TIME TRAVEL IS *POSSIBLE*
David B. Greene
>Of course time travel is possible! I do it every day. Every morning I wake
>up and -- lo and behold -- I've travelled 24 hours farther into the future
>than the last time I -- Or did you mean BACKWARDS in time?
I don't believe that it is possible or they would have shown up to brag
about it by now.
Dave Greene
Bill Jackson
David B. Greene wrote in message
<3669febb...@news.u.washington.edu>...
>
>I don't believe that it is possible or they would have shown up to brag
>about it by now.
>
>Dave Greene
Either it's impossible or civilization will end before it's developed. I'm
rooting for answer #1.
Graham Kennedy
Ever heard Larry Nivens explanation of why time travel will never
be discovered?
Assume time travel is possible. If it is ever discovered, then
sooner or later somebody will change the past. In the new future,
either time travel will still be discovered or it will not. If
not, no time travel. If it will be discovered, then sooner or
later somebody will change the past again. It's a repeating
cycle, and the only way to break the loop is to end up with a
future in which time travel is never discovered.
Rather neat, I thought.
--
Graham Kennedy
maff91
Do you mean it's not possible to go back into the past and abort Dave
Greene before he was born? :-)
*****************************************************
"Science is the true theology" -- Thomas Paine
(as quoted in Emerson: The Mind on Fire page 153)
"The Age of Paine" by Jon Katz
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.05/paine.html
*****************************************************
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Kennedy <gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk>:
>Bill Jackson wrote:
>>
>> David B. Greene wrote in message
>> <3669febb...@news.u.washington.edu>...
>> >
>> >I don't believe that it is possible or they would have shown up to brag
>> >about it by now.
>> >
>> >Dave Greene
>>
>> Either it's impossible or civilization will end before it's developed. I'm
>> rooting for answer #1.
>
>Ever heard Larry Nivens explanation of why time travel will never
>be discovered?
>
>Assume time travel is possible. If it is ever discovered, then
>sooner or later somebody will change the past. In the new future,
>either time travel will still be discovered or it will not. If
>not, no time travel. If it will be discovered, then sooner or
>later somebody will change the past again. It's a repeating
>cycle, and the only way to break the loop is to end up with a
>future in which time travel is never discovered.
(From "The Theory and Practice of Time Travel" in _All the Myriad
Ways_)
The exact formulation ("Niven's Law") was:
"If the universe of discourse permits the possibility of time travel
and of changing the past, then no time machine will be invented in
that universe."
...for the reasons you stated.
>
>Rather neat, I thought.
Yep (as was the entire volume); thanks for jogging me to re-read it.
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to cas @ pop3.clark.net (without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
SagaLore
Graham Kennedy wrote in message <366C3A92...@adeadend.demon.co.uk>...
>Bill Jackson wrote:
>>
>> David B. Greene wrote in message
>> <3669febb...@news.u.washington.edu>...
>> >
>> >I don't believe that it is possible or they would have shown up to brag
>> >about it by now.
>> >
>> >Dave Greene
>>
>> Either it's impossible or civilization will end before it's developed.
I'm
>> rooting for answer #1.
>
>Ever heard Larry Nivens explanation of why time travel will never
>be discovered?
>
>Assume time travel is possible. If it is ever discovered, then
>sooner or later somebody will change the past. In the new future,
>either time travel will still be discovered or it will not. If
>not, no time travel. If it will be discovered, then sooner or
>later somebody will change the past again. It's a repeating
>cycle, and the only way to break the loop is to end up with a
>future in which time travel is never discovered.
>
>
>--
>
>Graham Kennedy
>
Hmm.... Chronofeedback Filtration. Of course, if you have other Universes,
then what is stopping travelers from within the paradox loop to visit our
reality? A Spacialfeedback Filtration? Then that means that our universe
is here "just because."
That would make a good explanation of "where did God come from"...
Mr. Shawn M. Berry
constant and any perception of change is just that--a perception. If we
were to approch the speed of light in a space ship we would seem to notice a
difference in time. If I had the ability to instantly flash freeze that
same ship of people and thaw them instantly they would also notice a
difference in time. Though time hasn't changed in ither incident they would
still percieve it that way. I reinterrogate; time travel is just dribble.
Shawn Berry
David B. Greene <da...@antispam.u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:3669febb...@news.u.washington.edu...
>"Chris Comte" <co...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
>>Of course time travel is possible! I do it every day. Every morning I
wake
>>up and -- lo and behold -- I've travelled 24 hours farther into the future
>>than the last time I -- Or did you mean BACKWARDS in time?
>
David B. Greene
>Bill Jackson wrote:
>> David B. Greene wrote in message
>> >I don't believe that it is possible or they would have shown up to brag
>> >about it by now.
>> >
>> >Dave Greene
>>
>> Either it's impossible or civilization will end before it's developed. I'm
>> rooting for answer #1.
>
>Ever heard Larry Nivens explanation of why time travel will never
>be discovered?
>
>Assume time travel is possible. If it is ever discovered, then
>sooner or later somebody will change the past. In the new future,
>either time travel will still be discovered or it will not. If
>not, no time travel. If it will be discovered, then sooner or
>later somebody will change the past again. It's a repeating
>cycle, and the only way to break the loop is to end up with a
>future in which time travel is never discovered.
>
>Rather neat, I thought.
It is pretty neat, but I don't think it prevents unidirectional
time travel into the future.
Dave Greene
Fred Stone
Nothing prevents that. We do it all the *time* at a rate of one second per second,
as measured in our own inertial frame. Which could be just about any other rate
you like in someone else's inertial frame.
--
Fred
aa # 1369
EAC Microbiologist - Saccharomyces division
Stanley L. Moore
David B. Greene wrote in message
>>Rather neat, I thought.
>
>It is pretty neat, but I don't think it prevents unidirectional
>time travel into the future.
this very minute I am sitting in front of my computer and with every
keystroke I am travelling into the future. You are doing it also and
everyone on the planet is. I have been travelling this way for 50 years
and have found it (to my regret ) to be solely unidirectional. Aging
rapidly....take care.
Stanley L. Moore
--
"The eye strays not while under
the guidance of reason." Publius Syrius
www.imagephysique.com
Photography is my passion
Graham Kennedy
>
> David B. Greene wrote in message
> <366cc31...@news.u.washington.edu>...
> >>Rather neat, I thought.
> >
> >It is pretty neat, but I don't think it prevents unidirectional
> >time travel into the future.
> Obviously it does NOT prevent unidirectional travel into the future. At
> this very minute I am sitting in front of my computer and with every
> keystroke I am travelling into the future. You are doing it also and
> everyone on the planet is. I have been travelling this way for 50 years
> and have found it (to my regret ) to be solely unidirectional. Aging
> rapidly....take care.
And by travelling near light speed you can effectively travel
into the future at a higher rate. So this one limited form
of time travel certainly *is* possible.
--
Graham Kennedy
Jim Rogers
> On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 Graham Kennedy wrote:
> >Ever heard Larry Nivens explanation of why time travel will never
> >be discovered?
> It's a cute argument, but it's founded on an invalid assumption.
> >Assume time travel is possible. If it is ever discovered, then
> >sooner or later somebody will change the past. In the new future,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> And there it is. Even assuming that travel into the past is possible it
> doesn't logically follow that it would therefore be possible to change
> anything. ...
Didja ever hear of "chaos"? It would be virtually impossible to _not_
change something "significant" by your mere presence, given a distant
enough projection into the future. If nothing else, you will affect the
weather in some locally imperceptible way, cascading into larger changes
the more time that goes by.
Jim
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by Kevin Reilly <use...@denali.demon.co.uk>:
>On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
>>Ever heard Larry Nivens explanation of why time travel will never
>>be discovered?
>
>It's a cute argument, but it's founded on an invalid assumption.
>
>>Assume time travel is possible. If it is ever discovered, then
>>sooner or later somebody will change the past. In the new future,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>And there it is. Even assuming that travel into the past is possible it
>doesn't logically follow that it would therefore be possible to change
>anything.
The actual formulation of "Niven's Law" was:
"If the universe of discourse permits the possibility of time travel
and of changing the past, then no time machine will be invented in
that universe."
<snip>
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by da...@antispam.u.washington.edu (David B.
Greene):
>Graham Kennedy <gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Bill Jackson wrote:
>>> David B. Greene wrote in message
>
>>> >I don't believe that it is possible or they would have shown up to brag
>>> >about it by now.
>>> >
>>> >Dave Greene
>>>
>>> Either it's impossible or civilization will end before it's developed. I'm
>>> rooting for answer #1.
>>
>>Ever heard Larry Nivens explanation of why time travel will never
>>be discovered?
>>
>>Assume time travel is possible. If it is ever discovered, then
>>sooner or later somebody will change the past. In the new future,
>>either time travel will still be discovered or it will not. If
>>not, no time travel. If it will be discovered, then sooner or
>>later somebody will change the past again. It's a repeating
>>cycle, and the only way to break the loop is to end up with a
>>future in which time travel is never discovered.
>>
>>Rather neat, I thought.
>
>It is pretty neat, but I don't think it prevents unidirectional
>time travel into the future.
*Nothing* does, except death.
Wwing
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
>> >be discovered?
>
>
>> >sooner or later somebody will change the past. In the new future,
>> And there it is. Even assuming that travel into the past is possible it
>> doesn't logically follow that it would therefore be possible to change
>
>Didja ever hear of "chaos"? It would be virtually impossible to _not_
>change something "significant" by your mere presence, given a distant
>enough projection into the future. If nothing else, you will affect the
>weather in some locally imperceptible way, cascading into larger changes
>the more time that goes by.
>
>Jim
>
This brings to mind my thoughts about plane crashes. There is always the
inevitable interview with some lucky bastard thanking god that they missed
their flight and avoided being on board when the plane went down, as if they
had somehow cheated their fate. But I always just think that if they hadn't
been late and gotten on the plane, it probably wouldn't have crashed. Indeed,
by them not being on board, they probably CAUSED the damn thing to crash! So,
it would follow that there is no predicting the effect you would have on the
future by inserting yourself in the past. It may also happen that any local
ripple you may cause would just dissipate, and not cascade into larger changes,
still subject to chaos.
-Wm. Wingstedt
Bill Jackson
Mr. Shawn M. Berry wrote in message <74ikil$l55$1...@remarQ.com>...
>This whole concept of time travel is just a bunch of wasted time. Time is
a
Mr. Shawn, you're being waaaay too serious. Anyway, do we really know what
time is or how it "works"? I think it was Kant - I might be wrong - who
said that time and space are illusions which we use to organize our
experience. Hawking wrote that time is a relationship between events, as
space is a relationship between objects. Or words to that effect. Neither
of these great minds is much help to mine : )
David B. Greene
>David B. Greene wrote:
>> It is pretty neat, but I don't think it prevents unidirectional
>> time travel into the future.
>>
>> Dave Greene
>
>Nothing prevents that. We do it all the *time* at a rate of one second per second,
>as measured in our own inertial frame. Which could be just about any other rate
>you like in someone else's inertial frame.
Congratulations, Fred, you're the second person to get it. The first
was on rec.org.mensa some time ago. :^)
Dave Greene
Terry Smith
> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 14:46:16 GMT
da> It is pretty neat, but I don't think it prevents unidirectional
da> time travel into the future.
One would hope not - You're doing it now.
Terry
--
"After registration, you own the RITES" -Some lame spammer, 1998.
Jim Rogers
> On Tue, 8 Dec 1998 Jim Rogers wrote:
> >Didja ever hear of "chaos"? It would be virtually impossible to _not_
> >change something "significant" by your mere presence, given a distant
> >enough projection into the future. If nothing else, you will affect the
> >weather in some locally imperceptible way, cascading into larger changes
> >the more time that goes by.
> Your argument is inconsistent in that you're treating "change" and
> "affect" as one and the same, which they aren't.
This is a quite curious distinction, which I don't find especially
useful, myself.
> It's quite logical to allow a time traveller to *affect* his past *if*
> he had already done so from a future perspective i.e. if there is no
> change involved.
In which case you could create causality loops, quite easily. Scientific
American had a piece on time-travel concepts a few years back on the
only real solution: when you leave a time line and "go back," you are in
effect looping into a _new_ space-time, in which you will experience a
new future, distinct from the one you "left behind." This is often
called the "many worlds" solution.
> To borrow one of Nahin's examples, it is not illogical for a man to
> attempt to travel back in time and help the Egyptians build the
> pyramids, since there's a chance that's what happened anyway. In fact,
> if he *was* responsible for the pyramids' creation then he *must*
> succeed according to the laws of cause and effect.
Except for at least one problem: Suppose that in so doing, he actually
_gave them the idea_ to build pyramids in the first place, or to
incorporate particular design features, which idea he himself picked up
by seeing the actual pyramids, thousands of years old, "in the future."
In that case we have an idea with no actual inventor; information just
sprang out of the ether fully-formed. (This is the same sort of
causality crisis that was annoyingly ignored by the script writers of
Terminator/Terminator-II: the whole basis for the future robotic culture
was a crucial electronic device from the first robot's arm, that came
back from the future -- advanced technology with no inventor! But then
they shamelessly do an "about face" and embrace "many worlds" when they
presume to _prevent_ that dreadful future by destroying the device and
the analysts studying it! Where did it come from?)
> It is illogical (or at least futile) for him to attempt to go back and
> destroy the pyramids, however. He can't succeed, since the evidence for
> their existence is already here.
Not in the "many worlds" version. The evidence _was_ there, and would
_continue_ to be there for everyone in the original space-time
continuum, but wouldn't be in his own future.
Jim
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone <76264...@compuserve.nospam.com> wrote:
> >David B. Greene wrote:
>
> >> It is pretty neat, but I don't think it prevents unidirectional
> >> time travel into the future.
> >>
> >> Dave Greene
> >
> >Nothing prevents that. We do it all the *time* at a rate of one second per second,
> >as measured in our own inertial frame. Which could be just about any other rate
> >you like in someone else's inertial frame.
>
> Congratulations, Fred, you're the second person to get it. The first
> was on rec.org.mensa some time ago. :^)
>
> Dave Greene
Yep. OBTW, read "Timescape" by Greg Benford, for a relativistic view of time travel and
paradoxes. He does it with tachyons, sending morse code messages into the past.
Interesting view of how scientific lab work is done, besides the fictional premise.
Rob Titman
<use...@denali.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>What if he took the foundation stone from
>the Great Pyramid back in time and used it as the foundation stone of
>the Great Pyramid. Not only has the idea sprung from nowhere, but now
>there's a stone which nobody actually manufactured.
Ooh stop you're making me think about that...
What if we carbon dated the stone (or something that can be easily
carbon dated), hasn't it repeatedly gone to a point in time and then
been taken back in time and then aged to the point in time again and
then been taken back... wouldn't it be at the same time as old as it
was at the point of going back in time /and/ infinately old because
the same loop has occured an infinate number of times? Sure if it
replaces itsself in the past that's fine but if it /is/ itsself in the
past then who's to say that's the first time it's ever happened, in
fact won't it keep happening forever... I mean say it's the head
stone, now how much erosion has the stone had? At what point does the
stone become so eroded that someone replaces it and breaks the loop...
I'm going to shut up now...
BFN,
Rob.
--
\/ Rob Titman (Comp-Sci Fresher)
http://www.ukc.ac.uk/php/rjwt1/ -- Updated 16/11/98
'I would go out tonight but I haven't a stitch to wear, this man said
"It's gruesome that someone so handsome should care"'
Jim Rogers
> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998 Jim Rogers wrote:
> >Kevin Reilly wrote:
> >> Your argument is inconsistent in that you're treating "change" and
> >> "affect" as one and the same, which they aren't.
> >This is a quite curious distinction, which I don't find especially
> >useful, myself.
> To affect something requires that the "something" occur only once, at
> the point you affected it. Change requires two occurrences, the original
> one and the changed one.
Then "affect" requires at least two _hypothetical_ outcomes in order to
know whether there is in fact an effect. AFAIK we're only talking
hypotheticals here, right?
> Assuming a simple four-dimensional Universe
> there is no logical reason why an event, or person, cannot have (have
> had) an effect on something in the past. It is only when we start to
> talk about changes that the paradoxes start springing up.
No; the "uncaused" loops are paradox enough, like inventions without
inventors, corner stones with no geological origin, etc.
> >In which case you could create causality loops, quite easily. Scientific
> >American had a piece on time-travel concepts a few years back on the
> >only real solution: when you leave a time line and "go back," you are in
> >effect looping into a _new_ space-time, in which you will experience a
> >new future, distinct from the one you "left behind." This is often
> >called the "many worlds" solution.
> It's a possible solution; whether it's the "only real" one remains a
> point of debate. Personally I've always found it a bit of a cop-out, to
> solve a thought experiment by invoking a whole new view of what the
> Universe consists of. The many-worlds theory has almost no evidence,
> physically or mathematically, unless you count Deutsch's many-worlds
> interpretation of the double-slit experiment.
Who's talking about evidence? I'm only talking about logic. Since the
"simple four-dimensional universe," with strict determinism, _and_
backward time travel allowed, embraces logical contradictions, it is
therefore not a plausible solution. The "many worlds" isn't
_necessarily_ required if backwards time travel isn't possible, but it
seems like the only logical solution if time travel _is_ allowed. That
was the point of the article; not to "prove" that we live in such a
universe, just to show that it's an actual logical solution (perhaps the
only one) to allow time travel.
> >Except for at least one problem: Suppose that in so doing, he actually
> >_gave them the idea_ to build pyramids in the first place, or to
> >incorporate particular design features, which idea he himself picked up
> >by seeing the actual pyramids, thousands of years old, "in the future."
> >In that case we have an idea with no actual inventor; information just
> >sprang out of the ether fully-formed.
> Yes, he'd be effectively stealing an idea from himself! These sorts of
> problems are bad enough when they only involve ideas, but it would also
> work with physical objects. What if he took the foundation stone from
> the Great Pyramid back in time and used it as the foundation stone of
> the Great Pyramid. Not only has the idea sprung from nowhere, but now
> there's a stone which nobody actually manufactured.
>
> These problems are inconceivable from a purely physics point of view but
> there was a philosopher (whose name I've forgotten) who suggested that
> trying to assign an origin to everything we witness (or can hypothesise)
> in the Universe is a little futile when we can't even explain
> satisfactorily the origin of the very Universe in which the event is
> taking place. Obviously, he worded it better than I just did.
Comparing apples and supernova, it seems. "We can't explain it yet"
doesn't mean that there isn't an explanation to be had, some day.
Everyone seems to think that the universe was, indeed "caused" somehow.
...
> >> It is illogical (or at least futile) for him to attempt to go back and
> >> destroy the pyramids, however. He can't succeed, since the evidence for
> >> their existence is already here.
> >Not in the "many worlds" version. The evidence _was_ there, and would
> >_continue_ to be there for everyone in the original space-time
> >continuum, but wouldn't be in his own future.
> Yeah. Many-worlds solves all sorts of theoretical problems about time-
> travel but at the expense of the relative simplicity of a four-
> dimensional Universe. It's a great device for story telling but
> personally I'd hate to think that the Universe really is so horrendously
> complex.
There is an even simpler solution, you realize.
Jim
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by Kevin Reilly <use...@denali.demon.co.uk>:
>On Tue, 8 Dec 1998 Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>>The actual formulation of "Niven's Law" was:
>>
>>"If the universe of discourse permits the possibility of time travel
>>and of changing the past, then no time machine will be invented in
>>that universe."
>
>Thanks, now that I can agree with. I did think it odd that such a
>prolific SF writer could have made such a fundamental error.
Well, nothing says an SF writer *must* be correct. One of Niven's
*real* bloopers was in _Ringworld_, in which he didn't realize the
"main construct" was dynamically unstable. (He saved the situation in
the sequel.) But you're welcome.
If you get a chance, read _All the Myriad Ways_, the book in which
"The Theory and Practice of Time Travel" (along with such other gems
as "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex") first appeared.
Mr. Shawn M. Berry
I think that you are sill--I mean not right on this subject. Maby Hawking
thought that he was explaining his Santa Claws theory.
Shawn Berry
RadioFlyr
da...@antispam.u.washington.edu wrote:
> "Chris Comte" <co...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> >Of course time travel is possible! I do it every day. Every morning I wake
> >up and -- lo and behold -- I've travelled 24 hours farther into the future
> >than the last time I -- Or did you mean BACKWARDS in time?
>
> I don't believe that it is possible or they would have shown up to brag
> about it by now.
>
> Dave Greene
I imagine the Ford theatre would be packed with people who traveled back
in time to observe Lincoln's assasination, or thrill-seekers would book a
trip on the Titanic to see if they can survive the "ultimate survival
test."
Hmmmm.... I guess almost all notable historical events would be
overpopulated by strangers in the crowd....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the "Little web server," || Also my other pages:
A Mac SE serving the web, at: || http://www.lpl.org/people/gianni
http://149.96.1.33 || http://149.96.1.135
Stephen Poley
<use...@denali.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
>>Ever heard Larry Nivens explanation of why time travel will never
>>be discovered?
>
>It's a cute argument, but it's founded on an invalid assumption.
>>Assume time travel is possible. If it is ever discovered, then
>>sooner or later somebody will change the past. In the new future,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>And there it is. Even assuming that travel into the past is possible it
>doesn't logically follow that it would therefore be possible to change
>anything.
Yes, it does follow. In fact it would be impossible to change nothing.
If a person could travel back into the past, his body would then be
interrupting light rays (shadows), reflecting light rays (and, for
example, startling the natives with his appearance) giving off warmth,
exhaling (not just air, but also viruses) and exerting a force on the
ground (footprints etc). He is therefore changing things. If he isn't
changing things, he isn't there.
Stephen Poley
Barendrecht, Holland
SagaLore
David B. Greene wrote in message <366cc31...@news.u.washington.edu>...
>Graham Kennedy <gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Bill Jackson wrote:
>>> David B. Greene wrote in message
>
>>> >I don't believe that it is possible or they would have shown up to brag
>>> >about it by now.
>>> >
>>> >Dave Greene
>>>
I'm
>>> rooting for answer #1.
>>
>>be discovered?
>>
>>sooner or later somebody will change the past. In the new future,
>>not, no time travel. If it will be discovered, then sooner or
>>later somebody will change the past again. It's a repeating
>>cycle, and the only way to break the loop is to end up with a
>>future in which time travel is never discovered.
>>
>>Rather neat, I thought.
>
>time travel into the future.
Well, you could simply rest in a cold-chamber for a while if you wanted
that.
Could we also have multi-directional time travel into the future?
That would make an inverse paradox... if you traveled ahead, and gained
knowledge that was only known in the future, and came back and applied that
knowledge, then that future never occured. This doesn't seem to pose a
problem on the physical aspect of the universe, because the time-line would
remain intact in your perspective. The dilemma, however - is "thought" also
applicable to the second law of thermodynamics?
-Saga-
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only
proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.
This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord
over all, and on account of His dominion He is wont to be called Lord God,
Universal Ruler" - Newton
"..science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." -
Einstein
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with
sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use." -
Galileo
Brad Cadle
I know of possibly two self consistent "Time Travel" scenario's one
could think up ignoring issues to its physical possibilty.
1) Time Travel forces a new series of events to occur that results in
a timeline different than the one from which you left. In this
scenario, the time line you originated from is a DIFFERENT Time Line
which, if graphed as a straight line, intersects the new time line at
the moment you arrived in the past. Hence the person is , in essence,
from a different world. One view of this type of time travel
scenario is an infinite (or at least very large number) of timelines
by which the act of time travel moves you from one to the other
without effecting the original one you started from.
2) a Time loop type of scenario. Ie if a person goes into the past
he causes events that directly lead to the future he is from. In this
type of scenario it is iliterally mpossible to change the past. This
tends to negate freedom in time travel in that the only possible time
travel events that would occur are those that created the history in
your timeline. One would not be able to design a time machine that
would let them kill their parent. A time Travel incident would be
such that the traveller could not choose when or where he/she would
end up.
Any Others?
-Brad
Brad Cadle
wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Dec 1998 18:30:56 +0000, Kevin Reilly
><use...@denali.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 Graham Kennedy wrote:
>>
>>>Ever heard Larry Nivens explanation of why time travel will never
>>>be discovered?
>>
>>It's a cute argument, but it's founded on an invalid assumption.
>
>>>Assume time travel is possible. If it is ever discovered, then
>>>sooner or later somebody will change the past. In the new future,
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>And there it is. Even assuming that travel into the past is possible it
>>doesn't logically follow that it would therefore be possible to change
>>anything.
>
>Yes, it does follow. In fact it would be impossible to change nothing.
>If a person could travel back into the past, his body would then be
>interrupting light rays (shadows), reflecting light rays (and, for
>example, startling the natives with his appearance) giving off warmth,
>exhaling (not just air, but also viruses) and exerting a force on the
>ground (footprints etc). He is therefore changing things. If he isn't
>changing things, he isn't there.
>
>Stephen Poley
>Barendrecht, Holland
Barry O'Grady
:This whole concept of time travel is just a bunch of wasted time. Time is a
:constant and any perception of change is just that--a perception. If we
:were to approch the speed of light in a space ship we would seem to notice a
:difference in time. If I had the ability to instantly flash freeze that
:same ship of people and thaw them instantly they would also notice a
:difference in time. Though time hasn't changed in ither incident they would
:still percieve it that way. I reinterrogate; time travel is just dribble.
You are quite right. No amount of technoligy will change that fact. The
only time that exists is now.
Doppler shift accounts for the effects some people call time travel.
Being able to see light from a star that exploded 10,000 years ago
is not time travel any more than viewing old movies is.
Time is a concept that will not change no matter what we do. Time
would exist even if nothing else did.
:Shawn Berry
Barry
Rob Titman
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 1998 11:38:31 -0500, "Mr. Shawn M. Berry"
><bo...@mfi.net> wrote:
>Time Travel forces a new series of events to occur that results in
>a timeline different than the one from which you left. In this
>scenario, the time line you originated from is a DIFFERENT Time Line
>which, if graphed as a straight line, intersects the new time line at
>the moment you arrived in the past. Hence the person is , in essence,
>from a different world. One view of this type of time travel
>scenario is an infinite (or at least very large number) of timelines
>by which the act of time travel moves you from one to the other
>without effecting the original one you started from.
Surely you mean affecting? But do you effect the timeline you're moved
to after you 'change the past' or has it always been there?
Stix
>Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
>want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
>different.
Err, time is not a constant.
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Mr. Shawn M. Berry
want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
different.
Shawn Berry
Barry O'Grady <bar...@XacayX.com.au> wrote in message
news:3671fa8c...@news.acay.com.au...
>"Mr. Shawn M. Berry" <bo...@mfi.net> wrote:
>
Bill Jackson
Brad Cadle wrote in message <3671f397...@news.earthlink.net>...
>
>)SNIP)
>I know of possibly two self consistent "Time Travel" scenario's one
>could think up ignoring issues to its physical possibilty.
>
>
>a timeline different than the one from which you left. In this
>scenario, the time line you originated from is a DIFFERENT Time Line
>which, if graphed as a straight line, intersects the new time line at
>the moment you arrived in the past. Hence the person is , in essence,
>from a different world. One view of this type of time travel
>scenario is an infinite (or at least very large number) of timelines
>by which the act of time travel moves you from one to the other
>without effecting the original one you started from.
>
choice consists of slipping from one scenario/parallel universe to another,
leaving a duplicate self behind to carry on. Please note I do NOT subscribe
to this bizarre notion, but it does provide a relatively credible excuse for
time-travel fiction. It also allows fate and free will to co-exist. It
also requires that consciousness exist as an entity - a soul?- rather than
an effect.
Wwing
>want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
>different.
>
>Shawn Berry
>
Exaxtly! TIME is a variable. The speed of light is the constant!
-Wm. Wingstedt
Stix
>Time is a constant
Nope.
Maximum velocity (the speed of light) is a constant. Time is not.
> because as our clocks become more acurate our ability to
>calculate distances and positions becomes more concise throughout the
>universe.
So what?
Ever hear of special relativity? Ever hear of time dilation? Ever hear
of the 'twins paradox'?
Time dilation has been experimentially observed, Shawn.
Time is not a constant.
> If time were not constant throughout the universe then the closer
>we came to a fixed measurement of it our resulting accuracy would decrease.
From what observational reference?
Time is *relative*, not a constant.
>This alone is undeniable proof that time is a constant.
It's undeniable proof that you don't have the faintest idea what you're
talking about.
Mr. Shawn M. Berry
Time is a constant because as our clocks become more acurate our ability to
calculate distances and positions becomes more concise throughout the
we came to a fixed measurement of it our resulting accuracy would decrease.
Shawn Berry
maff91
maff91
wrote:
>This whole concept of time travel is just a bunch of wasted time. Time is a
>constant and any perception of change is just that--a perception. If we
>were to approch the speed of light in a space ship we would seem to notice a
>difference in time. If I had the ability to instantly flash freeze that
>same ship of people and thaw them instantly they would also notice a
>difference in time. Though time hasn't changed in ither incident they would
>still percieve it that way. I reinterrogate; time travel is just dribble.
http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Alternative/Time_Travel/
>
>Shawn Berry
>
>David B. Greene <da...@antispam.u.washington.edu> wrote in message
>news:3669febb...@news.u.washington.edu...
>>"Chris Comte" <co...@uswest.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Of course time travel is possible! I do it every day. Every morning I
>wake
>>>up and -- lo and behold -- I've travelled 24 hours farther into the future
>>>than the last time I -- Or did you mean BACKWARDS in time?
>>
Don Kresch
<bo...@mfi.net> etched in the space-time continuum
>
>Time is a constant
Actually no. Neither time nor space are constant. We live in a
4-dimensional, curved-space universe. Thus, we live under the rules of
hyperbolic geometry.
The faster you go, the more energy you generate. Thus, the more space
bends (energy has an associated mass) and time also slows for you (gravity
affects timeflow).
I highly suggest this book: _Relativity_ by Albert Einstein.
Don
alt.atheism atheist #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
Go away--the message is over
Sailor
>
> Kevin Reilly <use...@denali.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 Barry O'Grady wrote:
> :
> :>Time is a concept that will not change no matter what we do. Time
> :>would exist even if nothing else did.
> :
"time" is a construct that Mankind uses to explain natural sequences...
you can't get an atom of uranium to reverse its decay once it has
decayed, but that atom has NO concept of time, and it might or might
not ever decay - the decay of atoms (as an example) behaves in a manner
that is predictable for large groups, but a single atom might not
decay in the half-life predicted - "time" does not exist in the absence
of the phenomena we use to measure it, does it?
> The proof is in the fact that time is not a physical thing that we
> can alter. I defy you to alter time in any way.
> Think about this. If time stopped you would be able to measure how
> long time was stopped for, which means that time never stopped.
> If every physical object disappeared then came back they would have
> been gone for a period of time.
> Why ask for proof of something that we all know anyway?
--
************************************************************
123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
More fun, more stuff!
************************************************************
Barry O'Grady
:On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 Barry O'Grady wrote:
:
:>Time is a concept that will not change no matter what we do. Time
:>would exist even if nothing else did.
:
:Your proof being?
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: The proof is in the fact that time is not a physical thing that we
: can alter.
Too bad your particular brand of idiodicy has been proven
false by many an experiment.
Why do you persist in thes foolishness, Barry? You may as well be
a flat-Earther, for all the research stacked against you.
: I defy you to alter time in any way.
Oh, because someone on this newsgroup doesn't own two atomic clocks
and a cargo jet in which to fly around one of them, *that* proves
that time is immutable!
Fuck, you're stupid.
--
*************************************************************
In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a
degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional
assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise
tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time
in physics classrooms.
-Stephen Jay Gould
*************************************************************
Alf Salte
>
> Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
> want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
> different.
Time is not constant.
Apart from this, you are right that time travle is not and never will be
possible. The best proof of this is odd lack of people from the future
visiting us.
The best evidence that there are intelligent life in the universe is
that none of it has ever bothered to visit earth.
Alf
Robert Templeton
Alf Salte wrote in message <3677C53A...@funcom.com>...
But isn't that like saying that nuclear fission and fusion could never be
possible because no one had figured out how it worked? Or, humans flying is
impossible because I've never seen a human flying?
Just because something hasn't been demonstrated to be possible doesn't mean
that it is impossible. Even god, who is most evidently not real, is still
possible!
Your second statement seems to contradict your first, besides. Maybe all of
the most intelligent civilizations time travel often, but avoid us backward
heathens.
The Walrus
> god, who is most evidently not real, is still
> possible!
Sorry, but if it was *that* evident, we wouldn't all be having these silly
discussions all over usenet.
Just my two pennorth ...
d.
Bill Jackson
Don Kresch wrote in message <7564ji$2...@newsops.execpc.com>...
>On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 03:43:15 -0500, in alt.atheism, "Mr. Shawn M. Berry"
><bo...@mfi.net> etched in the space-time continuum
>
>>
>>Time is a constant
>
valley, because of the difference in gravitation.
Alf Salte
Robert Templeton wrote in message <758oju$2ju$1...@samsara0.mindspring.com>...
>
>Alf Salte wrote in message <3677C53A...@funcom.com>...
>>"Mr. Shawn M. Berry" wrote:
>>>
>>> Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
>>> want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
>>> different.
>>
>>Time is not constant.
>>
>>Apart from this, you are right that time travle is not and never will be
>>possible. The best proof of this is odd lack of people from the future
>>visiting us.
>>
>>The best evidence that there are intelligent life in the universe is
>>that none of it has ever bothered to visit earth.
>>
>>Alf
>
>But isn't that like saying that nuclear fission and fusion could never be
>possible because no one had figured out how it worked? Or, humans flying
is
>impossible because I've never seen a human flying?
No. The point is that if time travel is possible and it actually became a
reality in 2583. Then there would be some people at that time who WOULD
travel back in time to say 1998 and we would meet them. However, we have
never in history ever recorded such a meeting. Thus they never went back to
1998, nor to any other year as we know. Thus there is no reason to think
that time travel will ever become a reality and thus it is reasonable to
think that it is impossible.
>Just because something hasn't been demonstrated to be possible doesn't mean
>that it is impossible. Even god, who is most evidently not real, is still
>possible!
>
>Your second statement seems to contradict your first, besides. Maybe all
of
>the most intelligent civilizations time travel often, but avoid us backward
>heathens.
The second statement is mostly a joke but with a ring of truth in it. I
think I got it as a quote from Calvin & Hobbes, but I am not sure if that is
where I got it from. In any case, I think it is a pearl. :-)
As far as contradicting the first - that is often how life is as some would
say - contradictory. :-)
Alf
Andrew Lias
Alf Salte <alfs...@no.spam.thank.you.online.no> wrote:
>
>No. The point is that if time travel is possible and it actually became a
>reality in 2583. Then there would be some people at that time who WOULD
>travel back in time to say 1998 and we would meet them. However, we have
>never in history ever recorded such a meeting. Thus they never went back to
>1998, nor to any other year as we know. Thus there is no reason to think
>that time travel will ever become a reality and thus it is reasonable to
>think that it is impossible.
I'm not sure that this is a valid objection. I've read theoretical models
of time travel systems involving large rotating black holes that place a
very strong limitation on the sort of time travel that you can do.
Specifically, you can not travel back before a time when the collapsar
existed, or forward past a point where it ceases to exist. It seems
plausible that this limitation might well apply to any credible time
machine. As such, if time travel becomes a reality in 2583, no one would
know of it until 2583, nor would the inventor be able to visit his
previous self to give him instructions on how to build it.
--
Please direct all replies to anrwlias AT hotmail.com | Siste viator
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
Samuel Penn
"Alf Salte" <alfs...@no.spam.thank.you.online.no> wrote:
> No. The point is that if time travel is possible and it actually became a
> reality in 2583. Then there would be some people at that time who WOULD
> travel back in time to say 1998 and we would meet them.
Traversable worm holes, which are one possible form of time machine,
don't allow travel back to before their creation. So if a wormhole
pair was set up in 2583, you could visit any point in time after that
date (and go back to 2583), but you couldn't visit 2582, or anytime
before.
--
Be seeing you, http://www.bifrost.demon.co.uk/SF/SF.html
Sam. --------- Babylon 5 Pictures and SF Links
Raimo Vuorisalo
>Think about this. If time stopped you would be able to measure how
>long time was stopped for, which means that time never stopped.
>If every physical object disappeared then came back they would have
>been gone for a period of time.
>Why ask for proof of something that we all know anyway?
Well, remember that time is a creation of human's for easier communication
and understunding. If trying to time travel in universe(or at where ever/in
what ever), which doesn't know the meaning of time, which was created by
human's, it is impossible. Shorter: universe is not aware of time so how is
it possible to do something which doesn't even exist?
Barry O'Grady
:Mr. Shawn M. Berry posted the following to alt.atheism:
:
:>Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
:>want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
:>different.
:
:Err, time is not a constant.
Time is probably the only constant. It can't be altered no matter what
we do. Time moves forward at precisely one second per second. Time is
so constant that you can set your watch by it.
Barry
Barry O'Grady
:Time is a constant
Yep.
: because as our clocks become more acurate our ability to
:calculate distances and positions becomes more concise throughout the
:universe.
True.
: If time were not constant throughout the universe then the closer
:we came to a fixed measurement of it our resulting accuracy would decrease.
:This alone is undeniable proof that time is a constant.
Absolutely.
Stix is out of his league on this one.
Barry
Barry O'Grady
:
:Don Kresch wrote in message <7564ji$2...@newsops.execpc.com>...
So the top of a mountain is newer or older than the base? Dream on.
Barry O'Grady
:Barry O'Grady (bar...@XacayX.com.au) wrote:
:
:: The proof is in the fact that time is not a physical thing that we
:: can alter.
:
:Too bad your particular brand of idiodicy has been proven
:false by many an experiment.
Please describe one you have witnessed.
:Why do you persist in thes foolishness, Barry? You may as well be
:a flat-Earther, for all the research stacked against you.
:
:: I defy you to alter time in any way.
:
:Oh, because someone on this newsgroup doesn't own two atomic clocks
:and a cargo jet in which to fly around one of them, *that* proves
:that time is immutable!
That was a silly experiment that failed.
:Fuck, you're stupid.
Speak for yourself. Oh, you are.
Barry O'Grady
:
:Alf Salte wrote in message <3677C53A...@funcom.com>...
:>"Mr. Shawn M. Berry" wrote:
:>>
:>> Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
:>> want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
:>> different.
:>
:>Time is not constant.
:>
:>Apart from this, you are right that time travle is not and never will be
:>possible. The best proof of this is odd lack of people from the future
:>visiting us.
:>
:>The best evidence that there are intelligent life in the universe is
:>that none of it has ever bothered to visit earth.
:>
:>Alf
:
:But isn't that like saying that nuclear fission and fusion could never be
:possible because no one had figured out how it worked? Or, humans flying is
:impossible because I've never seen a human flying?
:
:Just because something hasn't been demonstrated to be possible doesn't mean
:that it is impossible. Even god, who is most evidently not real, is still
:possible!
It's not at all the same. If a place doesn't exist no amount of technology
will allow you to go there. Neither the past nor future exist.
Brad Cadle
<bo...@mfi.net> wrote:
>Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
>want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
>different.
>
>Shawn Berry
>
I Hope you don't find the message too insulting, but here it goes:
The statement above is not very scientific. The act of
science is to detemine what things are constant and what are not to
the best we can measure them. Defining something as a constant is
generally done either by:
a) A signficiant number of measurement shave been taken such that
whatever you are measuring does not appear to vary between
measurments. The thing your are measuring called only be called a
constant so long as other experiments do not prove otherwise.
b) A mathematical model calls for some parameters as being constant.
If the mathematical model holds to the test of time and no other
evidence has shown the "constant" it uses varies, one can consider the
parameter constant. When an experiment or better theory comes along
saying it is not it can no longer be called a constant.
Hence something is a constant only so far as we have not proved
otherwise
-Brad
>Barry O'Grady <bar...@XacayX.com.au> wrote in message
>news:3671fa8c...@news.acay.com.au...
>>"Mr. Shawn M. Berry" <bo...@mfi.net> wrote:
>>
>>:This whole concept of time travel is just a bunch of wasted time. Time is
>a
>>:constant and any perception of change is just that--a perception. If we
>>:were to approch the speed of light in a space ship we would seem to notice
>a
>>:difference in time. If I had the ability to instantly flash freeze that
>>:same ship of people and thaw them instantly they would also notice a
>>:difference in time. Though time hasn't changed in ither incident they
>would
>>:still percieve it that way. I reinterrogate; time travel is just dribble.
>>
>>You are quite right. No amount of technoligy will change that fact. The
>>only time that exists is now.
>>
>>Doppler shift accounts for the effects some people call time travel.
>>Being able to see light from a star that exploded 10,000 years ago
>>is not time travel any more than viewing old movies is.
>>
>>Time is a concept that will not change no matter what we do. Time
>>would exist even if nothing else did.
>>
>>:Shawn Berry
>>
>>Barry
>>
>
>
Brad Cadle
<bo...@mfi.net> wrote:
>
>Time is a constant because as our clocks become more acurate our ability to
>calculate distances and positions becomes more concise throughout the
>universe. If time were not constant throughout the universe then the closer
>we came to a fixed measurement of it our resulting accuracy would decrease.
>This alone is undeniable proof that time is a constant.
>
>Shawn Berry
>
>
Uh, Ever hear of Einsteins special relativity?
-Brad
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: :Why do you persist in thes foolishness, Barry? You may as well be
: :a flat-Earther, for all the research stacked against you.
: :
: :: I defy you to alter time in any way.
: :
: :Oh, because someone on this newsgroup doesn't own two atomic clocks
: :and a cargo jet in which to fly around one of them, *that* proves
: :that time is immutable!
:
: That was a silly experiment that failed.
Citations, please?
Put up or shut up, Barry.
Jeff/addesign
>st...@BAAWA.com.au (Stix) wrote:
>:Mr. Shawn M. Berry posted the following to alt.atheism:
>:
>:>Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
>:>want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
>:>different.
>:
>:Err, time is not a constant.
>
>Time is probably the only constant. It can't be altered no matter what
>we do. Time moves forward at precisely one second per second. Time is
>so constant that you can set your watch by it.
Uninformed poppycock.
The speed of light may be the only constant, but not time.
t= t„/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
[I can't type a subscript zero in a post, so „ will have to do.]
or:
time = time(subscript0) divided by the squareroot of (1-(velocity
squared divided by the speed of light squared)) where v is the
relative velocity between the observer and the observed.
If v is half the speed of light, substitute .05c for v, then t=1.15t„
Measurements in different realms of space-time (different frames of
reference) need not agree, except for the velocity of light, which
will be the same from either frame of reference.
Time dilation has been confirmed by experiment. Muons have a definite
average lifetime of two-millionths of a second. Muons produced in the
upper atmosphere travel at about 99.5% of the speed of light,
requiring twenty-millionths of a second to reach sea level. By our
time, they should decay before that, but muons are detected at sea
level. At 99.5% c, the muon has ten times as much time to "live"
because it's "clock" runs at 1/10 the speed of ours.
This interpretation of time dilation has been confirmed in the
laboratory with particle accelerators.
Time isn't what you think it is.
Jeff/addesign a.a #1063
****************************************************************
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum--Lucretius, 1st c. BC
"So vast is the sum of the iniquities that religion has induced."
****************************************************************
Ian Molton
Raimo Vuorisalo <ray...@sgic.fi> wrote:
> Well, remember that time is a creation of human's for easier
> communication and understunding. If trying to time travel in universe(or
> at where ever/in what ever), which doesn't know the meaning of time,
> which was created by human's, it is impossible. Shorter: universe is not
> aware of time so how is it possible to do something which doesn't even
> exist?
The universe is not intelligent so it is not aware of time, however time
does exist, and the universe has been moving steadily along (for want of a
better word) it's time dimension ever since the (hypothetical) big bang
We however, are intelligent, and can reason that there s such a thing as
time, and label it.
--
-Ian aka Lennier
Acorn Computers, the best in the world
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hawk/
BaBe - Women's human rights organisation in Croatia
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hawk/babe/
True creativity comes from not being like everyone else. Aspie and proud of it.
Fish
Indeed!
I heard the above told slightly differently in the book "Genesis and the Big
Bang" by Gerald L. Schroder, PhD (re-paragraphed below for readability):
-------------
One of the many elementary particles produced in physics laboratories is the mu-
meson. It decays with a 1.5 microsecond half-period. Mu-mesons, in addition to
being products of experiments in high-energy physics laboratories, are also
produced near the top of the Earth's atmosphere as cosmic rays slam into nuclei
of atmospheric gases. There, the energy of the incident cosmic radiation is so
great that, when formed, the mu-mesons have a speed that is almost the speed of
light. At such high speeds, they experience measurable time dilation.
Even moving at close to the speed of light, 200 microseconds are required to
travel the 60 kilometers from the altitude where the mu-mesons are formed to the
Earth's surface. Because the mu-meson has a 1.5 microsecond half-period, this
200 microsecond travel time uses 133 of it's half-periods.
Recall that in each half-period, half of the remaining particles decay. After
133 half-periods, the fraction of mu-mesons that should remain and reach the
Earth's surface is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 ... repeated 133 times or less than 1
millionth millionth billionth billionth billionth of the mu-mesons that started
their journey downward toward Earth. This is a number so small that almost no
mu-mesons should ever reach the Earth's surface. Most should have decayed in
transit.
Yet when the number of mu-mesons being produced at the top of the atmosphere is
compared with the number reaching the Earth's surface, we find to our surprise
that 1/8 have reached the Earth's surface. The survival of 1/8 of the mu-mesons
means that during their 60-kilometer trip only three half-periods elapsed: 1/2 x
1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8.
To the mu-meson traveling at close to the speed of light, the elapsed
(relativistic) time is only three half-periods: 4.5 microseconds (3 x 1.5
microseconds). To the observer on the ground at least 200 microseconds passed
because that is the shortest possible time needed to travel the 60 kilometers
from the top of the atmosphere to the Earth.
For the same, single event two very different times elapsed: 4.5 microseconds in
the time frame of the speeding mu-meson and 200 microseconds in the time frame
of the observer on the ground.
Remember, it is one event.
Due to the relative motion between the observer and the observed, two very
different times elapsed.
*Both* are absolutely correct!
--
"Fish" (David B. Trout)
Alt.Atheism #623
ICQ# 25302291
fi...@infidels.org.god
(remove "god" to reply by email)
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in
veneration -- courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness,
and, above all, love of the truth." -- H. L. Mencken
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Ian Molton
Barry O'Grady <bar...@XacayX.com.au> wrote:
> :Oh, because someone on this newsgroup doesn't own two atomic clocks
> :and a cargo jet in which to fly around one of them, *that* proves
> :that time is immutable!
>
> That was a silly experiment that failed.
well, actually, it didnt....
MarkWCats
wisely, indeed sagely, muttered:
Newsgroups set to alt.babylon5.uk,sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.science because
they might feasibly be interested.
>Kevin Reilly <use...@denali.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>:On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 Barry O'Grady wrote:
>:
>:>Time is a concept that will not change no matter what we do. Time
>:>would exist even if nothing else did.
>:
>:Your proof being?
>
>The proof is in the fact that time is not a physical thing that we
>can alter. I defy you to alter time in any way.
>Think about this. If time stopped you would be able to measure how
>long time was stopped for, which means that time never stopped.
Or, on the other hand, you wouldn't notice because time had stopped, and as
such you would not be able to perceive it. (Perceotion requiring thought
processes, which in turn require time to occur)
Look.. <sigh> I'll stop time for you, all right?
See, three hours have passed outside this universe, but I stopped time. As
you can see, this is perfectly true, as you haven't measured any change in
time, except perhaps the few seconds you've taken to read this.
So, as you haven't measured how long time was stopped ofr, by your
arguments, it was stopped. [1]
>If every physical object disappeared then came back they would have
>been gone for a period of time.
>Why ask for proof of something that we all know anyway?
>
Um, because unless it has been proved, we don't *know* it, we merely
*suppose* it?
[1] This may be somewhat invalid logic, but I'm in a somewhat sarky
mood.[2] Sorry.
[2] Me? Sarky? My God! That *never* happens! That's about as likely as...
as something very unlikely!
MarkW(subscribed firmly to the
at-least-one-sheep-in-Scotland-with-at-least-one-black-side way of looking
at things)Cats
--
----@@@@ MarkWCats
Mark Dunne (ICC-GHCPT), mdu...@iol.ie
A Matter of Life and Death: http://www.iol.ie/~mdunne
The Internet Cat Cult: http://www.iol.ie/~mdunne/icc/
Ian Molton
Jeff/addesign <addd...@interaccess.com> wrote:
> t= t„/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
aha! now I know how come time dilation depends on relative velocity - it's
a squared term!
Thanks for clearing that up!
Edmond Wollmann
>
> "Mr. Shawn M. Berry" wrote:
> >
> > Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
> > want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
> > different.
>
>
> Apart from this, you are right that time travle is not and never will be
> possible. The best proof of this is odd lack of people from the future
> visiting us.
>
> The best evidence that there are intelligent life in the universe is
> that none of it has ever bothered to visit earth.
>
> Alf
Neither time or space exist independently of an observer in my view.
However, because both time and space are the effects of a STATE of mind
and conscious focus, changing that state will allow time travel.
Everything is "really" happenING right now, and nothing "really" goes
anywhere. Its all right here, right now. The present is the only time we
ever "really" actually exist. We CREATE the past and the future from the
present.
"Space has no objective reality except as an order or arrangement of the
objects we perceive in it, and time has no independent existence apart
from the order of events by which we measure it." Lincoln Barnett "The
Universe and Dr. Einstein"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Barry O'Grady
:bar...@XacayX.com.au (Barry O'Grady) wrote:
:
:>st...@BAAWA.com.au (Stix) wrote:
:
:>:Mr. Shawn M. Berry posted the following to alt.atheism:
:>:
:>:>Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
:>:>want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
:>:>different.
:>:
:>:Err, time is not a constant.
:>
:>Time is probably the only constant. It can't be altered no matter what
:>we do. Time moves forward at precisely one second per second. Time is
:>so constant that you can set your watch by it.
:
:Uninformed poppycock.
So then, how do you set your watch?
:The speed of light may be the only constant, but not time.
Sorry. The speed of light is not a constant.
:t= t„/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
:
:[I can't type a subscript zero in a post, so „ will have to do.]
Lower case a with a double dot over it is not even close to a zero.
:or:
:time = time(subscript0) divided by the squareroot of (1-(velocity
:squared divided by the speed of light squared)) where v is the
:relative velocity between the observer and the observed.
:
:If v is half the speed of light, substitute .05c for v, then t=1.15t„
:
:Measurements in different realms of space-time (different frames of
:reference) need not agree, except for the velocity of light, which
:will be the same from either frame of reference.
:
:Time dilation has been confirmed by experiment. Muons have a definite
:average lifetime of two-millionths of a second. Muons produced in the
:upper atmosphere travel at about 99.5% of the speed of light,
:requiring twenty-millionths of a second to reach sea level. By our
:time, they should decay before that, but muons are detected at sea
:level. At 99.5% c, the muon has ten times as much time to "live"
:because it's "clock" runs at 1/10 the speed of ours.
:This interpretation of time dilation has been confirmed in the
:laboratory with particle accelerators.
:
:Time isn't what you think it is.
It's much simpler than what you think. If time was not constant it
would be useless.
Foobar T. Clown
>
> No. The point is that if time travel is possible and it actually
> became a reality in 2583. Then there would be some people at that time
> who WOULD travel back in time to say 1998 and we would meet them.
Maybe time travel would work the way Orson Scott Card describes it in
"Pastwatch: The Redemption of Columbus." Maybe a time traveller
visiting the past wipes out all of history back to the date and time
when he/she lands. In that case, there could be *ONE* who appeared
somewhere, some time in the past, and now we're waiting to see if time
travel gets discovered again.
Jeff/addesign
>addd...@interaccess.com (Jeff/addesign) wrote:
>:bar...@XacayX.com.au (Barry O'Grady) wrote:
<snip>
>:>Time is probably the only constant. It can't be altered no matter what
>:>we do. Time moves forward at precisely one second per second. Time is
>:>so constant that you can set your watch by it.
>:
>:Uninformed poppycock.
>
>So then, how do you set your watch?
I have 6:42 p.m. right now. Do you think your watch has the same time?
But that is irrelevent to the discusssion. Yes, time is consistent
within this frame of reference, i.e., on this planet relativistic
variations in time would be imperceptible. Much as we seem to be in
Euclidean space on a local scale, but Euclidean geometry is inadequate
to describe time-space, which is better described by Gaussian
coordinates.
>:The speed of light may be the only constant, but not time.
>
>Sorry. The speed of light is not a constant.
You really need to try reading a book on the subject, rather than
posting uninformed nonsense like a twit. Demonstrate that the speed
of light is not constant.
>
>:t= t„/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>:
>:[I can't type a subscript zero in a post, so „ will have to do.]
>
>Lower case a with a double dot over it is not even close to a zero.
More pedantic twitery. There is NO way to type anything approximating
a subscript zero with this character set, in this format.
>:or:
>:time = time(subscript0) divided by the squareroot of (1-(velocity
>:squared divided by the speed of light squared)) where v is the
>:relative velocity between the observer and the observed.
>:
>:If v is half the speed of light, substitute .05c for v, then t=1.15t„
>:
>:Measurements in different realms of space-time (different frames of
>:reference) need not agree, except for the velocity of light, which
>:will be the same from either frame of reference.
>:
>:Time dilation has been confirmed by experiment. Muons have a definite
>:average lifetime of two-millionths of a second. Muons produced in the
>:upper atmosphere travel at about 99.5% of the speed of light,
>:requiring twenty-millionths of a second to reach sea level. By our
>:time, they should decay before that, but muons are detected at sea
>:level. At 99.5% c, the muon has ten times as much time to "live"
>:because it's "clock" runs at 1/10 the speed of ours.
>:This interpretation of time dilation has been confirmed in the
>:laboratory with particle accelerators.
>:
>:Time isn't what you think it is.
>
>It's much simpler than what you think. If time was not constant it
>would be useless.
Time is not a constant, as clearly demonstrated by the muons cited
above. If you haven't got a clue yet, go out and get yourself one. Try
reading any basic physics text, which includes a sumamry of the
General and Special Theories of Relativity.
I know you post as an atheist, which is pathetic for atheism. Rather
than the reasoning, intelligent, open-minded students of science that
seem to populate this forum, you persist in demonstrating that you ae
a pedantic twit, devoid of any interest in scientific knowledge. Your
perception of time is as vapid and limiting as a fundy seeking
knowledge of cosmology armed only with the Bible.
If you can't examine a simple explanation of relativistic time, you
are clearly out of your depth in this discussion. Like I said in
another post, I'm not a physicist. But any basic physics textbook
would show a perception of time vastly different from yours.
Jeff/addesign
>In article <75d06i$j59$1...@remarQ.com>,
> Jeff/addesign <addd...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>> t= t„/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
>aha! now I know how come time dilation depends on relative velocity - it's
>a squared term!
>Thanks for clearing that up!
Again with the disclaimer that I'm no physicist, and adding that my
math skills have atrophied in 20 years of little use, the squares are
there because the time dilation formula involves the Pythagorean
theorem, based upon an observer at rest, and light paths moving at
diagonals.
given a set of paired mirrors in motion, with a pulse of light
bouncing between them (a "light clock"):
(I know this is crude in ascii)
--- --- ---
/|\
ct / | \
/ | \
/ |cT \
/ | \
--- vt --- ---
1 2 3 > Positions of mirrors.
Distances ct, cT, and vt obtained from the fact that distance traveled
by a uniformly moving object is equal to its velocity multiplied by
the time.
Time t is the time light takes to pulse between the moving mirrors, as
observed from a "stationary" reference frame. Since the pulse moves at
c, the distance is ct.
At the same time, the clock is moving to the right with velocity v,
thus traveling a distance of vt, while the pulse travels ct.
The distance between the mirrors is the same in either reference
frame, since the motion is horizontal, not vertical.
T represents the time for the pulse to move from one mirror to another
as observed the reference frame fixed to the light clock.
In the moving reference frame, light also moves with the speed c, so
the distance is cT (I've given up on trying to represent t with a
subscript zero)
A right triangle is formed in whch ct is the hypoteneuse, and cT and
vt are legs. Applying the Pythagorean theorem:
c²t² = c²T² + v²t²
c²t² - v²t² = c²T
t²(1 - v²/c²) = c²T²
t² = T²/ (1-v²/c²)
t= T/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
Pamela Gross
<woll...@edmond.hwo> wrote:
>Alf Salte wrote:
>>
>> "Mr. Shawn M. Berry" wrote:
>> >
>> > Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
>> > want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
>> > different.
>>
>> Time is not constant.
>>
>> Apart from this, you are right that time travle is not and never will be
>> possible. The best proof of this is odd lack of people from the future
>> visiting us.
>>
>> The best evidence that there are intelligent life in the universe is
>> that none of it has ever bothered to visit earth.
>>
>> Alf
>
>Neither time or space exist independently of an observer in my view.
This is what I wanted to ask you about from the beginning of your
book, where you explain that you will show that reality does not exist
independently of an observer.
Pam
--
Pamela Gross
be...@ix.netcom.com * http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1962
Rheumatic Disease Web Site!!! http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/
Joyeux Noel et Bonne Annee
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
: It's much simpler than what you think. If time was not constant it
: would be useless.
Again, Barry, you are invited to put up, or shut up.
You lack of citations or equations is notable (as is your lack of
knowledge of physics).
Why the specific silence, Barry?
(Rhetorical question -- we know why you've naught to contribute.)
Edmond Wollmann
> On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 14:34:38 -0800, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@edmond.hwo> wrote:
> >Alf Salte wrote:
> >> "Mr. Shawn M. Berry" wrote:
> >> > Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
> >> > want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
> >> > different.
> >> Time is not constant.
> >> Apart from this, you are right that time travle is not and never will be
> >> possible. The best proof of this is odd lack of people from the future
> >> visiting us.
Simply because we do not see them en mass, is not sufficient evidence
that their existence is invalid. We did not see DNA, techtonic plates,
molecules..... for thousands of years either.
> >> The best evidence that there are intelligent life in the universe is
> >> that none of it has ever bothered to visit earth.
:-))))
> >Neither time or space exist independently of an observer in my view.
> This is what I wanted to ask you about from the beginning of your
> book, where you explain that you will show that reality does not exist
> independently of an observer.
Look at the delineations from part 2 on of the lives of those I
delineate. This demonstrates what I asserted from the beginning. If
astrology reflects personality needs as Noel Tyl has so eloquently
asserted, how then can these psychic personality
characteristics-delineable from birth BEFORE parental interaction, NOT
be the beliefs that are brought into the life and create the life of the
individual? I show in all my writings how an individual's belief
schemata is catalysed by the early environment and CARRIED FORWARD to
create the reality experiences of the individual (for free will
discernments please see my "Hallway" post).
The astrological positions simply reflect-vibrationally-the MOST LIKELY
outcome of momentum of the belief. Astrologers who do not see the
infinite possiblities of a SINGLE chart-dependent upon the awareness of
the OBSERVER(s) and EXPERIENCER(s) are not giving full credit and
service to the practice of astrology-nor to the divine nature of man.
Consciousness is not constrained by the limits of any specific observer.
"It is the theory that determines WHAT we can observe." Albert Einstein
"Space has no objective reality except as an order or arrangement of the
objects we perceive in it, and time has no independent existence apart
from the order of events by which we measure it."
"Let the mind be enlarged, according to its capacity, to the grandeur of
the mysteries, and not the mysteries contracted to the narrowness of the
mind. " -SIR FRANCIS BACON
Mind and matter are the SAME thing manifesting in different ways. The
physical world is the manifestation of mind AS matter. Real while you
are focused and adjusted to it (by the first Saturn opposition Saturn
and concretized by 21), but an illusion none-the-less. Neptune reflects
a "truer" reality than Saturn, because it is more encompassing.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
SDSU http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~wollmann/
Rick
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@edmond.hwo> wrote:
>Neither time or space exist independently of an observer in my view.
Fortunately neither time nor space give a shit about your view.
>However, because both time and space are the effects of a STATE of mind
>and conscious focus, changing that state will allow time travel.
Is this more Ed "logic"? You never supported your contention that
"both time and space are the effects of a STATE of mind" with *any*
evidence. Are you still playing your little game of making statements
and never supporting them?
Since you failed to support your premiss the rest of your argument has no
value and has been snipped.
Barry O'Grady
:Alf Salte wrote:
:>
:> "Mr. Shawn M. Berry" wrote:
:> >
:> > Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
:> > want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
:> > different.
:>
:> Time is not constant.
:>
:> Apart from this, you are right that time travle is not and never will be
:> possible. The best proof of this is odd lack of people from the future
:> visiting us.
:>
:> The best evidence that there are intelligent life in the universe is
:> that none of it has ever bothered to visit earth.
:>
:> Alf
:
:Neither time or space exist independently of an observer in my view.
:However, because both time and space are the effects of a STATE of mind
:and conscious focus, changing that state will allow time travel.
Go back to your Christian newsgroups fundy.
Barry O'Grady
:bar...@XacayX.com.au (Barry O'Grady) wrote:
:
:>addd...@interaccess.com (Jeff/addesign) wrote:
:
:>:bar...@XacayX.com.au (Barry O'Grady) wrote:
:<snip>
:>:>Time is probably the only constant. It can't be altered no matter what
:>:>we do. Time moves forward at precisely one second per second. Time is
:>:>so constant that you can set your watch by it.
:>:
:>:Uninformed poppycock.
:>
:>So then, how do you set your watch?
:
:I have 6:42 p.m. right now. Do you think your watch has the same time?
:But that is irrelevent to the discusssion. Yes, time is consistent
:within this frame of reference, i.e., on this planet relativistic
:variations in time would be imperceptible. Much as we seem to be in
:Euclidean space on a local scale, but Euclidean geometry is inadequate
:to describe time-space, which is better described by Gaussian
:coordinates.
:
:>:The speed of light may be the only constant, but not time.
:>
:>Sorry. The speed of light is not a constant.
:
:You really need to try reading a book on the subject, rather than
:posting uninformed nonsense like a twit. Demonstrate that the speed
:of light is not constant.
I have seen it demonstrated. The speed of light depends on the medium
it is passing through. Light travels slower through water than air.
That fact was tested by using a rotating light source.
Barry
Barry O'Grady
:Barry O'Grady (bar...@XacayX.com.au) wrote:
:
:: It's much simpler than what you think. If time was not constant it
:: would be useless.
:
:Again, Barry, you are invited to put up, or shut up.
:
:You lack of citations or equations is notable (as is your lack of
:knowledge of physics).
:
:Why the specific silence, Barry?
:
:(Rhetorical question -- we know why you've naught to contribute.)
I don't want to take over the whole thread.
cz...@ecn.ab.ca
No, because you're naught but talk -- you're just like the bleaters who
neither put up or shut up.
*One* citation, Barry, *one*!
Not holding my breath.
Edmond Wollmann
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@edmond.hwo> wrote:
> :Alf Salte wrote:
> :> "Mr. Shawn M. Berry" wrote:
> :> > Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
> :> > want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
> :> > different.
> :> Time is not constant.
> :> Apart from this, you are right that time travle is not and never will be
> :> possible. The best proof of this is odd lack of people from the future
> :> visiting us.
> :> The best evidence that there are intelligent life in the universe is
> :> that none of it has ever bothered to visit earth.
The best evidence that X-rays don't exist is because we couldn't see
them.
> :Neither time or space exist independently of an observer in my view.
> :However, because both time and space are the effects of a STATE of mind
> :and conscious focus, changing that state will allow time travel.
> Go back to your Christian newsgroups fundy.
Is that supposed to be an argument?
A valid and sound deductive argument is one that has a true premises and
a true conclusion-it is deductive, which contains nothing new in the
conclusion (like math). Inductive arguments are weak or strong (never
certain which all are here inductive) if they have a true premises and
true conclusion (strong and cogent) or true premises and (probably)
false conclusion (weak uncogent). In this way they are determined to be
cogent or not based on strong argument+True premises.
sound argument=valid deductive argument + true premises=definite true
conclusion
cogent argument=strong inductive argument + true premises=probably true
conclusion
You have only asserted a fallacious ad hominem.
I profess no sort of traditional religious approach. All religions are
the science of following, to which I do not subscribe.
Belief system="This will be one of the aspects that creates your
artificial construct personality. It will be one of the cornerstones of
the prism of personality. The other two will be emotion and thought. It
is what is responsible for the methodology, along with the other two
ideas, of how you choose to exercise your physiological mental free will
in giving yourself the type of approach to your life that you do. It
will be responsible for the creation of your physical reality and the
reflection of that reality through your physical senses back to your
mentality."
Reality= "Will simply be an idea being expressed and experienced."
Bashar Darryl Anka, "The New Metaphysics", Light and Sound
Communications, Beverly Hills CA., 1987
anonym™
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Barry O'Grady wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann <woll...@edmond.hwo> wrote:
>
> > :Alf Salte wrote:
>
> > :> "Mr. Shawn M. Berry" wrote:
>
> > :> > Amen!!! A constant can not and will not be changed no mater how much we
> > :> > want it to. One just proves them selves gullable by buying into any
> > :> > different.
>
> > :> Time is not constant.
>
> > :> Apart from this, you are right that time travle is not and never will be
> > :> possible. The best proof of this is odd lack of people from the future
> > :> visiting us.
>
> > :> The best evidence that there are intelligent life in the universe is
> > :> that none of it has ever bothered to visit earth.
>
> The best evidence that X-rays don't exist is because we couldn't see
> them.
The best evidence that Ed is an asshole is the way he acts.
>
> > :Neither time or space exist independently of an observer in my view.
> > :However, because both time and space are the effects of a STATE of mind
> > :and conscious focus, changing that state will allow time travel.
>
> > Go back to your Christian newsgroups fundy.
>
> Is that supposed to be an argument?
Is that?
>
> A valid and sound deductive argument is one that has a true premises and
> a true conclusion-it is deductive, which contains nothing new in the
> conclusion (like math).
Math is new?
> Inductive arguments are weak or strong (never
> certain which all are here inductive) if they have a true premises and
> true conclusion (strong and cogent) or true premises and (probably)
> false conclusion (weak uncogent). In this way they are determined to be
> cogent or not based on strong argument+True premises.
Eddie's plagiarizing from his textbooks again, but without knowing what
the fuck he's copying.
>
> sound argument=valid deductive argument + true premises=definite true
> conclusion
> cogent argument=strong inductive argument + true premises=probably true
> conclusion
>
> You have only asserted a fallacious ad hominem.
You have only stained the Earth with your foul existence.
>
> I profess no sort of traditional religious approach. All religions are
> the science of following, to which I do not subscribe.
Except that he follows Bashar. What a freaking liar.
Steals from him, too.
Bill Jackson
Eternal Observer. Without God, how could the early universe be said to
exist? This line of reasoning doesn't convince me, but it does give me a
headache.
Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <367AD8...@edmond.hwo>...
(SNIP)>
>
>"Space has no objective reality except as an order or arrangement of the
>objects we perceive in it, and time has no independent existence apart
>from the order of events by which we measure it." Lincoln Barnett "The
>Universe and Dr. Einstein"
Edmond Wollmann
>
> The following is one of the stronger arguments for the existence of an
> Eternal Observer. Without God, how could the early universe be said to
> exist? This line of reasoning doesn't convince me, but it does give me a
> headache.
>
> Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <367AD8...@edmond.hwo>...
> (SNIP)>
>
> >
> >"Space has no objective reality except as an order or arrangement of the
> >objects we perceive in it, and time has no independent existence apart
> >from the order of events by which we measure it." Lincoln Barnett "The
> >Universe and Dr. Einstein"
"It is our conditioning, our current collective worldveiw that we are
taught by our parents, teachers and society. This way of seeing
things-the old paradigm-has aptly been called 'the hypnosis of social
conditioning' an induced fiction in which we have collectively agreed to
participate." Deepak Chopra M.D. Ageless Body, Timeless mind
"I am able to prove," wrote the great German mathematician, Leibnitz
"that not only light, color, heat, and the like, but motion, shape, and
extension too are mere apparent qualities."
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
"Thus gradually philosophers and scientists arrived at the startling
conclusion that since every object is simply the sum of its qualities,
and since qualities exist only in the mind, the whole objective universe
of matter and energy, atoms and stars, does not exist except as a
construction of the consciousness, an edifice of conventional symbols
shaped by the senses of man."
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
"All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth, in a word all those
bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world, have not any
substance without the mind....So long as they are not actually percieved
by me, or do not exist in my mind, or that of any other created spirit,
they must either have no existance at all, or else subsist in the mind
of some eternal spirit." Berkeley
"Just as there is no such thing as color without an eye to discern it,
so an instant or an hour or a day is nothing without an event to mark
it." Lincoln Barnett
"Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of predjudices
laid down in the mind prior to the age of 18. Every new idea one
encounters in later years must combat this accretion of "self-evident"
concepts." Albert Einstein
"In mans brief tenancy on earth he egocentrically orders events in his
mind according to his own feelings of past, present and future. But
except on the reels of ones own consciousness, the universe, the
objective world of reality, does not "happen"-it simply exists."
Lincoln Barnett
"The physicist has no need of the flow of time or the now in the world
of physics. Indeed the theory of relativity rules out a universal
present for all observers. If there is any meaning at all to these
concepts (and many philosophers, such as McTaggart, deny that there is)
then it would seem to belong to psychology rather than physics." Paul
Davies on Time
"...memory does not so much PRODUCE as DISCOVER personal identity, by
shewing us the relation of cause and effect among our different
perceptions." Davide Hume on personal identity
"In short, the world is not a collection of separate but coupled THINGS;
rather it is a network of relations." David Bohm
"The common division of the world into subject and object, inner world
and outer world, body and soul is no longer adequate." Werner
Heisenberg
Without psychological insight and awareness of the momentum of our
consciousness, our actions are just reactions to the prescriptions of
the higher self, meant for education of the conscious mind through the
'props' and symbols of physicality. Transcendence removes the apparency
of separated things. Edmond Wollmann
Reality= "Will simply be an idea being expressed and experienced."
Bashar Darryl Anka, "The New Metaphysics", Light and Sound
Communications, Beverly Hills CA., 1987
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1998 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Christopher A. Lee
>The following is one of the stronger arguments for the existence of an
>Eternal Observer. Without God, how could the early universe be said to
>exist? This line of reasoning doesn't convince me, but it does give me a
>headache.
It's not a particularly strong argument for anything -
the questioner is presuming his beliefs, and that there
is a link between "God" and "the early universe". He has
yet to demonstrate (a) that his god exists, and that (b)
it has a link with the early universe. I am prepeared
to grant him that the universe exists however.
I find it a dishonest way to argue - it's an attempt
to force his presumptions and shift the burden of proof:
if he thinks it happened this way, then let him
demoinstrate it.
jfred
> Bill Jackson wrote:
> >
> > The following is one of the stronger arguments for the existence of an
> > Eternal Observer. Without God, how could the early universe be said to
> > exist? This line of reasoning doesn't convince me, but it does give me a
> > headache.
> >
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote in message <367AD8...@edmond.hwo>...
> > (SNIP)>
> >
"It is Wollmann's kookiness, his current deranged worldview that we are
witnessing on usenet. This way of seeing things -- the classic delusion
-- has aptly been called 'a psycho with an internet account' and induces
horror." Deepak Chopra M.D. Ageless Body, Timeless mind
"I am able to prove," wrote the great German mathematician, Leibnitz
"that Edmond Wollmann is a kook." "The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
"Thus gradually philosophers and scientists arrived at the conclusion
that since Edmond Wollmann spams, lies, whines and wears panties on his
head, and since he is powerless and has no attorneys, the whole of
usenet, has witnessed his kookiness." "The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
"All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth, in a word all those
bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world, have concluded that
Edmond Wollmann is a kook....So long as he continues his powerless
games, and keeps spamming, and continues lying, and fails to apologize
to Pam, he must be a pathetic, powerless kook." Berkeley
"Just as there is no such thing as color without an eye to discern it,
so an instant or an hour or a day is nothing without kooky behavior from
Edmond Wollmann." Lincoln Barnett
"Common sense is actually beyond Edmond Wollmann. Every new idea one
encounters in his posts is kookier than the last." Albert Einstein
"In Wollmann's brief tenancy on earth he egocentrically orders everyone
to agree with him. But except for his sock puppets, everyone thinks he
is a kook." Lincoln Barnett
"The Wollmann has no need of logic or reason or the the laws of physics.
Indeed the theory of kookiness rules out any comprehension for all
observers. If there is any meaning or logic at all to his posts (and
many philosophers, such as McTaggart, deny that there is) then it would
seem to belong to abnormal psychology rather than physics." Paul Davies
on Wollmann
"...memory does not so much PRODUCE as DISCOVER Wollmann's kookiness on
usenet, by shewing us the lack of relation between his posts and logic
and reason." Davide Hume on Edbert
"In short, Wollmann is a kook." David Bohm
"The common division of the world into normal and abnormal, reasonable
and kooky, logical and deranged -- is illustrated in the behavior of
Edbert on Usenet" Werner Heisenberg
--
Cahooter #14
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey.
Habent Abdenda Omnes Praeter Me ac Simiam Meam.
Bob Officer
<arctu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
nothing it ws all quotations, which proves edmonds knows nothing
except what he was conditioned, or taught by society, his parents, his
teachers.
pay attention to his 1st paragraph which shows edmond in his true
light. a copycat devoid of self...
>"It is our conditioning, our current collective worldveiw that we are
>taught by our parents, teachers and society. This way of seeing
>things-the old paradigm-has aptly been called 'the hypnosis of social
>conditioning' an induced fiction in which we have collectively agreed to
>participate." Deepak Chopra M.D. Ageless Body, Timeless mind
>
>"I am able to prove," wrote the great German mathematician, Leibnitz
>"that not only light, color, heat, and the like, but motion, shape, and
>extension too are mere apparent qualities."
>"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
>
>"Thus gradually philosophers and scientists arrived at the startling
>conclusion that since every object is simply the sum of its qualities,
>and since qualities exist only in the mind, the whole objective universe
>of matter and energy, atoms and stars, does not exist except as a
>construction of the consciousness, an edifice of conventional symbols
>shaped by the senses of man."
>"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
>
>"All the choir of heaven and furniture of earth, in a word all those
>bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world, have not any
>substance without the mind....So long as they are not actually percieved
>by me, or do not exist in my mind, or that of any other created spirit,
>they must either have no existance at all, or else subsist in the mind
>of some eternal spirit." Berkeley
>
>"Just as there is no such thing as color without an eye to discern it,
he is simple, remember?
astudentwatchingEdmondregurgiatatethesameofshitHEjustswollowed
Bob Officer
Warning! Reproduction without the writen permission in or on any other media than USENET NEWS GROUPS is
prohibited. All claims for copyright according to the BERN and UCC
Agreements are held by the writers. Quotes are allowed subject to Fair Use Rules of the above agreements.
Lord Jubjub
(Stix) wrote:
> Mr. Shawn M. Berry posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> >Time is a constant
>
> Nope.
>
> Maximum velocity (the speed of light) is a constant. Time is not.
>
> > because as our clocks become more acurate our ability to
> >calculate distances and positions becomes more concise throughout the
> >universe.
>
> So what?
>
> Ever hear of special relativity? Ever hear of time dilation? Ever hear
> of the 'twins paradox'?
>
> Time dilation has been experimentially observed, Shawn.
>
> Time is not a constant.
>
> > If time were not constant throughout the universe then the closer
> >we came to a fixed measurement of it our resulting accuracy would decrease.
>
> From what observational reference?
>
> Time is *relative*, not a constant.
>
> >This alone is undeniable proof that time is a constant.
>
> It's undeniable proof that you don't have the faintest idea what you're
> talking about.
>
Well now, considering that time and distance are related, one could say
that time is constant. However, that means that distance is not. The
distance between any two objects depends upon the speed of the observer.
--
Lord Jubjub, Ruler of the Jabbewocky
Lord Jubjub
> Kevin Reilly <use...@denali.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :On Sat, 12 Dec 1998 Barry O'Grady wrote:
> :
> :>Time is a concept that will not change no matter what we do. Time
> :>would exist even if nothing else did.
> :
> :Your proof being?
>
> The proof is in the fact that time is not a physical thing that we
> can alter. I defy you to alter time in any way.
> Think about this. If time stopped you would be able to measure how
> long time was stopped for, which means that time never stopped.
> If every physical object disappeared then came back they would have
> been gone for a period of time.
> Why ask for proof of something that we all know anyway?
To say that time never stops is a completely different thing from saying
that time changes speed.
Consider the following: (don't mind the redundencies. They're for emphasis)
A zero-dimensional point that is moved in one direction forms a
1-dimensional line.
A one-dimensional line, when moved, forms a 2-dimensional plane. Even if
it moves in the direction of its measure, to show the line in relation to
its previous position requires a second dimension. Thus, time is merely
the movement of an object.
A two-dimensional plane, when moved, forms a three-dimensional cube.
A three-dimensional cube when moved, forms a four-dimensional object.
This fourth-dimension is time.
But let's add a twist. If I move a line, I can track that line's
movements in the second dimension. However, any attempt to track changes
in the movement in the line requires a third dimension--acceleration.
Think of it this way. Time is always measured by movement--movement of
the sun, a pendulum, a spring, vibrations of an atom, wavelengths of
light. There is no way to measure time without measuring distance and
movement across distance. Thus of course v=d/t. Velocity equals distance
divided by time. Of distance equals velocity times time.
Experiments in the 19th century showed that the speed of light was
independent of the velocity of the observer. Einstein showed that for
that to be true, distance had to vary with velocity and (as a further
consequence) time. So what if you change velocities? You change the
speed of time. To track the change of velocity of a three-dimensional
object requires the fifth-dimension: acceleration.
serg...@gold.com.br
Lord Jubjub wrote:
> In article <367abc56...@news.ozemail.com.au>, st...@BAAWA.com.au
> (Stix) wrote:
>
> > Mr. Shawn M. Berry posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >
> > >Time is a constant
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > Maximum velocity (the speed of light) is a constant. Time is not.
> >
> > > because as our clocks become more acurate our ability to
> > >calculate distances and positions becomes more concise throughout the
> > >universe.
> >
> > So what?
> >
> > Ever hear of special relativity? Ever hear of time dilation? Ever hear
> > of the 'twins paradox'?
> >
> > Time dilation has been experimentially observed, Shawn.
> >
> > Time is not a constant.
This is true, but I don't think it will make time travel possible. See, time
dilatation only occures when a time interval is measured using another reference
system. Actually, by measuring a time interval using another reference system, in
uniform movement in a straight line, time will be enlarged by a factor of
sqr(1-v^2/c^2). Analyzing the "twin paradox", one could get to strange conclusions
about time dilatation but if you look at it carefully, you will see that the key
lies in how we measure time periods and how we should measure them.
>
> >
> > > If time were not constant throughout the universe then the closer
> > >we came to a fixed measurement of it our resulting accuracy would decrease.
> >
> > From what observational reference?
> >
> > Time is *relative*, not a constant.
> >
> > >This alone is undeniable proof that time is a constant.
> >
> > It's undeniable proof that you don't have the faintest idea what you're
> > talking about.
> >
> Well now, considering that time and distance are related, one could say
> that time is constant. However, that means that distance is not. The
> distance between any two objects depends upon the speed of the observer.
> --
> Lord Jubjub, Ruler of the Jabbewocky
It's pretty clear for me that time travel isn't possible and will never be, and I
wouldn't use any special relativity or advanced physics to show my point of
view... take a look at some interesting facts to think about:
1 - If time travel will be possible someday, why we have never been visited by
people from the future?
2 - If you consider time travel possible, then you have to assume that there are
infinite timelines, what would mean that we live in infinite times and infinite
worlds at the same time!!! Example: I travel 10 years to the past and kill a
public person (an important leader, let's say). Suddenly, 10 years of existence of
the whole humanity would be lost and would have to be instantaneously substituted
by another 10 years where that person didn't influence our lives, affecting even
the reality I came from. It doesn't sound very plausible...
3 - I go back to the past, kill the guy who discovered how to time travel and burn
his entire research and notes. How did I ever travelled time?
4 - Imagine that a time traveller tought Einstein the special relativity theory
before he ever thinks of it. Would you say, then, that the special relativity
theory was formulated by Einstein, by the time traveller or by someone between
them in some other time? But why would this another guy make this theory if
Einstein already did it with the help of the time traveller? So, who yould you say
created the special relativity theory? In wich time it was first created?
5 - I go to the past and kill my grandfather by accident... What would happen
next? By some reason would I die right there? How? What would be this "time cop"?
Physics would'n explain that...
These are only a few questions I came up with in just a few minutes, without using
any advanced physics, only common sense. I think I could write you hundreds of
different situations that make time travel, at best, something unfeasible, not to
say a completely silly idea...
André Ávila
Lord Jubjub
wrote:
>This whole concept of time travel is just a bunch of wasted time. Time is a
>constant and any perception of change is just that--a perception.
Define "perception"
Define "time"
Define "constant"
Define "change"
Please, this is not an attempt to hound you. This argument goes in
circles until everyone is aware of the terms and how people are definiing
these terms
Ian Molton
<serg...@gold.com.br> wrote:
> These are only a few questions I came up with in just a few minutes,
> without using any advanced physics, only common sense. I think I could
> write you hundreds of different situations that make time travel, at
> best, something unfeasible, not to say a completely silly idea...
Therefore, common sense suggests one obvious possibility - you cant go back
in tim to before the time machine was activated.
serg...@gold.com.br
Kevin Reilly wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 1998 wrote:
>
> >It's pretty clear for me that time travel isn't possible and will never be, and
> >I
> >wouldn't use any special relativity or advanced physics to show my point of
> >view... take a look at some interesting facts to think about:
>
> But what you're doing here is making a series of assumptions based on a
> belief which you've already decided i.e. that time travel is impossible.
> In effect you're using your own belief to justify itself.
>
I'm just using arguments to show you my point of view... that is: time travel is not
and will never be possible...
>
> It's devil's advocate time again:
>
>
> >1 - If time travel will be possible someday, why we have never been visited by
> >people from the future?
>
> OK, your first example would seem to be based in a block universe with a
> single time dimension, for in a universe with infinite timelines the
> question would have no meaning.
I agree with you, and that's exactly my point. If we consider a universe with
infinite timelines, there would be no doubts about time travel, but what evidence do
you have to say that our universe is like that? I mean, there is absolutely nothing
out there to allow us to make such assumption...
>
>
>
> Assuming this to be the case, how do you know that we've never been
> visited by people from the future? I'm not saying we have, just asking
> how you can state categorically that we haven't.
That would be the same as above... I can't state categorically that we've never been
visited by people from the future, but nothing seems to prove we have, either. In
this case, it's necessary to prove that we HAVE BEEN visited by time travelers, and
not the contratry.
>
>
> >2 - If you consider time travel possible, then you have to assume that there are
> >infinite timelines,
>
> If there are infinite timelines then your question 1 becomes invalid.
Again, there's nothing that allows us to assume there are infinite timelines.
> >Example: I travel 10 years to the past and kill a
> >public person (an important leader, let's say). Suddenly, 10 years of existence
> >of
> >the whole humanity would be lost
>
> No, in an infinite timelines scenario you would affect only the reality
> in which you killed the guy. The reality from which you "departed" would
> be unaffected. It might even be argued that in such a hypothetical
> universe you had already killed him, from the historical perspective of
> that timeline, and so you haven't "changed" anything.
Of course if I'm visiting PAST events, my influence on those events will affect the
entire timeline of future events. If you assume my changing the past won't affect the
future which I departured from, then I wouldn't be time travelling, but travelling
from a reality to another.
> >3 - I go back to the past, kill the guy who discovered how to time travel and
> >burn
> >his entire research and notes. How did I ever travelled time?
>
> It would seem we're back in a 4D block universe again, in which case
> simple cause and effect would rule out this possibility.
>
>
> >4 - Imagine that a time traveller tought Einstein the special relativity theory
> >before he ever thinks of it. Would you say, then, that the special relativity
> >theory was formulated by Einstein, by the time traveller or by someone between
> >them in some other time? But why would this another guy make this theory if
> >Einstein already did it with the help of the time traveller? So, who yould you
> >say
> >created the special relativity theory? In wich time it was first created?
>
> What you describe is called a causal loop and has been done to death in
> physics books and also this thread if you go back far enough. Basically
> it all boils down to whose viewpoint you choose.
>
> From Einstein's POV the equations came from the time traveller. From the
> traveller's POV the equations came from Einstein, who he then gave them
> "back" to. Cause and effect aren't violated from either of these
> viewpoints.
>
> It's only when we, as outside observers, attempt to explain the loop
> that we have the apparent problem of information appearing from nowhere.
> This is something you either have to accept or not; I suggest reading a
> physics or philosophy book dealing with causal loops.
>
>
> >5 - I go to the past and kill my grandfather by accident... What would happen
> >next? By some reason would I die right there? How? What would be this "time
> >cop"?
>
> This is the classic time travel paradox and is the strongest (or at
> least most quoted) argument against time travel in a block universe. If
> your grandfather wasn't shot (which he evidently wasn't because you're
> here) then you CANNOT go back in time and kill him. That's simple
> causality.
Ok, this is pretty clear, but what kind of force or physical interaction would avoid
that an unaware time traveller killed one of his ancestors? I would go even
further... anyone a time traveller killed in the past would kill lots of other people
in the timeline... wich kind of power would avoid this kind of timeline massacre?
You could argument that a time traveller wouldn't be able to actually interact with
the time he travelled to, but I don't see how it could be possible, since by time
travelling you would be physically visiting past events.
>
> Note though, that the grandfather paradox doesn't deny the possibility
> of time travel, just the possibility of killing grandpa. It's the
> condition attached to the travel which creates the problem.
I don't think so, since killing people is not the only way of changing future events.
As I said before, any interaction with any people in the time you travelled to would
affect lots of future events.
>
> As an analogy, if someone asks if I can drive to Aberdeen and meet him
> in one hour I would tell him it's impossible. But it doesn't mean that I
> can never drive to Aberdeen...
>
> --
> Kev ICQ#189362
> __________________________________________________________________________
> "Staff should empty the teapot and then stand upside down on the
> tea tray." Canteen notice
It seems that your first argument (the infinite timelines and infinte realities) is
not a good one, since it's a non-falsifiable hypothesis. It works exactely as if you
had said "time travel is possible because God is omnipotent, and if he want me to
time travel, I will...".
Discussing time travel in terms of the universe we know seems pointless either,
because of the endless paradoxes it leads us to, wich can't be solved without
recurring to very weak hypothesis (like the infinite timelines and the space-time
cocoon). It still pretty clear for me that time travel is an amazing source of sci-fi
adventures, and nothing more...
André Ávila
LotNat
I think that we are forgetting something very much of importance called:
Parallel Universe
Thanks
Nathan
serg...@gold.com.br
Kevin Reilly wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 1998 wrote:
>
> >I agree with you, and that's exactly my point. If we consider a universe with
> >infinite timelines, there would be no doubts about time travel, but what
> >evidence do
> >you have to say that our universe is like that?
>
> I don't. Hell, personally I don't even like the many-worlds
> interpretation, but there's nothing to disprove it either. There are
> even certain physicists (thankfully not many of them) who base much of
> their theoretical work on the assumption that the many-worlds
> interpretation is correct. I like to keep an open mind but IMHO that's
> just going too far.
>
> >That would be the same as above... I can't state categorically that we've never
> >been
> >visited by people from the future, but nothing seems to prove we have, either.
> >In
> >this case, it's necessary to prove that we HAVE BEEN visited by time travelers,
> >and
> >not the contratry.
>
> Well none of my arguments have been about proving anything one way or
> the other, but as it's been brought up here: If people were willing to
> accept time travel if proof of future visitors were available, what form
> would such proof have to take? It's not as easy to answer as you might
> think.
>
> To choose one of my favourite examples from SF, look at the situation
> with Kyle Reese being interviewed in the first Terminator movie. As an
> audience we know he's from the future, and knowing that the physical
> evidence (Reese himself) seems overwhelming. But if you were one of the
> characters in that interview room would anything he says convince you?
> Personally I'd have gone along with the psychologist and said he was
> nuts.
>
> >If you assume my changing the past won't
> >affect the
> >future which I departured from, then I wouldn't be time travelling, but
> >travelling
> >from a reality to another.
>
> That's an interesting one to think about, actually. If you build a
> machine which transports you to another reality, one which is
> indistinguishable from your own except that it's 1984 there, have you in
> fact time travelled? Subjectively you'd have to say yes, as everything
> you saw would tell you so. But technically, I guess not.
>
> >Ok, this is pretty clear, but what kind of force or physical interaction would
> >avoid
> >that an unaware time traveller killed one of his ancestors? I would go even
> >further... anyone a time traveller killed in the past would kill lots of other
> >people
> >in the timeline... wich kind of power would avoid this kind of timeline
> >massacre?
>
> Makes you brain ache, doesn't it? I have my own opinion on this and
> while it's complete fabrication it does help me sleep at nights. If time
> travel to the past is possible, then it can only occur in such a way
> that history cannot be changed. In other words anything the time
> traveller does in the past must be consistent with recorded history.
>
> As an example, if history records an unexplained murder in 1930 there is
> no logical reason why the murder should not have been committed (will be
> committed) by a traveller from the future. The time traveller AFFECTS
> the past but doesn't CHANGE it.
>
> Improbable, yes, but not illogical.
>
> As for the grandfather paradox, it's one of those scenarios which due to
> its apparent simplicity leads us to false arguments. People picture the
> time traveller getting into his Tardis, DeLorean or whatever, arriving
> in the past, aiming a gun and grandpa and thinking "Why can't I pull the
> trigger?"
>
> But it's an invalid question because unless you accept some sort of
> divine intervention at the last second (and don't even get me started on
> that) logic and causality tell us that such a scenario could not take
> place.
>
> A man trying to go back in time and kill his grandfather would be doomed
> to failure just as much as I would if I tried to drive to Aberdeen in an
> hour. The only fundamental difference is that I can predict what would
> happen in my attempt (I'd get about as far as Preston) but we don't know
> enough about how the universe works to predict what would happen to the
> other guy.
>
> "Time travel is impossible," is the easy answer but, Occam's razor
> notwithstanding, it can't be proven to be the only one. At least not
> yet.
>
> >It seems that your first argument (the infinite timelines and infinte
> >realities)
> >is
> >not a good one, since it's a non-falsifiable hypothesis. It works exactely as
> >if
> >you
> >had said "time travel is possible because God is omnipotent, and if he want me
> >to
> >time travel, I will...".
>
> I'm not arguing that time travel is possible, just showing that
> categorical arguing for the non-existence of it isn't as easy as it
> would first appear.
>
> --
> Kev ICQ#189362
> __________________________________________________________________________
> "Hawaii is a unique state. It is a small state. It is a state that is by
> itself. It is a... it is different than the other 49 states. Well, all
> states are different, but it's got a particularly unique situation."
> Dan Quayle
Well, Kev... it seems that we've got to something in this discussion...
It seems that if we want to accept the time travel possibility, we would have to
accept lots of other very imaginative situations... as a matter of fact, our
universe would have to be "conspiring" in order to make it. We would have to accept
infinite timelines, many-worlds interpretation, some kind of force (spacetime cocoon
maybe) to avoid some kinds of interactions, not to say other quite imaginative
universal subtleties.
I think that for us is very easy to imagine forces, timelines and parallel universes
to make it possible, I just don't think that those are accurate with the universe we
all know (or at least, not to be cathegorical, our present understanding of it).
If you are willing to accept those hypothesis as possibilities (even knowing that
absolutely nothing leads us to), then you would have an universe ready to allow you
travel from time to time, from reality to reality, and even from an universe to
another. An universe like that would have taken all the "precautions" to avoid
unwanted interactions, would "know" how to deal with our weird paradoxes and would
be telling you "go ahead... build something and time travel!!!"
But, once again, I'll stick to my point... our universe doesn't seem to work like
that... we've never seen anything that would suggest those hypothesis to be true. It
falls to a level of simple belief. Do you believe our universe works like that? I
don't, and that's why I think time travel isn't and will never be possible.
André
Charlie Pearce
<use...@denali.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Makes you brain ache, doesn't it? I have my own opinion on this and
>while it's complete fabrication it does help me sleep at nights. If time
>travel to the past is possible, then it can only occur in such a way
>that history cannot be changed. In other words anything the time
>traveller does in the past must be consistent with recorded history.
>
>As an example, if history records an unexplained murder in 1930 there is
>no logical reason why the murder should not have been committed (will be
>committed) by a traveller from the future. The time traveller AFFECTS
>the past but doesn't CHANGE it.
This theory has been used to good effect as part of the story in
various science fiction stories, but the only ones I can think of now
are Twelve Monkeys and Time's Arrow (ST:TNG). The concept I always
find amusing about this immutable model is that the protagonists
always end up agonising about what to do next, as if it matters...
Going back to the grandfather-killing paradox, I can just imagine a
future (and rather malevolent) inventor attending a farewell party and
proudly announcing to the gathered dignitaries that he was going to
disprove a ridiculous paradox before jumping into his timepod [1] and
disappearing. His 104-year-old grandfather, who had been rather
surprised to have been invited since the young fella never really had
much time for him, and then starlted by the nasty way his hand had
been shaken moments ago, suddenly remembered why everything seemed so
familiar. Rubbing the ages-old scar in his leg, he reminisced about
how, when he was a teenager, he'd had to kill in self defence a
strange gentleman wearing gaudy clothes who had shot and wounded him
in the street many, many years ago... ;-)
[1] Thinking about such a timepod, how on earth could you delineate
which bits of matter needed to be sent back in time, how would they
fit into their new part of space-time, and what would take their place
in the original part of space-time?
Something that's annoyed me in many, many bad time-travel stories [2]
(Timecop, Back to the Future, Star Trek: First Contact etc.), is how
one party goes back in time and it's treated as though they're in
another room ("He should be killing Hitler about now!"). Associated
with this is the effects of that party's meddling in the past suddenly
affecting their contemporaries' present, for example in Deep Space
Nine when all the Starfleet satellites suddenly disappeared because
Captain Sisko dropped a bollock in the 21st century ("Past Tense").
Fortunately Babylon 5 hasn't been too inconsistent in this regard ;-)
[2] Stories with bad time-travel, not time-travel stories that are bad
;-)
D'Oh! This was only supposed to be a two-line reply - see what
happens on the very rare occasions that my brain is stimulated! ;-)
Charlie
Sherilyn
<pea...@globalnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> writes
Ah, time travel.
Four words:
Making History, Stephen Fry.
--
Sherilyn
G is for Goddess
Catch us on #catch-22 UNDERNET
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/irc/
Lord Jubjub
pea...@globalnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk (Charlie Pearce) wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 1998 11:51:13 +0000, Kevin Reilly
> <use...@denali.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Makes you brain ache, doesn't it? I have my own opinion on this and
> >while it's complete fabrication it does help me sleep at nights. If time
> >travel to the past is possible, then it can only occur in such a way
> >that history cannot be changed. In other words anything the time
> >traveller does in the past must be consistent with recorded history.
> >
> >As an example, if history records an unexplained murder in 1930 there is
> >no logical reason why the murder should not have been committed (will be
> >committed) by a traveller from the future. The time traveller AFFECTS
> >the past but doesn't CHANGE it.
One point that I have often wondered about:
Does time actually exist?
Consider this: When was the last time you held -$1 bill? Math says that
you can take 3 apples from 2. Have you ever held -1 apples?
Just because light can be mathematically explained as a wave and a
particle doesn't mean light IS a wave and a particle. However, since no
one has "seen" a photon (think about it for a little bit), we simply use
the math. So, further, just because Einstein's Relativity offers a
mathematical explanation for gravity and light does not mean that gravity
and light actually exist as they are explained mathematically.
Having made that point, I would concede that I doubt if there is a better
way to explain light other than Einstein's. Further, I would concede that
if one wants to do something useful with physics, it would be foolish not
to take Relativity into account. Just because it exists in mathematical
terms only, doesn't make unpredictive.
Charlie Pearce
>This theory has been used to good effect as part of the story in
>various science fiction stories, but the only ones I can think of now
>are Twelve Monkeys and Time's Arrow (ST:TNG). The concept I always
>find amusing about this immutable model is that the protagonists
>always end up agonising about what to do next, as if it matters...
One annoying thing about Twelve Monkeys though, was that the future
victims of the virus/plaguey thing were attempting to change the past
so that the disaster never happened. Just what were they expecting to
happen to themselves if their ploy worked - would they suddenly be
living above ground in a green and pleasant land with no medical
problems?! If we assume I lost a leg in a cycling accident 10 years
ago [1], if I were to hire a time-traveller to go back in time now and
prevent the accident, then presumably in a few moments my missing leg
will magically reappear? Don't think so, but the writers of Timecop
seemed to think along those lines! ;-)
[1] Fictional situation as I couldn't think of any suitable pivotak
moments from my life ;-)
Charlie
Sherilyn
<pea...@globalnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk> writes
...
>
>One annoying thing about Twelve Monkeys though, was that the future
>victims of the virus/plaguey thing were attempting to change the past
>so that the disaster never happened. Just what were they expecting to
>happen to themselves if their ploy worked - would they suddenly be
>living above ground in a green and pleasant land with no medical
>problems?!
Dunno, but I was sure this aspect of the plot was tidied up somehow.
The point presumably is that if the world is going down the toilet, and
you can change the past, you don't mind your current self being wiped
out if it means saving your younger self the experience of living
through the preventable (for the sake of argument) death throes of the
planet. In a rerun, you may not survive, but you will at least have a
planet with a future.
>If we assume I lost a leg in a cycling accident 10 years
>ago [1], if I were to hire a time-traveller to go back in time now and
>prevent the accident, then presumably in a few moments my missing leg
>will magically reappear? Don't think so, but the writers of Timecop
>seemed to think along those lines! ;-)
I think you _completely_ missed the point of Timecop, which was to
showcase the gorgeous, trim body and sexy Belgian accent of Mr Van
Damme.
My favorite bit of action movie dialog belongs to Universal Soldier[*].
Jean Claude Van Damme and his female companion have to take his pants
off (obvious when you think about it!) and go looking for the radio
control implant, somewhere in his lower torso.
"Look for something hard."
"Found it!"
"Er, I think that bit it _supposed_ to be hard."
[*] I think. Mrs Sheri shows them in rotation and they all blur
into one after a bit.
Samuel Penn
pea...@globalnet.NO-SPOO-PLEASE.co.uk (Charlie Pearce) wrote:
> One annoying thing about Twelve Monkeys though, was that the future
> victims of the virus/plaguey thing were attempting to change the past
> so that the disaster never happened.
I thought they were after a sample of the virus in its pure form,
before it started mutating.
--
Be seeing you, http://www.bifrost.demon.co.uk/SF/SF.html
Sam. --------- Babylon 5 Pictures and SF Links