[Алёна]

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.

[Rushy]

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.

[Lord Dave]

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.

[Magicalus]

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]

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.

[Алёна]

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!

[Lord Dave]

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.

[Алёна]

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.

[Knickknack]

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.

[juner]

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

[Magicalus]

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.

[Lord Dave]

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. 

[Knickknack]

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.
 

[Lord Dave]

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.

[Алёна]

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?

[Pete Svarrior]

So you met Parisfal irl?

She's actually also Parsifal, silly.

[Rama Set]

So you met Parisfal irl?

She's actually also Parsifal, silly.

Parsifal in the past.

[Knickknack]

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."

[Lord Dave]

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.

[Knickknack]

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.