Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #461193 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-30 11:19 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-01-01 20:45 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written
Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 11:19 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 13:13 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 13:20 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2016-12-30 21:30 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 15:24 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 20:25 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 20:28 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 13:03 +1100
How to travel in time Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2016-12-31 02:38 +0000
Re: How to travel in time William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2017-01-01 20:48 -0800
Re: How to travel in time Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-01-02 00:02 -0600
Re: How to travel in time Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2017-01-02 13:02 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 20:21 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 15:32 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-30 23:05 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-31 19:07 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-31 10:51 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-01 11:44 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-12-31 17:26 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-01 13:10 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Yuri Kretin <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2017-01-01 11:18 -0600
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-01 16:48 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-02 12:03 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-01 21:07 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-02 16:25 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-02 10:19 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-03 14:54 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-03 21:18 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-04 16:45 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-03 21:53 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-05 11:38 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-06 11:18 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 16:45 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-05 17:50 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-06 13:29 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-06 09:13 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-07 11:57 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-10 11:34 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-10 09:14 -0800
Re: Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2017-01-10 17:12 -0500
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-11 22:40 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-01-06 00:37 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-06 09:06 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 09:18 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-06 09:24 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 10:00 -0700
Gutless whining (was Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2017-01-06 09:50 -0800
Re: Gutless whining (was Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-01-06 10:00 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-01-08 09:11 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2017-01-08 11:55 -0600
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2017-02-04 10:12 -0500
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible nance@math.ohio-state.edu (Anthony Nance) - 2017-02-06 13:27 +0000
Re: Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2017-01-07 21:43 -0500
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 16:44 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-12-31 12:56 -0500
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible "Michael R N Dolbear" <me@privacy.net> - 2017-01-01 15:07 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-01 16:50 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-01 16:52 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-31 11:21 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2017-01-01 16:00 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-01-01 23:20 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2017-01-01 19:15 -0500
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-01 16:56 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-02 12:14 +1100
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-10 09:29 -0800
Re: Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2017-01-10 14:04 -0500
Re: Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2017-01-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-11 23:21 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-12 15:11 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-12 08:55 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-12 22:09 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-13 10:39 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-13 22:37 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-13 22:41 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-13 23:00 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-14 15:25 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-14 10:16 -0800
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-01-14 21:28 +0000
Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-01-13 23:44 -0800
Re: Re: Time Travel Is Not Possible Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2017-01-01 20:45 -0500
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 23:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ecu9pmF93n8U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461319 |
Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> wrote: >*** I want to travel back in time, so that I can >get back my girlfriend, my dog and my pickem-up >truck ... That's easy. You play your country music backwards. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 19:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fo6j6cl983qptq87vcgee3bi4p8g10nheg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #461193 |
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:19:46 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >lets say >you travel back in time >in a time machine and your >time machine lands on your >grandfather and kills him... > > >Time Travel Is Not Possible. And...? I don't claim (or know) if "time travel" back in time is possible, I'm just pointing out that your evidence/argument does not preclude it. Your old "grandfather/father/? paradox" is easily disposed of but there are some other difficulties which have to be overcome if you travel to the past and then return to the present. In your example, if your grandfather is alive in the present before you leave for the past, the grandfather you fall on in the past dies but that doesn't affect the grandfather you have when you return to the present. He is a separate entity. He is just as you left him (alive). Obviously he could have coincidentally died while you were "neglecting/relieving" him by traveling in time (lol) but it would have nothing to do with anything you did in the past to his earlier entity. Say you "go" back in time 20 years. This probably requires non-zero time. Two versions of your grandfather (entities) must exist (a present and a past version) while you are in transit. Any changes made in the past normally propagate forward in time at the speed of time (1 second per second). They would normally take 20 years to arrive at (affect) the present you left. I believe the only way to experience changes made in the past is to remain in that past. The present you start from is a different part of the timeline. The past is also a different part of the timeline. These two separate timeline segments do not normally interact directly. Btw, "my" timeline is infinite in both directions. As I replied about 20 years ago (in sci.physics) to a similar statement/question, one way of looking at it is to assign every object in the universe a location in space (x, y, z). Btw, "my" universe is an x, y, z coordinate grid of infinite size (volume). Each location is specified by a location in space (x, y, z) along with a location in time (t, s). "s", the second time coordinate, describes its "shift" or distance from you on the timeline. At s = -20 years on the timeline, you find the universe as it was 20 years ago. Your "time machine" must also change x, y, & z (spatial location) since these usually change with time for anything that's moving (like a planet and everything on it). The "s" gives your time machine's "time shift" from its start time (present) and the t gives its current location (in time). Also, the fact that you are going into the past implies you are going into a different past (one with a different "s") because, let's face it, in the original past, no one popped in with a time machine, now did they. So when you go back 20 years into the past, your coordinates change from (x, y, z, t, s) to (x, y, z, t', s'). Normally, when not time traveling, "s" remains constant and "t" increases at the normal "speed of time" which is 1 second per second as we are currently traveling inexorably into the future at 1 second per second. I've tried to give you a "theory" without resorting to what you said you didn't want to hear. Your welcome. P.S. Killing your grandfather won't help - lol. Mike See you at the show trials - lol. --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 16:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5869A521.5FCE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #461410 |
Michael J. Strickland wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:19:46 -0800, The Starmaker > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >lets say > >you travel back in time > >in a time machine and your > >time machine lands on your > >grandfather and kills him... > > > > > >Time Travel Is Not Possible. > > And...? > > I don't claim (or know) if "time travel" back in time is possible, I'm > just pointing out that your evidence/argument does not preclude it. > > Your old "grandfather/father/? paradox" is easily disposed of but > there are some other difficulties which have to be overcome if you > travel to the past and then return to the present. > > In your example, if your grandfather is alive in the present before > you leave for the past, the grandfather you fall on in the past dies > but that doesn't affect the grandfather you have when you return to > the present. He is a separate entity. He is just as you left him > (alive). Obviously he could have coincidentally died while you were > "neglecting/relieving" him by traveling in time (lol) but it would > have nothing to do with anything you did in the past to his earlier > entity. THAT IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING I EVER HEARD! I guess it gets more ridiculous if i continue reading..(if you follow the second law) > > Say you "go" back in time 20 years. This probably requires non-zero > time. Two versions of your grandfather (entities) must exist (a > present and a past version) while you are in transit. Any changes made > in the past normally propagate forward in time at the speed of time (1 > second per second). They would normally take 20 years to arrive at > (affect) the present you left. > > I believe the only way to experience changes made in the past is to > remain in that past. The present you start from is a different part of > the timeline. The past is also a different part of the timeline. These > two separate timeline segments do not normally interact directly. Btw, > "my" timeline is infinite in both directions. > > As I replied about 20 years ago (in sci.physics) to a similar > statement/question, one way of looking at it is to assign every object > in the universe a location in space (x, y, z). Btw, "my" universe is > an x, y, z coordinate grid of infinite size (volume). Each location > is specified by a location in space (x, y, z) along with a location in > time (t, s). "s", the second time coordinate, describes its "shift" or > distance from you on the timeline. At s = -20 years on the timeline, > you find the universe as it was 20 years ago. Your "time machine" must > also change x, y, & z (spatial location) since these usually change > with time for anything that's moving (like a planet and everything on > it). The "s" gives your time machine's "time shift" from its start > time (present) and the t gives its current location (in time). > > Also, the fact that you are going into the past implies you are going > into a different past (one with a different "s") because, let's face > it, in the original past, no one popped in with a time machine, now > did they. > > So when you go back 20 years into the past, your coordinates change > from (x, y, z, t, s) to (x, y, z, t', s'). Normally, when not time > traveling, "s" remains constant and "t" increases at the normal "speed > of time" which is 1 second per second as we are currently traveling > inexorably into the future at 1 second per second. > > I've tried to give you a "theory" without resorting to what you said > you didn't want to hear. Your welcome. > > P.S. Killing your grandfather won't help - lol. > > Mike > See you at the show trials - lol. > --------------------------------------------------- > Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA > ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-02 12:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ectnrnF5fvnU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #461415 |
On 2/01/2017 11:56 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > Michael J. Strickland wrote: >> >> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:19:46 -0800, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>> lets say >>> you travel back in time >>> in a time machine and your >>> time machine lands on your >>> grandfather and kills him... >>> >>> >>> Time Travel Is Not Possible. >> >> And...? >> >> I don't claim (or know) if "time travel" back in time is possible, I'm >> just pointing out that your evidence/argument does not preclude it. >> >> Your old "grandfather/father/? paradox" is easily disposed of but >> there are some other difficulties which have to be overcome if you >> travel to the past and then return to the present. >> >> In your example, if your grandfather is alive in the present before >> you leave for the past, the grandfather you fall on in the past dies >> but that doesn't affect the grandfather you have when you return to >> the present. He is a separate entity. He is just as you left him >> (alive). Obviously he could have coincidentally died while you were >> "neglecting/relieving" him by traveling in time (lol) but it would >> have nothing to do with anything you did in the past to his earlier >> entity. > > THAT IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING I EVER HEARD! It's the outcome if a time traveller causes a branch in the past, but returns to his original time line when he goes back to the future. Such behaviour could also explain the lack of time travellers visiting us from the future - it would just mean that we are on the original time line for all of them. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-10 09:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58751A0B.6D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #461418 |
Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 10/01/2017 8:20 AM, Sharilyn Vore wrote: > > Sylvia Else wrote: > > > >>>> It's the outcome if a time traveller causes a branch in the past, but > >>>> returns to his original time line when he goes back to the future. > >>> > >>> Cant go back to a future. Absurd contradiction. > >>> > >> Are you under the impression that arguing about semantics (or even just > >> the meaning of words) contributes anything to our knowledge in this > >> area? > > > > That's not semantics, lady. Read again. The thing is absurd, end of story. > > > > You're not advancing your position very much. What exactly is it that > you think is absurd, and why? > > Sylvia. Ever heard the expression...never look back? It's very simple, traveling back in time is not possible because Nature does not allow it. It doesn't even encourage you to look back... and if you try..bad things happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-10 14:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cv9a7clkknm83dov2cktheldt9p6f4seur@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #462026 |
... >It's very simple, traveling back in time is not possible because Nature does not allow it. Starmaker: You seem to have some sort of "a priori" objection to the possibility of time travel backward (and forward?). You say nature does not allow it, but we don't know the entirety of what nature does and does not allow currently not to mention what it might allow in the future. Some of nature (e.g. the future) has yet to exist. You could say that the whole point of having science/physics is to discover some inviolable "rules" that do not change in time. I agree with that goal, but we don't know that we have discovered all of those "rules" and/or that we have specified them precisely (i.e got them all correct). Let me put it this way. Suppose I am designing a "nature/universe" or watching it be designed. Time travel adds options so I would include it if I could. Being able to travel in time does not mean anyone or anything must travel in time so the consistency of the universe/timeline could be safeguarded by putting restrictions on time travel (backward) without completely eliminating it. I've spent considerable time trying to determine what those restrictions might be in order to maintain a consistent timeline/universe. >It doesn't even encourage you to look back... > >and if you try..bad things happen. Is one of the "bad things" that happen when you look back, learning and refining knowledge obtained in the past? Would you rather not be able to "look back" (i.e. have memories) that help you avoid repeating past mistakes so that you can have only "good things happening" constantly. How do you measure the "goodness" of these present things if you have no memory of "bad things" to compare them too (lol). Mike See you at the show trials - lol. --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-10 11:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA6F9734838678taustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #462036 |
You are arguing with a retard who likely can't tie his own shows.
You're feeding the troll.
--
Terry Austin
Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-11 23:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58772E85.4B09@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #461418 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > mlwozniak wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Twaddle. Time is a noumenon. It has no substance. > > > > So is the distance. > > Wrong. Distance is length, a dimension of space. > > > > The idea of time travel is as absurd as the idea of number travel. > > Nothing absurd about space travel. Any distance at all. Isn't space and time the same....space? If the earth is traveling around in circles.. then i'm traveling in space... but in circles... that's why it's the same day every day...today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno7f75o.ekf.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #462175 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > mlwozniak wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > Twaddle. Time is a noumenon. It has no substance. > > > > > > So is the distance. > > > > Wrong. Distance is length, a dimension of space. > > > > > > The idea of time travel is as absurd as the idea of number travel. > > > > Nothing absurd about space travel. Any distance at all. > > Isn't space and time the same....space? Of course not. Evewn the comedian One Stone had to postulate time as different than space. > If the earth is traveling around in circles.. > then i'm traveling in space... > but in circles... You do that standing still. > that's why it's the same day every day...today. Wrong. Todays' today today; Today's tomorrow yesterday; Today's yesterday tomorrow; Tomorrow's today tomorrow. ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 08:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5877B4EC.4771@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #462192 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > mlwozniak wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Twaddle. Time is a noumenon. It has no substance. > > > > > > > > So is the distance. > > > > > > Wrong. Distance is length, a dimension of space. > > > > > > > > The idea of time travel is as absurd as the idea of number travel. > > > > > > Nothing absurd about space travel. Any distance at all. > > > > Isn't space and time the same....space? > > Of course not. Evewn the comedian One Stone had to postulate time as > different than space. > > > If the earth is traveling around in circles.. > > then i'm traveling in space... > > but in circles... > > You do that standing still. > > > that's why it's the same day every day...today. > > Wrong. > > Todays' today today; > Today's tomorrow yesterday; > Today's yesterday tomorrow; > Tomorrow's today tomorrow. > > ... it's today now.. come back tomorrow, it's still be today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 22:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno7fvki.p41.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #462205 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > mlwozniak wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Twaddle. Time is a noumenon. It has no substance. > > > > > > > > > > So is the distance. > > > > > > > > Wrong. Distance is length, a dimension of space. > > > > > > > > > > The idea of time travel is as absurd as the idea of number travel. > > > > > > > > Nothing absurd about space travel. Any distance at all. > > > > > > Isn't space and time the same....space? > > > > Of course not. Evewn the comedian One Stone had to postulate time as > > different than space. > > > > > If the earth is traveling around in circles.. > > > then i'm traveling in space... > > > but in circles... > > > > You do that standing still. > > > > > that's why it's the same day every day...today. > > > > Wrong. > > > > Todays' today today; > > Today's tomorrow yesterday; > > Today's yesterday tomorrow; > > Tomorrow's today tomorrow. > > > > ... > > it's today now.. In your mind. > come back tomorrow, it's still be today. In your mind. You just don't get it, do you? It's what I said: all in the mind of man. And the occasional wannbe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 10:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58791EF0.3C31@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #462251 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > mlwozniak wrote: > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twaddle. Time is a noumenon. It has no substance. > > > > > > > > > > > > So is the distance. > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Distance is length, a dimension of space. > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of time travel is as absurd as the idea of number travel. > > > > > > > > > > Nothing absurd about space travel. Any distance at all. > > > > > > > > Isn't space and time the same....space? > > > > > > Of course not. Evewn the comedian One Stone had to postulate time as > > > different than space. > > > > > > > If the earth is traveling around in circles.. > > > > then i'm traveling in space... > > > > but in circles... > > > > > > You do that standing still. > > > > > > > that's why it's the same day every day...today. > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > Todays' today today; > > > Today's tomorrow yesterday; > > > Today's yesterday tomorrow; > > > Tomorrow's today tomorrow. > > > > > > ... > > > > it's today now.. > > In your mind. > > > come back tomorrow, it's still be today. > > In your mind. > > You just don't get it, do you? It's what I said: all in the mind > of man. And the occasional wannbe. I just looked again, it's still today...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 22:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno7ilko.u6q.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #462324 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > mlwozniak wrote: > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twaddle. Time is a noumenon. It has no substance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So is the distance. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Distance is length, a dimension of space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of time travel is as absurd as the idea of number travel. > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing absurd about space travel. Any distance at all. > > > > > > > > > > Isn't space and time the same....space? > > > > > > > > Of course not. Evewn the comedian One Stone had to postulate time as > > > > different than space. > > > > > > > > > If the earth is traveling around in circles.. > > > > > then i'm traveling in space... > > > > > but in circles... > > > > > > > > You do that standing still. > > > > > > > > > that's why it's the same day every day...today. > > > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > > > Todays' today today; > > > > Today's tomorrow yesterday; > > > > Today's yesterday tomorrow; > > > > Tomorrow's today tomorrow. > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > it's today now.. > > > > In your mind. > > > > > come back tomorrow, it's still be today. > > > > In your mind. > > > > You just don't get it, do you? It's what I said: all in the mind > > of man. And the occasional wannbe. > > I just looked again, it's still today... In your mind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 22:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5879C824.335F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #462366 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > mlwozniak wrote: > > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twaddle. Time is a noumenon. It has no substance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So is the distance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Distance is length, a dimension of space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of time travel is as absurd as the idea of number travel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing absurd about space travel. Any distance at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't space and time the same....space? > > > > > > > > > > Of course not. Evewn the comedian One Stone had to postulate time as > > > > > different than space. > > > > > > > > > > > If the earth is traveling around in circles.. > > > > > > then i'm traveling in space... > > > > > > but in circles... > > > > > > > > > > You do that standing still. > > > > > > > > > > > that's why it's the same day every day...today. > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Todays' today today; > > > > > Today's tomorrow yesterday; > > > > > Today's yesterday tomorrow; > > > > > Tomorrow's today tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > it's today now.. > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > > come back tomorrow, it's still be today. > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > You just don't get it, do you? It's what I said: all in the mind > > > of man. And the occasional wannbe. > > > > I just looked again, it's still today... > > In your mind. well, tommorow never seems to come... everytime i look, it's today. it's always....now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 23:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5879CC8E.7706@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #462366 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > mlwozniak wrote: > > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twaddle. Time is a noumenon. It has no substance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So is the distance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Distance is length, a dimension of space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of time travel is as absurd as the idea of number travel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing absurd about space travel. Any distance at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't space and time the same....space? > > > > > > > > > > Of course not. Evewn the comedian One Stone had to postulate time as > > > > > different than space. > > > > > > > > > > > If the earth is traveling around in circles.. > > > > > > then i'm traveling in space... > > > > > > but in circles... > > > > > > > > > > You do that standing still. > > > > > > > > > > > that's why it's the same day every day...today. > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Todays' today today; > > > > > Today's tomorrow yesterday; > > > > > Today's yesterday tomorrow; > > > > > Tomorrow's today tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > it's today now.. > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > > come back tomorrow, it's still be today. > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > You just don't get it, do you? It's what I said: all in the mind > > > of man. And the occasional wannbe. > > > > I just looked again, it's still today... > > In your mind. No, I don't get it. It's either in my mind, or...it is independent of the observer, which is it????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno7kgmp.n9f.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #462406 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > mlwozniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twaddle. Time is a noumenon. It has no substance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So is the distance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Distance is length, a dimension of space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of time travel is as absurd as the idea of number travel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing absurd about space travel. Any distance at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't space and time the same....space? > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course not. Evewn the comedian One Stone had to postulate time as > > > > > > different than space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the earth is traveling around in circles.. > > > > > > > then i'm traveling in space... > > > > > > > but in circles... > > > > > > > > > > > > You do that standing still. > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's why it's the same day every day...today. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > Todays' today today; > > > > > > Today's tomorrow yesterday; > > > > > > Today's yesterday tomorrow; > > > > > > Tomorrow's today tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > it's today now.. > > > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > > > > come back tomorrow, it's still be today. > > > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > > > You just don't get it, do you? It's what I said: all in the mind > > > > of man. And the occasional wannbe. > > > > > > I just looked again, it's still today... > > > > In your mind. > > No, I don't get it. That's because it's in your mind. > It's either in my mind, That's it: in your nind. > or...it is independent of the observer, Not possible. It's all in the mind. > which is it???? In your mind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 10:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <587A6AEE.2BF6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #462417 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > mlwozniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twaddle. Time is a noumenon. It has no substance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So is the distance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Distance is length, a dimension of space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of time travel is as absurd as the idea of number travel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing absurd about space travel. Any distance at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't space and time the same....space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course not. Evewn the comedian One Stone had to postulate time as > > > > > > > different than space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the earth is traveling around in circles.. > > > > > > > > then i'm traveling in space... > > > > > > > > but in circles... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do that standing still. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's why it's the same day every day...today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Todays' today today; > > > > > > > Today's tomorrow yesterday; > > > > > > > Today's yesterday tomorrow; > > > > > > > Tomorrow's today tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > it's today now.. > > > > > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > > > > > > come back tomorrow, it's still be today. > > > > > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > > > > > You just don't get it, do you? It's what I said: all in the mind > > > > > of man. And the occasional wannbe. > > > > > > > > I just looked again, it's still today... > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > No, I don't get it. > > That's because it's in your mind. > > > It's either in my mind, > > That's it: in your nind. > > > or...it is independent of the observer, > > Not possible. It's all in the mind. > > > which is it???? > > In your mind. So, what you are saying is that Time is not physics, it's psychology, psychological, physlosphy. Then, what is this Time twin paradox talk about...older and younger twins...that's phyics isn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-14 21:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrno7l5vl.j9.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #462422 |
The Starmaker wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > mlwozniak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twaddle. Time is a noumenon. It has no substance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So is the distance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Distance is length, a dimension of space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of time travel is as absurd as the > > > > > > > > > > idea of number travel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing absurd about space travel. > > > > > > > > > > Any distance at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't space and time the same....space? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course not. Even the comedian One Stone had to > > > > > > > > postulate time as different than space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the earth is traveling around in circles.. > > > > > > > > > then i'm traveling in space... > > > > > > > > > but in circles... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You do that standing still. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's why it's the same day every day...today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Todays' today today; > > > > > > > > Today's tomorrow yesterday; > > > > > > > > Today's yesterday tomorrow; > > > > > > > > Tomorrow's today tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's today now.. > > > > > > > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > come back tomorrow, it's still be today. > > > > > > > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > You just don't get it, do you? It's what I said: all in > > > > > > the mind of man. And the occasional wannbe. > > > > > > > > > > I just looked again, it's still today... > > > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > No, I don't get it. > > > > That's because it's in your mind. > > > > > It's either in my mind, > > > > That's it: in your nind. > > > > > or...it is independent of the observer, > > > > Not possible. It's all in the mind. > > > > > which is it???? > > > > In your mind. > > So, what you are saying is that Time is not physics, Yep. > it's psychology, psychological, physlosphy. No, no, and no (love that third one). Like number, it is a mental tool we use for organizing our weltanshaung. > Then, what is this Time twin paradox talk about...older and younger > twins...that's phyics isn't it? What paradox? Twins don't emerge from the birth canal simultaneously. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 23:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5879D6F3.331F@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #462366 |
Ned Latham wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > mlwozniak wrote: > > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Twaddle. Time is a noumenon. It has no substance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So is the distance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. Distance is length, a dimension of space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of time travel is as absurd as the idea of number travel. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing absurd about space travel. Any distance at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > Isn't space and time the same....space? > > > > > > > > > > Of course not. Evewn the comedian One Stone had to postulate time as > > > > > different than space. > > > > > > > > > > > If the earth is traveling around in circles.. > > > > > > then i'm traveling in space... > > > > > > but in circles... > > > > > > > > > > You do that standing still. > > > > > > > > > > > that's why it's the same day every day...today. > > > > > > > > > > Wrong. > > > > > > > > > > Todays' today today; > > > > > Today's tomorrow yesterday; > > > > > Today's yesterday tomorrow; > > > > > Tomorrow's today tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > it's today now.. > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > > come back tomorrow, it's still be today. > > > > > > In your mind. > > > > > > You just don't get it, do you? It's what I said: all in the mind > > > of man. And the occasional wannbe. > > > > I just looked again, it's still today... > > In your mind. My clock tells me the time it is now...i don't have a....tomorrow clock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-01 20:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mcbj6cl8igf2c53jbva1thum67uo8lkijg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #461415 |
On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 16:56:01 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Michael J. Strickland wrote: >> >> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 11:19:46 -0800, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >lets say >> >you travel back in time >> >in a time machine and your >> >time machine lands on your >> >grandfather and kills him... >> > >> > >> >Time Travel Is Not Possible. >> >> And...? >> >> I don't claim (or know) if "time travel" back in time is possible, I'm >> just pointing out that your evidence/argument does not preclude it. >> >> Your old "grandfather/father/? paradox" is easily disposed of but >> there are some other difficulties which have to be overcome if you >> travel to the past and then return to the present. >> >> In your example, if your grandfather is alive in the present before >> you leave for the past, the grandfather you fall on in the past dies >> but that doesn't affect the grandfather you have when you return to >> the present. He is a separate entity. He is just as you left him >> (alive). Obviously he could have coincidentally died while you were >> "neglecting/relieving" him by traveling in time (lol) but it would >> have nothing to do with anything you did in the past to his earlier >> entity. > >THAT IS THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING I EVER HEARD! > > >I guess it gets more ridiculous if i continue reading..(if you follow >the second law) Second Law of Thermodynamics (Google/Wikipedia): The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system always increases over time, or remains constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state or undergoing a reversible process. Entropy decreases with time regularly in closed systems (non-infinite regions enclosing a time machine and its "range" of operation). The only price is some energy (provided by maybe a ... time machine?). Maybe we would call it a "Negative Entropy Machine" for the imagination deficient such as you Mr. "RIDICULOUS" (lol). My theory avoids those worrisome and terrifying possibilities of someone going into the past and destroying something you cherish (like your glorious record of total bullshit, regurgitated half-truths, and invalid assumptions censored by whatever brand of self-brainwashing you have willingly inflicted on yourself - lol. ---------------------------------------------------------------- My canned last word post: This is my last post/reply on this subject so if you want the last word, read no further. Please don't construe this as a sign of surrender or defeat. Let's just consider it a temporary truce and we can resume the "debate" later on another thread/topic. Feel free to add any number of additional posts below. This is just a notice that I will not read them. I'm sure any wider audience that may be interested will be highly entertained as you "vanquish" me in my absence (lol). See you at the show trials - lol. --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written
csiph-web