Posted on 06/22/2009 5:50:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
MUCH AGREE. THX.
Then you’re in serious denial.
The tracking of what year it is, on Earth, is our only reference to what is past, present, and future.
If I had aged just a few years, and found myself in the year 2109, you had better believe it—I would be in the future.
That is, unless you think there are two Earths, and there are alternate Universes.
Alternate Universes, of course, are the ultimate refuge of Atheist Physicists, who are alarmed that the Universe shows unmistakable, numeric evidence of intelligent purpose....
You said — If I had aged just a few years, and found myself in the year 2109, you had better believe it—I would be in the future.
—
That’s no different than saying (stated when I was 20 years old) that when I am 50 years old, then I will have traveled to the future... LOL...
Most people simply think of that as no more than “aging” to the point of being 50. And in your example, all that happens is that you’re aging a lot slower as the “time parameter” for your *own circumstances* on that traveling to a distant star system and back to earth again (as given in that “common example” for illustrating the point).
Nothing more has happened than “aging slowed down” (if you want to put it that way, or put another way, your own “time parameter” was operating at a different speed than earth’s time parameter). You didn’t travel into the future — you only aged slower because of your time parameter operating at a different rate.
The math says it is impossible. That’s why I said it would only be possible if the universe would “bend” and we could travel through the “worm holes”. The distance and time would be insurmountable.
Oh, and also..., you might as well say that every time I hike into the mountains I engage in “time travel”... because that’s what you are saying... LOL...
[that’s because the time parameter is different in the mountains than it is at sea level...]
calex59 said — If his aim was just to create one planet with one intelligent species why create all the extra garbage that makes up the Universe?
—
Well, one very simplistic explanation is so that when we spend “eternity” existing with God (as we see from the end of Revelation), we won’t run out of things to see and explore and understand.... :-)
Otherwise, eternity could get boring mighty quickly... LOL...
If I am in the year 2109 because of close to light-speed travel, and I normally would have died in the year 2051, then I have indeed traveled into the future, into a future that I have no business being, otherwise. You can be sure that if I am conversing with my great-great-grandchildren, and I have a biological age of 50, I have traveled into the future.
I would have literally “skipped” the years 2009-2109, because I was not on earth to to age and experience them—but nevertheless those years happened, and I did not/could not experience them.
Unlike your example of traveling into “the mountains” .....
I would love to trade ideas with you, but your stubbornness has started edging into silliness.
Well, very simply, aging slower is not travelling into the future, any more than aging at a normal rate is travelling into the future.
You’re just talking about two different time parameters (in the example) and nothing more.
It has nothing to do with time travel but simply what point of reference you want to use to express what is happening.
If I am traveling at 60 MPH using the point of reference as the ground underneath a vehicle I’m in, and another vehicle is traveling at the same rate of speed referencing the ground under their vehicle — but — if we are both traveling towards one another then you can say that my speed is 120 MPH if I change my point of reference, to be that other vehicle.
I haven’t changed my speed, as it only depends on my point of reference.
In the instance of the “time parameter” my point of reference is affected by my speed and my physicality (in that I’m traveling at a high rate of speed, physically, to another destination and back again), whereas the original comparison point (of that other person on earth) is not traveling in that same manner, thus giving them a different time parameter.
It’s all related to experiencing, personally, a different time parameter (which can be likened to slowing down aging, if you will) so that when the “same time passes on earth” as has passed in my travels, my “aging” is a lot less than the aging that has happened on earth.
It’s merely a change in the point of reference, which results in the time parameter that I’m experiencing, to be different.
Again, I call that no more “time travel” than me traveling to the future simply because I’ve aged to 50 years old, as compared to what I experienced when I was 20 years old....
Just to be clear, finding life on the FIRST planet is NOT an independent event, because we are the life, and wherever "the life" was, it would find itself on it's planet.
Finding the 2nd planet would be an independent event. If we have checked 1000 planets, and found life on one, we can assume, with some level of error, that we will find life on one out of 1000 planets. If we find life on 2 planets after searching 2000, our confidence would be much higher.
Until we find life on ONE other planet, there is no meaningful way to generate a statistic on the probability of life on other planets, because our sample is not random.
There is no such thing as time travel.... oops, wait a second, I just travelled a second into the future.
If the time traveller leaves orbit, and then the earth moves at the speed of light away from the traveller, and then moves back at the speed of light to the traveller, the people on earth will not have aged, but the traveller will have grown old and died.
The problem is, and thus the paradox, is that we can’t tell who it is that moved away from who. Oh, we could figure out who accelerated to the speed of light, but the equations aren’t based on the acceleration, but on the steady-state velocity difference.
“finding life on the FIRST planet is NOT an independent event, because we are the life, and wherever “the life” was, it would find itself on it’s planet.”
That is a circular argument in search of a definition.
You really have to pose the argument as an outside observer for this to have any meaning.
If God could be an independent Observer (which He can’t) He would look down at life-on-Earth as an independent event.
“Finding the 2nd planet would be an independent event. If we have checked 1000 planets, and found life on one, we can assume, with some level of error, that we will find life on one out of 1000 planets.”
NOT TRUE. We would merely have our first sample. Since we still have left to count millions of possible planets at the right distance from a star (the “population”), we would only have our first sample. We would need vast numbers of 1000-planet samples before we were ready to make a statistically meaningful estimate of Life.
Charles, with all due respect, you’re not a physicist, because if you were, you would understand that 99.9% of all physicists understand the time contraction issue, and agree with the slow aging of the traveller compared to the Earth they left behind. This is in every respect tantamount to travel to the future.
If you are in the 0.1% of physicists who disagree, I suggest you present a paper on your logic at the next conference of Astro-Physicists. Should be fascinating.
Here’s an interesting article from rapture alert on UFOs:
http://www.rapturealert.com/2009/040909deception.asp
I believe that we have entered the time with the return of Nephillim....
Nabber said to CharlesWayneCT — “But there is clearly already travel into the future, and we have already seen it proven, with identical atomic clocks, one on the ground and one in the air on an airliner moving at 500 mph. The clocks vary, in accordance with Einstein’s prediction.”
And then CharlesWayneCT said to Nabber — “There is no such thing as time travel.... oops, wait a second, I just travelled a second into the future.”
—
Well, I would say that CharlesWayneCT is correct in that there is no such thing as time travel, but there does appear to be such a thing as physical and atomic processes changing speeds, slowing down and speeding up.
Now, the problem with “time” is that we measure it with “rulers” that consist of “processes” that we count on being constant. However, these processes aren’t constant — and thus our “rulers” change...
One kind of “process” for measuring time would be the orbit of the earth around the sun, from which we measure the “year”. And then we split things down even further and get into seconds and fractions of a second from atomic processes and how many of these processes happen in a second, thereby splitting our measurement of time into millionths of a second.
BUT, it would appear that these processes change their “operation” when we do different things — like, for instance — traveling at a fast rate of speed, and/or from a gravitational effect, too — where an atomic clock at the higher elevation of Denver will have its atomic processes running at a different speed than an identical atomic clock at sea level.
So, our “rulers” change their dimensions because of several factors, and thus our “measurements” of time are affected as a result. And also our *body processes* are changed, too — as we’re composed of chemical reactions and aging and so on, all affected by the “passage of time” — where these processes that make us age — run faster or run slower — depending on what we are doing (like the speed we are traveling).
Therefore that example of someone traveling at near the speed of light (or some significant fraction thereof...) will have their “processes” by which they age and by which they experience time [like how many atomic processes of a certain atomic clock happens in “one second” of time, while traveling at that rate of speed).
So, the fast-traveling-twin brother is actually “aging” at the same rate as the stationary-twin-brother on earth. It’s just that the “processes” each are experiencing are not happening at the same rate, comparable to each other, and neither in the environment in which they are living.
When the fast-traveling-twin returns to earth, he has experienced the same amount of “processes” as the others, except that for him it “appears” to those on earth that he has lived for several hundred years — because — the “earth-bound-people” have had their “processes” (all the atomic and chemical processes that compose everything that they experience in their environment) have been *running* at an *extremely high rate* compared to the “fast-traveling-twin”. But, the earth-bound people and the fast-traveling people actually age at the same rate (measured by the “processes” that they each experience and so live just as long as one another, although several hundred years has passed by on earth...
I hope that makes sense — and how it’s *not* time travel — but there is a change in the atomic and chemical processes and everything that goes on in the environment that each is in — with one set of processes running real fast and the other set of processes running real slow....
Okay, y’all..., I thought I recognized the name of Heidi Swander, but I couldn’t quite remember from where, until, I saw at the end...
—
The author of this commentary, Heidi Swander, is a ministry associate and personal assistant to Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries.
—
And then I remembered... LOL...
Y’all should be listening to Olive Tree Ministries and Jan Markell, the radio show’s host, who interviews different people every week, from a Christian perspective. It’s quite informative and stays on current things of interest for Christianity and our everyday world around us.
http://www.olivetreeviews.org/
... archived radio programs, going back about five years...
http://www.olivetreeviews.org/radio/mp3/
Don’t miss it... :-)
Charles,
You’re making profound scientific errors.
Just one example, and I’ll leave you to ponder things. Atomic clocks don’t vary by altitude. They are based on radioactivity, on the half-life of radioactive elements. Identical atomic clocks decay at the same rate on the moon as they do on Earth. What the atomic clock experiments proved was that they decay differently based on the speed that they are traveling; admittedly a small difference, because a jet-liner only travels at 500mph, and this is not anywhere close to the speed of light, yet the clocks measure billionths of a second, so that the difference was measurable.
I don’t really care how you try to couch your definition of time contracting, whether it is chemical processes slowing down or what.
The simple fact is, according to both the physicists as well as the folks who write the science fiction novels, traveling into the future simply means being able to experience the times and people in the centuries ahead, along with the concurrent ability to avoid death in its appointed time.
Can you imagine the people in the year 2200 telling you that “Hey, according to Charles, you are not really here in the future, you just slowed down your aging. You’re not really a time traveler, ignore your senses.....”
You said — You’re making profound scientific errors.
—
It would appear — instead — that you don’t know all about this subject... LOL...
Time dilation is the slowing of chronological time from a clock measuring time in one location compared to another clock in a different space as predicted by Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity. There are two separate forms of time dilation that result from these laws.
Gravitational time dilation is a result of general relativity in which space-time is affected by the gravity of a mass (i.e. earth) so that time runs slower at different altitudes. In gravitational time dilation, observers at different altitudes can agree in real time of the phenomenon. Kinematic, or velocity, time dilation is a result of special relativity in which a moving clock appears to run slower by a stationary observer, while the clock appears to run normally to an observer moving with the clock.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1637473/time_dilation_basic_introduction_and.html?cat=58
and...
In Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, time dilation is manifested in two circumstances:
In special relativity, clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. This effect is described precisely by the Lorentz transformation.
In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field — such as in proximity to a planet — are found to be running slower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
You apparently need to be reading up a bit more on this subject... :-)
Placemarker
Please enlighten me as to these other gods who die to impute righteousness or as a selfless act of sacrifice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.