|
WhipTheHip -> RE: It is impossible to travel through time because time does not exist. (8/24/2006 9:25:40 AM)
|
>> If you are moving through time not space, you don't move
>> anything out of the way, you just materialize in an earlier
>> time, in which case many of your atoms will likely find
>> themselves occupying the exact same space as other
>> atoms. Something moving at us from the future would
>> not move anything out of the way. It would suddenly
>> materialize in our time frame, then disappear into the
>> past.
>
> And as Einstein has said, 'Schlau, aber nicht wahr.' Clever, but not correct.
Hello Mnottertail,
I knew Einstein, and I can assure you, you are no Einstein.
> The theoretic principle has never been dis-proven.
What theoretic principle are you talking about?
> Time as we understand it, does not flow from present to past.
No one ever made this claim. Who do you refer to as "We"
Do you have multiple personalities? Are you refering to all
your alters? Contrary to your opinion, time as we
understand it is not wet.
> Additionally, if one is an adherant of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
> (It has alot of currency) all outcomes are taking place simultaneously
First this is not what the CI says. Second, I don't know a single
cosmologist that accepts the CI of QM. The CI can't be correct
for the following reasons:
1. It claims there is no objective reality between measurements.
2. It needs the concept of measurement but is unable to define it.
3. It is unable to tell us where the line between the sub-atomic world
where QM is operable and the macro world where it is not.
4. According to CI, the QM should operate in the macro world but it doesn't
5. According to QM, the universe needs obeservers to exist, yet there were
no observers just after the BB.
6. According to QM things happen for no reason. It is not a causal theory
like all other fundamental theories in science.
7. CI is not reconciable with GR. GR is a causal, continuum theory.
8. According to the CI, the universe is contantly chooses just one path from
from an extremely large number of equally good paths making reality
infinitely random and capricious.
9. The CI voids the anthropic principle, and produces many paradoxes like
the fine-tuning problem.
10. Einstein, Dirac, and Schrodinger objected to the CI on many grounds.
11. Roger Penrose states we have to conclude it is just plain wrong.
12. Stephen Hawking and every noted physicist I know rejects the CI.
13. Even those physicists who reject other interpretations, reject the CI.
Most physicists who reject the MWI, say it is not necessary to interpret
QM at all.
14. The CI needs observers but is unable to define what constitutes an
observer.
15. The Hugh Everett Many-Worlds interpretation which I independantly
discovered resolves all the paradoxes created by the CI.
16. The CI interpretation creates the paradox of wave-particle duality and
requires the nonsensical, contrived principle of complimentarity
I could go on and on for days.
> and they collapse into one reality.
According to the CI, there is only one reality. According
to the CI, different realities do not collapse into one reality.
The probabablistic wave-function collapses. But both
Borh and Heisenberg admitted the wave-function has
no reality itself. Between measurements there are
just probabilities, nothing else. Einstein rejected this
notion claiming the moon exists even when no one is
looking at it.
> That is what we are seeing, others of us in other dimensions see
> other outcomes.
This statement is gibberish.
> I hold alot of currency in that interpretation,
I hold a lot of currency myself: Yen, Euro, Pound, and Yuan.
> because die alt eine does play dice in my estimation, and in the fullness
> of time plays every game.
You seem to be confusing Hugh Everett's interpretation with
the CI. They are opposites.
> The big bang is a roll of the dice
The BB is a historical fact. There is no evidence to support
the contention that it happened by chance.
> we will eventually reduce to the big singularity and roll the dice again,
> forever and ever.
This is part of my theory, though I am more inclined to
believe the big crunch singularity is the big bang
singularity.
> There is no space without accompanying time and the obverse is
> also true.
This is relativity 101.
Nothing you wrote has any relevance to anything I wrote before.
Best regards,
Michael
|
|
|
|
