The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Science & Alternative Science => Topic started by: Алёна on October 31, 2022, 07:49:15 PM
-
(I posted this on the other site and decided to copy and paste it here for the same reasons but I edited it and added more detail)
According to Einstein's theory of General relativity. As something speeds up, time slows down.
This, in fact, can lead to time travel into the future if you travel at almost the speed of light but you can't travel exactly at the speed of light or time would stop completely, plus, it would take more energy than avalibile in the universe, as Einstein observed.
Time travel into the past, however, is more difficult as in order for time travel into the past, the time machine must exist.
You can only travel back in time to where the time machine existed as without the time machine you may simply disappear.
If you travel back into time the time machine would disappear and you would be stuck even if you did manage to travel to whatever time it is.
So therefore, time travel into the future is as simple as going near the speed of light.
A theory says that black holes might allow you to time travel into the past if you could use a machine to open the blackhole for long enough.
The end you would come out of would be what's known as a "whitehole" (it pushs things out unlike blackholes which suck things in)
It says that if you did make it out then you might be able to go back in time to a random time.
However, testing this theory would be impossible for many reasons, but not limited to:
Death
The nearest black hole is light years away
There is no such machine that can do such things
THIS IS A SERIOUS POST ABOUT MY RESEARCH ON TIME TRAVEL
-
I easiest way for me to understand "light" is to compare it to sound. If a person travels faster then the sound of the bullet, he will never hear it. If he travels towards the bullet, then he iw travelling faster then its sound wave.
If you travel away from earth faster then light, then you will see the past or whatever image you are moving away from. if you stop, the image of earth will catch up. i dont' know about approaching earth and seeing earth at another time.. And what about the sound of earth... if you can "see" a particular time on earth, you may not hear its sound because sound travels at a different speed. you'd see the 1900's, but hear the sounds of the 1700's.
-
Really we're all traveling into the future all the time.
-
I'm a time traveler from the past.
Last weekend, I was drinking and blacked out. Then I woke up 5 hours in the future. I've been struggling to get back to my time ever since.
-
Time travel in the past, if it were possible, would kill you.
1. The Earth is constantly moving in the universe, not only around the sun but through space. So the position of something on Earth say... an hour ago, isn't the same spot in space. You'd end up appearing in the vaccume of space.
2. If you could anchor yourself so #1 doesn't matter, you'll materialize in a space with matter. And two atoms can't coexist in the same space so at best, you'd have air bubbles form inside your body and you'd die. AT worse, you'd fuse your atoms with the surrounding matirial and undergo nuclear fusion.
3. You can't change anything in the past so why the hell would you bother?
-
3. You can't change anything in the past so why the hell would you bother?
To bear witness to historic events?
-
3. You can't change anything in the past so why the hell would you bother?
To bear witness to historic events?
To play winning lottery numbers? Pick up some soon to be extremely rare collectables really cheap?
-
3. You can't change anything in the past so why the hell would you bother?
To bear witness to historic events?
To play winning lottery numbers? Pick up some soon to be extremely rare collectables really cheap?
Both of which alter history by having you there. Unless you were there originally.
-
Time travel in the past, if it were possible, would kill you.
1. The Earth is constantly moving in the universe, not only around the sun but through space. So the position of something on Earth say... an hour ago, isn't the same spot in space. You'd end up appearing in the vaccume of space.
2. If you could anchor yourself so #1 doesn't matter, you'll materialize in a space with matter. And two atoms can't coexist in the same space so at best, you'd have air bubbles form inside your body and you'd die. AT worse, you'd fuse your atoms with the surrounding matirial and undergo nuclear fusion.
3. You can't change anything in the past so why the hell would you bother?
Let's alter history so Hitler is a gay jewish porn star.
After all, he hated everyone that wasn't straight, German, and pretty much anything not related to German's.
-
Time travel in the past, if it were possible, would kill you.
1. The Earth is constantly moving in the universe, not only around the sun but through space. So the position of something on Earth say... an hour ago, isn't the same spot in space. You'd end up appearing in the vaccume of space.
2. If you could anchor yourself so #1 doesn't matter, you'll materialize in a space with matter. And two atoms can't coexist in the same space so at best, you'd have air bubbles form inside your body and you'd die. AT worse, you'd fuse your atoms with the surrounding matirial and undergo nuclear fusion.
3. You can't change anything in the past so why the hell would you bother?
Let's alter history so Hitler is a gay jewish porn star.
After all, he hated everyone that wasn't straight, German, and pretty much anything not related to German's.
And... how would you do that?
-
Time travel in the past, if it were possible, would kill you.
1. The Earth is constantly moving in the universe, not only around the sun but through space. So the position of something on Earth say... an hour ago, isn't the same spot in space. You'd end up appearing in the vaccume of space.
2. If you could anchor yourself so #1 doesn't matter, you'll materialize in a space with matter. And two atoms can't coexist in the same space so at best, you'd have air bubbles form inside your body and you'd die. AT worse, you'd fuse your atoms with the surrounding matirial and undergo nuclear fusion.
3. You can't change anything in the past so why the hell would you bother?
Let's alter history so Hitler is a gay jewish porn star.
After all, he hated everyone that wasn't straight, German, and pretty much anything not related to German's.
And... how would you do that?
Make his mother have sex with a Jewish man. Make homosexuality loom a lot in his life. And force him into movies.
-
3. You can't change anything in the past so why the hell would you bother?
To bear witness to historic events?
To play winning lottery numbers? Pick up some soon to be extremely rare collectables really cheap?
Both of which alter history by having you there. Unless you were there originally.
An interesting conundrum. If I go back to late '09 and drop $10K on bitcoin and hold onto it taking 10 million bitcoin out of circulation so to speak, does bitcoin reach $60K or have I altered its value.
-
3. You can't change anything in the past so why the hell would you bother?
To bear witness to historic events?
To play winning lottery numbers? Pick up some soon to be extremely rare collectables really cheap?
Both of which alter history by having you there. Unless you were there originally.
An interesting conundrum. If I go back to late '09 and drop $10K on bitcoin and hold onto it taking 10 million bitcoin out of circulation so to speak, does bitcoin reach $60K or have I altered its value.
Odds are... They'd be locked in a wallet with no way to get access to it. Or stolen. Lost to you forever because you didn't maintian it.
-
3. You can't change anything in the past so why the hell would you bother?
To bear witness to historic events?
To play winning lottery numbers? Pick up some soon to be extremely rare collectables really cheap?
Both of which alter history by having you there. Unless you were there originally.
An interesting conundrum. If I go back to late '09 and drop $10K on bitcoin and hold onto it taking 10 million bitcoin out of circulation so to speak, does bitcoin reach $60K or have I altered its value.
Odds are... They'd be locked in a wallet with no way to get access to it. Or stolen. Lost to you forever because you didn't maintian it.
I agree with Dave. Chances are, you lost your shit.
-
My being able to recover them isn't the issue. Would my interference in the trading of bitcoin have a significant effect on how the value has changed over the past 13 years?
-
My being able to recover them isn't the issue. Would my interference in the trading of bitcoin have a significant effect on how the value has changed over the past 13 years?
Likely.
It might be higher.
-
Time travel is not possible.
The future is unresolved potential and the past is deresolved potential.
You can't travel to the future because it doesn't exist and if you travel to the past, you'll de-rez.
Besides, if time travel were possible, people from the future would be here trolling us, making fun of how primitive we are. You know people in the future are going to be serious assholes.
-
Time travel is not possible.
Besides, if time travel were possible, people from the future would be here trolling us, making fun of how primitive we are. You know people in the future are going to be serious assholes.
Your posit, then, is that Time Travel is proven to be false due to the absence of trolls and assholes on the internet.
I see.
-
Besides, if time travel were possible, people from the future would be here trolling us
Who's to say they aren't? Have you seen Twitter?
-
Time itself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to "travel through time". There's absolutely zero evidence that the past or future exists in any way.
-
Time itself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to "travel through time". There's absolutely zero evidence that the past or future exists in any way.
Rushy himself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to "meet him irl". There's absolutely zero evidence that Rushy exists in any way.
-
Time itself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to "travel through time". There's absolutely zero evidence that the past or future exists in any way.
Rushy himself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to "meet him irl". There's absolutely zero evidence that Rushy exists in any way.
This is true but not relevant to my original point.
-
Rushy is correct.
We know that past did exist and that the future will exist, but our understanding of the universe says that only the now exists. Everything else is just evidence of change left in the now. Like photos or writing or memory. All of it only exists now.
-
Rushy is correct.
We know that past did exist and that the future will exist, but our understanding of the universe says that only the now exists. Everything else is just evidence of change left in the now. Like photos or writing or memory. All of it only exists now.
Not necessarily. Have you heard of the time loaf theory? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/slicing-the-spacetime-loaf.248893/ (Yes I know a forum isn't exactly a credible source, but they hit a lot of key points and aren't talking in science jargon. I can grab a more credible source if you request I though.)
-
Rushy is correct.
We know that past did exist and that the future will exist, but our understanding of the universe says that only the now exists. Everything else is just evidence of change left in the now. Like photos or writing or memory. All of it only exists now.
Not necessarily. Have you heard of the time loaf theory? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/slicing-the-spacetime-loaf.248893/ (Yes I know a forum isn't exactly a credible source, but they hit a lot of key points and aren't talking in science jargon. I can grab a more credible source if you request I though.)
This isn't a correct understanding of relativity. It requires that you somehow know what two observers in two different frames are observing simultaneously (which simply isn't possible!). You can always state that two observers will observe radically different 'now' realities, but those two 'now' realities are always happening 'now' to the observer. Put another way: you cannot observe a time that is not 'now' in your own frame.
It's not possible for you, as an observer, to be in multiple frames at one time observing multiple realities. This further proves that time itself is merely an observer phenomenon, it is not a real quality that exists external to the observer.
-
Time itself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to "travel through time". There's absolutely zero evidence that the past or future exists in any way.
Rushy himself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to "meet him irl". There's absolutely zero evidence that Rushy exists in any way.
This is true but not relevant to my original point.
AHA! ADMIT YOU'RE AN ALT OF PARSIFAL!
-
Rushy is correct.
We know that past did exist and that the future will exist, but our understanding of the universe says that only the now exists. Everything else is just evidence of change left in the now. Like photos or writing or memory. All of it only exists now.
Not necessarily. Have you heard of the time loaf theory? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/slicing-the-spacetime-loaf.248893/ (Yes I know a forum isn't exactly a credible source, but they hit a lot of key points and aren't talking in science jargon. I can grab a more credible source if you request I though.)
It doesn't change anything. Time dialation does not alter space or create space. Things just go slower or faster, depending on your frame of reference.
Your 'now' is still the same, just moves slower. And doesn't require the universe to exist in the past or future.
-
Rushy is correct.
We know that past did exist and that the future will exist, but our understanding of the universe says that only the now exists. Everything else is just evidence of change left in the now. Like photos or writing or memory. All of it only exists now.
Not necessarily. Have you heard of the time loaf theory? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/slicing-the-spacetime-loaf.248893/ (Yes I know a forum isn't exactly a credible source, but they hit a lot of key points and aren't talking in science jargon. I can grab a more credible source if you request I though.)
It doesn't change anything. Time dialation does not alter space or create space. Things just go slower or faster, depending on your frame of reference.
Your 'now' is still the same, just moves slower. And doesn't require the universe to exist in the past or future.
Since some people don't know what time dilation is, I'll explain it in a simple way.
As things go faster, time moves slower for them.
That's the short simple version.
-
This isn't a correct understanding of relativity. It requires that you somehow know what two observers in two different frames are observing simultaneously (which simply isn't possible!). You can always state that two observers will observe radically different 'now' realities, but those two 'now' realities are always happening 'now' to the observer. Put another way: you cannot observe a time that is not 'now' in your own frame.
No it doesn’t. Just because an event isn’t accessible to an observer doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
BRIAN GREENE: And if that's not strange enough, the direction you move makes a difference, too. Watch what happens when the alien turns around and bikes toward Earth. The alien's new "now slice" is angled to…toward the future, and so it includes events that won't happen on Earth for 200 years: perhaps our friend's great-great-great granddaughter teleporting from Paris to New York.
Once we know that your now can be what I consider the past, or your now can be what I consider the future, and your now is every bit as valid as my now, then we learn that the past must be real, the future must be real. They could be your now. That means past, present, future…all equally real; they all exist.
SEAN CARROLL: If you believe the laws of physics, there's just as much reality to the future and the past as there is to the present moment.
MAX TEGMARK: The past is not gone, and the future isn't non-existent. The past, the future and the present are all existing in exactly the same way.[/quote]
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-fabric-of-the-cosmos-the-illusion-of-time/
The loaf analogy comes from Brian Greene’s book The Fabric of the Cosmos is an analogy for spacetime (a concept of relativity) and is based on relativity, so you aren’t right saying that the analogy isn’t a correct understanding of relativity. Relativity isn't compatible with presentism ( only the present is real)
It doesn't change anything. Time dialation does not alter space or create space. Things just go slower or faster, depending on your frame of reference.
Your 'now' is still the same, just moves slower. And doesn't require the universe to exist in the past or future
Time dilation is what makes your “now” different from someone else’s “now”. Your “now” could be their future and according to relativity, their frame of reference (the future) is just as valid as yours, therefore it exists to the same extent as your “now” does.
-
Rushy himself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to "meet him irl". There's absolutely zero evidence that Rushy exists in any way.
okay but i met him irl literally almost a year ago to the day
-
Rushy himself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to "meet him irl". There's absolutely zero evidence that Rushy exists in any way.
okay but i met him irl literally almost a year ago to the day
You see, Rushy, they do exist. They're just invisible and otherwise imperceivable, but they're out there. You know it's true because GoldCashew, a man on the Internet, said so.
-
This isn't a correct understanding of relativity. It requires that you somehow know what two observers in two different frames are observing simultaneously (which simply isn't possible!). You can always state that two observers will observe radically different 'now' realities, but those two 'now' realities are always happening 'now' to the observer. Put another way: you cannot observe a time that is not 'now' in your own frame.
No it doesn’t. Just because an event isn’t accessible to an observer doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
BRIAN GREENE: And if that's not strange enough, the direction you move makes a difference, too. Watch what happens when the alien turns around and bikes toward Earth. The alien's new "now slice" is angled to…toward the future, and so it includes events that won't happen on Earth for 200 years: perhaps our friend's great-great-great granddaughter teleporting from Paris to New York.
Once we know that your now can be what I consider the past, or your now can be what I consider the future, and your now is every bit as valid as my now, then we learn that the past must be real, the future must be real. They could be your now. That means past, present, future…all equally real; they all exist.
SEAN CARROLL: If you believe the laws of physics, there's just as much reality to the future and the past as there is to the present moment.
MAX TEGMARK: The past is not gone, and the future isn't non-existent. The past, the future and the present are all existing in exactly the same way.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-fabric-of-the-cosmos-the-illusion-of-time/
The loaf analogy comes from Brian Greene’s book The Fabric of the Cosmos is an analogy for spacetime (a concept of relativity) and is based on relativity, so you aren’t right saying that the analogy isn’t a correct understanding of relativity. Relativity isn't compatible with presentism ( only the present is real)
It doesn't change anything. Time dialation does not alter space or create space. Things just go slower or faster, depending on your frame of reference.
Your 'now' is still the same, just moves slower. And doesn't require the universe to exist in the past or future
Time dilation is what makes your “now” different from someone else’s “now”. Your “now” could be their future and according to relativity, their frame of reference (the future) is just as valid as yours, therefore it exists to the same extent as your “now” does.
[/quote]
That's absolute nonsense.
Time dialation changes your perception of the flow of time around you, not make you magically in the past if you look far away.
Mathematically, it may work, but math doesn't always translate to reality. (See -1)
It also strongly implies that an entire copy of the universe exists in every moment in time. Which would require infinite matter and energy to do.
-
That's absolute nonsense.
Time dialation changes your perception of the flow of time around you, not make you magically in the past if you look far away.
Mathematically, it may work, but math doesn't always translate to reality. (See -1)
It also strongly implies that an entire copy of the universe exists in every moment in time. Which would require infinite matter and energy to do.
If your clock is running slower than mine, my future is your now. Being able to see it or experience has nothing to do with whether or not something exists. I can’t see or experience Mt. Everest right now, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I’m not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything, I’m just pointing out that block time is the logical outcome of relativity. Relativity is about spacetime, space and time are fused in a single entity. If all of space exists at a given moment, then all of time does too. You can’t separate them.
If the only reality is now and now is subjective, depending on your frame of reference, then reality is subjective and depends on your frame of reference. Things would exist in only certain frames of reference and not in others. That doesn’t comport with reality. There is such a thing as objective reality.
And it wouldn’t take “infinite” energy. It would take all the energy in the universe to maintain everything that exists in the universe, and that sounds about right.
You are free to disagree that relativity leads to block time of course. Just pointing out that you are disagreeing with virtually every world class physicist (and even not world class) there is.
-
That's absolute nonsense.
Time dialation changes your perception of the flow of time around you, not make you magically in the past if you look far away.
Mathematically, it may work, but math doesn't always translate to reality. (See -1)
It also strongly implies that an entire copy of the universe exists in every moment in time. Which would require infinite matter and energy to do.
If your clock is running slower than mine, my future is your now. Being able to see it or experience has nothing to do with whether or not something exists. I can’t see or experience Mt. Everest right now, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
No. That makes no logical sense. Because NOW is not determined by a clock. Our "Now" will be identical. The only difference is that from YOUR perspective, I'm going very slowly. From my perspective, you're going very fast. Same now, different perceived speed. Yes, I'll SEE your future as it unfolds faster than mine, but that's only because I'm moving slower than you.
Lets say I'm moving at a ratio of 1 second to 1 hour. You have the hour, I have the second. If you were to throw a ball at me, from my perspective, I wouldn't even SEE it before it slammed into my face. It would just hit me. It wouldn't hit me in the future, nor would I see it comming. It would just hit me. Because NOW happens no matter how slow your time is.
I’m not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything, I’m just pointing out that block time is the logical outcome of relativity. Relativity is about spacetime, space and time are fused in a single entity. If all of space exists at a given moment, then all of time does too. You can’t separate them.
If the only reality is now and now is subjective, depending on your frame of reference, then reality is subjective and depends on your frame of reference. Things would exist in only certain frames of reference and not in others. That doesn’t comport with reality. There is such a thing as objective reality.
And it wouldn’t take “infinite” energy. It would take all the energy in the universe to maintain everything that exists in the universe, and that sounds about right.
You are free to disagree that relativity leads to block time of course. Just pointing out that you are disagreeing with virtually every world class physicist (and even not world class) there is.
Let me make sure we're on the same page before I go off and try to argue against every world class physicist.
According to the bread analogy, if an alien 10 billion lightyears away walks away from the Earth, he's suddenly in the same slice of time as Behtoven. AKA 1804.
Lets say this alien can teleport or make a wormhole to move between two points in space instantly.
By this analogy, if he were to be walking away from the Earth then teleport to the earth, he'd be in 1804 instead of 2022.
This tells me that every single state of the universe from the big bang to the end exists, physically, like a moviestrip. Every single moment in time has an exact copy of the entire universe, ready for someone to just walk into it.
That's how I interprited the bread theory and why I think it's stupid. Because that means that there must be separate, phsycial copies of all the energy and matter in the universe for every moment of its existence. Which is about as close to infinity as you can get.
-
Rushy himself isn't real, therefore it isn't possible to "meet him irl". There's absolutely zero evidence that Rushy exists in any way.
okay but i met him irl literally almost a year ago to the day
So you met Parisfal irl?
-
So you met Parisfal irl?
She's actually also Parsifal, silly.
-
So you met Parisfal irl?
She's actually also Parsifal, silly.
Parsifal in the past.
-
According to the bread analogy, if an alien 10 billion lightyears away walks away from the Earth, he's suddenly in the same slice of time as Behtoven. AKA 1804.
Lets say this alien can teleport or make a wormhole to move between two points in space instantly.
By this analogy, if he were to be walking away from the Earth then teleport to the earth, he'd be in 1804 instead of 2022.
This tells me that every single state of the universe from the big bang to the end exists, physically, like a moviestrip. Every single moment in time has an exact copy of the entire universe, ready for someone to just walk into it.
You are pretty close, but I don't understand why you think there would have to be any "copies". Each moment exists only once. There is only one reality and we experience it according to our reference frame, the point in spacetime we at determines what "now" is.
I get that it is hard to wrap your head around, but the logic can't be denied.
According to presentism, only the present exists. But according to special relativity, which events occur simultaneously (and are therefore co-present) depends on a frame of reference. So something can both exist and not exist, depending on which frame of reference you are looking from. That's absurd.
Anyway, whether you agree with it or not, my original point was that block time isn't inconsistent with relativity...which somebody claimed, not sure if it was you, though. In fact, its well accepted science that relativity requires it.
Sean Carroll said "If you believe the laws of physics, there's just as much reality to the future and the past as there is to the present moment."
-
According to the bread analogy, if an alien 10 billion lightyears away walks away from the Earth, he's suddenly in the same slice of time as Behtoven. AKA 1804.
Lets say this alien can teleport or make a wormhole to move between two points in space instantly.
By this analogy, if he were to be walking away from the Earth then teleport to the earth, he'd be in 1804 instead of 2022.
This tells me that every single state of the universe from the big bang to the end exists, physically, like a moviestrip. Every single moment in time has an exact copy of the entire universe, ready for someone to just walk into it.
You are pretty close, but I don't understand why you think there would have to be any "copies". Each moment exists only once. There is only one reality and we experience it according to our reference frame, the point in spacetime we at determines what "now" is.
Because if an alien from 2022 can travel to 1804, while I, who stay in 2022, exist, then there must be two copies of the universe. One in 1804, one in 2022. Or at least the information of its configuration must be such that it can be reconfigured once you are in 1804 to be that time.
Perhaps the problem is I don't understand "blocktime" because right now its sounding like every event exists all at once and you can do things like move from the future to the past and have all the matter and energy in the past configuration without affecting anyone in the now. Which implies that either the universe has copies, or I reversed all the entropy in the universe to a specific point.
-
Because if an alien from 2022 can travel to 1804, while I, who stay in 2022, exist, then there must be two copies of the universe. One in 1804, one in 2022. Or at least the information of its configuration must be such that it can be reconfigured once you are in 1804 to be that time.
Perhaps the problem is I don't understand "blocktime" because right now its sounding like every event exists all at once and you can do things like move from the future to the past and have all the matter and energy in the past configuration without affecting anyone in the now. Which implies that either the universe has copies, or I reversed all the entropy in the universe to a specific point.
You and the alien would just be viewing the same “original” event from two different reference frames. Before he travels, both of your reference frames are the same, now. The alien changes his reference frame when he travels back. Your frame is still your now, but his now becomes your past.
The people on an airplane traveling towards a lightning strike will perceive it before someone stationary on the ground. They don’t see an “original” strike and a “copy” strike. They see the same strike from two different reference frames.
Your analogy of a movie was pretty close. Changing reference frames or “teleporting” to the past or future would be the analog of rewinding or fast forwarding the movie. There’s only one movie. Nothing about it has to change or be copied to fast forward or rewind. The only thing that changes is which part of it you are experiencing.
-
Because if an alien from 2022 can travel to 1804, while I, who stay in 2022, exist, then there must be two copies of the universe. One in 1804, one in 2022. Or at least the information of its configuration must be such that it can be reconfigured once you are in 1804 to be that time.
Perhaps the problem is I don't understand "blocktime" because right now its sounding like every event exists all at once and you can do things like move from the future to the past and have all the matter and energy in the past configuration without affecting anyone in the now. Which implies that either the universe has copies, or I reversed all the entropy in the universe to a specific point.
You and the alien would just be viewing the same “original” event from two different reference frames. Before he travels, both of your reference frames are the same, now. The alien changes his reference frame when he travels back. Your frame is still your now, but his now becomes your past.
The people on an airplane traveling towards a lightning strike will perceive it before someone stationary on the ground. They don’t see an “original” strike and a “copy” strike. They see the same strike from two different reference frames.
Your analogy of a movie was pretty close. Changing reference frames or “teleporting” to the past or future would be the analog of rewinding or fast forwarding the movie. There’s only one movie. Nothing about it has to change or be copied to fast forward or rewind. The only thing that changes is which part of it you are experiencing.
The difference is that I see a lightning strike's effects (photons) as they travel. Their incremental changes in position. So frame of reference is just where I am when the photons hit my eyes.
This is entirely different. This is seeing photons that stopped traveling before you were born. So either those photons have to always exist, or the universe needs to rewind with everything except you.
To out it this way:
If I fire a photon at a wall, it hits it, is absorbed, and emits another photon.
How can I see that first photon after it was absorbed? Its gone. So it either exists in the past in such a way as to physically exist for me to interact with after its gone or I need to un-emit the photon.
-
If I fire a photon at a wall, it hits it, is absorbed, and emits another photon.
How can I see that first photon after it was absorbed? Its gone. So it either exists in the past in such a way as to physically exist for me to interact with after its gone or I need to un-emit the photon.
If you stay in the same reference frame, you can’t. But theoretically, if you could change your reference frame, you could travel back to a time before the photon was absorbed. It doesn’t need to be un-emitted.
You are getting hung up on the time travel stuff, you are missing the bigger picture.
The difference is that I see a lightning strike's effects (photons) as they travel. Their incremental changes in position. So frame of reference is just where I am when the photons hit my eyes.
A lightning strike is an event and so is each incremental change in position of a photon. An event either happens simultaneously in two different reference frames or it doesn’t. Einstein used the example of two lighting strikes on either end of a moving train. From the platform, the strikes would appear simultaneous. From the train, they wouldn’t. Relativity says that if the frames are in relative motion, events won’t happen simultaneously. Time is literally experienced differently. That makes makes presentism logically impossible.
If you think that means there must be an infinite number of copies of every moment in the universe, your problem is with relativity, not block time.
-
I read up a bit.
Then flashed of college physics comes to mind and I remember how much I hated frame of reference in Relativity....
-
I read up a bit.
Then flashed of college physics comes to mind and I remember how much I hated frame of reference in Relativity....
It can definitely be hard to wrap your head around.
-
So you met Parisfal irl?
She's actually also Parsifal, silly.
I suspect Pete is actually not an alt of Parsifal as Pete happens to beat her meat everyday.
Or maybe finger but I'm not sure.
-
No it doesn’t. Just because an event isn’t accessible to an observer doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Actually that's exactly what it means. An event that you cannot observe does not exist. It's not real, it didn't happen. It's why relativity is fraught with meaningless thought experiments: because the real experiment requires the observer be in multiple reference frames simultaneously. The best you can ever do is have two different observers record their findings and assume that neither of them is lying. In other words, they existed in two different realities, then you must combine them into one reality and have them talk about two different realities that don't provably exist anymore.
That the past 'exists' is simply false. There's no mathematical way to verify it exists. You can't calculate the past based on the present and the present is all you ever have access to view. To think otherwise is to claim you can observe a water molecule and calculate its origin when that obviously isn't correct.
-
The only thing that exists as of this moment is the present.
We are always in the present, even if we time travel it would seem like we're in the future but we're actually in the present still.
It just seems like the future as things have changed but we're just in today's present.