Can you travel in time?

[PoPpAScience]

We are not moving along with the flow of time.

Our perspective of time is panning through that direction.

The past doesn't stop being there because you aren't looking at it, nor does the future wait to exist until you look at it.

Max, I said "in" and not 'along with'.

The past is just a memory of the "The flow of Time".
The future is the sensation I get of "Time" flowing past my Mind into memory.

[Max™]

I am moving to the left.

The past is to the right of me.
The future is up ahead, further left.

The only difference between motion through time and motion through space, is our perception of time is VERY limited by our mass, giving the illusion that it comes and goes and doesn't exist outside of our point of view.

We do not see time properly, we barely understand it, this is why QM and GR don't get along.

Dave, Relativity isn't about the changes in the mechanisms of the clocks, it is about changes in motion through the direction of time.

[dleviwing]

Max;
The secret is in mastering an understanding of measurement and the tools used to perform the measuring; that’s the physics. I would love to discuss this with you over a beer or two at the local pub, but it is futile to attempt to undo your brainwashing on the forum. You shouldn’t allow yourself to be so convinced that you can’t learn; at least not until you’ve lived long enough to realize it’s all irrelevant anyway.

[Max™]

I'm no more brainwashed than you.

:P

I don't feel I can't learn, I learn all the time.

The tools described in thought experiments about Relativity are not the reason for the thought experiments, and they are not what is being acted upon.

You can describe these thought experiments with nothing but space and time, no tools necessary.

It hasn't been shown to be a bad theory for the last 100 years, last I checked.

[dleviwing]

Sorry Max, but thought experiments do not prove anything; only the hard tedious tasks of experimentation and measurement can be used to validate any hypotheses or theory. Even then one must have the proper paradigm to apply the data to. I don’t believe we have that paradigm in the world of physics yet so we need to take care as to what we interpret as proof and facts.

[Max™]

http://www.bartleby.com/173/a3.html

http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-p...87q&size=large

http://stason.org/TULARC/education-b...elativity.html

Relativity isn't in question any more.

We know the Universe works that way on the large scales, we just don't know why we can't make that paradigm work with the small scales of the Universe.

Thought Experiments help you understand Relativity.

Is SR/GR the end all theory of everything?

Well, I suspect so actually, but with some tweaking.

Is it going to be required for any future theory of everything to reproduce or explain the effects of SR/GR?

Yes, that's how science works.

[dleviwing]

Max;
Relativity works when the mathematics are properly applied. The interpretation of WHY it works is misrepresented at times. The lack of aging of the twin and the differences in the clocks time are NOT due to relativity; they are due to the effects of motion on the physical structure of objects. Relativity only deals with our ability to measure position and motion of objects by using radiant energy as the information carrier. This is only possible due to the fact that when we measure the velocity of light we obtain the same value regardless of our own motions in the universe and that occurs only due to the fact that motion alters physical properties.

Relativity predicts that an object that is accelerated near the velocity of light will become contracted along the direction of travel. This is false; it contracts proportionally in all directions as show in particle acceleration experiments. The mathematics of Relativity work but the interpretations of why are FALSE. TIME IS IMUTABLE; only physical entities can alter their dimensional properties. As long as you keep insisting on accepting the hyped up crap about Relativity, you will never fully comprehend it; you will just continue to be a good little parrot.

[Max™]

Could you quote the sources of this disproof of Relativity you seem to have found?

As of this date, I've been under the impression that Relativity is the most experimentally proven theory of the last 100 years.


I think you're the one with the poor comprehension of Relativity, from the wording of your post there.

I didn't buy into an accept hyped up crap, I'm self taught, remember?

I had to go out and dig through all the hype and buzz and opinions and bias and figure out what the actual science was.

Your answer sounds more complex than it needs to be.

Simply explain what is wrong with this statement: "our perception of our motion through time is reduced, as our motion through space is increased."

[dleviwing]

Don’t confuse proof with over zealous physicist’s claims, Max. Relativity is not really a theory of physical reality, it’s a methodology for comparing measurements of the motions of bodies; it’s a mathematical theory. As I said, the math works; the explanation of why it works is bogus. Proof should not be based on authoritative sources but should stand self evident on its own merits.

Show me what do you think is proof and I'll show you that it is NOT. There are many theories that predict and work just as well a Relativity; even better!

[Max™]

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...Unit5/gps.html

http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantol...tivity_GPS.pdf

The GPS system works exactly as Relativity predicts, and is widely regarded as an experimental confirmation of SR and GR.

It's baffling that one can claim to be educated in the sciences and simultaneously claim that Relativity is bogus.

The math wouldn't work if the explanation was wrong.


I've yet to see a theory which actually has ties to reality and doesn't invoke new and unnecessary phenomena to explain these effects better than Relativity does.


It isn't a theory of measurement of motion, and it isn't a purely mathematical abstraction.

Quantum Mechanics... is a theory which hinges ONLY on measurement, and is a purely mathematical abstraction.

Methinks you have your paradigms reversed completely, because you literally gave the exact description of what QM is, for what you claim (very wrongly) GR is.


I didn't think you to be an anti-relativist... that's kind of saddening if true.

I had to stop going to This site because it was depressing to find people so utterly in denial about reality.

Feel free to provide any argument you may have against Relativity, I've YET to this date manage to see someone argue against Relativity who actually knows what the theory itself states.


That's kind of important, you know... to understand what you're arguing against.