Time Travel is Science Fiction

[Billy T]

While it may b possible to get into a capsule and see Babe Ruth point to the left field stand and then hit a home run there, it will be virtual reality illusion, not time travel back in the past. That past, 13.5 BILLION years, even at only one second time resolution steps, does not exist. - That is one hell of a lot of universe to be stored somewhere. I don't think they are all compressed and on the dark side of the moon.

SUMMARY: THE PAST DOES NOT NOW EXIST - SO YOU CAN NOT GO VISIT IN IT.

 

[paddoboy]

SUMMARY: THE PAST DOES NOT NOW EXIST - SO YOU CAN NOT GO VISIT IN IT.

Difficult, beyond present technology, but with such other counter-intuitive things such as time dilation, length contraction, BH's, BH ergospheres, ring singularities, all now accepted, and of course not being forbidden by the laws of physics and GR, that 100% faitre complei statement, is grossly incorrect.
The answer is as is the answer with "does time exist"...."WE JUST DON'T BLOODY WELL KNOW AS YET"

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I don't see much of a connection, and I've given my view. If you've followed this conversation from the beginning you'd see that even those who started out as starry-eyed day dreamers have either admitted it'll be a long haul to achieve time travel and it remains mere fiction.
Please explain yourself better. Elaborate.

No, you didn't. I was addressing the general tendency on this forum of many to see science as a new faith. Somehow smaller computers, Mars probes and more wi-fi hot spots translates into a future high-tech utopia to them. I blame the sci-fantasy show Star Trek.

Um... Between the Middle Ages to present is a long time and we still haven't found any aliens. So why even bring up that things can take a long time? Why accuse people in not thinking? Who are these starry-eyed daydreamers? Are they in this thread? Who on this forum, in this thread, holds science like some new faith?

 

[paddoboy]

We ourselves live in a society that has relativity advanced technology compared to people in earlier times. Has it made our society more moral? The least bit wiser or benevolent?.

Of course we are. At least science has thrown off the shackles of the church, and I'm sure there's not too many people that would rather live in what was known as the dark ages and other similar episodes in human history.
Still plenty of improvement to go, but I believe in time [there it is again ] space exploration, and the continued advance of science will see gradual improvements...certainly not fast enough, but I remain optimistic.
I did say something about optimism up there a bit.

 

[paddoboy]

Why accuse people in not thinking? Who are these starry-eyed daydreamers? Are they in this thread? Who on this forum, in this thread, holds science like some new faith?

Anyone that is able to think beyond the agendas, prejudices and delusions of grandeur of those that like to downplay the sciences especially accepted mainstream.
I'm probably one he refers too...
To repeat....
“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”
Winston S. Churchill:

Of course he had no way of knowing about the future, and forums such as this that would be a magnet in attracting people that had no other methodology in spewing their nonsense to the world.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

And if aliens are not your cup of tea, Kepler seriously thought, in fiction, about a voyage to the moon in 1610.

And that took a long time.

 

[paddoboy]

There aint too much that we accept and take for granted today, that at one time was not written/talked about as sc/fi.
It was pure sci/fi that urged man to go to the Moon.....It is still the sci/fi concept pushing man to step foot on Mars...and we will do it.
"Today's Sci/Fi, is tomorrow's Sci/Fact"

 

[Beer w/Straw]

While it may b possible to get into a capsule and see Babe Ruth point to the left field stand and then hit a home run there, it will be virtual reality illusion, not time travel back in the past. That past, 13.5 BILLION years, even at only one second time resolution steps, does not exist. - That is one hell of a lot of universe to be stored somewhere. I don't think they are all compressed and on the dark side of the moon.

SUMMARY: THE PAST DOES NOT NOW EXIST - SO YOU CAN NOT GO VISIT IN IT.

Key word being "NOW". Hence, I disagree

 

[Trippy]

While it may b possible to get into a capsule and see Babe Ruth point to the left field stand and then hit a home run there, it will be virtual reality illusion, not time travel back in the past. That past, 13.5 BILLION years, even at only one second time resolution steps, does not exist. - That is one hell of a lot of universe to be stored somewhere. I don't think they are all compressed and on the dark side of the moon.

SUMMARY: THE PAST DOES NOT NOW EXIST - SO YOU CAN NOT GO VISIT IN IT.

And yet... Somewhere in NGC 1316

Are some aliens with very large telescopes either observing dinosaurs or a 10km rock slamming into the Yucatan peninsula in their 'now'.

 

[Landau Roof]

And yet... Somewhere in NGC 1316

Are some aliens with very large telescopes either observing dinosaurs or a 10km rock slamming into the Yucatan peninsula in their 'now'.

Well, 'their now' is our now, is it not? If they are looking at this moment, they would see the dinosaurs.

 

[Trippy]

Well, 'their now' is our now, is it not?

Is it? Relativity of simultaneity and all that. The past still exists, somewhere.

One mans past is another mans present, or future.

 

[Landau Roof]

Is it? Relativity of simultaneity and all that. The past still exists, somewhere.

One mans past is another mans present, or future.

Yes. The dinosaur scene they see is our past, but they are seeing it now (today) at the same moment you are reading this. Isn't that the same 'now'?

 

[Farsight]

Nor is there a magical box that can transport you from your living room across the ocean, making a "ding" before it makes a magical appearance in Paris. But we do have airliners which people can use to do something similar. That was once a fairy tale too.

But birds weren't. They demonstrated that flight was possible. Leonardo de Vinci sketched a few ideas, see http://www.flyingmachines.org/davi.html .

You sound a lot like the people who knew that those airliners were just fairy tales; a fantasy.

There's a big big difference between flight and time travel.

Put these three indisputable facts together:
One: There is a low limit of weight, certainly not much beyond 50 pounds, beyond which it is impossible for an animal to fly. Nature has reached this limit, and with her utmost effort has failed to pass it.
Two: The animal machine is far more effective than any we can hope to make.; therefore the limit of the weight of a successful flying machine can not be more than fifty pounds.
Three: The weight of any machine constructed for flying, including fuel and engineer, cannot be less than three or four hundred pounds.
Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?

Joseph Le Conte, Professor of Natural History at the University of California, Popular Science Monthly, November 1888.

This really is a poor example. They had rockets in 1888, and more. See the history of aviation on Wikipedia. The Montgolfiers had flown in a balloon over a hundred years previously.

And you need to read the OP to understand why time travel will never be possible. Here: Time travel is science fiction.

 

[Farsight]

Is it? Relativity of simultaneity and all that. The past still exists, somewhere.

No it doesn't. Where did you get that from? What exists now is what exists now, wherein objects are at the positions they're in. These positions change. There is no place that exists called the past wherein all those objects are in their former positions.

One mans past is another mans present, or future.

No it isn't. You might travel fast and suffer time dilation, but you don't end up living in the middle of next week.

 

[Farsight]

Time travel is not forbidden by the laws of physics and GR.

Yes it is. I explained that in the OP. Time is a cumulative measure of motion. You can't move through a measure of motion.

Of course we are. At least science has thrown off the shackles of the church, and I'm sure there's not too many people that would rather live in what was known as the dark ages and other similar episodes in human history.

Ah, but you are clinging to a fantasy just like religious people cling to theirs.

And any sufficiently advanced civilisation could achieve it.

No they couldn't. See above.

While it may b possible to get into a capsule and see Babe Ruth point to the left field stand and then hit a home run there, it will be virtual reality illusion, not time travel back in the past. That past, 13.5 BILLION years, even at only one second time resolution steps, does not exist. - That is one hell of a lot of universe to be stored somewhere. I don't think they are all compressed and on the dark side of the moon. SUMMARY: THE PAST DOES NOT NOW EXIST - SO YOU CAN NOT GO VISIT IN IT.

Well said that man.

 

[Motor Daddy]

And yet... Somewhere in NGC 1316

Are some aliens with very large telescopes either observing dinosaurs or a 10km rock slamming into the Yucatan peninsula in their 'now'.

Right there they are!!

 

[Trippy]

Yes. The dinosaur scene they see is our past, but they are seeing it now (today) at the same moment you are reading this. Isn't that the same 'now'?

Is it?

 

[billvon]

But birds weren't. They demonstrated that flight was possible.

No, it was "proven" by experts that birds represented the largest things that could ever fly. Anything larger was just science fiction.
=============
Put these three indisputable facts together:
One: There is a low limit of weight, certainly not much beyond 50 pounds, beyond which it is impossible for an animal to fly. Nature has reached this limit, and with her utmost effort has failed to pass it.
Two: The animal machine is far more effective than any we can hope to make.; therefore the limit of the weight of a successful flying machine can not be more than fifty pounds.
Three: The weight of any machine constructed for flying, including fuel and engineer, cannot be less than three or four hundred pounds.
Is it not demonstrated that a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible?

-Joseph Le Conte, Professor of Natural History at the University of California, Popular Science Monthly, November 1888.
===============

There's a big big difference between flight and time travel.

Not back in the 1850's. Both were widely understood to be impossible.

This really is a poor example. They had rockets in 1888, and more.

And we have GPS satellites that are moving through time at a different rate than we are.

And you need to read the OP to understand why time travel will never be possible. Here: Time travel is science fiction.

And a true flying machine, self-raising, self-sustaining, self-propelling, is physically impossible. At least until it wasn't.

 

[billvon]

SUMMARY: THE PAST DOES NOT NOW EXIST - SO YOU CAN NOT GO VISIT IN IT.

That's like saying that in California, New York does not exist - so you can not go visit it.

 

[krash661]

form california to manhattan, there's a three hour difference.
at this point i have traveled three hours into the future[new york's time].
from califorina to china is a twelve hour difference.
so from this point i have traveled 12+ hours into the future[china's time].
from china to califorina, i have traveled 12+ hours back to califorina's time [past].

china's future is califorina's past, simultaneously.