Are you talking about the theory, "frame dragging (which I did not notice you explaining, BTW)" about which you began this thread? Because, in post #2, @HereWeGoAgain began talking about how that, could be related to time travel. I could have sworn you had replied to him, so presumably understood his subject. I then replied to him, specifically about time travel. It was my speaking on that subject, which occasioned your reply, to me. Am I to now understand, that you haven't realized, over the course of this conversation, that our subject under discussion, has been time travel, & Einstein's postulations on the subject, as well as the way his theories have been related to to the public, by scientists, thereby creating the ideas that exist in the public, on this subject? If you think we are specifically talking about "frame dragging," it is a real wonder, that you could have held onto that misconception, for this great a length of time. If, however, instead, you do realize that we've been discussing "time travelling," then I would very much like to know how, you believe, this theory is successfully tested, every day.
@WillReadmore I can distill everything from my earlier, longer post, into a much simpler argument, which is, at the same time, also more conceptually complex, and challenging. That is, if you are game? Tell me, can you see the future? To be totally clear, I am not asking if you can use your power of reason, to predict what will, or what may, happen; I am asking if you can literally see the future, as it is unfolding, in real time? If your answer is no, then I ask how it was possible for that man's friends (in Hawking's t.v. show) to ever see him again, since-- assuming he did travel further into the future, faster than they had-- he would be forever, temporally, ahead of them, in their future? That is what would occur, if astronauts, or anyone else, moved faster through time, so arrived ahead of the rest of us, in the future: they would just disappear, unless we were able to speed ourselves up, or they, able to slow themselves down (Hawking's conclusions about backward travel notwithstanding), so that we were to once again inhabit the same present. Please explain to me, how what I just said, is incorrect. Now comes the kind of mind- bending part. Let's say that this guy is a tiny bit into his friends' future, so cannot be seen by them. Nevertheless, were he to write a note, to leave for them, they would begin to see it, even before he finished writing it. The words would appear on the paper, just a moment after being written, though the writer would still be invisible, as the letter, which they would be seeing essentially on a less than one second time delay, became longer & longer. Does this seem counterintuitive to you? The reason for this is because anything inanimate, once created, remains tied to that moment, so while it continues to exist in the future, it does so as a relic of the past. It does not recreate itself, every moment, as does any being with consciousness. So while the words on the paper remain stagnant, allowing those who come along afterward, to read them, the writer does not remain at any given point, in his past, but is always meeting and passing through, the next, new moment. That would be, quite the amazing thing, if it were to be proven, though, that each of us continues to exist in our own past, exactly as we had been, in any given moment, each iteration of ourselves, always moving on to the next moment, while simultaneously remaining in place, for any who happen to come upon that particular time & place. Or would it be like an endlessly replenishing river of selves, in a long line, each one stepping in to fill the shoes of the self who is a moment ahead, just as that self followed in the footsteps of the one, a single moment ahead of himself? Yes, amazing. But, IMO, extremely unlikely. This would bring us to a discussion of the power of consciousness, to create the future, which is a provable fact; except that you have, in past discussions, made both your aversion, and irreceptivity, to this concept, decidedly clear. For myself, though, I consider it not beyond possibility that the fabric of time is composed of the countless threads, of every universal consciousness.
I like that idea of writing appearing from the future. Cool. I've not heard this idea that a being with consciousness recreates itself every moment. Also, I don't see how having consciousness would cause a physical body to be treated differently by the laws of physics. That is, a clock tied to a rock and a clock tied to a living human will show the same time characteristics. I've read some about frame dragging, but I don't know of a way that it could lead to time travel in the sense that SciFi likes to think about - a method of moving into the future (faster than one second per second) or into the past. There is the time difference between those on the ISS and those on Earth. However, nobody disappears.
Then they have not time travelled, or moved into "the future." They have merely had their life processes accelerated, so that they have aged slightly more, in the same amount of time (which is also reflecting as more time on their atomic clocks but, as you are well aware, if the clock on Earth has not progressed as much as the one on the ISS, over the same time frame-- as between the 'nauts' take off & landing-- it doesn't mean that those astronauts are existing, now, in a future time). As I had previously said, one can consider this only a change in the pace of one's living (though an imperceptible one) or, at most, if one refuses to acknowledge the seemingly obvious-- that the forces controlling the speed of their clock's mechanism were simply accelerated (that is, were no longer accurate in their recording of time)-- then one might claim that they had actually lived more time, but only by conceding that living this additional time, did not take any additional time, to experience. That is to say, the only way one could credibly frame this as affecting the "fabric of time," would be by stipulating that "time" had only only undergone this dilation, in a localized area. Ergo, the alternate way of expressing this hastened experience of life, is to say that they experienced a tiny bit more time, than those on Earth experienced, over the exact same amount of standard time (as measured on Earth). They got "bonus" time. Perhaps the best analogy I can offer is the way a space traveller's weight varies, depending on the localized gravity of the celestial body, they are experiencing (i.e., on the moon, on Mars, etc)-- while their mass remains constant, unchanged.
This looks closer. However, one must remember that for those astronauts time passed at exactly one second per second. The fact that their clocks don't compare as equal with clocks on Earth doesn't come from their time passing at a different rate. Time for any body always passes at one second per second. Remember that we can take trips to the grocery store along different paths in our 3 dimensional space, covering different distances. When considering space-time, it's possible to take different paths through space-time that are not the same in terms of the time dimension. ISS astronauts are living under constant acceleration - the acceleration that changes their path to be curved around Earth. Their path through space-time is not the same as ours. From our perspective, their clocks are running slower. From their perspective, their clocks are running at one second per second. It would be great if an actual physicist added to this topic. There are probably better descriptions.
Your reply, contradicts itself. I would welcome having a physicist join our conversation, as your post's final line (not included in quote) suggests; I would add to that, the helpful role that might be played by a linguist, or other word specialist, but most of all-- though least likely to be encountered, among the membership-- by a logician: how does not being "the same in terms of the time dimension," differ, in your mind, from time not passing at "exactly one second per second?" Just imagine one identical twin going to the space station, while the other stays here, on Earth. The two are living in the same "time," at liftoff, as well as after the twin's return. Therefore, the exact same amount of objective time, must have, logically, passed, in between those two points. If one of the two's clocks, says that more time has elapsed for one, than the other, there are only two possible explanations. The simplest, and therefore my preferred explanation, is that the visit to the space station, accelerated one twin's clock-- you did not clarify your meaning, as I'd asked, regarding your earlier mention of a person's personal clock, which I took to be a biological reference; here, though, it seems clear you mean to refer to an actual, mechanical, timekeeping device-- making it, therefore, an inaccurate measure of objective time. For anyone not accepting this-- which appears to include you-- the only other option, is that time did not pass, at "exactly one second per second," for the temporarily extra-terrestrial twin. Think about it, and try to explain it otherwise, without contradicting yourself, as you do, above. My preferred way of conceiving of this, 2nd choice, option, would be that "time" had actually been slightly condensed, so that slightly more of it, could fit within the same confines of "objective" time. Perhaps you would do better with an analogy to the light-speed question, we covered, earlier. Time, under the ISS conditions, is passing through a medium, analog to light passing through water, which bends its trajectory so that it takes a less direct path, to the viewer. Light must cover, therefore, more distance, which takes more time. You represented this as its travelling at a different speed. This may also be true-- it is not my intention, as someone who is not a physicist, to squabble with someone else, who is not a physicist, over details which are unimportant to the overall idea. If time takes a longer, less direct, "different path" between points A and B, then one must logically conclude that it covered that path at an accelerated speed, in order to end up at the same time & place, as another whose path through time, did not take that detour. Do you see how I balance both parts of the equation, in my describing logical viewpoints? Please strive to do that, yourself, instead of treating two aspects of a situation separately, as does your above quote, so that they are incompatible with one another. If time always passes at "one second per second," and two people's clocks, spanning the exact same two points in time (just before separation, until they are reunited), do not reflect the same number of seconds, then your "different path," analogy does not explain it, because covering differing distances, at the same speed, results in different arrival times. But when two leave point A, simultaneously, taking different length routes, to get to point B, yet arrive simultaneously, the only plausible explanation is that their speeds varied. The one who took the longer route, must have travelled at a faster average speed. Do you see that this is the implication, of your very own analogy, which you nonetheless failed to follow through, to its logical conclusion?
I meant the very best time keeping device that can be made. The problem that comes in is that there isn't an "objective time". When the twin came back from the ISS, one twin was older than the other, because the trip through space-time was longer for one of them. I know that seems logical, and that is the model that we experience ever day here on Earth. The reason is that we're all undergoing the same acceleration (as Earth rotates), and we are traveling at nowhere near the speed of light. We experience the world of Newton's physics. But, overall that isn't an accurate explanation of how time works. The most succinct description I can point to is that the twin on the ISS is taking a different course through space-time. So, even though time is passing at the rate of one second per second for each twin, their clocks will compare as different when the ISS twin returns to Earth. The same is true for GPS satellites. There has to be a correction made, because from our perspective on Earth, the clocks on GPS satellites are not ticking at the same rate - even though they are stupendously accurate clocks. GPS devices would be highly inaccurate if such a correction were not made. I would suggest looking on youtube for a discussion of time by a physicist. I would suggest Sean Carroll. He is a well respected and active theoretical physicist who has published talks he has given on this topic. He's better than most at describing physics in a way that a lay person like me can understand.
For practical purposes, you are wrong, Will, but it hardly seems worth explaining it to you, yet again. For anyone just joining the party, though, I ask, "is it possible to see someone, in the flesh, who is not currently around? Can one speak with a person, in real time, who is inhabiting that speaker's future? The point, of course, is that two people who are simultaneously sharing the same experience, are objectively in the same moment of time. Therefore, if two people had been at that same starting place, in time, and later returned to a shared moment of time, it is clear that the same amount of OBJECTIVE time, has passed, in the interim, regardless of to which principal, one is referring-- because that is the difference between the time that (almost) all can acknowledge to have passed between any two known events-- i.e., "objective" time-- versus personal time. For example, many people celebrate, on December 31st, the coming of January 1st, because they apparently believe that it signals the passing of an objective year. You can be sure, however, our Will Readmore would not partake in something so ridiculous as trying to mark the changing from one year to the next, when there is no such thing, as "an 'objective time.' " Since this is: A) What you had already said, practically verbatim; and, B) makes no sense, whatsoever-- may I suggest to you, that looking for "the most succinct description," if it does not make your meaning any clearer, should not be your priority. If you can be succinct in addition, that is always a bonus, but one's prime concern, whenever one is trying to communicate with others, should be that they are understood. That's my opinion, anyway. Now that's a riot. You are recommending that I, who perfectly understands things-- or at least does, well enough to be able to explain my thought process, vis a vis, my logical view of the mischaracterization of "time travel"-- should refer to the talks of some physicist, whom you recommend, as being, "better than most at describing physics in a way that a lay person like me can understand," despite the fact-- you seem almost oblivious of-- that you were not able to explain your own view, other than to say, of my own description of how this situation must work: Yet, you are unable to explain, your own version of "how time works." Now, it is clear that we have vastly different measures of appraising things, and that you place a much lower premium upon something making sense, in such a way that you could describe it, in your own words. But I do hold logic, in high regard. And so, rather than trusting your opinion of who is a good instructor (based on who knows, what), logic leads me to believe that the criterion, on which I should evaluate the skill of any teacher of a particular subject, is the ability of his or her "students" to explain that, which the teacher has imparted to them. IOW, your merely saying, "that isn't an accurate explanation..." without giving a reasonable alternative way of understanding it, is a rather poor endorsement, you are giving, of this person (regardless of your praise of him). So perhaps you should watch this person, more studiously, until you can actually rectify your contradictory explanation. What you are clearly describing, is a situation in which-- while "time" is still passing one second at a time-- there is no way that the seconds of the clock, on which more time elapses, over the same period, are not proceeding at a quicker pace, than on the other clock. Again, this is not automatically proof of the passing of actual time, unless one defines time strictly by its processes of action, and of decay; but, by that definition, "time" travels at different speeds for fit, healthy, active people, than it does for the less fit, healthy, active, or robust. You, as I had contended the public does-- whether or not scientists hold the same, faulty conceptions-- have allowed your gullibility to anything you hear from a scientist, to lead you to accept things that make no sense to you; your inability to logically explain your view, other than to recommend the same expert whom you blindly follow, proves this. And there, you concede my point, without even realizing that you are saying, that the seconds are not passing at the same speed, on the satellite clocks, as on the Earthbound ones.
We KNOW the clocks on the ISS run at one second per second as witnessed by astronauts on the ISS. We KNOW that their clocks and Earth clocks do not compare as equal. So, we know there isn't one "universal" time. We KNOW that the ISS has not disappeared. At a minimum, what you propose has to change to accommodate those data. Rather that touting your own mode, I really think you should look to a physicist such as Sean Carroll to see how time works.
Once more, you are asserting nonsense, without either understanding, or clarifying, your argument. I never said, BTW, that there was "one 'universal' time." Was that your attempt at some linguistic legerdemain, to escape your loss of this argument (which apparently, you would find too crushing, a thing, to allow)? I had said, to reiterate what is already in the record, that there is such a thing as "objective" time, as opposed to "personal" time. Further, I specifically allowed the possibility that time could, locally, move at a different speed than the surrounding time (if "time" is not, actually, something more of an abstraction, than an actual "thing"). In that case, if you could not follow this, the aberrant portion of time, would be "personal" to only those within it's sphere of influence, and so be deviating from "objective" time, which is not limited to the observations of only those who are being influenced by the given deviation. So yes, if that has been your meaningless point, all along, I of course concede that seconds always seem, to people in an accelerated area of time, as if they are moving at a normal speed (duh!). I have been speaking of its speed COMPARATIVELY, with the speed of seconds, elsewhere. You have, in fact, already agreed with my stated point, which I have even quoted, to point out this fact to you. WillReadmore said: ↑ The same is true for GPS satellites. There has to be a correction made, because from our perspective on Earth, the clocks on GPS satellites are not ticking at the same rate - even though they are stupendously accurate clocks. GPS devices would be highly inaccurate if such a correction were not made. Now though, back to your inability (to present) of elucidating your own view. Maybe I can help, with this hypothetical example: two clocks, both starting at a given point in time, tied to an observable event (as the launching of a rocket, for instance), and checked against one another at a later, definable moment in time (like when the clocks are side by side). Let us use simple numbers, to make it easier for you to explain your view, if there is any chance, to tempt you into actually doing so. Therefore, I will stipulate that one clock reads 60 seconds having elapsed, the other says that only 58 seconds have passed. Can you explain how that could be true, unless the clock that had recorded the passing of an additional 2 seconds, had been counting seconds at a faster rate, than the other one? This, like the other times I have previously asked the same essential question of you, is not meant to be a rhetorical question. Since you apparently have no clue as to how to use language to answer this-- and yes, I know "ad hom, bla- bla- bla-" but your avoidance of giving a sequitur response, while simultaneously implying that I am not bright enough to '"know how time works," has earned yourself, being spoken to in this manner-- I will demonstrate the kind of thing, I am entreating you, to provide: (Demonstration) So space-clock ticks off the first second, exactly at the same moment as does Earth- clock. The same for second number two, number three, number four, etc., etc., etc., until... I cannot finish this demonstration because, as I said, you have been consistently obscure about what you are alleging. You keep saying that they are both completely in synch, with one another, in counting off seconds-- except, that is, where I quoted you admitting that the seconds are not being timed at the same pace (above). Since you admitted this, which has been my point, all along-- though you, nevertheless, continue to imply this is my misunderstanding of time-- ergo, it is demonstrably YOU, who misunderstands, either what I have been arguing, or what you have been replying (or conceivably, of course, both).
I answered that in very clear terms. You just didn't like the answer. So, now instead of looking to see what physicists say, you demand a NEW answer from ME!!!! Seriously. What's up with that?
I don't understand frame dragging. If it is 5:00 here would it be 5:01 outside of a strong rotating object?
Just to make it crystal clear, then, what is your explanation-- pursued through this niggling sideshow of an argument, on which you have brought our discussion-- to contest my original assertion, which you have supposedly been counter- arguing? My claim, to remind any who might have reasonably forgotten, by this point, is that people on the Int'l Space Station, are not "time travelling," in the conventional interpretation of that idea. They may well be experiencing effects, equatable to the passage of a greater amount of time; they may even have experienced, locally, the passing of more time, than passed, during the same period, on Earth-- because time had been condensed or accelerated, in their location. But, my point was, this has no effect on "time," outside of that bubble, through which they had passed. Therefore, though they may age more, in a given amount of time-- as "objectively" calculated, from the perspective of the human race, in general, on Earth-- or even experience more actual "time," (though there is no way to be sure of this theory's being correct; there are other possible explanations for accelerated clocks), no one has moved ahead, into the future. And it is your argument, that they have? I don't know how I missed that explanation, from you, but in lieu of your endlessly repeating what I have seen from you, which definitely does not support an argument, that veterans of the ISS are forever "ahead of us," in time's continuum, would you please be so kind as repeat these, "clear terms," through which, you supposedly "answered." You cited some facts, which do not add up to any conclusion, contradicting my argument. In fact, that the clocks move at differing speeds, actually supports, and was part of, my argument. I have a feeling that you simply may not understand this conversation, which we have been having. So, if you do merely re-post the irrelevant things that have constituted your explanation, so far, please do me the favor of "showing your work," as they say (or used to, at least), to math students. To spell it out for you, I admit that I do not see how the things you have posted, put anyone into "the future," which is the whole point of mine, you are pushing back against. So, even if it is obvious, how they do show this, from the lofty perspective of your towering intellect, would you please be so kind as to slow it down, and fill in the gaps, to make it clear to someone of my own (still higher than average) intelligence, how the clocks on the ISS moving more quickly, puts these astronauts into our own future?
It would still be very challenging to reach those speeds where reverse time travel would be possible. There is a theory - and a strong argument can be made for it - that paradoxes are prevented by the laws of the universe. Statistic probabilities will take over to prevent any violation from being able to happen. This could manifest as something weird and extremely improbable in this situation. Another theory postulates that, if these stochastic forces are overcome, then a Mobius theory could take hold, where the timeline splits into two different possibilities, but only temporarily. In the final end, the two converge back together and there is no way to determine which actually happened.
Time difference between moving objects is not to do with traveling in time per se. Time and distance are intrinsically linked in relativity. Eg. An extremely simplified example: One atomic clock placed on a plane. An identical clock built at the same time remains and ticking at the same rate. Plane takes off and circles Earth and returns to start point. The time elapsed on each clock will be measurably different. The time/distance product will be the same but one clock travelled further hence for that clock elapsed time is reduced. That traveling clock is measurably younger than the other. This experiment has been demonstrated. Why this is observed? No one really knows but equations are known and can predict the observation
IOW, you have just been wasting my (and anyone else's who has bothered to read your replies) time, by pretending that you had any idea what you were talking about. Thanks, at least, for finally ending the charade.
I'm plenty happy with my response, including the reference where you can learn more. And, I'm not interested in your crappy ad hom, as that's common with you when you don't know what the heck is going on.
Says the person who's decided to storm off, instead of explaining how the pat answer he's been repeatedly parroting-- the clocks don't show the same time-- proves time travel. Whatever-- I'm satisfied that my thoroughly argued replies, if nothing else, show that I did know what our conversation was about.
Okay, if you launch a satellite and you are in sync at launch the clocks will move at different rates due to gravity and you must be able to calculate the difference in the clocks for GPS to work. Because the space is actually moving due to the spin and mass of the earth. Am I correct ?
That is very close, as far as I know. The satellite isn't taking the same path through spacetime as are clocks on Earth's surface. The rocket is going faster than the surface of the Earth (where we are). Also, simply going fast does the trick - orbiting is not required. One could travel fast out to Pluto, turn around and come home, and there would be a significant difference. And, yes it is also being bent into an orbit caused by the mass of Earth - the satellite experiences different warping of space time than we experience on Earth's surface. We are orbiting Earth's core at a thousand mph, so that affects us, too. Anyway, even the super duper cesium clocks we have are affected by the path and speed taken through space-time. The altitude and speed of each gps satellite are known, so one can calculate the difference in their incredibly accurate clocks without having to actually visit the satellite. We know how much time is warped for satellites. In fact, corrections can be made for the fact that gps satellites fly oval orbits, so they aren't always going at the same speed and aren't always at the same distance from Earth. I don't know if this is required for street navigation, though. This comes from Einstein's theory of general relativity. And, of course we measure it all the time.
