Spacetime and time travel cannot exist.

  • Spacetime and time travel cannot exist.

     Ken updated 1 week ago 5 Members · 25 Posts
  • Laura

    Member
    December 12, 2021 at 4:20 am

    We think of space in a geometric way, it has 3 dimensions, x,y,z. Time is not geometric and is therefore not a dimension in the way that space is and should not be combined with it as “spacetime.”

    Time does not exist. It’s a classic example of the map is not the territory. Time is merely a human construct that measures rates of changes of things compared to one another.

    On Time Travel
    I’ll quote Tom Van Flandern and William Lyne on the impossibility of time travel:

    “… time travel must also involve travel through space. For example, the Earth is continuously traveling through space in its orbit around the Sun, in the Sun’s orbit around the Galaxy … If one could suddenly pop into the universe at a past time, how could one expect to find the Earth in space at that time? Time travel is therefore disallowed by the principles of physics.”–Tom Van Flandern, Physics Has Its Principles.

    “Our earth moves around the sun, while our solar system moves around our galaxy, which in turn moves around the edge of the Milky Way, which in turn moves around the outer reaches of the Magellanic Clouds. Our earth and everything on it, and everything else in the universe, can never be in the exact same place ever again. Any rational person should be able to see why “time travel” is a physical and metaphysical impossibility.”–William Lyne, Pentagon Aliens, 3rd ed., 1999, p. 274.

    So if you were on earth and tried to travel forward or backward in time you would most likely end up floating in outer space and die immediately.

  • Richard

    Member
    December 12, 2021 at 6:01 am

    Van Flandern was right. Time travel is preposterous.

    Moving through space is one thing. It involves getting traction on one thing in order to propel something the other way.

    There is absolutely no traction on time.

    It’s just simply not that kind of thing.

    So I agree with you.

  • Laura

    Member
    January 2, 2022 at 8:07 pm

    If as I propose, time does not really exist, and is just a measuring stick for change, what would happen if “T” time was removed from all the physics equations?

  • Jerry

    Organizer
    January 2, 2022 at 8:55 pm

    Hi Laura. I agree that “time is a human construct that measures rates of changes of things compared to one another.” However, that is only one definition. Time is also the inevitable feature of reality which is examined. And even if time is only a “human construct” without physicality, at least it does “exist” in that particular way. These two separate definitions somewhat remind me of how the word “science” doesn’t only apply to the vast accumulation of the most accurate knowledge possible. There is also the scientific approach itself (often called “science”), which is used to examine reality, to arrive at the most accurate knowledge.

    Anyway, just a thought.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 3 days ago by  Jerry.
  • Laura

    Member
    January 2, 2022 at 9:11 pm

    Okay, think of yourself in outer space, way far away from any star or galaxy. You are just floating there by yourself. Now … do you perceive time? If you use any motion, light, movement, etc. to base your answer on you are just measuring rate of change.

    • Jerry

      Organizer
      January 2, 2022 at 9:47 pm

      I definitely agree. You could even say the same without the scenario of outer space. The process of observing or accounting for motion or light, takes time. It is done by using or acting within the abstract concept of time, which refers to the order of events, past, present, and future. Also, time refers to the ongoing “now”. Of course, time isn’t a physical structure or occurrence. Actually, if physical reality didn’t exist at all, why wouldn’t time inevitably continue? Anyway, just a thought.

      • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 3 days ago by  Jerry.
  • Ken

    Member
    January 9, 2022 at 3:04 pm

    Give me a 🙂 if you believe the stay-at-home twin ages twice as fast as her twin brother who travels at 0.866 c km/sec for 2 years before returning home as measured by the stay-at-home twin. Give me a ☹ if you believe there is no difference between the twins age when the traveling twin returns home.

  • Ken

    Member
    January 9, 2022 at 3:26 pm

    I am rewording my last reply:

    Give me a 🙂 or thumbs-op if you believe the stay-at-home twin ages twice as fast as her twin brother who travels at 0.866 c km/sec for 2 years before returning home 1 year younger than his stay-at-home twin sister. Give me a ☹ or thumbs-down if you believe there is no difference between the twins ages when the traveling twin returns home.

    • Jerry

      Organizer
      January 9, 2022 at 10:55 pm

      Ken,

      I would say that I don’t believe the twins ages would differ, so 🙁. Though I wouldn’t want either of the twins to seem so sad!

      Also though, I’m highly skeptical (almost complete disbelief) about the “a clock on the plane and one on the ground” experiment, with Hafele and Keating, and from what I’ve heard, many others.

      • This reply was modified 1 week, 3 days ago by  Jerry.
      • Ken

        Member
        January 10, 2022 at 12:43 am

        Jerry,

        Do you believe that a lithium ion clock orbiting the Earth in a high orbit will run slower (i.e. will lose time) relative to a lithium ion clock running on the ice at the north pole?

        Also, do you have any opinion concerning the results and speculations about clocks orbiting the Earth discussed at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/

        • Jerry

          Organizer
          January 10, 2022 at 3:51 am

          Hi Ken.

          Maybe time for a lithium clock in a high orbit does run slower than one on earth. Why to compare this to a clock at the north pole? Is it different from how time goes at the equator? Anyway, what is your view of why there is time dilation within the plane? Is it to account for the velocity of the plane, or the time dilation caused by the gravity of the earth compared to (at least slightly) outer space?

          • Ken

            Member
            January 10, 2022 at 10:09 pm

            Jerry,

            Thanks for your four questions (1) through (4) listed below with my answers 🙂:

            (1) Why to compare this to a clock at the north pole?

            Because at the north pole there is no rotational velocity (v) relative to an orbiting clock or the clock in the airplane. A reference clock at a pole will only have a significant gravitational acceleration represented by the escape velocity (ve) at the pole.

            (2) Is it different from how time goes at the equator?

            Yes, A reference clock at the equator will have a significant rotational velocity (v) as well as a significant gravitational acceleration represented by escape velocity (ve) at the plane’s altitude.

            (3) Anyway, what is your view of why there is time dilation within the plane?

            There is a time dilation (t’/t) for the clock’s time (t’) in the plane relative to the reference clock’s time (t) because the plane is traveling around the Earth at a significant velocity (v) due to Earth’s spin and planes ground speed as well as at an altitude that has a significant escape velocity (ve).

            (4) Is it to account for the velocity of the plane, or the time dilation caused by the gravity of the earth compared to (at least slightly) outer space?

            It is to account for both where (t’) for the clock in the plane is effected by v as well as ve, but the time (t) of the reference clock at the pole is effected only by a significant escape velocity (ve).

            To better understand my answers please refer to “Time Dilation Effects in the Relativity Queuing System” at:

            https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K8WEASyPoP86dQ32_QX32w4TVbJQwBOr/view?usp=sharing

            Thanks again for your interest, questions, opinions and open mindedness concerning critical analysts of Relativity Theory 🙂!

  • John-Erik

    Member
    January 9, 2022 at 9:53 pm

    In Michelson-Morley’s tests we must use the wave model since a collimator defines – and a telescope detects – constant orientation of wave front and the same wave front in both arms. So, no wave front tilting and no effect in the reference arm. Therefore, no time dilation – and Galilean transform. So, the twin paradox is just an illusion by a mistake from Potier. This happened between 1882 and 1887.

    With best regards from ______________ John-Erik

    • John-Erik

      Member
      January 9, 2022 at 9:57 pm

      Physics went wrong 140 years ago.

      John-Erik

      • Jerry

        Organizer
        January 9, 2022 at 10:58 pm

        Hi John-Erik.

        With Michelson and Morley, were you referring to their experiments with the interferometer there? And also “length contraction”?

        • Jerry

          Organizer
          January 9, 2022 at 11:09 pm

          John-Erik,

          Also, what is your viewpoint of exactly where physics went wrong 140 years ago? Was that caused by specific, yet mistaken, ideas of some one or many scientists? Of course, there have been countless other scientists at many other given times through the centuries who weren’t necessarily contributing valuable ideas. That there were even many detrimental ideas throughout the history of science, that were accepted by some or many others. Anyway, just a thought.

          • John-Erik

            Member
            January 10, 2022 at 11:31 am

            Jerry

            The original mistake was, is I said, that an effect was introduced in the reference arm by Potier. This was based on wrong particle ideas. According to the more relevant wave model we find UNCHANGED orientation of wave fronts in MMX. The same wave front in both arms means no effect of ether wind in reference arm.

            All this means that we can avoid time dilation and Lorentz effect and twin paradox. Instead we can use Gallilean transform.

            With best regards from _______________ John-Erik

            PS

            Light is waves and NOT particles. In my article to PHYSICS ESSAYS in June 2021 you can see that ALL phenomena in light can be explained by the wave model. The wave model cal also explain CONTINEOUS radiation from hydrogen. See my profile on RecearchGate.

            DS


  • Laura

    Member
    January 10, 2022 at 1:41 am

    I think part of the problem is the assumption that a thing can ever be “at rest” compared to something else. All things are moving constantly through space so any theory comparing clocks or twins on earth vs in space must incorporate that both are moving constantly. So ☹

    • Jerry

      Organizer
      January 10, 2022 at 4:05 am

      Good point, Laura. This does seem a complex problem.

      Whenever a given object is “at rest”, or “stationary”, if the object or frame doesn’t accelerate, it is inertial, and could serve as a reference of “exactly how fast” another given object exists or travels. Of course, with Special Relativity, gravity and acceleration were ignored or considered irrelevant specifically for the purpose of solving this given problem.

      And there’s also a much larger question, “what is everything within the whole universe relative to?” The answer considered by many over a century ago, was the aether, which was said to have been the ultimate valid frame of reference within which all objects exist or travel.

    • Ken

      Member
      January 10, 2022 at 11:44 pm

      Laura,

      Yes! The Earth and all of its satellites are moving though space around the solar systems barycenter, the Milky-way’s barycenter, etc. However, the tick rate (t’) of clocks in satellites orbiting a reference clock at the north pole will have a tick rate (t). In this scenario, a satellite clock’s tick rate (t’) will be different from the reference clock’s tick rate (t) for satellites where the combination of the effects of velocity (v) and gravitational escape velocity (ve) have been measured to have different tick rates from those of the “stationary” clocks that are only effected by escape velocity (ve). Thus, Time Dilation for satellites orbiting a massive body is defined as (t’/t) and is affected by v and ve according to the discussion at:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K8WEASyPoP86dQ32_QX32w4TVbJQwBOr/view?usp=sharing

    • Ken

      Member
      January 12, 2022 at 2:26 pm

      Laura,

      I have made some changes to the 1 page discussion concerning the “fixed”, “stationary” or “at rest” inertial frame at the following link:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K8WEASyPoP86dQ32_QX32w4TVbJQwBOr/view?usp=sharing

      I hope these changes can help to clarify the meaning these hyphenated words 🙂.

  • John-Erik

    Member
    January 10, 2022 at 4:49 pm

    To all regarding Scientific American article about time dilation:

    The tests does not confirm time dilation. Instead the article demonstrates that the speed in Cesium clocks is dependent on the clock’s speed in relation to the ether. Time dilation is a mistake introduced by Potier. He stated that light must take a longer way in MMX transverse arm, after a reasoning based on particles.

    Instead a reasoning based on waves leads to the same wave front in both arms. So, we can use Galiean transform without time dilation.

    3 errors in MMX

    1) Potier in reference arm

    2) Maxwell did not observe that available effect in horizontal plane is 0.46 km/s (rotation), not 30 km/s, (translation) of our planet. He also missed the fact that we have a vertical ether wind of 11.2 km/s (equal to escape velocity). Too low sensitivity.

    3) Maxwell did not observe that the effect in the measuring arm (2 antiparallel forces) is compensated by the control of atomic separation (2 antiparallel forces). Unobservable effect in measuring arm.

    MMX is useless and we only need the wave model for light. Details are available in an article to PHYSICS ESSAYS June 2021 that can be ordered from my RESEARCHGATE profile. Search on my name!

    With best regards from _______________ John-Erik

    • Jerry

      Organizer
      January 10, 2022 at 10:16 pm

      John-Erik,

      Have you read or heard of The Particle Model (TPM) ? It sounds quite compelling, though I’m unsure if the theory is completely accurate.

      When you speak of the MMX and the “transverse arm” and “Potier in reference arm”, were you referring to the “arms” of the interferometer? That they’re somehow affected by the invisible and undetectable “aether”? I’m unsure if you accept any of the theory involving the MMX and the “arms” of the interferometer. Could you please clarify? Thanks.

      • John-Erik

        Member
        January 11, 2022 at 4:36 pm

        Jerry

        The reference arm in MMX is transverse to light direction so light moves inside the plane of the wave fronts in this arm. the meassuring arm is longitudinal to wave fronts.

        Potier suggested that light takes a longer way due to the ether wind meaning an effect in the reference arm equal to half the effect in the measuring arm. This was influenced by partricle-based ideas and in error. If we strict follow the wave model we get NO effect in reference arm. Therefore, NO time dilation according to detailed reasoning I have described many times. We must use the same wave front in BOTH arms. See this article:

        https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/8874

        I have also explained that the wave model can explain all light phenomena with the wave model, so we do NOT need the particle model for light. The wave model can also explain how hydrogen radiation can be contineous although we only observe the interference frequencies. All these ideas are presented in a 7 page article to PHYSICS ESSAYS June 2021 (The wave-particle dilemma in light). The article is copyrighted so no public files. However you can order personal file over ResearchGate if you write my name on RG.

        With best regards from _______________ John-Erik

        • John-Erik

          Member
          January 11, 2022 at 4:40 pm

          Error in second line. Should be:

          …longitudinal to light motion…(or normal to wave fronts)

          John-Erik

Viewing 1 - 10 of 10 replies

Log in to reply.

Original Post
0 of 0 posts June 2018
Now