#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Time Travel to the Past is Impossible
For the Motion
Side Score: 44
|
 |
Against the Motion
Side Score: 48
|
|
I don't know either the science or philosophy behind it. But it seems logical to me that if at any point in the future it were indeed to have become possible then we already would now in the present have seen evidence of it in our past. Right? Because the impact of them going back would ripple through to the present and we would already see signs. Side: For the Motion
I have a theory which relies of the continuing advancement of scientific achievements, that describes how events in history could be observed as they were actually happening although the observer(s) would not be able to participate in the action. I'm not sure if I could be bothered to outline my scientifically based hypothesis but if you're genuinely interested and are prepared to keep an open mind I could run it past you. Side: For the Motion
|
2
points
Hi brother. I believe it works like this. Relativity predicts time dilation and the existence of time dilation proves that time travel is possible, either into the past or into the future. If a person wanted to travel into the past all they would need to do is move into an area where time runs more slowly. In fact, technically speaking if you come down off a hill you have travelled into the past. This is because the closer you are to a gravitational field, the slower time becomes. Hence, we can say that time is not absolute but rather relative to the situation of the person observing it. However, what appears to potentially be impossible is to travel either backwards or forwards within the same frame of reference. That is, in order to time travel I must necessarily cover distance. To put it another way, I am able to travel to somebody else's past or future, but not to my own. In Hawking's famous thought experiment a person is able to take a long journey away from Earth and return to the same frame of reference to potentially access the future, but again this is not their future, since they have been away from Earth's frame of reference. If we look at it realistically, we can see that travelling to our own past or future is a seemingly insurmountable task, because everything else in the universe needs to meet the exact same conditions which existed at that time. As you will know the universe is in a constant state of acceleration, which means we would have to change the state of the entire universe in order to time travel within own frame of reference. Furthermore, even if that were a possibility, there would still have to be an absolute version of time which applies to the entire universe, and that is exactly what relativity refutes. Side: Against the Motion
To put it another way, I am able to travel to somebody else's past or future This part doesn’t quite fit. Saying that you are going to someone else’s past implies that there is a future version that they are experiencing as present. You go to their past only if measured by your time, which they are not on. However fast or slow you’ve traveled, when sharing a location and speed with another, it is both of your presents. Side: For the Motion
1
point
I assure you, I understand your position fully. Furthermore, your position is accurate so far as we currently know. Except for that one bit which I critiqued. It’s a lazy response to simply claim I don’t understand. A response I’m expecting you to repeat. Furthermore, your failure to respond to my criticism is indicative of your own failure if understanding. If my critique actually implied my lack of understanding of the subject, you could easily illustrate why my critique is unfounded. This is an apolitical issue, so whether you decide to respond depends on how deep your intellectual cowardice runs. Side: Against the Motion
1
point
I assure you, I understand your position fully I assure you that you are lying. You claimed in your last post that "something doesn't quite fit". That is another way of saying it doesn't quite make sense. Hence, if it doesn't make sense then you therefore cannot understand it. Except for that one bit which I critiqued. The bit that you critiqued is perfectly accurate, since it was a metaphor for not being able to change your own frame of reference. Is it your intent to keep pretending that you understand this subject by attacking my comments with vague bullshit? Side: For the Motion
Not only did your post include a conclusion that does not follow from your premises (did not fit), but I explained precisely what it was that didn’t fit. The relativity of time does not allow you to travel to someone else’s past for the reasons I presented and you failed miserably to address. What’s incredible is that you are this way even on an issue that should not include a bias. If you are as physically lazy as you are intellectually lazy, you won’t even scroll up, so I will reiterate: You go to their past only if measured by your time, which they are not on. Thus you cannot go to their past. However fast or slow you’ve traveled, when sharing a location and speed with another, it is both of your presents. All travel is time travel and all exiting times are present. Side: Against the Motion
1
point
Is it your intent to keep pretending that you understand this subject by attacking my comments with vague bullshit? Not only did your post include a conclusion that does not follow from your premises So in other words, yes? Jolly good. Have fun arguing with yourself. The relativity of time does not allow you to travel to someone else’s past for the reasons I presented You didn't present any reasons and you are wrong. If point A is Earth and point B is the nearest neutron star, then an observer from point A can travel to point B. If point B is occupied by someone who simultaneously moves to point A, then the first observer is in the past of the second observer. Side: For the Motion
You didn't present any reasons and you are wrong Haha you shouldn’t present two mutually exclusive positions. If I gave no reasons, then my reasons can’t be wrong. Of course I did give reasons as anyone can read. I even reiterated the reasons for you. And their right. If point B is occupied by someone who simultaneously moves to point A, then the first observer is in the past of the second observer. Two observers moving simoultaniously to the others position will not change the fact that they are both in their own present moving through time at different rates, but when they meet will nonetheless still be in their own present, now shared with another. No matter your speed or observation, you can never go to another persons past. Because it will be their present when you get there. You fucking slaughtered that thought experiment by the way. Next time just copy and paste. You aren’t good at having your own ideas. Side: Against the Motion
1
point
Haha you shouldn’t present two mutually exclusive positions. You're mad. If I gave no reasons, then my reasons can’t be wrong. Your reasons weren't wrong. Your assertion was wrong. Two observers moving simoultaniously to the others position will not change the fact that they are both in their own present moving through time at different rates We were talking about their positions relative to each other, not their positions relative to themselves. I'm done with this conversation because you're a rude, dishonest dunce with a big ego and a galactic mouth. Side: For the Motion
We were talking about their positions relative to each other, not their positions relative to themselves Yeah. That doesn’t affect my point in the slightest. I'm done with this conversation You bet you are. There was only one little flaw in your position, but you couldn’t stand the critique. You did everything possible to avoid addressing the criticism. You’ve neither accepted it to adjust your position, nor shown it to be inaccurate. I expect this phobia of critical thinking explains much about why you hold the views you hold. Side: Against the Motion
1
point
You go to their past only if measured by your time Shut up. You're starting to annoy me because you're rude and you don't understand what you are talking about. If they move to a faster frame of reference as you move to a slower one, you become their past. Side: For the Motion
If they move to a faster frame of reference as you move to a slower one, you become their past You could accurately say you become their past (as you did), but that does not mean any one person can go back into their own past (as you appeared to be stating in your OP). In fact, technically speaking if you come down off a hill you have travelled into the past. Also, this statement from your OP is wrong and I think this is what Amarel is taking issue with Side: For the Motion
1
point
You could accurately say you become their past (as you did), but that does not mean any one person can go back into their own past (as you appeared to be stating in your OP). Exactly. Now how come you understand but Amarel doesn't? Also, this statement from your OP is wrong and I think this is what Amarel is taking issue with No, he took issue with me saying you can travel to someone else's past. The statement you quoted isn't wrong. If time runs faster on top of a hill then if you remain there long enough (excluding the fact you will die of old age first) then you can come down at six o'clock only to discover it is five o'clock on the ground. Side: For the Motion
No, I’m taking issue with traveling to someone else’s past or future. I understand time dilation. It doesn’t mean you travel to another persons past. The notion itself is a reference to ones own time, which is relative to others’ time, that does not make others’ time subject to ones own. Side: For the Motion
1
point
@Nomenclature. When one person moves into the future at a faster rate than you do, then clearly you become his past. Honestly, I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate by this based on your usage of the term "past". The only ways Physics currently knows how to theoretically "time travel to the past" (on a "Classical Scale") are: A. Faster than speed of light travel B. Tunneling to the past via a Wormhole (CTC) C. Cosmic Strings to bend the fabric of space-time Side: For the Motion
1
point
Honestly, I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate by this based on your usage of the term "past". I can't really explain it with greater simplicity, so we appear to be stuck. Physics currently knows how to theoretically "time travel to the past" (on a "Classical Scale") are: The concepts you listed are suggested methods of travelling to your own interpretation of the past (i.e. the past relative to your frame of reference). The quote you posted is about travelling to someone else's interpretation of the past (i.e. the past relative to his/her frame of reference). Side: For the Motion
The fundamental question in this debate is, "Is it possible to time travel to the past in a "Back to the Future" type format?" That is, could you travel into the past and meet your parents before you were born? Could you travel back to the "Wild West"?, ect., ect. Side: For the Motion
2
points
The fundamental question in this debate is, "Is it possible to time travel to the past in a "Back to the Future" type format? No, I do not believe that is possible, because it is time travelling within your own frame of reference. You would have to put the entire universe back into the condition it was in previously. Not to mention the various causality problems. I am not as convinced that quantum time travel is not possible however. A recent discovery is that time moves in distinct increments at the quantum level, so there may be a way to roll these backwards somehow. Side: For the Motion
I hope you understand the problem with his post. When you are younger than your counterpart due to time dilation, you are not in their past. Time dilation does not allow us to get ahead or behind the present, by anyone’s frame of reference. I am appealing to you on the hope that someone who typically disagrees with me isnt as intellectually stubborn as him so that one day, debate may occur Side: For the Motion
Yeah, I do understand, I think I have seen a couple of issues actually, that is why I raised the issue about his use of the term "past". For instance, in his OP, he stated "Relativity predicts time dilation and the existence of time dilation proves that time travel is possible, either into the past or into the future." Now, there is already a problem with this initial statement because although we have experimental data demonstrating that time travel to the future happens regularly, we do not know of an instance where it has occurred to the past (in a classical sense). Now, there are potential theoretical models for which this could be achieved, but they have not been bared out through observation/experimentation. Therefore, to say the "existence of time dilation proves that time travel...into the past" occurs is not accurate. Then he stated " If a person wanted to travel into the past all they would need to do is move into an area where time runs more slowly. In fact, technically speaking if you come down off a hill you have travelled into the past. This is because the closer you are to a gravitational field, the slower time becomes." Now, "time running more slowly" does not give you a window into the past (and I'm not sure how/why he believes it does). The arrow of time is still running forward (from your perspective) just at different relative rates. At no point is the arrow of time running backward. In the next paragraph, he said "To put it another way, I am able to travel to somebody else's past or future, but not to my own. In Hawking's famous thought experiment a person is able to take a long journey away from Earth and return to the same frame of reference to potentially access the future, but again this is not their future, since they have been away from Earth's frame of reference." When would you have access to another person's past? You have access to two competing personal presents that now misalign in a more overt fashion (although they once appeared to align more closely) because of the various relative circumstances the people found themselves in. As for the future, yes, we know that you can travel to your version of their future in the sense that you identify with life on Earth and if you did the Hawking thought experiment, then you would return to a "future" Earth relative to your conceptual memory of it (from when you left) and other people would be older relative to you. However, the past is an entirely separate matter. You (Amarel) said "The relativity of time does not allow you to travel to someone else’s past " Now, to my understanding (and I could be wrong, I definitely want to brush back up on my Special Relativity after this debate because I feel that I am becoming needlessly confused here and concepts are being phrased sloppily; although I have taken SR at Uni. level so this isn't just off the top of my head bs) you are correct in that statement Amarel. The only way one would get access to another's past (that we currently consider theoretically possible) is through one of the several methods I listed in a separate post (or some other theoretical framework that I did not list or hasn't been thought of yet). This is why I was confused by Nomenclatures us of the term "past" in this context. To make one correction I saw of yours also though Amarel, you said "However fast or slow you’ve traveled, when sharing a location and speed with another, it is both of your presents." Now, this is a statement that is operating on Classical Mechanics view of time. As Nomenclature rightly pointed out before, there is no universal "now" or "present". If you had an extremely precise clock out to many sig figs attached to people born at the same time, same place, and then allowed them to live their lives in separate ways, then time dilation effects are still occurring off-aligning their "clocks" relative to one another, just in an infinitesimal manner so it is effectively trivial and non-relevant in daily life (thus why it can still be usefull to model many events on Earth as though they occurred in a universal present). Side: For the Motion
1
point
For instance, in his OP, he stated "Relativity predicts time dilation and the existence of time dilation proves that time travel is possible, either into the past or into the future." Now, there is already a problem with this initial statement because although we have experimental data demonstrating that time travel to the future happens regularly, we do not know of an instance where it has occurred to the past (in a classical sense) Your terminology "in a classical sense" does not actually mean anything. I have patiently explained that time runs differently dependent upon the frame of reference you are standing in. I have furthermore explained what the implications of this are in a real sense. It seems that you are here simply to argue, and the problem with that is that the laws of physics are not a matter of opinion. Now, "time running more slowly" does not give you a window into the past (and I'm not sure how/why he believes it does). I genuinely thought you were more intellectually honest than to ignore the explanations I took the time to write and simply come back with, "nah". How is it even possible that you do not understand this? I explicated in the absolute simplest terms possible. If time runs faster at point A than it does at point B, if I move from point A to point B then I have moved into the past relative to point A. It isn't complicated, mate. This is the reality, and you are responding here by refusing to understand why I am correct. That really isn't my problem. When would you have access to another person's past? You just asked me this precise question two hours ago and I gave you a simple answer. Do you even understand the principle of relativity in the first place? Because, forgive me, but I do not think you do. Right now, assuming you will have grandchildren, you are in their past, without even doing anything. This is because relativity stipulates that there are no absolute past, present and future. The entire point of relativity in the first place is that time is relative to where you happen to be standing. Yet you keep blathering on in such a way that you are making it absolutely clear you do not understand this fundamental point. I have explained how time runs at different rates depending upon your frame of reference and I have explained how moving between these frames of reference can take you either to the past or the future relative to where you were previously. If you don't understand then that is one thing, but it seems more the case that you are refusing to understand. Side: For the Motion
@Nomenclature. It is enlightening to see your true colors shine through once again as well as the abandonment of all pretenses of allyship and cordiality. I don't know how you muster the audacity to converse with me in such a condescending tone and general insolent manner (although I don't know why I should be surprised, it's how you talk to everybody else). You made this an unnecessarily adversarial dynamic (as well as our previous argument). Is your goal to make enemies? I have patiently explained that time runs differently dependent upon the frame of reference you are standing in. No sh't, there is nothing to try and "explain" to me about that... It is dependent upon your inertial reference frame.. Moreover, any inertial reference frame is just as good as any other for expressing the laws of physics, because the laws are the same in any such frame I have furthermore explained what the implications of this are in a real sense. Which I claim you are wrong about, thus this argument.. If a person wanted to travel into the past all they would need to do is move into an area where time runs more slowly. Yes, there is no "universal time", however it does not follow from this that "If a person wanted to travel into the past all they would need to do is move into an area where time runs more slowly." This is not "traveling into the past". That would only be achieved if you could either reverse the arrow of time or warp the fabric of space-time in some manner. You are acting as though it is trivial to demonstrate that one can travel into the past "all they would need to do is move into an area where time runs more slowly" while in reality it has yet to be shown (and is highly debated whether in fact it is possible at all, it may or may not be possible in reality. In theory, nothing in Einstein's theory precludes time travel to the past). Hence, why there is a debate topic.. I genuinely thought you were more intellectually honest than to ignore the explanations I took the time to write and simply come back with, "nah". How is it even possible that you do not understand this? I explicated in the absolute simplest terms possible. The entire debate topic is about whether "Time Travel to the Past is Possible or Not Possible" in an analogous way as one can time travel into the future. The first thing you did was post on the side "Possible" (which, in it of itself is not a problem at all, however..) and instead of saying something along the lines "We know that time travel to the future is possible because it has been demonstrated and replicated under controlled conditions. Now, time travel to the past is theoretically possible (and I believe is likely true), however there is no such analogous data to pull from and is a highly debated issue in the Physics community (whether it is possible in reality and how this could be achieved)." Rather, the first statement you made was "Relativity predicts time dilation and the existence of time dilation proves that time travel is possible, either into the past or into the future. If a person wanted to travel into the past all they would need to do is move into an area where time runs more slowly." To illustrate your point, you proceeded to give the example of standing on top of a hill and walking back down to "base level" after an interval of time and claimed that this is all that is necessary for a person to travel backward in time (into the past). Which is inaccurate as it pertains to the past for the reasons I have described (and you continue to stand by it as though it were self-evidently true). Therefore, provide a Nature/Science/Textbook journal article/chapter or a Scientific American (or equivalency) type credible science magazine article that corroborates your contention. How is it even possible that you do not understand this? Spare me your condescending bullsh't. Why don't you put your "intelligence" to the test and go back to College for Physics/Math/ Chem/or Neuroscience and see how that works out for you, particularly at a big school (Hint: Technical science is an entirely different beast than Documentaries and Pop. Books, there is a reason why there are so many STEM drop-outs and these majors tend to take longer to graduate. Side Note: Its not that one would have to formally go to school to learn it, you certainly don't. However, in this context, you are attempting to be a condescending sh't to me about your "intellect" and "ability to grasp abstract concepts" that in your view clearly trumps mine in this respect while in reality you don't even know the first thing about real physics/science and if you were forced to take graded exams reality would hit you in the face real quick and hard as it does for many). The truth is, the only other person on this site who consistently talks with real clarity about Science (and Science related topics or thinking) is FactMachine (thus why he is my ally and if you look back at some of my early posts I pegged that dynamic from the beginning. He at the very least has gotten the most out of all the information one can absorb without the Maths which would put one on entirely separate/superior conceptual reality from the general public and/or he already delves into the technical material, if not I would encourage it as I think FactMachine has the proper deepness of thought and curiosity that would allow one to excel in this arena and he appears to like it greatly). Now, I'm happy to say that (in my view) there are quite a number of other people, such as yourself (Nomenclature, Dermot, even though I'm not particularly fond of Amarel he is definitely well above the typical public standard, and there are quite a few others as well, ect.), who have a reasonable level of science literacy/understanding that is well above the general public and have clearly viewed credible lectures/documentaries, read good books from credible scientists, ect. Good, all that stuff is great. However, to get this confused (as you are) with doing technical science reveals how happily oblivious you are to the massive gulf there. I would encourage you to read a Richard Feynman book such as 6 easy pieces, 6 not so easy pieces, or The Character of Physical Law which are nice intros, and subsequently just open The Feynman Lectures on Physics and try to read/understand a few chapters and you will quickly run into the great divide that I am talking about. So save me your stupid self-righteous bullsh't. Btw, just to be clear, I am in no way saying that you aren't capable of doing technical science at any point (you are, if you want to), I am saying that you have no basis for your gratuitous remarks at the moment. I would never even dream of telling my buddies in the Physics/Math department at my Uni. who are ahead of me and are in the process of wrapping up their PhD's something along the lines, "How is it even possible that you do not understand this?...It isn't complicated, mate... This is the reality, and you are responding here by refusing to understand why I am correct. That really isn't my problem...Yet you keep blathering on in such a way that you are making it absolutely clear you do not understand this fundamental point...ect.", even if I did happen to understand a given topic more thoroughly. They would obviously quickly respond something like, "Who the Hell are you? The material I'm immersed in would look like hieroglyphics to you, so you really want to go down that road? If I'm slow, then what does that say about you?" And they'd be right. Everyone is critically aware of these dynamics when you are in such an environment which is why you would have to be either far superior to essentially everyone or an ignorant fool who doesn't know there place and is bound to become socially ostracized to talk to your peers, ect in that manner (very much like in the sports/athletic arena actually). That is, your reproachful, insult generator type responses reveal your lack of experience in a serious, competitive academic/intellectual milieu and in any such environment you would just dig your own grave in no time. I'm sure as hell not putting up with your stupid bullsh't. Side: For the Motion
1
point
It is enlightening to see your true colors shine through once again Don't try to turn the truth upside down. When you were talking to me you agreed with what I wrote (you even upvoted it) and then when Amarel repeated the same straw man fallacy he had tried to use earlier in the thread, you attacked me. You talk about "true colors" right after you expose yourself as a Janus-faced nincompoop who wants to pretend he understands relativity without actually understanding it. What is the actual point of that? condescending tone I'm talking to you in a condescending tone because you randomly attacked me after leading me to believe that you understood the things I tried to explain. That does not give you the moral high ground, you sanctimonious dunce. Which I claim you are wrong about, thus this argument.. And thus why I am talking to you in a condescending tone. Yes, there is no "universal time" So if you understand that there is no "universal time" why are you talking about travelling back through it???!!!!! Are you completely retarded? The "classical sense" of time travel that you keep referencing is the Newtonian sense of time travel, in which the entire universe uses the same clock. In the Einsteinian sense it means travelling back within the same frame of reference. You will see that in my OP, I presumed you understood this. however it does not follow from this that "If a person wanted to travel into the past all they would need to do is move into an area where time runs more slowly. OK, I'm done with this because you simply are either not reading or not understanding what I am writing back to you. Your sentence here directly contradicts your last sentence in which you claimed to understand there is no universal time. If there is no universal time then that means all time is relative. If all time is relative, if I move from a place where it runs faster into a place where it runs slower, I have moved into the past relative to where I was previously. How can you not understand this after me explaining it to you at least four times?? I'm done. Go argue with Amarel. I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun pretending to each other that you understand the topic, you delusional twerp. Side: Against the Motion
How can you not understand this after me explaining it to you at least four times??...you delusional twerp Interesting statement from the scarcely-sane Conspiracy Theory zealot that claims the Laws of Thermodynamics prohibit the natural construction of a genetic code => Ancient Aliens, 9-11 Truth(?), the desire to ban free speech/lying to install "truths" (your truths? where the genetic code is evidence of Prometheus? ect.) which would obviously result in a backward totalitarian regime, and whatever other nonsense you believe in that sounds reasonable to your mind (and you look down on Religious people? Your delusive dogmatic beliefs are easily just as bad, the only reason why I'm not calling it out more is because your positions are known to be fringe quackery rather than religion that is subscribed to by mass amounts of people). You've been patient with me? I have been pretending like your scarcely-sane rantings on a number of topics are in some way reasonable/plausible because there are other issues that I think you are reasonable/strong on. This is why I asked you if you knew Abby Martin in another discussion, about 70% of what she says is great and a good force in the world (although lacks greater depth that you would get from more educated/intelligent activists/commentators such as Hedges, Chomsky, ect.) while the other 30% is scarcely sane Conspiracy Theory sh't or otherwise that is extremely harmful force in the world if taken seriously (thankfully, I think a fair number of her listeners can tell when she is making a sharp left turn into Crayztown since they also tend to be familiar with other more informed commentators/activists). The only reason her mind is able to believe the bullsh't is because even on the issues that she is correct it lacks real depth of understanding, its more surface level and it is more that she rejects essentially everything from the "standard narrative" and doesn't have the proper mental tools to detect what is/is not legitimate (i.e. the same brain bugs that produced her bullsh't beliefs are also what produced here more sensible beliefs). You remind me of here a lot and it is essentially how I view you. In fact, you and her actually agree on some of the same Conspiracy Theories, ect. and display a similar attitude in many ways. Side: For the Motion
1
point
1
point
Interesting statement from the scarcely-sane Conspiracy Theory zealot that claims the Laws of Thermodynamics prohibit the natural construction of a genetic code => Ancient Aliens, 9-11 Truth(?), the desire to ban free speech/lying to install "truths" (your truths? where the genetic code is evidence of Prometheus? ect.) Not such an interesting statement from the ignorant hypocrite who just accused me of "showing my true colours", and then launched into a tirade of misrepresentation and personal insults. You were wrong and refused to see reason in the debate we had about the genetic code and you are wrong and refuse to see reason in this one. When all else is lost you show yourself to be exactly like the right wing fascists who misrepresent, twist and lie to avoid having to concede intellectual ground. In sum, you are absolutely pathetic; a pure, unadulterated child. Side: Against the Motion
If you had an extremely precise clock out to many sig figs attached to people born at the same time, same place, and then allowed them to live their lives in separate ways, then time dilation effects are still occurring off-aligning their "clocks" relative to one another I take your point that no one experiences time at the same pace if we were to be fine tuned to a quantum extent. So let’s blow it up; If a person is circling the solar system at a high enough rate to have a noticeable time dilation, and they have radio communications with earth, would their communication not be a present circumstance for all involved (accounting for radio wave propagation delays)? Side: For the Motion
0
points
I take your point that no one experiences time at the same pace if we were to be fine tuned to a quantum extent. So let’s blow it up; If a person is circling the solar system at a high enough rate to have a noticeable time dilation, and they have radio communications with earth, would their communication not be a present circumstance for all involved (accounting for radio wave propagation delays)? You two are just f'ing hilarious. Somebody needs to sit you both down and explain that trying to cram as many complex words as you can into your sentences is not a workable substitute for knowledge of the subject you are discussing. You both are creatures driven by pure desperation for intellectual recognition, and this is quite simple to evidence by the extremely poor grammatical structure of your sentences when superimposed over the complexity of the words you use within them. In short, you are quite patently both looking up synonyms and substituting them for more basic words in an effort to appear smarter than you are. Unfortunately, this has the opposite effect than you intend it to, because actual smart people try to simplify their ideas rather than enigmatise them. Just like Einstein himself famously said, "If you cannot explain something simply, then you probably do not understand it." To answer your grammatical clusterfuck of a question, then there would be a delay. Your knowledge of the subject of time dilation apparently does not extend to knowing how its effects need to be calculated in satellite navigation systems so that they send you to the right coordinates, rather than to the position the Earth was in at the moment you made your request. You are a pair of ignorant, pontificating idiots. Side: For the Motion
the extremely poor grammatical structure of your sentences when superimposed over the complexity of the words you use within them I'm not offended when you point out my poor sentence structure, I have even complimented you on your grammar. But usually you actually point out the problem, which is a fine waste of time for you. My concern is that my message is conveyed in a concise manner. My message will likely be conveyed to Mathfan, to whom the post was directed, without issue. If there is issue, I will clarify my meaning. You seem to struggle with the vocabulary a bit. Not sure why. What words appear complex to you; dilation? circumstance? delay? I bet it was propagation. Does it seem complex big guy? Well, it's the most concise way to convey my message and it is a common word when discussing radio waves. To answer your grammatical clusterfuck of a question, then there would be a delay. You fail here to answer my question because you are focused on the wrong thing. Perhaps you should have used a dictionary (that's not the same as a thesaurus). When I added "accounting for radio wave propagation delay" I meant to remove it from the question, so that the focus remained on the subject at hand. You focused precisely on the delays. It's ok that you didn't get this, as the post was not directed at you. I'm sure Einstein was more concerned with being precise than with being simplistic when writing to Eddington. If some prick read his letter and responded that his words are too complex for Einstein to actually be smart, I don't think Einstein would bother to change his terminology to pander to the wannabe who doesn't even belong in the conversation. Also, "clusterfuck" should be hyphenated. If "hyphenated" sounds complex, look it up in a dictionary..er I mean a book that tells you what words mean. Side: Against the Motion
@Nomenclature. You are very confused. Firstly, since you addressed this to both Amarel and I, although politically I agree with more of your positions (Nomenclature), I think that Amarel is more sane than you are. That is, you are an Abby Martin type who although you have meaningful contributions that are worth listening to, you are also off-the-wall in many ways and a loose canon. Amarel is more a Steven Crowder/Shapiro type (not that I'm necessarily identifying Amarel with these people one-to-one, nor their positions per say) where I reliably know his angle, where he is coming from and has a consistent framework that doesn't require any fringe, dogmatic, delusive quackery. I think you owe it to yourself to go for a "hard" science degree (i.e. something real). You are quickly going to be confronted with your own strong delusions about your level of intelligence/knowledge (and your self-esteem is almost definitely going to drop off sharply). Right now you are relaxing and luxuriating under your own shade of ignorance that you have planted yourself under and clearly do not want to move from. Intelligence and knowledge are not nearly as an amorphous, "up-in-the-air" concept as you wish it to be. You simply have never tested yours (also, like a muscle, it can be strengthened through proper training or atrophy with misuse/disuse). Side: Against the Motion
1
point
I hope you understand the problem with his post. When you are younger than your counterpart due to time dilation, you are not in their past. Your argument is, as per usual, a classic straw man fallacy. I did not make the claim which you are attacking, so shut up. You're more irritating than herpes. This is literally the second time you've tried to use the precise same straw man. Side: For the Motion
When one person moves into the future at a faster rate than you do, then clearly you become his past No you don’t. You are still his present. You are younger than otherwise, but you are not in his past. When the one travels through space at a high rate, and communicates via radio to the one on earth, it is not a memory to the one on earth. It is present. When the travel returns to earth, he is not in their past, they are not in his future. Everyone is in each other’s present. Side: For the Motion
1
point
No you don’t. You are an idiot who simply does not know when to shut up and listen. You are still his present. This statement is so stupid that I am simply going to ignore it. In fact, I'm going to ignore everything you say on this particular topic because I believe you to be psychologically unwell. Side: For the Motion
2
points
I have myself been and have dealt with mentally unwell people. He demonstrates sanity. Do not use mental illness as some kind of off-the-cuff retort to add spice to your debates, if you actually meet schizophrenics, bipolars, psychopaths and/or narcissists you will come to understand a lot. Not to mention BPD and Histrionic personality disorder. Side: Against the Motion
I'm going to ignore everything you say on this particular topic You’ve done that the whole time. It doesn’t make you look smarter, just eager to avoid. because I believe you to be psychologically unwell Nice little ad hominem at the end. Even if I were unwell, that wouldn’t change the fact that you cannot address my critique. Side: Against the Motion
1
point
If you haven’t ignored what I’ve said then there must be another reason you cannot address my critique. It’s probably because you require validation rather than debate. It would help if you understood time dilation. Specifically that it is not time travel. Either way, if you’re satisfied with an end to this thread, so am I. You can have the last word. Side: Against the Motion
1
point
If you haven’t ignored what I’ve said then there must be another reason you cannot address my critique. I have repeatedly explained to you, with the use of examples, why your "critique" is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic you are discussing. Wtf is wrong with you? Side: For the Motion
Shut up. You're starting to annoy I’m sure being wrong all the time is very annoying. But your only partly wrong so I hope that helps. I’ll reference the same thought experiment you did and we will see if this clears it up for you. An identical twin travels into space at a high rate of speed and then returns. He finds his counterpart on earth is much older than him. He is not in his twins future. Neither is the twin who remained on earth in his twins past. They moved through time at different rates and are both in the present. You cannot travel to someone else’s past, even if they have progressed through time at a different rate, because you can never get ahead of or behind the present. Side: Against the Motion
1
point
I’m sure being wrong all the time is very annoying. But I'm not wrong. That is precisely what is annoying. I don't expect an admission that you don't understand what you are talking about, but at least have the humility to shut up. Wtf is wrong with you? I’ll reference the same thought experiment you did and we will see if this clears it up for you. An identical twin travels into space at a high rate of speed and then returns. He finds his counterpart on earth is much older than him. But this clearly is not "the same thought experiment". Mine involved two parties travelling in opposite directions. You are so annoying because you prolong conversations by misrepresenting what the other person has said. It's infuriating. Side: For the Motion
But I'm not wrong Just saying so isn’t t enough. You haven’t even addressed what I have said. I don't expect an admission that you don't understand what you are talking about, but at least have the humility to shut up Nothing I have said indicates that I don’t understand what I am talking about. Rather it indicates that you don’t. If you did, and I was wrong, you could easily demonstrate this, rather than just say it and hope I shut up. But this clearly is not "the same thought experiment". Mine involved... When you referred to Hawking’s thought experiment, I assumed you meant his, not yours. Which is why I used his. Side: Against the Motion
0
points
Time travel can only be to the past and back to the 'present' the 'future' (if time is real) is the one you can't travel to. This is the opposite of what we know thus far. That is, it has been demonstrated in controlled experiments that "time travel" to the future happens all of the time in the universe. Moreover, the idea is fundamental to Einstein's theory of relativity. "Time travel" to the past however remains an open topic up for debate at the moment. Side: For the Motion
1
point
1
point
If you can travel to the future, that means we are not in the present but in the past of the present and the 'future' is the real present or nearer to it. It actual fact the logical conclusion of relativity is that the terms "past", "present" and "future" are meaningless, because they are not the same for all observers. There is no absolute present moment. I have in fact used this idea to argue against the existence of free will. Side: For the Motion
It actual fact the logical conclusion of relativity is that the terms "past", "present" and "future" are meaningless, because they are not the same for all observers. There is no absolute present moment. Side: For the Motion
0
points
I believe in free will but I also deny time. How? I believe it's so extremely malleable that future willpower and actions can influence fate and the alien demigods to change past events and reward the strong willed in the 'present/future'. Yes I have influenced the past I can't prove it, I literally did it in front of my eyes a few times, I will not share this power with others and not prove how supernatural I am becoming but trust me, I am. Side: Against the Motion
If you can travel to the future, that means we are not in the present but in the past of the present and the 'future' is the real present or nearer to it. No. It means that when you travel at high velocities for a given interval of time then the phenomena of time dilation occurs as quantified by the fundamental equations of Special Relativity. Side: For the Motion
-1
points
2
points
1
point
Using fancy words that no one understands to seem superior, alright then... Guess you lost the debate. :)Using fancy words that no one understands to seem superior, alright then... Guess you lost the debate. :) What words are you possibly referring to? It is not as though I wrote the equations and proclaimed "that about sums it up" Side: For the Motion
-1
points
phenomena I'm assuming that an individual in middle school/high school and beyond would understand the meaning of this word time dilation This is a fundamental concept in Einstein's Special Relativity. Therefore, in the modern world, when discussing "time travel", this is the terminology applied to the type of time travel that we know to exist. The debate topic is about time travel and you claimed that time travel to the future is not possible, which is I why I formally corrected you on the matter (and if you look up "Special Relativity" and "Time Dilation" you will be confronted by exactly what I am discussing). Side: For the Motion
-1
points
I corrected you on the matter, actually. If you can travel to the future then what we are in is the past, not the present. Wrong. All you have achieved is a demonstration that you do not possess even a rudimentary understanding of Special Relativity (you did not even know what the term "Time Dilation" means) and essentially every sentence you write on the topic signifies that. Side: For the Motion
-1
points
This is ad hominem attack and is basically the same as saying this: "I, xMathFanx, think you understand this wrong so therefore you lack a rudimentary understanding of the thing that I am sure is meant to be understood in the way I understand it." That is truly what you just typed and isn't an argument but a self-affirming insult towards me, nothing more. Side: Against the Motion
This is ad hominem attack and is basically the same as saying this: "I, xMathFanx, think you understand this wrong so therefore you lack a rudimentary understanding of the thing that I am sure is meant to be understood in the way I understand it." That is truly what you just typed and isn't an argument but a self-affirming insult towards me, nothing more. No.. I have formal training in Special Relativity at Uni. and you clearly don't understand it even on a PBS documentary type level. Similarly, if you told me that the Kinematic equations in Classical Mechanics suggests anything other than what they actually imply, then you are just wrong. It has nothing to do with Ad Hominem. Is a Professor correcting a Math exam an Ad Hominem attack? If a peer of mine corrected me on a misinterpretation of Columb's Law, that is not an Ad Hominem attack toward me, I would have just been wrong. Side: For the Motion
0
points
2
points
@iliketodebasemyself You are really beginning to piss me off, I just read that incredulously sanctimonious drivel you tried to pull, whining like a little baby about ad-hominems because you don't know what time dilation means. Damn, you are a total fucking jack ass, since the theory of general relativity states that time runs differently from different points of view and your place in time is RELATIVE that means that any time can be the past or future depending on your place in time, if we travel into the future then back to the present then the future is in our past, if the present is the past then why are we always passing the present and moving into the future? You're literally mentally ill and you make no god damn sense. Side: For the Motion
@iliketodebasemyself You are really beginning to piss me off, I just read that incredulously sanctimonious drivel you tried to pull, whining like a little baby about ad-hominems because you don't know what time dilation means. Damn, you are a total fucking jack ass, since the theory of general relativity states that time runs differently from different points of view and your place in time is RELATIVE that means that any time can be the past or future depending on your place in time, if we travel into the future then back to the present then the future is in our past, if the present is the past then why are we always passing the present and moving into the future? You're literally mentally ill and you make no god damn sense. Thank you ally Side: For the Motion
1
point
Arguments put forth: 1) You are really beginning to piss me off Sorry? Do you want a little lullaby to sleep little child? 2) I just read that incredulously sanctimonious drivel you tried to pull, whining like a little baby about ad-hominems because you don't know what time dilation means. Oh... Wait was this an insult or an argument? Oh right, just insulting. 3) Damn, you are a total fucking jack ass, since the theory of general relativity states that time runs differently from different points of view and your place in time is RELATIVE that means that any time can be the past or future depending on your place in time Ah, so if we travel into the past then suddenly we are not in the past we are in the present... Ah... Let's completely forget the "future" we came from then shall we? It's all relative after all. I mean that will be a great plan, going into the past to change something and then saying "Oh no Einstein said we can no longer believe that present has occurred, our memories are lies and since reality is relative we must assume the future to not be what we remembered but instead totally unpredictable like a normal future!" Plan ruined. 4) if we travel into the future then back to the present then the future is in our past It is in our memory, but not in our physical past. 5) if the present is the past then why are we always passing the present and moving into the future? Assuming it is possible to travel forward in time this is because for some reason we are trapped in the past, not sure why but it is definite that if the future is happening right now and we can travel instantly to its events that we are in the real past not the real present. 6) You're literally mentally ill and you make no god damn sense. No argument made here, only insult. Side: Against the Motion
So how is it wrong that if we travel into the future that this proves we are in the past of the present and not in the actual present? WorldScienceU is a great resource that I would highly recommend to anyone in order to learn this topic. It provides a relatively short course on Special Relativity that is accessible to individuals of all levels free of charge. There are two options to the course, the conceptual framework that is comparable to a credible documentary series/popular science book level or Special Relativity with the Maths for those trained in Maths (note the Math involved in SR is not too complicated so it may be worth a look even if one doesn't know too much Math). Here is the link to the course [(1)Conceptual Option (2) Math-based]: (1) http://www.worldscienceu.com/courses/ (2) http://www.worldscienceu.com/courses/ I think you would find this highly interesting/informative. Side Note: I have met the Professor who instructs the course (Brian Greene) Side: For the Motion
-1
points
So, you can't explain it. Okay then. That site may be good for teaching science but not for teaching raw logic and this is a raw logic issue. Why not just admit you don't understand what you are talking about and learn something new that is actually worth something? Side: For the Motion
0
points
-1
points
@ilike2debate. Time travel can only be to the past and back to the 'present' the 'future' (if time is real) is the one you can't travel to. The above passage was your OP in this thread, which is wrong and it is trivial to demonstrate that. Simply look up "Time Dilation Experiment". Side: For the Motion
-1
points
You mean a test with physical clocks and gravity? Yeah, the hands of the clocks don't all spin the same rate when you fly on different levels in different directions relative to the Earth's core. That's because the 'downward turn' of the hand and 'upwards turn' is mechanically designed to resist at a normal 'above sea level' not at the altitude the planes flew. Instead of hands whatever method is used same thing. Side: Against the Motion
0
points
1
point
The 'present' as in the pure present is the instant happening now. The issue is that since it takes some milliseconds for the brain to get a sense of what's going on whenever YOU THINK or you perceive the present, you are perceiving the most recent past and are mentally travelling in time to the past rather than to the instant future. Side: Against the Motion
1
point
1
point
Wrong way of looking at it. We are constantly assuming the perceived present has an instant event in front of it to then perceive seamlessly so on and so forth but what this assumption is, is still not the assumption that we are seamlessly moving into the future rather that based on the current 'present' a plausible-enough linked present is then going to attach itself forward in time again and again. The future is important in things like war strategy and such because you need to imagine what hasn't yet happened and may never happen but it is not important in perceiving time in the way you implied it was. Side: Against the Motion
0
points
I have to understand your meaning before I can know whether you’re wrong. Unless I require further clarification, you are wrong for a couple of reasons: We are constantly assuming the perceived present has an instant event in front of it Our assumptions and perceptions are ineffectual to the passage of time. Which I why I cannot do otherwise than move into the future, even when I perceive nothing. based on the current 'present' a plausible-enough linked present is then going to attach itself forward in time again and again. A present that is forward in time is a future. Side: Against the Motion
1
point
Let me put it to you another way. You may have been created this instant with artificial memories. You only can assume the past and present to be even artificially certain, the future cannot be the future if you have a certainty about it as that makes it the present or past since we only can assume we know this two frames if time. Side: Against the Motion
A rock has no consciousness. It has no memory. It presumes nothing. But it is subject to the passage of time, just as we are. The rock is constantly moving into the future. The fact that the future is strictly a potential does not make it unimportant. The fact that we are constantly in the present does not eliminate the conceptual existence of the past and the future. The moment your moment changes, an aspect of the future is realized. To say we are always heading into the future is to say our present is always changing. It doesn't matter that tomorrow never comes, that's still where we are heading. When we get there we will change its name to today. Side: For the Motion
1
point
This is where you are fundamentally wrong: When you do what YOU CALL "moving into the future" all that is happening is your present became your past. The travel in your mind is to the most recent past as it takes that to be the present. The perpetual motion is from the present to the instant past via perception. The rock, unlike you, has no brain to perceive time so its present is always its true present since there's no delay involved. The rock doesn't move from the present Into its instant future, it moves from its past into the indefinitely redefinable present. Side: Against the Motion
You cannot abandon the future for the past, they are inseparable correlates. When you say your present becomes your past, what happens is your present changes. It constantly changes. That which the present has the potential to change to is the future. I won’t deny that the passage of time is experienced as the present becoming the past. But it is undeniable that whatever the present is going to become is the future. Since we will ultimately experience whatever the present is going to become, we are heading for the future (in a manner of speaking though not literally). We experience the future as present becoming the past, inaccuracies of perception notwithstanding. Side: For the Motion
1
point
1
point
You cannot abandon the future for the past But I have proven to you repeatedly that you can, and have used extremely simple examples to illustrate it. What I cannot do is force you to abandon your own bullheaded denial of reality. Every time I explain the exact same thing to you, I receive one of these responses where you begin by outright denying everything, and then follow up with a long wall of unrelated, erroneous nonsense which isn't even logically (or grammatically) consistent with itself, let alone with anything Einstein (or I) postulated. Your responses are essentially an exercise in how to keep a conversation going without actually having any refutation to what the other person has said. When you say your present becomes your past, what happens is your present changes. Firstly, I did not say that. Secondly, THE ENTIRE POINT OF RELATIVITY IS THAT THERE IS NO PRESENT. Linear time is an illusion which does not exist in the reality of the greater universe. You are thoroughly ignorant of the topic you are attempting to discuss, and so is xMathFanx. It constantly changes. It NEVER changes because IT DOES NOT EXIST. In conclusion, and for what is now easily the fifth or sixth time:- 1) The passage of time occurs at different rates at different places within the universe. 2) That necessarily means that certain parts of the universe exist either in the past or the future of each other. 3) That necessarily means that travelling between them can take you to either the past or the future, relative to where you were previously. Get the simple stuff? Now let's try the slightly more advanced lessons:- 4) Since a singular frame of reference cannot hold two different versions of time simultaneously, it is only travelling to the past within your own frame of reference which is arguably impossible. 5) Travelling to the future within your own frame of reference is also arguably impossible. The way theoretical physicists such as Hawking have circumvented this problem is to include a journey where a time traveller leaves a particular frame of reference (i.e. Earth) and then comes back to it many years later. Side: Against the Motion
You know I’m not talking to you right? When you say “Firstly, I did not say that”, I’ve got to wonder, who cares? Not me. Furthermore, he and I are discussing time in very different terms than you and I did. Even so, you managed to butt in and still get your own position wrong. When you claim to have repeatedly proven that you can abandon the future for the past, you fail to recall even the flawed point you were making. You literally said “I am able to travel to somebody else’s past or future”. Your argument is different from his, so you should keep it in your own thread. Side: For the Motion
1
point
When you say “Firstly, I did not say that”, I’ve got to wonder, who cares? Not me. Lol. Well, at least you provided us one refreshing moment of honesty in your prestigious career as a serial bullshitter: you don't care what other people say. Whatever it might be, you're just going to keep on spewing out unimpressive banalities like a coked-up 1990s rapper. Even so, you managed to butt in and still get your own position wrong. Oh, I did? Well, thanks for that purposefully vague piece of slander, Herr Amarel. Empty rhetoric is a speciality of yours, is it not? When you claim to have repeatedly proven that you can abandon the future for the past, you fail to recall even the flawed point you were making. Oh, I see. so you are still literally ignoring my replies and coming back with, "but no"? Mature. Real mature. You literally said “I am able to travel to somebody else’s past or future” You are "literally" always travelling to somebody else's past or future, because that's the fundamental basis for the theory of relativity. You know? The theory you're trying to have an argument about. That one. Side: Against the Motion
-I don’t care that you didn’t say it because I wasn’t talking to you. If I reference something George Clooney said, and you butt in and say “I never said that”, I don’t care. No one cares. -My comments you call vague are not vague when taken in the context of my post as a whole. I get the distinct impression you reply one sentence at a time without first reading the entire post. -When you say that you are literally always traveling to someone else’s past or future, you are not abandoning the future for the past, which is what you stated you you had repeatedly proven you could do. Side: For the Motion
|
