Time Travel to the future a Fact?

[mustang292]

LOL, your nuts.

[syntax252]

The universe as we know it now is a duality of space and time, known as space-time. Time is that aspect of space-ime that enables space to go in motion.

 

Well how does that work?

[syntax252]

Yes, but do you know what you mean? You say that time travel is not possible. I claim that it is, and I showed a simple example. You should now be convinced that it is possible.

 

OK, now show us how one can stay in today while the rest of us journey to tomorrow.

[Cadmus]

Well how does that work?

I am not sure what you are asking.

[Cadmus]

OK, now show us how one can stay in today while the rest of us journey to tomorrow.

Again, I am not sure what you are asking. Are you asking how one might not move into the future, which is not possible, or are you asking how one might move into the future more slowly than another, which is possible and a naturally occurring phenomenon?

 

Perhaps you are joking. I am not sure what you mean. Can you be more specific?

[syntax252]

Again' date=' I am not sure what you are asking. Are you asking how one might not move into the future, which is not possible, or are you asking how one might move into the future more slowly than another, which is possible and a naturally occurring phenomenon?

 

Perhaps you are joking. I am not sure what you mean. Can you be more specific?[/quote']

What I am asking is do you think that it is possible to remain in today's time, while the rest of us advance into tomorrows time.

 

Also, could one advance into tomorrows time before tomorrow arrives for the rest of us?

 

Could one proceed into tomorrows time, stay for 2 hours, then return to today's time with data that would prove where he had been, such as tell us of tomorrows events before we get there.

[syntax252]

I am not sure what you are asking.

 

I am asking if time is an absolute necessity for any action or movement to take place.

[ydoaPs]

So let us suppose that your intuition is right' date=' and not the formula...

In which case, if the clocks are synchronized, they remain synchronized.

[/quote']

WHy would you assume that? there are loads of evidence for the formula and, afiak, none for intuition.

 

no clocks can stay synchronized.

[Cadmus]

What I am asking is do you think that it is possible to remain in today's time, while the rest of us advance into tomorrows time.

The words that you use, today's time and tomorrow's time, are objective, and have ony a peripheral relationship to aging within the body. Given that, no, it is not possible for you to be on the same planet as me but you see the calendar as being diffieret from me (time differences around the world notwithstanding).

 

Also, could one advance into tomorrows time before tomorrow arrives for the rest of us?

No, for the same reason.

 

What I am saying is possible is that your body and my body not only can pass through time at different rates, but they must. When you speak of today and tommorow, you are speaking in objective terms, which do not relate well to you or me. Let us consider a period of 50 years. Have you ever seen a 50 year old who looks more like 30? How about one who looks more like 70? The point here is that over the course of 50 objective years, which although a practical unit of measurement is only partially relevant to each individual, the bodies of different individuals will age differently, such that a person who looks 70 at the age of 50 will have passed through time more quickly that the one who looks 30 at the age of 50.

 

Could one proceed into tomorrows time, stay for 2 hours, then return to today's time with data that would prove where he had been, such as tell us of tomorrows events before we get there.

It is possible, although not necessarily practical with today's capabilities, for a person to progress into the future slowly relative to others so that, for example, you would only be slightly older than you are today while the earth and everyone on it has progressed 100 years or more. However, time travel into the past is not possible.

[Cadmus]

I am asking if time is an absolute necessity for any action or movement to take place.

I believe so, yes. Can you envision any action or motion that is instantaneous, that takes "no time" to occur?

[syntax252]

I believe so, yes. Can you envision any action or motion that is instantaneous, that takes "no time" to occur?

 

No, I cannot.

 

Doesn't that mean that time must always have existed?

 

If, for example, it didn't exist before the big bang, then nothing could have happened to trigger the big bang.

[Cadmus]

Doesn't that mean that time must always have existed?

 

If' date=' for example, it didn't exist before the big bang, then nothing could have happened to trigger the big bang.[/quote']

I believe that time has always existed.

 

However, I don't think that this must be. Many people believe that time came into existence with the Big Bang. In this scenariio, the Big Bang took time, but prior to that there was no motion through space and so no time was necessary.

[syntax252]

 

What I am saying is possible is that your body and my body not only can pass through time at different rates' date=' but they must. When you speak of today and tommorow, you are speaking in objective terms, which do not relate well to you or me. Let us consider a period of 50 years. Have you ever seen a 50 year old who looks more like 30? How about one who looks more like 70? The point here is that over the course of 50 objective years, which although a practical unit of measurement is only partially relevant to each individual, the bodies of different individuals will age differently, such that a person who looks 70 at the age of 50 will have passed through time more quickly that the one who looks 30 at the age of 50.[/quote']

 

I think you are seeing physiological differences in the way people age and concluding that time passed at a different rate for them. How do you hope to prove that theory?

 

It is possible, although not necessarily practical with today's capabilities, for a person to progress into the future slowly relative to others so that, for example, you would only be slightly older than you are today while the earth and everyone on it has progressed 100 years or more. However, time travel into the past is not possible.

 

If what you discribe were possible, how would you know for sure that it was time that had been altered and not one's physiology?

[Cadmus]

I think you are seeing physiological differences in the way people age and concluding that time passed at a different rate for them. How do you hope to prove that theory?

Actually, I am giving a simple and practical example of this phenomenon. This is not evidence that I would submit for demonstration of the phenomenon. In other words, you have me citing a conclusion and using it as evidence. That is not the case.

[syntax252]

Actually, I am giving a simple and practical example of this phenomenon. This is not evidence that I would submit for demonstration of the phenomenon. In other words, you have me citing a conclusion and using it as evidence. That is not the case.

So this is just a theory of yours?

[Cadmus]

So this is just a theory of yours?

It is a simple corrolary of relativity.

[syntax252]

It is a simple corrolary of relativity.

 

Which is part of a theory? Unproven?

[Dave]

It's a part of a theory that is generally regarded to be correct amongst the scientific community. Relativity is based upon a series of posulates made by Einstein, and as such you can't really prove it. However (as with most things in physics), you can show that your theories fit the experimental data that you've got. So far, relativity seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

[syntax252]

It's a part of a theory that is generally regarded to be correct amongst the scientific community. Relativity is based upon a series of posulates made by Einstein, and as such you can't really prove it. However (as with most things in physics), you can show that your theories fit the experimental data that you've got. So far, relativity seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

 

I understand that.

 

What I was trying to elicit is the methodology employed to "prove" that time is relitive to gravity/speed.

[swansont]

I understand that.

 

What I was trying to elicit is the methodology employed to "prove" that time is relitive to gravity/speed.

 

It has been observed to be true, under controlled conditions, many times. It is continually observed these days in GPS satellites.

[syntax252]

It has been observed to be true, under controlled conditions, many times. It is continually observed these days in GPS satellites.

 

OK, again, I understand that.

 

But what is the evidence that it is true?

[Cadmus]

But what is the evidence

Observation is evidence.

 

that it is true?

Truth should always be taken with a grain of salt. It is not useful to talk about truth, but about useful theories. Theories that are supported by observational evidence tend to be more useful than those that do not.

 

I think that I, for one, do not know what you are really asking.

[swansont]

A GPS satellite clock on the ground does not run at the same rate as a "normal" clock - it has to be set to run slow, because of the effects of time dilation and the change in the gravitational redshift. The kinetic term makes it run slow, the gravitational term makes it run fast. Because of the height of the orbit for GPS, ~20,000 km, the gravitational term "wins."

 

Once in orbit, the clock runs at the correct average rate - there are still small effects that require adjustment, and all clocks need to be periodically synchronized anyway, since no two clocks can remain synchronous. But the adjustments are small compared to the offset.

[syntax252]

A GPS satellite clock on the ground does not run at the same rate as a "normal" clock - it has to be set to run slow' date=' because of the effects of time dilation and the change in the gravitational redshift. The kinetic term makes it run slow, the gravitational term makes it run fast. Because of the height of the orbit for GPS, ~20,000 km, the gravitational term "wins."

 

Once in orbit, the clock runs at the correct average rate - there are still small effects that require adjustment, and all clocks need to be periodically synchronized anyway, since no two clocks can remain synchronous. But the adjustments are small compared to the offset.[/quote']

 

Cadmus:

 

Truth should always be taken with a grain of salt. It is not useful to talk about truth, but about useful theories. Theories that are supported by observational evidence tend to be more useful than those that do not.

 

I think that I, for one, do not know what you are really asking.

 

This is what I am asking:

 

When we find differences is the way clocks measure time, why do we assume that it is time itself that has been altered, and not merely the clock? Is it impossible to think that perhaps there are physical circumstances whereby a clock would be induced record time at a different rate?

[swansont]

When we find differences is the way clocks measure time' date=' why do we assume that it is time itself that has been altered, and not merely the clock? Is it impossible to think that perhaps there are physical circumstances whereby a clock would be induced record time at a different rate?[/quote']

 

Because the clocks are protected from changes caused by environmental effects, the changes are what are predicted by theory, and it hasn't mattered what type of clock has been used. The effects have been seen in radioactive decay and in atomic clocks using different technologies and different elements.