.

Is this gobbledeegook? Not from my standpoint. One could lose focus by contemplating a past event, but this is no more than a present aquisition of some stored brain cells. A sort of mirage that the past is somehow possible in a realtime real life scenerio. It is your reference frame that can't be escaped (the present). You most certainly can't out run it. Even if it were possible to move a thousands time the speed of light - There would be no escaping your current reference frame.

Towie · Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:45 pm Post subject:

Can you cite sources? Or at least some sort of proof?

And if that jumble of words means that no matter what year you are in you are always in the present, you are looking at time MUCH to linearly. Get a new perspective.

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

Pi_314 wrote: Hyde wrote: Pi_314 wrote: It's important to note that there is no past, nor is there a future. Only the present exist and there is no escaping it ever.

you sound so confident. may i ask why? is it a just random personal belief you felt like taking up or is there a thought process behind it?

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of. This is a law of sorts. (My law)

Meaning you can't be in two places at the same time. Only one time is allowed, and there is no time like the present.

Is this gobbledeegook? Not from my standpoint. One could lose focus by contemplating a past event, but this is no more than a present aquisition of some stored brain cells. A sort of mirage that the past is somehow possible in a realtime real life scenerio. It is your reference frame that can't be escaped (the present). You most certainly can't out run it. Even if it were possible to move a thousands time the speed of light - There would be no escaping your current reference frame.

You can be at two places at the same time. Evidence please!

issaiah1332 · Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 465 Location: Wv

Pi_314 wrote: Hyde wrote: Pi_314 wrote: It's important to note that there is no past, nor is there a future. Only the present exist and there is no escaping it ever.

you sound so confident. may i ask why? is it a just random personal belief you felt like taking up or is there a thought process behind it?

In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of. This is a law of sorts. (My law)

Meaning you can't be in two places at the same time. Only one time is allowed, and there is no time like the present.

Is this gobbledeegook? Not from my standpoint. One could lose focus by contemplating a past event, but this is no more than a present aquisition of some stored brain cells. A sort of mirage that the past is somehow possible in a realtime real life scenerio. It is your reference frame that can't be escaped (the present). You most certainly can't out run it. Even if it were possible to move a thousands time the speed of light - There would be no escaping your current reference frame.

How do you explain gravity and speed's changing of time?

Pi_314 · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 95

Quote: You can be at two places at the same time. Evidence please! Are you saying you can, or is this a misprint. If you are sying you can - I'd sure like to know how.

Pi_314 · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 95

Towie wrote: Can you cite sources?

I would be the source.

Quote: Or at least some sort of proof?

{In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.}

If you can wrap yourself around this statement, the nature of your Existence should unfold.

I do make assumptions here.
1. That the universe came from nothing.
2. If one is correct than the universe is made of nothing.
3. If one and two are correct ... the universe can't be a physical entity.
4. The universe must be a conceptual enterprize if 1,2,and 3 is correct.

With these four assumptions try to make that fit to the statement.

issaiah1332 · Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 465 Location: Wv

can you make any assumptions that have a scientific base?

JackarooSundown · Joined: 29 Oct 2005 Posts: 433 Location: Three thirty.

Pi_314 wrote: Towie wrote: Can you cite sources?

I would be the source.

Quote: Or at least some sort of proof?

{In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.}

If you can wrap yourself around this statement, the nature of your Existence should unfold.

I do make assumptions here.
1. That the universe came from nothing.
2. If one is correct than the universe is made of nothing.
3. If one and two are correct ... the universe can't be a physical entity.
4. The universe must be a conceptual enterprize if 1,2,and 3 is correct.

With these four assumptions try to make that fit to the statement.

Well, I believe it came from God.

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

Pi_314 wrote: Quote: You can be at two places at the same time. Evidence please! Are you saying you can, or is this a misprint. If you are sying you can - I'd sure like to know how.

Yes i am.

All known particles can behave in both wave form and particle form.
That makes it possible for anything to be at several places at the same time.
But the larger the object is, the shorter it can be at two places at the same time.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051013084257.htm
http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2002/Projects/J1502.pdf

This is of course just an interpretation of quantum physics. Nothing is certain.

Pi_314 · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 95

Narvik wrote: Pi_314 wrote: Quote: You can be at two places at the same time. Evidence please! Are you saying you can, or is this a misprint. If you are sying you can - I'd sure like to know how.

Yes i am.

All known particles can behave in both wave form and particle form.
That makes it possible for anything to be at several places at the same time.
But the larger the object is, the shorter it can be at two places at the same time.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051013084257.htm
http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2002/Projects/J1502.pdf

This is of course just an interpretation of quantum physics. Nothing is certain.

In one of the articles they had this, which seem to come up short of what you are saying

But Bohr'sComplementarity Principle, which explains this ambiguity, requires that one can only observe one of the two electron manifestations at anygiven time - either as a wave or a particle, but not bothsimultaneously. This remains a certainty in every experiment, despiteall the ambiguity in quantum physics. Either a system is in a state of"both/and" like a wave, or "either/or" like a particle, relating to itslocalisation. This is, in principle, a consequence of Heisenberg'suncertainty principle, which says that given a complementary pair ofmeasurements - for example, position and momentum - only one can bedetermined exactly at the same time. Information about the othermeasurement is lost, proportionally.

Narvik · Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 607 Location: Orsa

Pi_314 wrote: Narvik wrote: Pi_314 wrote: Quote: You can be at two places at the same time. Evidence please! Are you saying you can, or is this a misprint. If you are sying you can - I'd sure like to know how.

Yes i am.

All known particles can behave in both wave form and particle form.
That makes it possible for anything to be at several places at the same time.
But the larger the object is, the shorter it can be at two places at the same time.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051013084257.htm
http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2002/Projects/J1502.pdf

This is of course just an interpretation of quantum physics. Nothing is certain.

In one of the articles they had this, which seem to come up short of what you are saying

But Bohr'sComplementarity Principle, which explains this ambiguity, requires that one can only observe one of the two electron manifestations at anygiven time - either as a wave or a particle, but not bothsimultaneously. This remains a certainty in every experiment, despiteall the ambiguity in quantum physics. Either a system is in a state of"both/and" like a wave, or "either/or" like a particle, relating to itslocalisation. This is, in principle, a consequence of Heisenberg'suncertainty principle, which says that given a complementary pair ofmeasurements - for example, position and momentum - only one can bedetermined exactly at the same time. Information about the othermeasurement is lost, proportionally.

It's true that you can only measure when it at one point. Therefore i said it was just an interpretation of the evidence which they had. They cannot know since it's impossible to prove if it's at several places at the same time.

Towie · Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:32 pm Post subject:

Pi_314 wrote: Towie wrote: Can you cite sources?

I would be the source.

Quote: Or at least some sort of proof?

{In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.}

If you can wrap yourself around this statement, the nature of your Existence should unfold.

I do make assumptions here.
1. That the universe came from nothing.
2. If one is correct than the universe is made of nothing.
3. If one and two are correct ... the universe can't be a physical entity.
4. The universe must be a conceptual enterprize if 1,2,and 3 is correct.

With these four assumptions try to make that fit to the statement.

First of all, the universe i made of something, which balances to nothing. Do some study of theoretical physics and you will quickly learn that the presence of gravity balances out the energy present, and since matter is merely energy in a tightly compacted form, your points lose all relevance.

Also, your statement is so easy to wrap any mind around that I find it insulting for you to suggest that I, or any other person here, cannot. Especially since you can't even spell entprise correctly. For God's sake, THERE IS A SPELL CHECK! Here's a link for further assistance. ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enterprise )

Do some research before you post some unsupported blabber.

Most importantly, please provide some proof that you are a credible source.

issaiah1332 · Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 465 Location: Wv

Towie wrote: Pi_314 wrote: Towie wrote: Can you cite sources?

I would be the source.

Quote: Or at least some sort of proof?

{In our universe there are only ones, one at a time, where time is the nothing ones are composed of.}

If you can wrap yourself around this statement, the nature of your Existence should unfold.

I do make assumptions here.
1. That the universe came from nothing.
2. If one is correct than the universe is made of nothing.
3. If one and two are correct ... the universe can't be a physical entity.
4. The universe must be a conceptual enterprize if 1,2,and 3 is correct.

With these four assumptions try to make that fit to the statement.

First of all, the universe i made of something, which balances to nothing. Do some study of theoretical physics and you will quickly learn that the presence of gravity balances out the energy present, and since matter is merely energy in a tightly compacted form, your points lose all relevance.

Also, your statement is so easy to wrap any mind around that I find it insulting for you to suggest that I, or any other person here, cannot. Especially since you can't even spell entprise correctly. For God's sake, THERE IS A SPELL CHECK! Here's a link for further assistance. ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enterprise )

Do some research before you post some unsupported blabber.

Most importantly, please provide some proof that you are a credible source.

Amen....Dark matter and Dark energy also balance everything out. One pulling and one pushing! Very ignorant theory.

Pi_314 · Joined: 26 Jul 2006 Posts: 95

It happens every time all the time. Someone shows up complaining about spelling and they screw up just as bad or worse than the one they b**** about. Funny thing is the word this person snaps at is the word that gets screwed up :lol:
Quote: Especially since you can't even spell entprise correctly.

b**** about typo's somewhere else. I.E. GET LOST!

TROLL