# Thread: Can anyone explain...FTL Effect

1. I was just wondering if anyone could explain to me why you go back in time when travelling faster than light ? (infinite mass and the appratent impossibility of not actually being able to aside).

I know that the closer you get to light speed the furthur photons have to travel but how does this phenomena actually work, is it because of your rapid change in distance? Or simply your speed alters the spacetime continuum.

So at 1c time stops, but why would it reverse faster than light? I really don't actually understand WHY time would go backwards. How would an outside observor see this anyway? If they saw the ftl's light clock they couldn't actually see that photon reverse its path could they? So the ftl ship disappears. But why? Why go backwards in time just because you can go faster than light? Is it because distances change greatly and as a result so does time because of your speed? This ones a real mind boggler and I'm guessing not many of you here would be able to understand my question but any feedback would be great. Even if you don't understand relativity any simpe answer would be great, after all simple answers are most often reality.

Thanks.

SVWillmer

2.

3. Time doesn't reverse from what I understand. If you travel faster than light time still moves at the same speed for you, but from the perspective of someone else not travelling at that speed your time will be passing more slowly. It doesn't reverse, just slows down depending on the observer.

I think.

4. Originally Posted by Development
Time doesn't reverse from what I understand. If you travel faster than light time still moves at the same speed for you, but from the perspective of someone else not travelling at that speed your time will be passing more slowly. It doesn't reverse, just slows down depending on the observer.

I think.
Well it does reverse so the experts say, it slows down closer you get to light speed and then when you hit it it stops, so logically it gos backwards beyond light. I really grasp relativity and I'm bamboozled at this one. I guess its one of those things that's going to take a very long time to answer, but thanks anyway.

5. Does anyone else know about this? I've never heard that time reverses. Time takes longer to pass for you, although from your perspective nothing will be different.

Why is it logical that time would suddenly reverse?

6. Originally Posted by Development
Does anyone else know about this? I've never heard that time reverses. Time takes longer to pass for you, although from your perspective nothing will be different.

Why is it logical that time would suddenly reverse?
I'll give you a link,

The closer those ships get to light the longer the trip that photon has to take until eventually when the ships reach 1c the photon has an infinite journey to take, thus if it goes ftl, then it has to by logic (the logic being that something has to give, the something being time, it can't just stop because it reaches c, that would still disobey relativity) reverse backwards through time, or just simply the ships disappear.

7. Even worse, at C you would be an infinitly flat pancake. So if you go faster than C, would you become the mirror image of yourself?

8. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Even worse, at C you would be an infinitly flat pancake. So if you go faster than C, would you become the mirror image of yourself?
Well you to outside observors would disappear. To yourself the universe reverses backwards. But I don't understand as to why this happens.

9. Originally Posted by svwillmer
Originally Posted by Development
Does anyone else know about this? I've never heard that time reverses. Time takes longer to pass for you, although from your perspective nothing will be different.

Why is it logical that time would suddenly reverse?
I'll give you a link,

The closer those ships get to light the longer the trip that photon has to take until eventually when the ships reach 1c the photon has an infinite journey to take, thus if it goes ftl, then it has to by logic (the logic being that something has to give, the something being time, it can't just stop because it reaches c, that would still disobey relativity) reverse backwards through time, or just simply the ships disappear.
Relativity also says that the ships can never actually achieve a velocity of c, let alone execeed it. They can get as close as they want, but they can never reach it. The simple answer as to why this is true is that the energy needed to reach a given speed approaches infinity as you near the speed of light. So reaching or exceeding the speed of light never happens.

As far as time dilation goes, the formula is

T = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Were T is the time measured by observer, and t is the time measured in the frame with velocity v.

Note that as v approaches c, T becomes larger with respect to t (for instance, the time our observer measures by his clock for one sec to tick off on the moving clocks frame becomes longer. IOW, he sees the other clock ticking slower.

If v = c then you get T= t/sqrt(1-1)= t/sqrt(0) = t/0
Division by 0 is undefined. It has no answer.

If v>c then you get T = t/sqrt(some negative number)

But there is no number, positive or negative, that is the squareroot of a negative number.

Such a number is called "imaginary".

So Relativity does not predict that time runs backwards at FTL but instead becomes imaginary.

10. Instead of the square root of a minus number, can we therefore have the negative square root of a minus number? In the same way you can multiply negative numbers?

I think its very logical that beyond light speed time would reverse, after all it can't remain the same as that would disobey relativity (laws of physics are the same for all observors no matter the reference frame). Disobeying being that time still has to give because of the velocity, relativity can't stop working just because one stops going faster than light, as if that were true, anything below light speed must remain the same also, thats a causality argument. So time has to reverse faster than light. Look at frame dragging for instance.

11. couldn't you say that using T = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and v = c
that T = t/0 and then subsitute 0 for x and rewrite the equation as
T = t/x as x-> 0
so you can say that T approaches infinity as x -> 0, assuming t is a positive number

I am just practicing my calc.

to svwillmer:

The square root of -1 = i. There is no way to get around it to my knowledge.

and x<sup>-y</sup> = 1/x<sup>y</sup>

12. Originally Posted by Demen Tolden
couldn't you say that using T = t/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and v = c
that T = t/0 and then subsitute 0 for x and rewrite the equation as
T = t/x as x-> 0
so you can say that T approaches infinity as x -> 0, assuming t is a positive number

I am just practicing my calc.

to svwillmer:

The square root of -1 = i. There is no way to get around it to my knowledge.

and x<sup>-y</sup> = 1/x<sup>y</sup>
Great idea! What about negative square root? Negative number maths?

13. You can't go faster than light, and you can't go back in time. Why not? Because if you take a look up "pair production", you see a photon being converted into an electron and a positron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Light is converted into matter. Annihilation reverses the process. In a sense matter is "made of light". Think of it like this: the light is still there, going round and round in circles. If you're "made of light", you can't go faster than the light from which you're made. No way, no how. End of story. Aw, time travel is science-fiction anyhow. Worse than that. It's pseudoscience. I mean that.

14. Originally Posted by Farsight
You can't go faster than light, and you can't go back in time. Why not? Because if you take a look up "pair production", you see a photon being converted into an electron and a positron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Light is converted into matter. Annihilation reverses the process. In a sense matter is "made of light". Think of it like this: the light is still there, going round and round in circles. If you're "made of light", you can't go faster than the light from which you're made. No way, no how. End of story. Aw, time travel is science-fiction anyhow. Worse than that. It's pseudoscience. I mean that.
A photon CAUSES the effect of pair production, it doesn't actually become a positron and electron, a photon cannot simply 'gain mass and charge' and then become an electron. That doesn't work. Its like the photoelectric effect, I have heard the argument that photons become electrons and vice versa, it can't happen at least not in normal circumstances anyway. The energy of the photon goes through the atom and is given off. Besides this is quantum mechanical way of the effect, this therefore does not fit into relativity.

Pair production refers to the creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle, usually from a photon
That is wikipedia's quote from the link you gave me. Notice it says from?

No offense there, but time travel is possible, it is forwards and is possible backwards in frame dragging. Type in on google 'Ronald Mallett' and you'll see his time machine being built.

Time travel is possible folks :-D

15. Originally Posted by svwillmer
Instead of the square root of a minus number, can we therefore have the negative square root of a minus number? In the same way you can multiply negative numbers?
do you mean -sqrt(-x)? This does nothing towards getting rid of the negative number inside the squareroot. You can't move the minus sign outside of the squareroot to inside the squareroot without squaring it, and squaring a negative makes a positive. This still leaves a square root of a negative number.

I think its very logical that beyond light speed time would reverse, after all it can't remain the same as that would disobey relativity (laws of physics are the same for all observors no matter the reference frame). Disobeying being that time still has to give because of the velocity, relativity can't stop working just because one stops going faster than light, as if that were true, anything below light speed must remain the same also, thats a causality argument. So time has to reverse faster than light. Look at frame dragging for instance.
Is it logical that time would reverse beyond light speed? Assume you have a spaceship accelerating up to c. If time reversed above c, then the instant it exceeded c its engines would begin running backwards and the ship would deccelerate back to c. In Relativity, time is an asymptotic function, meaning that the moving ship's rate of time approaches 0 but never reaches it (as measured by an outside observer).

There are hypothetical particles called tachyons that would travel faster than c. But they are limited to FTL speeds only. Just like we can never accelerate to greater than c, they cannot slow down to below c.

Tachyons are only hypothetical and may not even exist. Many scientists are adverse to the idea of their existance because it leads to all sorts of causality issues (Effect preceeding cause, etc.).

IOW, if FTL does exist, it follows different rules than slower than light does. This does not violate Relativity, it just means that there is a region in which it doesn't apply.

On the other hand, it may just be that FTL just simply does not exist, that the rules governing reality forbid it. In that case Relativity is complete as it deals with all allowable velocites.

PS. Frame dragging has nothing to do with time reversal.

16. THINK of TIME being an energy front first:
simply, if one travels AHEAD of time, and yet no one CAN travel ahead of time, because, let us propose, that time travels at a constant speed, they MUST be BEFORE time, they must have created a pocket of reality BEFORE time.

Now consider the possibility that time, "time", yes "time", is actually the energy signature of light.

How must easier is that to understand?

If you are AHEAD of time, you are BEFORE time arrives, and thus to that space-time precinct, you are BEFORE time. It is SO EASSSSSSSSSY to understand as time being light energy.

Easy if you know the new math.

17. I understand that.

You mean there are really smaaaart people in this forum who can't understand that explanation?

You're sayin that if you create a situation of being FASTER than time, AHEAD of time, it is like you are BEFORE time arrives, and in that case, ummmmmm, ummmmmmmm, um, BEFORE time.

Ooooooo Eeeeeee. You're makin sense.

Yeah: I see what you're sayin: time is a footprint of light. Cool. Do ya have any more ideas?

No, hang on: I am being bad in associating myself to this theory. OK, SS, not a bad idea. You may need to work on it a little. Still, nice insight. Keep it up.

SS, if you are going to do that with the line of time though, you need to prove time, as light, is circular, is a circular front.

Can ya do that?

If you can, you're a genius.

18. Originally Posted by svwillmer

A photon CAUSES the effect of pair production, it doesn't actually become a positron and electron, a photon cannot simply 'gain mass and charge' and then become an electron. That doesn't work. Its like the photoelectric effect, I have heard the argument that photons become electrons and vice versa, it can't happen at least not in normal circumstances anyway. The energy of the photon goes through the atom and is given off. Besides this is quantum mechanical way of the effect, this therefore does not fit into relativity.

Pair production refers to the creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle, usually from a photon
That is wikipedia's quote from the link you gave me. Notice it says from?
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossar...roduction.html

No, in pair production the photon is actually converted to an electron-positron pair. It is the reverse process of a electron-positron pair combining and forming photons. Mass and energy are two sides of the same coin and in pair production the energy of the photon now just presents itself as mass. as far as charge goes, the postron and electron have opposite charges, so there is no net charge created.

That being said, I do not agree with Farsight's claim that matter is "made from light", this is his own interpretation, and not one held by mainstream physics.

The photoelectric effect is totally different. with it, the interaction of an atom and the photon causes an electron in the atom to gain enough energy to be ejected from the atom.

And yes, I noticed where it says "from", and here "from" means that the photon is converted into an electron-positron pair. If they had meant otherwise they would have used the word "by", Such as "the electron-positron pair are produced from the atom by the interaction with the photon".

19. Is it logical that time would reverse beyond light speed? Assume you have a spaceship accelerating up to c. If time reversed above c, then the instant it exceeded c its engines would begin running backwards and the ship would deccelerate back to c
Janus you said this and were wrong. Faster than light time around you would reverse but would not reverse for you as you are relative to yourself and so that change does not occur for you as relative to yourself you are stationary.

Frame dragging is everything to do with time travel backwards in what we can observe, Ron Mallett's idea is based on this. The spacetime of a black hole moves and therfore say if it moves at 0.5 c and there was an electron in it, to an outside observor it would seem as though it is travelling at 1.75c. It disappears. Why do you think we can't 'see' a black hole? Because there is nothing there. (I'm aware that photons can't escape a black holes Gravitational geodesic).

Einstein layed down this ages ago.

20. No, in pair production the photon is actually converted to an electron-positron pair. It is the reverse process of a electron-positron pair combining and forming photons
Exactly, but the energy came from the photon, the photons energy created what we see as the electron and positron. You could argue it became the two but in reality it didn't, they were converted from the energy of the photon therefore the photon didn't actually become the two. This is an entropy argument.

21. It stands to reason that, if energy can become matter and matter can become energy, that possibly all matter came from energy (and that energy could have been in the form of light). Or the reverse..... but it gets confusing.

It sounds like the first problem, that we cant' exceed light, is the dominant problem here. If your concept of time shortens, then you feel like you're going faster and faster, and the stars are racing by. Its only the rest of the people in the universe who realize you're not going all that fast.

22. Janus: your post noted. The "made out of light" assertion is detailed in my paper, which is under review at a journal. See "A Qualitative 3+1 Dimensional Geometrical Model" thread for a link.

Originally Posted by svwillmer
A photon CAUSES the effect of pair production, it doesn't actually become a positron and electron, a photon cannot simply 'gain mass and charge' and then become an electron. That doesn't work.
Oh yes it can. And it does work. It demonstrably works. The evidence is there. The experiment can be done. You had a 1022KeV photon. Now you've got an 511KeV electron and a 511KeV positron, exhibiting mass and charge. If you shove an electron and a positron together you get two photons. You sometimes get more than two, but photons is what you get. And all that mass and charge is gone.

It's like the photoelectric effect, I have heard the argument that photons become electrons and vice versa, it can't happen at least not in normal circumstances anyway. The energy of the photon goes through the atom and is given off. Besides this is quantum mechanical way of the effect, this therefore does not fit into relativity.
It's not exactly like the photoelectric effect, and it's not an argument. There are experiments that demonstrate it.

Pair production refers to the creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle, usually from a photon. That is wikipedia's quote from the link you gave me. Notice it says from?
What does "from" have to do with it? Try creating an electron and a positron from anything else, with nothing left over. A photon is all you can use.

No offense there, but time travel is possible, it is forwards and is possible backwards in frame dragging.
No, it isn't, and you can't show me any. I can show you a photon being transformed into an electron and a positron, but you don't believe it . You can't show me time travel, but you do believe it. Where's the logic in that?

Type in on google 'Ronald Mallett' and you'll see his time machine being built.
I know all about Mallett. He's trying to stop light. He isn't building a time machine. He's building a no time machine. If he can get it to work what he'll actually build is what's called a "stasis box". At best. At worst, what he'll actually end up creating is something dangerous. Look up infinite time dilation to check on what I mean. Sorry, but time travel is pseudoscience.

23. Originally Posted by Farsight
Janus: your post noted. The "made out of light" assertion is detailed in my paper, which is under review at a journal. See "A Qualitative 3+1 Dimensional Geometrical Model" thread for a link.

Originally Posted by svwillmer
A photon CAUSES the effect of pair production, it doesn't actually become a positron and electron, a photon cannot simply 'gain mass and charge' and then become an electron. That doesn't work.
Oh yes it can. And it does work. It demonstrably works. The evidence is there. The experiment can be done. You had a 1022KeV photon. Now you've got an 511KeV electron and a 511KeV positron, exhibiting mass and charge. If you shove an electron and a positron together you get two photons. You sometimes get more than two, but photons is what you get. And all that mass and charge is gone.

It's like the photoelectric effect, I have heard the argument that photons become electrons and vice versa, it can't happen at least not in normal circumstances anyway. The energy of the photon goes through the atom and is given off. Besides this is quantum mechanical way of the effect, this therefore does not fit into relativity.
It's not exactly like the photoelectric effect, and it's not an argument. There are experiments that demonstrate it.

Pair production refers to the creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle, usually from a photon. That is wikipedia's quote from the link you gave me. Notice it says from?
What does "from" have to do with it? Try creating an electron and a positron from anything else, with nothing left over. A photon is all you can use.

No offense there, but time travel is possible, it is forwards and is possible backwards in frame dragging.
No, it isn't, and you can't show me any. I can show you a photon being transformed into an electron and a positron, but you don't believe it . You can't show me time travel, but you do believe it. Where's the logic in that?

Type in on google 'Ronald Mallett' and you'll see his time machine being built.
I know all about Mallett. He's trying to stop light. He isn't building a time machine. He's building a no time machine. If he can get it to work what he'll actually build is what's called a "stasis box". At best. At worst, what he'll actually end up creating is something dangerous. Look up infinite time dilation to check on what I mean. Sorry, but time travel is pseudoscience.
LIES! Lies and slander!

TT is possible, R. Mallett is creating a time machine dog. Its clearly obvious. Prove to me time travel is impossible and I'll show you a green dog. Your wrong, absolutley wrong in 100%. If time travel weren't possible how come we can travel forwards in time? Why not back too? After all a dimension is the motion in a plain of existence in two ways.

24. Asumming time travel is correct in both directions, if one travels ahead in time, to those of the future, of that time, someone has come from the past, they haven't travelled ahead in their (THOSE IN THAT FUTURE REALITY) OWN time. If you then travel back from their future time to this one, you travel BACK in their time, but technically in our time your not travelling back in time, because you are still ahead of this time.

This is why ultimately, given EVERY POSSIBLE situation of time travel, the SYSTEM of space-time has a "reference" in time, a NOW ZONE, a light-wave front, sop to speak, we are all riding. Some of us are wrecked by that energy front, others ride it well. But, as presented in an earlier post, the big bang, in theory, actually exists contrary to our time measurement of it.............it exists in the future. Yet, by our measurements, it is observed in the past. The energy front of time is what we have now, that which exists in between the observed (past), the perceived, BIG BANG, and the correctly REASONED big bang (future). For us to ESCAPE that balance of time in-between, I have a theory that suggests we would not longer be conscious in stepping outside of that "envelope" of the NOW zone we all exist in.

You see, the real big bang, that energy of time, is locked in the future, while the false one is locked in the past. We perceive the movement of time as PAST to FUTURE because the FUTURE holds the greatest concentration of time, of "energy".

25. Originally Posted by svwillmer
LIES! Lies and slander!

TT is possible, R. Mallett is creating a time machine dog. Its clearly obvious. Prove to me time travel is impossible and I'll show you a green dog. Your wrong, absolutley wrong in 100%. If time travel weren't possible how come we can travel forwards in time? Why not back too? After all a dimension is the motion in a plain of existence in two ways.
We can't travel forward in time. That's just a figure of speech. We can only travel in space. I can jump forward a metre. Can you jump forward a second? No. There is no evidence at all for anybody "travelling forward in time". What a clock measures is motion. Through space. The thing you think of as the time dimension is a derived dimension, it's only mathematical, an "emergent property" of motion through space. Time exists like heat exists, they are both derived from motion. And just as you can't travel to a higher temperature, nor can you travel to another time. So time travel is bunk.

I just posted this on another forum, and thought it might cheer you up. If you want to know how to travel "faster than light", and it is a cheat, here's how...

Originally Posted by Farsight
This is an interesting one. More interesting than you might think. Let's assume that in the next twenty years somebody works out some new fundamental principle, and effectively invents a spacedrive where fuel is not an issue. Let's also assume that for a manned flight, we want to limit the acceleration and deceleration to 1g.

OK, if you accelerate at 1g, after a year you're travelling at fairly close to the speed of light. Assuming that you have some very good shielding and you don't hit anything major, to go 30 light years is going to take you about 31 years. Let's call it 32 years for luck. Then you'd have to decelerate at 1g, so you'd get to your planet 60 light years away in 64 years. But here's the rub: that's 64 earth years. It didn't take you 64 of your years. For the moment let's say that your average velocity was .99c. Then we can use 1/√(1-vÂ²/cÂ²) to work out that you experienced a sevenfold time dilation. (Multiply .99 by itself to get .98 and subtract this from one to get a fiftieth, which is roughly a seventh multiplied by a seventh). So if your average velocity was .99c, the trip would have taken you 9 years of your time. But actually, your average velocity would have been higher than that. Search google on "accelerate at 1g" to find some decent maths because I gotta go:

The way it pans out, if you don't care about going back, if you don't care how many years have passed on earth while you've experienced your time-dilated years, you can keep on accelerating. You get closer and closer to the speed of light, and your time dilation increases and increases. In the end, it means you can cross the whole galaxy in maybe twenty years of your time. Did you get that? You travel 100,000 light years in twenty years. It means that whilst you can't actually travel faster than light, in a weird kind of cheaty way... you can.

26. Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by svwillmer
LIES! Lies and slander!

TT is possible, R. Mallett is creating a time machine dog. Its clearly obvious. Prove to me time travel is impossible and I'll show you a green dog. Your wrong, absolutley wrong in 100%. If time travel weren't possible how come we can travel forwards in time? Why not back too? After all a dimension is the motion in a plain of existence in two ways.
We can't travel forward in time. That's just a figure of speech. We can only travel in space. I can jump forward a metre. Can you jump forward a second? No. There is no evidence at all for anybody "travelling forward in time". What a clock measures is motion. Through space. The thing you think of as the time dimension is a derived dimension, it's only mathematical, an "emergent property" of motion through space. Time exists like heat exists, they are both derived from motion. And just as you can't travel to a higher temperature, nor can you travel to another time. So time travel is bunk.

I just posted this on another forum, and thought it might cheer you up. If you want to know how to travel "faster than light", and it is a cheat, here's how...

Originally Posted by Farsight
This is an interesting one. More interesting than you might think. Let's assume that in the next twenty years somebody works out some new fundamental principle, and effectively invents a spacedrive where fuel is not an issue. Let's also assume that for a manned flight, we want to limit the acceleration and deceleration to 1g.

OK, if you accelerate at 1g, after a year you're travelling at fairly close to the speed of light. Assuming that you have some very good shielding and you don't hit anything major, to go 30 light years is going to take you about 31 years. Let's call it 32 years for luck. Then you'd have to decelerate at 1g, so you'd get to your planet 60 light years away in 64 years. But here's the rub: that's 64 earth years. It didn't take you 64 of your years. For the moment let's say that your average velocity was .99c. Then we can use 1/√(1-vÂ²/cÂ²) to work out that you experienced a sevenfold time dilation. (Multiply .99 by itself to get .98 and subtract this from one to get a fiftieth, which is roughly a seventh multiplied by a seventh). So if your average velocity was .99c, the trip would have taken you 9 years of your time. But actually, your average velocity would have been higher than that. Search google on "accelerate at 1g" to find some decent maths because I gotta go:

The way it pans out, if you don't care about going back, if you don't care how many years have passed on earth while you've experienced your time-dilated years, you can keep on accelerating. You get closer and closer to the speed of light, and your time dilation increases and increases. In the end, it means you can cross the whole galaxy in maybe twenty years of your time. Did you get that? You travel 100,000 light years in twenty years. It means that whilst you can't actually travel faster than light, in a weird kind of cheaty way... you can.
Ever heard of the twin paradox Farsight? If one were to travel at near light speed and then back the twin of the ship would be younger than the one on Earth, time is apparently going faster for the universe around you so you are travelling forwards in time, and I can explain it, even if you can't understand it. Argue with me all you like, but you are also arguing with Einstein, Mallett and Hawking.

PS Its called the spacetime continuum so if you move in space you move in time and vice versa, all this was layed down a 100 years ago, please get with the program for your own benefit.

27. Originally Posted by svwillmer
Is it logical that time would reverse beyond light speed? Assume you have a spaceship accelerating up to c. If time reversed above c, then the instant it exceeded c its engines would begin running backwards and the ship would deccelerate back to c
Janus you said this and were wrong. Faster than light time around you would reverse but would not reverse for you as you are relative to yourself and so that change does not occur for you as relative to yourself you are stationary.
Sorry, but that is not the whole picture. While you would see the universe around you going backward in time, the effect is reciprocal; the universe, and any observer you are traveling FTL with respect to would determine that you were going backward in time, and thus regressing to the point to where you crossed the lightspeed limit.

Even if you just consider your view point paradoxes arise. Because you and your ship interacted with the exterior universe before you exceeded light speed.

For instance. assume that while passing Alpha Centauri and before you exceed light speed, you mathc speeds with another ship and pick up a passenger. the other ship never exceeds light speed and you continue on to do so. After you pass light speed you pass Sirius and from your perspective, time around you has regressed to the point where you picked up the passenger. Meaning that from your perspective, the other ship is near Alpha Centauri ready to "receive" the passenger from you.

But you are not there to "deliver" the passenger, you and your passenger are near Sirius. You have caused a casuality crisis and a contradiction.

You can't say that something is logical if it leads to contradiction.

And please don't say that there would be two versions of your ship, a past and present version, or that the passenger will suddenly disappear from your ship and appear on the other. These are fine as explainations in a science fiction story, but we are talking reality here.

28. [quote="svwillmer"]

Frame dragging is everything to do with time travel backwards in what we can observe, Ron Mallett's idea is based on this. The spacetime of a black hole moves and therfore say if it moves at 0.5 c and there was an electron in it, to an outside observor it would seem as though it is travelling at 1.75c. It disappears. Why do you think we can't 'see' a black hole? Because there is nothing there. (I'm aware that photons can't escape a black holes Gravitational geodesic).

Einstein layed down this ages ago.
Ron Mallet's idea is just that, an idea. There are at least two other physicists who claim to have found flaws with his analysis of space-time, and in general, most physicists feel that the closed timelike curves or loops that he is trying to exploit are mere artifacts of the math of GR and have no physical reality. Even Mallet has backed away form soem of his earlier positions.

Until real evidence can be produced, his theory is interesting but unsupported. This is a far cry from being able to say that time travel is possible.

Mallet is just a single individual and individuals, even physicists, are capable of error and suffering from blindspots. Until his ideas are accepted into scientific concensus they must be taken with a large grain of salt.

29. [quote="Janus"]
Originally Posted by svwillmer

Frame dragging is everything to do with time travel backwards in what we can observe, Ron Mallett's idea is based on this. The spacetime of a black hole moves and therfore say if it moves at 0.5 c and there was an electron in it, to an outside observor it would seem as though it is travelling at 1.75c. It disappears. Why do you think we can't 'see' a black hole? Because there is nothing there. (I'm aware that photons can't escape a black holes Gravitational geodesic).

Einstein layed down this ages ago.
Ron Mallet's idea is just that, an idea. There are at least two other physicists who claim to have found flaws with his analysis of space-time, and in general, most physicists feel that the closed timelike curves or loops that he is trying to exploit are mere artifacts of the math of GR and have no physical reality. Even Mallet has backed away form soem of his earlier positions.

Until real evidence can be produced, his theory is interesting but unsupported. This is a far cry from being able to say that time travel is possible.

Mallet is just a single individual and individuals, even physicists, are capable of error and suffering from blindspots. Until his ideas are accepted into scientific concensus they must be taken with a large grain of salt.
You know, there are two kinds of physicists in this world, those who say something is possible and work towards making it possible, and those that say it is impossible and work towards proving it impossible.

I am 100% behind Ron Mallett, his ideas are supported by incredible mathematics that you could not even begin to understand, bring on the next Einstein I say. Acceptance? Who gives a damn about acceptance, Malletts going along with it anyway regardless of anyone 'accepting' his theory. Why should a great mind give a flying shit about someones opinion who doesn't even understand the science behind those ideas. Einstein didn't, Newton didn't, hell Galileo didn't either. There have got to be those that stand up in science and say "I'm going to prove my theories regardless of anyone who may oppose me". All' fair in love and science and I am fair when I say time travel is possible, its already been proven to go forwards and its sure as hell being proven now to go backwards thanks to Mallett. Anyone who disagrees with me can bite my shiny metal ass, and THATS the bottom line, cos stone cold said so.

30. Originally Posted by Janus
Originally Posted by svwillmer
Is it logical that time would reverse beyond light speed? Assume you have a spaceship accelerating up to c. If time reversed above c, then the instant it exceeded c its engines would begin running backwards and the ship would deccelerate back to c
Janus you said this and were wrong. Faster than light time around you would reverse but would not reverse for you as you are relative to yourself and so that change does not occur for you as relative to yourself you are stationary.
Sorry, but that is not the whole picture. While you would see the universe around you going backward in time, the effect is reciprocal; the universe, and any observer you are traveling FTL with respect to would determine that you were going backward in time, and thus regressing to the point to where you crossed the lightspeed limit.

Even if you just consider your view point paradoxes arise. Because you and your ship interacted with the exterior universe before you exceeded light speed.

For instance. assume that while passing Alpha Centauri and before you exceed light speed, you mathc speeds with another ship and pick up a passenger. the other ship never exceeds light speed and you continue on to do so. After you pass light speed you pass Sirius and from your perspective, time around you has regressed to the point where you picked up the passenger. Meaning that from your perspective, the other ship is near Alpha Centauri ready to "receive" the passenger from you.

But you are not there to "deliver" the passenger, you and your passenger are near Sirius. You have caused a casuality crisis and a contradiction.

You can't say that something is logical if it leads to contradiction.

And please don't say that there would be two versions of your ship, a past and present version, or that the passenger will suddenly disappear from your ship and appear on the other. These are fine as explainations in a science fiction story, but we are talking reality here.
Paradox? I the good old days of PEOPLE WHO DON'T GET RELATIVITY. seriously study harder or get another proffesion. There is a past self, a present self and a future self in all walks of life. There is no such thing as a paradox.

31. Originally Posted by svwillmer
Paradox? I the good old days of PEOPLE WHO DON'T GET RELATIVITY. seriously study harder or get another proffesion. There is a past self, a present self and a future self in all walks of life. There is no such thing as a paradox.
Up to now I've been polite, but now I'll be blunt. You have already made enough miss-statements about Relativity to show that you do not understand it. Oh, you have a basic "sunday supplement" grasp of it, but you don't understand it. And this is just dealing with the limited case of SR let alone GR.

No such thing as a paradox? Well that depends on which meaning of the word you are using. The dictionary definition runs something like this: "something that appears to be nonsensical, but yet is true.

Under such a definition, the Twin Paradox is a paradox, since it appears nonsensical that one twwin could end up younger than the other, but this indeed turns out to be the end result.

If by paradox, you mean a logical or physcial contradiction, then yes, I would say that they do not, in reality, exist.

It is for this very reason that I object to your notion of time runing backward at FTL speeds, because it leads directly to the creation of such a contradiction.

That and the fact that This is not what Relativity predicts.

32. Originally Posted by Janus
Originally Posted by svwillmer
Paradox? I the good old days of PEOPLE WHO DON'T GET RELATIVITY. seriously study harder or get another proffesion. There is a past self, a present self and a future self in all walks of life. There is no such thing as a paradox.
Up to now I've been polite, but now I'll be blunt. You have already made enough miss-statements about Relativity to show that you do not understand it. Oh, you have a basic "sunday supplement" grasp of it, but you don't understand it. And this is just dealing with the limited case of SR let alone GR.

No such thing as a paradox? Well that depends on which meaning of the word you are using. The dictionary definition runs something like this: "something that appears to be nonsensical, but yet is true.

Under such a definition, the Twin Paradox is a paradox, since it appears nonsensical that one twwin could end up younger than the other, but this indeed turns out to be the end result.

If by paradox, you mean a logical or physcial contradiction, then yes, I would say that they do not, in reality, exist.

It is for this very reason that I object to your notion of time runing backward at FTL speeds, because it leads directly to the creation of such a contradiction.

That and the fact that This is not what Relativity predicts.
Time at FTL runs backwards for the rest of the universe relative to you, therefore yourself and the ship you are in going FTL don't reverse backwards. I understand relativity enough that I have a fully viable theory of time travel, thats why I asked why FTL resulted in backward time motion. So if that was true my theory will work.

33. Originally Posted by svwillmer
Ever heard of the twin paradox Farsight? If one were to travel at near light speed and then back the twin of the ship would be younger than the one on Earth, time is apparently going faster for the universe around you so you are travelling forwards in time, and I can explain it, even if you can't understand it. Argue with me all you like, but you are also arguing with Einstein, Mallett and Hawking.
I've more than just heard of the Twins Paradox. I can explain it. And i am most definitely with Einstein. I am the author of a paper that tells you how much I'm with Einstein:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/A-Qua...odel-9059t.php

Originally Posted by svwillmer
PS: It's called the spacetime continuum so if you move in space you move in time and vice versa, all this was laid down a 100 years ago, please get with the program for your own benefit.
Einstein moved away from Minkowski's thinking in his later years. He was working on something different, and I know what it was. I've got copies of letters from Einstein to a guy in 1954.

Originally Posted by svwillmer
I am 100% behind Ron Mallett, his ideas are supported by incredible mathematics that you could not even begin to understand, bring on the next Einstein I say.
Mallett is wrong. He doesn't understand time. I do. If you must: I'm your next Einstein. Now read the paper. As Janus said, it is not accepted physics. Not yet. But whatever its flaws, you will truly learn a great deal from it.

34. Originally Posted by Farsight
... letters from Einstein to a guy in 1954.
Generalised theory of gravitation. I'm working on it.

Why is Ron Mallett wrong then hm? Einstein kept quiet about his GTOG Theory because he knew what the implications would be. The twin 'paradox' shows how one can relativly travel forwards in time doesn't it? Janus is being a bit perdantic don't you think?

Einstein did not move away from his theory, he was modifying it to, well you know so I won't compromise Einsteins secret to any one else but you know what I'm talking about.

Mallett understands time and it is this simple. Time is change and change alone (in a nutshell), his calculations work, and they theoretically prove his theory is proabable, thats why he's building the thing, why else would he be building it? He has had his theory reviewed by countless professional physicists before 1 cent went into his project. If Mallett doesn't understand time (which the guy has been studying since he was in adolescence so he knows a great deal more than either of us at this moment in time), his theory checks out and is compatible with Einsteins theories.

If you are the next Einstein, tell me exactly what Einstein was working on before he died.

35. Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by svwillmer
LIES! Lies and slander!

TT is possible, R. Mallett is creating a time machine dog. Its clearly obvious. Prove to me time travel is impossible and I'll show you a green dog. Your wrong, absolutley wrong in 100%. If time travel weren't possible how come we can travel forwards in time? Why not back too? After all a dimension is the motion in a plain of existence in two ways.
We can't travel forward in time. That's just a figure of speech. We can only travel in space. I can jump forward a metre. Can you jump forward a second? No. There is no evidence at all for anybody "travelling forward in time". What a clock measures is motion. Through space. The thing you think of as the time dimension is a derived dimension, it's only mathematical, an "emergent property" of motion through space. Time exists like heat exists, they are both derived from motion. And just as you can't travel to a higher temperature, nor can you travel to another time. So time travel is bunk.

I just posted this on another forum, and thought it might cheer you up. If you want to know how to travel "faster than light", and it is a cheat, here's how...

Originally Posted by Farsight
This is an interesting one. More interesting than you might think. Let's assume that in the next twenty years somebody works out some new fundamental principle, and effectively invents a spacedrive where fuel is not an issue. Let's also assume that for a manned flight, we want to limit the acceleration and deceleration to 1g.

OK, if you accelerate at 1g, after a year you're travelling at fairly close to the speed of light. Assuming that you have some very good shielding and you don't hit anything major, to go 30 light years is going to take you about 31 years. Let's call it 32 years for luck. Then you'd have to decelerate at 1g, so you'd get to your planet 60 light years away in 64 years. But here's the rub: that's 64 earth years. It didn't take you 64 of your years. For the moment let's say that your average velocity was .99c. Then we can use 1/√(1-vÂ²/cÂ²) to work out that you experienced a sevenfold time dilation. (Multiply .99 by itself to get .98 and subtract this from one to get a fiftieth, which is roughly a seventh multiplied by a seventh). So if your average velocity was .99c, the trip would have taken you 9 years of your time. But actually, your average velocity would have been higher than that. Search google on "accelerate at 1g" to find some decent maths because I gotta go:

The way it pans out, if you don't care about going back, if you don't care how many years have passed on earth while you've experienced your time-dilated years, you can keep on accelerating. You get closer and closer to the speed of light, and your time dilation increases and increases. In the end, it means you can cross the whole galaxy in maybe twenty years of your time. Did you get that? You travel 100,000 light years in twenty years. It means that whilst you can't actually travel faster than light, in a weird kind of cheaty way... you can.
I guess that just depends on how you define it. If I consider "me" to be my mind, and especially my state of mind, then freezing myself cryogenically (in some uknown way that allows me to be brought back to life) is time travel to the future in every meaningful sense.

If I could send my state of mind back in time, or interfere with something that's already happened....... well who knows?

I well imagine that, if its possible to go back in time, the means of doing so wouldn't allow you to jump from time to time. I couldn't enter the machine and suddenly appear in 1969 to go see Woodstock. I'd probably have to actually travel the full distance minute by minute.

As far as time and heat, I prefer to use velocity and kinetic energy. In many ways these are most concrete definition of time. Kinetic energy requires velocity, which can only be measured relative to time. So how "fast" something happens is it's energy. Motion alone is not sufficient.

36. Originally Posted by "svwillmer
You know, there are two kinds of physicists in this world, those who say something is possible and work towards making it possible, and those that say it is impossible and work towards proving it impossible.
No, the two types of physicists are: Those who's theories pan out to describe reality, and those who's theories don't. Time has yet to judge which of these Mallett is.

I am 100% behind Ron Mallett, his ideas are supported by incredible mathematics that you could not even begin to understand, bring on the next Einstein I say. Acceptance? Who gives a damn about acceptance, Malletts going along with it anyway regardless of anyone 'accepting' his theory. Why should a great mind give a flying shit about someones opinion who doesn't even understand the science behind those ideas. Einstein didn't, Newton didn't, hell Galileo didn't either. There have got to be those that stand up in science and say "I'm going to prove my theories regardless of anyone who may oppose me". All' fair in love and science and I am fair when I say time travel is possible, its already been proven to go forwards and its sure as hell being proven now to go backwards thanks to Mallett. Anyone who disagrees with me can bite my shiny metal ass, and THATS the bottom line, cos stone cold said so.

Sorry, but your support of Mallet means nothing as you obviously don't have a strong enough grasp of the subject to make an informed determination. And every scientist, wants acceptance of his ideas, because in science, acceptance means that the measurable physical evidence supports them. Einstein was overjoyed when the observation of stars shifting during an eclipse bore out his prediction and put Relativity on firm footing.

There is a name for a physicist that adhers to a theory long after its flaws have been exposed and the physical evidence has come out against it, it is "crackpot".

Again, Mallet has proven nothing, he has raised a, as yet, unverified possibilty.

Please note, I'm not saying that Mallet is wrong, only that he has yet to be shown to be right, and that it is a bit premature to be hitching your cart to this horse.

I'm willing to be open minded to possibility that there is a chance he might be on to something. Are you willing to accept the possibility that he isn't?

37. Originally Posted by kojax
I guess that just depends on how you define it. If I consider "me" to be my mind, and especially my state of mind, then freezing myself cryogenically (in some uknown way that allows me to be brought back to life) is time travel to the future in every meaningful sense.
I'm sorry kojax, but there's a very simple and very important consideration here. When you are frozen, what actually happens? All motion within your body is halted. You're totally dead to the world for a hundred years, and in that hundred years, the earth moves round the sun a hundred times. The surface of the earth moves round the earth's axis 36,500 times. Everybody keeps on breathing, their chests move, their heart moves, their blood moves, their cells move, their atoms move. All these things are moving, travelling, through space. But apart from going along with the motion of the planet, you do not. You don't "travel" to the future. You wake up and say you're in the future, but you didn't "travel" there. It's not even a "there". It's just here, plus a hundred years worth of motion.

If I could send my state of mind back in time, or interfere with something that's already happened....... well who knows?
There is no forwards in time. And no back either. To "go back in time" you'd have to undo motion, and motion is motion whichever way it goes. Read the paper. Maybe then you'll understand. But it's not easy to examine a concept you've grown up with and now take for granted.

I well imagine that, if its possible to go back in time, the means of doing so wouldn't allow you to jump from time to time. I couldn't enter the machine and suddenly appear in 1969 to go see Woodstock. I'd probably have to actually travel the full distance minute by minute.
It's not a distance. We talk about a "length" of time, but there is no length to it.

As far as time and heat, I prefer to use velocity and kinetic energy. In many ways these are most concrete definition of time. Kinetic energy requires velocity, which can only be measured relative to time. So how "fast" something happens is it's energy. Motion alone is not sufficient.
You need to look at it literally. If something is fast, it has a lot of motion. Through space. Not "through time".

38. Originally Posted by svwillmer
Why is Ron Mallett wrong then hm? Einstein kept quiet about his GTOG Theory because he knew what the implications would be. The twin 'paradox' shows how one can relativly travel forwards in time doesn't it? Janus is being a bit pedantic don't you think?
Einstein kept quiet because he knew there were huge issues with what he was trying to formalise. He was going to have to say Minkowski was wrong and without the rigor he'd be dismissed as an old fool. People did think that of him you know, Freeman Dyson for one. Here's a illustration of where he was going:

"It is a widely known but insufficiently appreciated fact that Albert Einstein and Kurt Godel were best friends for the last decade and a half of Einstein's life. They walked home together from Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study every day; they shared ideas about physics, philosophy, politics, and the lost world of German-Austrian science in which they had grown up. What is not widely known is that in 1949 Godel made a remarkable discovery: there exist possible worlds described by the theory of relativity in which time, as we ordinarily understand it, does not exist".

No, the Twins Paradox doesn't show how one can relatively travel forwards in time. It's more like an exhibition of perspective. If you and I are separated by distance, your size looks small to me and mine looks small to you. If you and I are separated by velocity, your time looks slow to me and mine looks slow to you. It all comes down to the apparent transverse velocity of light.

I don't think Janus is being a bit pedantic I'm afraid. I think he knows his stuff. He and I won't agree on every point, because I'm advancing a new model. But I've read enough to know that you should listen to him. Please do.

Einstein did not move away from his theory, he was modifying it to, well you know so I won't compromise Einsteins secret to any one else but you know what I'm talking about.
Agreed. One only needs modest revisions to come up with something quite remarkably different to current understanding. One ends up with a ToE. The crucial factor is to remove the separation between space and matter/energy. Note that General Relativity has moved away from Einstein's ideas. For example Einstein didn't talk about "curved spacetime" in The Foundation of The General Theory of Relativity. Curved spacetime was popularized by Dicke in the sixties.

Mallett understands time and it is this simple. Time is change and change alone..
Yes it is.

his calculations work, and they theoretically prove his theory is probable, thats why he's building the thing, why else would he be building it? He has had his theory reviewed by countless professional physicists before 1 cent went into his project. If Mallett doesn't understand time (which the guy has been studying since he was in adolescence so he knows a great deal more than either of us at this moment in time), his theory checks out and is compatible with Einstein's theories.
I don't want to be rude about Mallet. But he does not understand time. Let's leave it at that.

If you are the next Einstein, tell me exactly what Einstein was working on before he died.
A "grand unified theory". Essentially, it was this: http://www.relativityplus.info . It's new, it doesn't have the mathematical rigor yet. These things take time.

39. I'll give you guys a clue about time travel. How can I get from 1 point on a 1 dimensional distance to another point without travelling in that 1 dimension?

40. How can we have time if we never take time.

To take time is to borrow time.

If time is money, we sell our soul for that time.

To have no soul is to have no real reference in space.

To have no real reference in space, is to realise that time is LORD.

To travel in time freely is to be a time Lord.

To be a time Lord, one must master space.

To master space, one must know what it is like to be nothing.

To be nothing, and overcome that, one must see the "point" of it all.

Why else would you try to travel in time?

41. Originally Posted by "svwillmer
Time at FTL runs backwards for the rest of the universe relative to you, therefore yourself and the ship you are in going FTL don't reverse backwards. I understand relativity enough that I have a fully viable theory of time travel, thats why I asked why FTL resulted in backward time motion. So if that was true my theory will work.
The statement in bold alone proves that you do not understand Relativity. Relativity holds that there is no "prefered" reference frame, thus while if you in your spaceship view the rest of the universe traveling backwards in time due to their relative velocity to you, then the rest of the universe views you as going backwards in time due to your relative velocity to them, and each "viewpoint" is equally valid and correct."

42. [quote=Janus]
Originally Posted by "svwillmer
Time at FTL runs backwards for the rest of the universe relative to you, therefore yourself and the ship you are in going FTL don't reverse backwards. I understand relativity enough that I have a fully viable theory of time travel, thats why I asked why FTL resulted in backward time motion. So if that was true my theory will work.
The statement in bold alone proves that you do not understand Relativity. Relativity holds that there is no "prefered" reference frame, thus while if you in your spaceship view the rest of the universe traveling backwards in time due to their relative velocity to you, then the rest of the universe views you as going backwards in time due to your relative velocity to them, and each "viewpoint" is equally valid and correct."
No, they see you disappear.

43. Originally Posted by streamSystems
How can we have time if we never take time.
To take time is to borrow time.
If time is money, we sell our soul for that time.
To have no soul is to have no real reference in space.
To have no real reference in space, is to realise that time is LORD.
To travel in time freely is to be a time Lord.
To be a time Lord, one must master space.
To master space, one must know what it is like to be nothing.
To be nothing, and overcome that, one must see the "point" of it all.
Why else would you try to travel in time?
Scientists are interested in time travel for many reasons. To name a few:

A) Because it would be fun.
B) To drop pancakes on celebrities.
C) To run away from the Libyans who just shot Doc Brown.

44. [quote=svwillmer]
Originally Posted by Janus
Originally Posted by "svwillmer
Time at FTL runs backwards for the rest of the universe relative to you, therefore yourself and the ship you are in going FTL don't reverse backwards. I understand relativity enough that I have a fully viable theory of time travel, thats why I asked why FTL resulted in backward time motion. So if that was true my theory will work.
The statement in bold alone proves that you do not understand Relativity. Relativity holds that there is no "prefered" reference frame, thus while if you in your spaceship view the rest of the universe traveling backwards in time due to their relative velocity to you, then the rest of the universe views you as going backwards in time due to your relative velocity to them, and each "viewpoint" is equally valid and correct."
No, they see you disappear.
Again, by the rules of Relativity, It is equally valid to consider the spaceship as at rest and the rest of the universe as moving at FTL. So, if you cease to exist as far as the universe is concerned, then the rest of universe ceases to exist as far as you are concerned.

45. Originally Posted by svwillmer
Mallett understands time and it is this simple. Time is change and change alone.
While I'm sure this comment will earn me a swift kick in the ass... I've read the gist of Mallett's story. He became secretly obsessed with time travel after the death of his father; wanting to travel back and see him again.

While I am sympathetic, don't you think there's something a little strange about making the comment "time is change and change alone", and saying it is understood by a person who can't accept change? (the fact that he won't see his father again)

But, hey, no-one dedicates their life to an idea without something driving them.

Anyway, I hope he does get his machine built. If it works, great. I'll go on a time safari like Ray Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder". If not, then it'll be a cool explosion and maybe some interesting data will come of it.

46. [quote=Janus]
Originally Posted by svwillmer
Originally Posted by Janus
Originally Posted by "svwillmer
Time at FTL runs backwards for the rest of the universe relative to you, therefore yourself and the ship you are in going FTL don't reverse backwards. I understand relativity enough that I have a fully viable theory of time travel, thats why I asked why FTL resulted in backward time motion. So if that was true my theory will work.
The statement in bold alone proves that you do not understand Relativity. Relativity holds that there is no "prefered" reference frame, thus while if you in your spaceship view the rest of the universe traveling backwards in time due to their relative velocity to you, then the rest of the universe views you as going backwards in time due to your relative velocity to them, and each "viewpoint" is equally valid and correct."
No, they see you disappear.
Again, by the rules of Relativity, It is equally valid to consider the spaceship as at rest and the rest of the universe as moving at FTL. So, if you cease to exist as far as the universe is concerned, then the rest of universe ceases to exist as far as you are concerned.
No, the universe does not cease to exist from where your are concerned, that doesn't work. You don't 'cease to exist' to the universe, you disappear. If the strain on 1 dimension is so great, then it has to give way and you move in the next up dimension. If it did not then conservation of energy, momentum and baryoness would not occur and as we know they must be preserved. This is the idea and the theory that most of the world hold, and most funnily enough science fiction world, and although one may see time travel to remain exactly that, if it weren't the dream of sci-fi'sts then we would not have gone to the moon in the time we did, not invented a mobile telephone, and of course, would not have music on our computers, (you can thank Star Trek: TNG for that).

I'm going to do what Jesus tells us to do now as you won't listen. Turn the other cheek.

47. [quote="svwillmer
No, the universe does not cease to exist from where your are concerned, that doesn't work. You don't 'cease to exist' to the universe, you disappear. If the strain on 1 dimension is so great, then it has to give way and you move in the next up dimension. If it did not then conservation of energy, momentum and baryoness would not occur and as we know they must be preserved. This is the idea and the theory that most of the world hold, and most funnily enough science fiction world, and although one may see time travel to remain exactly that, if it weren't the dream of sci-fi'sts then we would not have gone to the moon in the time we did, not invented a mobile telephone, and of course, would not have music on our computers, (you can thank Star Trek: TNG for that).

[/quote]
Typical pseudo-scientific gibberish and hand waving. Relativity deals perfectly well with all the standing conservation laws (including Baryon number) quite well without having to resort to things "disappearing".
I'm going to do what Jesus tells us to do now as you won't listen. Turn the other cheek.
Right. In other words, you have no way of actually logically supporting your ideas.

48. To you

49. Originally Posted by svwillmer
I'll give you guys a clue about time travel. How can I get from 1 point on a 1 dimensional distance to another point without travelling in that 1 dimension?
Time is not a dimension like the dimensions of space. That's why we talk about 3+1 dimensions, not 4 dimensions. Time is only a dimension in that it is a measure. Unlike space it offers no freedom of movement. You can't move through time, you can only move through space, and time is how we measure it.

Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It is a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time has no length, time doesnâ€™t flow and we donâ€™t travel through it.

50. Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by svwillmer
I'll give you guys a clue about time travel. How can I get from 1 point on a 1 dimensional distance to another point without travelling in that 1 dimension?
Time is not a dimension like the dimensions of space. That's why we talk about 3+1 dimensions, not 4 dimensions. Time is only a dimension in that it is a measure. Unlike space it offers no freedom of movement. You can't move through time, you can only move through space, and time is how we measure it.

Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. It is a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. So time has no length, time doesnâ€™t flow and we donâ€™t travel through it.
Time is a dimension none the less and it would not be classified a dimension if we move in it. If I travel at 0.5c and you stay still, I'm going ahead of time than you are. Thats movement of me relative to you, and movement for me relative to you. We are prisoners to time.

51. If we tagged the three dimensions of space we know "with time", if each dimension of space were tagged with time, how would that change the idea of travelling in time? Could the forces of space, the force fields, actually REPRESENT the footprint of FLUX we know as time? Could then the unification of the forces of space come via a theory for time that is tagged onto the three dimensions of space?

Why or why not?

Any ideas?

52. Define how you 'tag a dimension with time'.
What is a force of space?

In short, what the **** are you prattling on about.

53. Ah, yes, Ophiolite, I was wondering when you would harken to the bat-signal.

In short, space, as we measure it, has three dimensions.

Time, as we measure it, is the 4th.

How do we tag (aka "label", or "attach", or "associate") each dimension of space with time, as though each dimension of space has a linear subset of time?

What is 3-dimensional time?

It's a little tricky to explain.

My post, my thread, my previous statement that made you jump in with a response, was not aimed at the response, "mmmm, what do you mean, "tag space with time"". It was aimed at the response, "mmm, so you are saying we can do more with time that just leave it as a linear construct associated to the 3-d measurement of space?

What am I talking about?

I could be talking about anything.

In fact, I am simply suggesting that it could be possible we could add a dime4nsion of time to each dimension of space, such that space-time as a measurement is entirely connected (space to time, linear dimension to linear dimension) as a measurement, and to then suggest that what we considered as the fourth dimension, the flow of time, could be dealt with by suggesting that there exists a SECOND arrangement of space-time measurement whereby we have a second construct of 3-d space and 3-time, and that the laws of space-time (equations of force, etc etc etc) represent the relationship between one 3-d construct of space-time to the next.

Guess what: it's a new theory. no one would have heard about it. BUT, what I am getting at, is "will the scientific halls of justice allow such possibilities"?

If I can prattle on a little more, when we regard space as 3-dimensional, we are essentially making the mathematical statement that there exists three axes at right angles to one another. Now, if we can develop equations for the known atomic points of space relevant to those axes in their respective right-angle alignment to one another, we could begin to suggest that the 3-axes axiom definition of space is really useful....(mmmm).

Now, what if we were also able to develop equations that show how one 3-d construct of space transformed into a next step, new alignment (of points) 3-axes construct, and to note that one step to the next of space as a passage of time, as though each 3-axes construct were also labelled as a subset alignment of time, and generally in this case, one 3-d construct being time "before" and the next being time "after".

Once again, this would sound like gibberish to the uninitiated, BUT my point is that it IS possible to construct a theory for space-time using a different set of axioms for "time", to change our understanding of "time".

That's all my point is, that it "is" possible to investigate space-time using a new set of axioms. Yes, sure, it is unconventional, it is outside the square we are taught in................but..............(I can hear your voice of disapproval already).

54. Thank you for yourprompt response. It you have a moment could you now:
Define how you 'tag a dimension with time'.
What is a force of space?

In short, you have not in any way, shape, form or fashion answered my questions. You have simply waffled on as usual. I shouldn't be surprised, but I remain an optimist. Now please, answer the questions. Directly. Without waffle, Without flowery language. Without the veiled and direct insults. Thank you.

55. "force of space", and please excuse my lax colloquialism, would be, as an example, any of the field forces.

Tagging a dimension of space with time I guess would represent a dynamic dimension of space. Of course it would be arbitrarily defined. I am not saying it EXISTS that way, that space-time EXISTS that way, I am saying that for the sake of measuring space-time in a new manner, we would/could suggest that each dimension of space had associated to it what we consider as "flux", change, "time".........that what we regard as the axes of space are actually the arrows of time creating a 3-d space manifold.

Hang on, "imagine it" though. Disneyland is more real, as a theory, to the world, so just "imagine it", gently.

56. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Define how you 'tag a dimension with time'.
What is a force of space?

In short, what the **** are you prattling on about.
I don't fully understand where streamSystems is coming from here either. Space could not exist without time and so no force could ever be measured.

I think flux is just the same, more or less meaning 'disturbance'. For instance in an electric field or magnetic field you have flux as in something that disturbs its natural flow. So say if time moves naturally at 1sec per second, then one enables flux RELATIVE to everone else, and in effect to the person creating the flux in spacetime. Is this more or less what you meant sS?

If not I think that time itself does not dictate the universe but combined with space it does, as without space there would be no time, without time there would be no space. Hence, the spacetime continuum.

57. Originally Posted by streamSystems
"force of space", and please excuse my lax colloquialism, would be, as an example, any of the field forces.
Bottom line, the four fundemental 'forces' are a result and only measurable by time, therefore time could either be just another constant that enables us to measure things (highly unlikely though as it is a dimension), or actually the entity that mediates all forces, in effect time is the key to unifying the big 4.

58. Originally Posted by streamSystems
" we would/could suggest that each dimension of space had associated to it what we consider as "flux", change, "time".........that what we regard as the axes of space are actually the arrows of time creating a 3-d space manifold..
Circular reasoning. [We tag the spatial dimensions with time to determine tha the spacial dimensions are actually the arrows of time.]
Semantic content approaching zero asymptotically.
Scientific content definable as an imaginary number.
Do try again.

59. Errm I was lazy to not reading all the replys but I would suggest that you don't travel back in time when you are moving faster then the speed of light. You simply get younger with your age. My uncle once told me that when you are rotating in the opposite force as the spinning of the galaxy or just Earth in the speed of light, it cause a rip in space and temporaily let you to step back in time but only your age, not the actual time itself. I don't know why but it sound very true to me. It just that if you travel at same pace as light, you will stop time and keep it staying at one second. Yet your molecules will be torn to shreats if you even go as near to the same speed as light.

Imagine that you are faster then light, all you could see is blank. Only darkness will show and if you went in the opposite attraction of any planet, you will make a rip in space. May sound silly, maybe a theory.

60. In any GIVEN time PERIOD, an EVENT can be recorded. A long period of time records MANY events. The MORE we shave down that period of time, the less that can happen is recorded..........less happens in less time. Is IT THEREFORE POSSIBLE to shave TIME down so discretely to the level of registering a REPEATING common sequence of ATOMIC vibration of the atomic particles............maybe QUANTUM FLUCTUATION..........such that we could say, "that is a footprint of time"...............the "time sasquacht".

If we could break up one event to the next such that we were able to more conclusively than not establish a consistent sequence of atomic fluctuation, why COULDN;T we say "that's a pattern, THE PATTERN, of time".

What then makes one event to the next different?

That would be a result of different competing patterns of TIME of different systems............obviously competing with one another for some type of space-time authority. BUT, time would, as it would be measured, represent a consistent pattern of portrayal in each of these competing systems of space-time..............for instance.

61. Originally Posted by streamSystems
the "time sasquacht".
That film was a hoax. The time sasquatch does not exist.

62. Originally Posted by svwillmer
Time is a dimension none the less and it would not be classified a dimension if we move in it. If I travel at 0.5c and you stay still, I'm going ahead of time than you are. Thats movement of me relative to you, and movement for me relative to you. We are prisoners to time.
A dimension is a measure. We see three dimensions of space, and these offer freedom of movement. We measure this movement using time. We call it a dimension, but it offers no freedom of movement. We cannot move "through time". I can hop backwards or forwards by a metre. You cannot hop backwards or forwards by a second.

Do you know that temperature used to be considered a dimension? Because it's a measure. Can you climb to a higher temperature? No, of course you can't. Nor can you move through time. You can only move through space. And when you do, when you travel at 0.5c, the internal motion of your atoms, electrons, and photons has to cover a greater distance. It takes them longer to move locally from A to B within your body and brain. That's why you experience time dilation. But you aren't moving anywhere through time. You're only moving through space. Think about it. You spend a year travelling at 0.5c and when you come back I tell you that you've been gone for longer than that, because of the time dilation. But I say it to your face. You don't disappear into my future. It doesn't matter how far and how fast you travelled, when you come back to me, the time is now, whatever your clock says, whatever my clock says. Because all our clocks are doing is totting up local motion. And if you travel fast through space, that local motion has to cover more distance. It's really simple. And you can't go faster than light because matter is made of energy, and light is energy in its rawest form. In a sense you are made of light, and you can't go faster than the light from which you're made.

Now read the paper A Qualitative 3+1 Dimensional Geometrical Model and read it well. You'll learn something. And when you'll do you'll realise just how simple everything is.

63. Originally Posted by Farsight
Now read the paper A Qualitative 3+1 Dimensional Geometrical Model and read it well. You'll learn something. And when you'll do you'll realise just how simple everything is.
Ah, congratulations! I see you've managed to compile ALL of your nonsense onto one file, without learning a single thing from anyone.

64. Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by svwillmer
Time is a dimension none the less and it would not be classified a dimension if we move in it. If I travel at 0.5c and you stay still, I'm going ahead of time than you are. Thats movement of me relative to you, and movement for me relative to you. We are prisoners to time.
A dimension is a measure. We see three dimensions of space, and these offer freedom of movement. We measure this movement using time. We call it a dimension, but it offers no freedom of movement. We cannot move "through time". I can hop backwards or forwards by a metre. You cannot hop backwards or forwards by a second.

Do you know that temperature used to be considered a dimension? Because it's a measure. Can you climb to a higher temperature? No, of course you can't. Nor can you move through time. You can only move through space. And when you do, when you travel at 0.5c, the internal motion of your atoms, electrons, and photons has to cover a greater distance. It takes them longer to move locally from A to B within your body and brain. That's why you experience time dilation. But you aren't moving anywhere through time. You're only moving through space. Think about it. You spend a year travelling at 0.5c and when you come back I tell you that you've been gone for longer than that, because of the time dilation. But I say it to your face. You don't disappear into my future. It doesn't matter how far and how fast you travelled, when you come back to me, the time is now, whatever your clock says, whatever my clock says. Because all our clocks are doing is totting up local motion. And if you travel fast through space, that local motion has to cover more distance. It's really simple. And you can't go faster than light because matter is made of energy, and light is energy in its rawest form. In a sense you are made of light, and you can't go faster than the light from which you're made.

Now read the paper A Qualitative 3+1 Dimensional Geometrical Model and read it well. You'll learn something. And when you'll do you'll realise just how simple everything is.
Time is a dimension and we can move in it, and thats the bottom line cos Stone Cold said so.

Anyone wanna see me open a can a whoop ass on this guy gimme a HELL YEAH!

65. Originally Posted by streamSystems
In any GIVEN time PERIOD, an EVENT can be recorded. A long period of time records MANY events. The MORE we shave down that period of time, the less that can happen is recorded..........less happens in less time. Is IT THEREFORE POSSIBLE to shave TIME down so discretely to the level of registering a REPEATING common sequence of ATOMIC vibration of the atomic particles............maybe QUANTUM FLUCTUATION..........such that we could say, "that is a footprint of time".

If we could break up one event to the next such that we were able to more conclusively than not establish a consistent sequence of atomic fluctuation, why COULDN'T we say "that's a pattern, THE PATTERN, of time".

What then makes one event to the next different?

That would be a result of different competing patterns of TIME of different systems............obviously competing with one another for some type of space-time authority. BUT, time would, as it would be measured, represent a consistent pattern of portrayal in each of these competing systems of space-time..............for instance.

The Mr Men version of time is that it is a mere measurement, just like space is a mere jumping castle in that same version.

Time can still be a "signature" of something very intricate though without our being able to move THROUGH it.

TIME for instance could be an IMPETUS, a brick wall, THAT MOVES US through space, a TREND, an encouragment. We can move THROUGH that encouragement, that brick wall, but it can make us move, it would seem, through space.

What exactly is that signature, that impetus, that encouragement.

Refer to the quote above.

Nevertheless, let us not fail to remember that the one thing we ALL agree on is that time is an ARBITRARY thing of "flux". THEREFORE, in being ARBITRARY, we can, weare at liberty, of being as simple or as complex with our arbitrary definition of it as possible. I am, guessing the difficult arbitrary definition will one day provide the answer to a unified theory of space-time.

66. Originally Posted by streamSystems
Nevertheless, let us not fail to remember that the one thing we ALL agree on is that time is an ARBITRARY thing of "flux".
I would never agree with something so vague, yet obviously wrong. Please stop such meaningless declarations.

SS you are infesting just about every thread in physics with your tiresome, innane posting. I'm serving you notice that I'm raising this with the other mods and admins with a view to shutting you down permanently. If you are still here in a week it will be through no wish, desire, or action of mine. I've tolerated your stupidity and semantic aberrations for long enough.
Ophiolite

67. Ophiolite.

Please listen to me VERY carefully.

Please provide me with yours and presumably the contemporary definition of TIME and I will abide by it for the duration of this forum.

If such a request is not undersatandable to you, perhaps even reasonable, could someone else please explain to Ophiolite the meaning of this request (I think it fairly simple).

Ophiolite, you have not presented one post thus far in this forum that is free from side-swiping and heckling. Please explain your dominance of attitude. You have demonstrated yourself as being a TROLL to this forum on more than one occasion, jumping in and not letting debates continue without asking for some type of mercy to your austere authority of forum control. Members are beginning to dislike your presence

68. The specific technical objection I have is that you are ignoring the forum rules. All of your posts revolve around your 'theory'. You are posting, it seems, only to promote your theory. This is against forum rules. It is on these grounds I shall be recommending you be banned.

I have many posts that are 'free from sideswiping and heckling' - just not many that involve you. I have made my opinion of you and your ideas very clear in the past - and I hope abundantly clear in a pm reply to you.
I have tolerated your presence out of a belief in free speech. However, enough is enough. You are free to be an incoherent idiot somewhere else, just preferably not on this forum.

69. First, you haven't answered the question (what is time, according to the theory of Ophiolite and thus presumably the world). Thank you though for responding to my initial PM to you regarding your surprising "attacks".

Second, you call yourself a literary expert, but you have FAILED to notice how I have accommodated for your previous requests. I do NOT direct people "directly" to my theory or website. If someone ASKS, I THEN direct them. (maybe you should spend some time going over the bulk of the posts AFTER I was previously cautioned by you, and how VERY accommodating I have been). A literary expert like yourself should know exactly a change in theme when it is apparent: when I interact in posts, I hypothesis "possibilities" of opinion. Yet, if you fail to see that, I fear your perception may become permanently scarred with such blindness of opinion.

Third, you made an accusation of me, and you have not addressed that accustation of my meanderings of time. Then, in not answering that question, you jump to another ridiculous claim to have me thrown out of the forum. It doesn't look good, Ophiolite, as a Moderator, for you to present your "authority" this way. I am not making a motion for your privileges of being a Moderator to be removed, because I don't know you: for all I know, you could be a fool winding people up. But, in time, it becomes apparent who is complying and who is going out of their way to be ridiculously ONE SIDED in their opinions.........YOU.
Ophiolite, you fail to remember than "pseudoscience" is a subject of this forum. Please don;t spit the dummy, especially when I make a post in pseudoscience. In fact, it surprises me that you wait for a thread to become tainted by my presence in it, by first scolding me and THEN sending the post to pseudo science. You see, if you opened your eyes, you would realise I am not the one posting subjects in PHYSICS with the aim of convincing people time travel is real. OPEN your eyes for once.

PLEASE though Ophiolite ANSWER the question. Front up. What is TIME?

People of this forum: the belief conditioned on me here is that NEW IDEAS are not allowed.

If we are lead to believe, as independent thinkers, any new ideas in this forum that we present have an entire possibility of being ACCEPTED as a topic of conversation (which, as we know, according to forum moderators, or one, really, is SHITE, because the only people who accept new theories and ideas are the ones who govern the scientific establishment).

ANYONE in this forum with a new idea, PLEASE therefore do not expect ANYONE to offer anything more than, "best of luck".......take the example a forum moderator is making out of me: obviously, the demonstration here is one of highlighting the stupendously ridiculous behavior of one forum Moderator who wants to make a COMPLETE mockery of the IDEA ITSELF of proposing a NEW IDEA. We all KNOW new ideas CAN'T be proven else be accepted overnight by the scientific council of planet EARTH.........

People, Ophiolite wants to remove new ideas from this forum.

I am being made the scape goat, it seems.

I happily make posts in psuedo science, but when the chat in PHYSICS goes to time-travel, it's a little hard not to jump in.

Aside from really trying to highlight this idea, it would be GREAT for us as forum members to know what a Moderator knows about "time"......the definition of time, that sort of specific thing, here in this case, case in point, without being personal.

Ophiolite, if you encourage other forum Moderators (who I have yet to communicate with, who have yet to communicate with me......??) to ban me from this forum, you are setting a new STRICTER precedent on the policy of new ideas. If you later weaken from that new precedent, you will weaken this entire forum. It will be judged my effect made this forum stronger only to have someone like you then make it weaker by your two-faced approached to posts, in which case it would be difficult for anyone to think you have any scientific opinion whatsoever in adhereing to wishy washy policy game-playing.

70. As a second reply in a row (and please throw me off the forum for this, I deserve it), I understand why I am a poor communicator: I am a poor communicator because I never realise no one WANTS to listen.........it is as though I am talking to myself.

Boo hoo, I've learnt my lesson.

I have conceded that I am a poor communicator. I know why. But that has nothing to do with the strength of an idea I have regarding the nature of time. Sure, I'm preti baad att ennglishh, so I am workin on gettin my work translatedd by a pro into anuva langiuige.

It is strange though: I am criticised for being a poor communicator: does that mean my theory is correct and I explain it poorly, if indeed I can express my dissent at simple-minded Moderators quite well? Why can't someone be more precise and just EXPLAIN why the new theory on time is wrong as opposed to incorrectly trying to point out I am a poor communicator!!?? I know that accusing me of being a poor communicator has me spin into the effect of thinking the theory is correct and it is just my communication skills that suck, but, I find this whole idea of explaining a new model for time when questions are raised regarding time as farcical..........so too time travel (which technically is a subject of conversation on new ideas of time).

But, I guess you;re all too tricky for me here.

ENJOY one another's fun and games. I'm over it.

Any ideas?

71. "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth"
"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"
"Blessed are those who show mercy, for they shall be shown mercy"
"Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall SEE GOD"
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God"

72. Originally Posted by svwillmer
Time is a dimension and we can move in it, and thats the bottom line cos Stone Cold said so.

Anyone wanna see me open a can a whoop ass on this guy gimme a HELL YEAH!
I'm wasting my time here aren't I?

73. streamSystems: What relation do you have to the Boeing corporation?

74. Boeing is a sole entity company, like streamSystems.

We share the same passions, namely aerospace, propulsion, and energy, and cutting edge developments relevant to aerospace, propulsion, and energy. We share a similar pursuit, yet of course Boeing visibly supremely more industrial than streamSystems.

Boeing is not endorsing streamSystems or the new theory. In regard to the Boeing icon, and that alone, as your question suggests, the initial request of permission for the use of the Boeing icon was purely to direct traffic to a company with a similar interest in the future of aerospace, namely the need for new ideas, new energies, new sciences.

That is all I am able to say on that matter.

As for the theory itself, the wise direction to take with it was, it was established, to interface with leading companies on the matter. As the theory has a "perception" component, I am unable to "prove" it without seeming completely biased. So, the competition is ON for anyone to PROVE it's validity............YOUR COMPETITION, and I consider Boeing has a great head start based on it's interests in aerospace. It is wiser anyway for me to say things for people to then uncover the evidence of fact than for me to say things time and time again while proving what I say every time I say things time and time again.

75. Actually, I was wondering if you're trying to get a job with Boeing. Make them aware of your theory, pertinent to their field. Let them know who you are... And you link on the bottom of your site.

Which lends credibility to your theory, since it looks like Boeing have something to do with it. Why else would there be a link to their site, but no other sites? Very shrewd. I like it

Anyway, this is off-topic. Apologies for that.

76. If you think it is so easy, try it yourself.

There is nothing shrewd about it. Boeing, as you would know, employs professionals who review ALL requests before permission is granted on anything.

Yet, carry on with your skepticism.......I like it.

As for me trying to get a job with Boeing........um, no. Many other levels of strategy are in place, including how to best handle the Vulcan (not star trek.....think of pagan God) curse.

In short, if I know the theory is right, yet have stopped short in generating the proof, why would I stop short in offering proof, hard evidence? Because it is a little hot for someone like me to handle. Vulcan, the God of fire, was apparently cursed for offering the understanding of fire to humanity. If I am fairly serious about this theory, I have to be careful on issues that extend beyond how I present myself in public. My aim is to tread lightly, and let ANYONE develop the theory. The WISE path is to not ruffle any big (jumbo sized) feathers.

You understand that though, right?

That's not being shrewd: that's being careful.

This is insurance. This is not looking for employment with one of America's top GDP companies. I have all I need. All I need to do is present the case a theory exists, a theory though that is a little beyond my humble exitsence to prove by way of experiment. Heck, British Aerospace can research the theory also.

My presence in this forum WAS to offer proof, ultimately, that I was open and honest about explaining and promoting the theory.

NOW THOUGH, I am not promoting the theory. In this forum, here in this forum, It's a good place to discuss science anyway without promoting my theory per-se. I like asking questions more, now, than before. I'm a little over promoting the theory.

Thanks anyway for the questioning.

77. Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by svwillmer
Time is a dimension and we can move in it, and thats the bottom line cos Stone Cold said so.

Anyone wanna see me open a can a whoop ass on this guy gimme a HELL YEAH!
I'm wasting my time here aren't I?
*FLIPS FINGER*
*STUNNER*

78. *points finger*

Stop going off topic, brother!

*cue theme song*

I am a real American, fight for the rights of every man....

79. Originally Posted by TvEye
*points finger*

Stop going off topic, brother!

*cue theme song*

I am a real American, fight for the rights of every man....
I believe this is what you wanted: