Oh brother... OK, let's help EvilEmoX out yet again, Mr. Spaceman from Le 4th Dimension.
See, because you're douchey and inarticulate, I finally had to go find and read exactly what Hawking has been saying. Personally, I don't think you should speak for him again. You invoked his name, and mixed your own bullshit in with it which he doesn't agree with...
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/03/time-travel-possible-says-stephen-hawking/1) "Backwards Time Travel"
Moving backwards is impossible, Hawking says, because it "violates a fundamental rule that cause comes before effect."
To review, I had said this earlier:
The idea of "traveling back in time" however is pure imagination, fiction, fantasy, Santa Claus level story telling, that's it... Great device for stories/movies, but yes, pure 100% fiction... There is no evidence of any powerful "universe recorder" of the past, much less a way to access it to change the world back to a previous time period, etc.
and it is vindicated.
Also, from
http://www.hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.htmlEinstein's paper of 1905 seemed to rule out time travel into the past.
Agreement with Hawking (
and with Einstein!), he's not one of these nutters! Traveling backwards in time is
impossible like he says! Thank f--king goodness he's against promoting that delusion! So we're all good there! And to illustrate to people why that nonsense is impossible, I had described what it would take, knowing the position of every atom of the earth and being able to rearrange it back the way it was. Well, that's obviously impossible, no recorder device, and no arranger device. So we're done with that, and though Hawking doesn't go into detail, he states it's impossible and I agree.
To put it another way: "Time travel is not possible because there is no "past" to travel back to. The past already happened and is gone; it is not preserved in some kind of (excuse me) time capsule to be revisited. The past simply does not exist any more. The past is memory; the future is anticipation; only the present exists, and only in the present."
2) "Forward"
Once spaceships were built that could fly faster than the speed of light, a day on board would be equivalent to a year on Earth. That's because -- according to Einstein -- as objects accelerate through space, time slows down around them. Which also means that Hawking's theory only applies to moving "forwards" through time.
Now we're getting into reasonable science. I would say though, for accuracy, this is space travel and wouldn't use "time travel." Time is not a destination you can travel to, another solar system for exploration that might have lifeforms on it is! When you use "time travel" it connects to the fictional concept of wanting to change the past. So, how does that square with what I previously said to EmoX ?
Anyway, what you mention, that an astronaut's body might be slowed down a bit, slightly less heartbeats, slightly less breaths, slightly slowed chemical processes inside cells, etc. versus a human on this earth for the same amount of time, and that when he/she returns to earth they're slightly less aged is the same thing as the freezing concept.
Agreed. Traveling very fast slows body processes down, less breaths per min than if you were on earth, slower cell divisions and deaths, etc. so you will age less. How much, exactly per a mathematical equation speaking for your biological clock ? That I dunno, and I doubt it's exact, but it's an experiment to be seen in the future. So high velocity just like low temperature will have an effect on your atoms. If you were traveling the speed of light to reach another solar system for exploration, the effects would slow aging, but cryogenics would be even better to have on the ship to simply 100% stop it.
Alright, so that begs the question, how did I get entangled with a known forum troll like EvilEmoX when I see that I don't really disagree much with Hawking based on what I linked above ?? EmoX misused Hawking, withheld a correction allowing me to think Hawking supported backwards time travel, he spoke of "time travel" with claims HE believes in like, "
Time goes forwards, slows down, stops, and even goes backwards.", and this,
"I am willing to bet time exists as a long string of events that can be traveled within." He pulled out things from Star Trek like "gravity drives" and the "multi-earths, evil twin" plots from many SciFi movies which explains why he hangs on to my use of cryogenics from a Stallone one to cover for his embarrassing references...
I stand corrected, EmoX is the hack here!
I ignore equations from the greatest minds in history because f*ck you that's why!!!
I was aware of the time dilation concept and I quoted it again to show I mentioned it. You claiming I ignored it, make it plural, and making "minds" plural renders you a lying liar.
I ignore Einstein's equation for closed time loops created with immense gravity because Einstein is a hack.
Straw man. Never said anything negative of Einstein. Again, makes you a lying liar.
Never said anything about such and such equation, I don't even know it, so how could I ?
Ah, but wait, the fun doesn't stop there!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-travel-simulation-resolves-grandfather-paradox/This would create a "closed timelike curve," or CTC, a loop that could be traversed to travel back in time. Hawking and many other physicists find CTCs abhorrent, because any macroscopic object traveling through one would inevitably create paradoxes where cause and effect break down.
Your boy Hawking rejects the "closed timelike curve/loop" concept! Hawking dares to disagree with Einstein
WHAT ?!?!??! So based on your logic, you imply that he who disagrees with Einstein is a hack. Hawking disagrees with Einstein, therefore by implication, he is a hack.
Congratulations, so you think Hawking is a hack and this after I retracted my characterization of him as one ? Hah!
Check. Mate. Spaceman. Yes, I am still laughing at the joke that is you!
I think hawking is a hack because math sucks!
No, it's you that's a dishonest hack, and many other things! You name-dropped him, you used him, you put your own "bet" down about being able to travel backwards in time, etc. so I figured he supported it also (
and you avoided correcting me when I stated that assumption outloud either due to dishonesty or ignorance!) which he clearly states is impossible and I agree! So calling him a hack is something I have to
retract for making the mistake of debating a troll like you.
Regardless, one favorite scientist of yours is not the end-all-be-all and all other scientists that have differing or opposing viewpoints are to be discarded. I get that he's respected, but let's not make him infallible either! After all, he and Einstein don't always see eye-to-eye, do they ? Eh, chief ??
I ignore the fact that time slows down even though it has been proven. I also ignore the fact that time stops at relativistic speeds or at a singularity.
You're a liar. I clearly mentioned the concept of time dilation earlier, the effect on clocks, the idea of traveling fast, 20 less breaths per minute versus if you were on earth, slower cellular processes, etc. the idea of aging less, etc.
The fact that you're not reading my posts is a problem with you, not me! And in fact, I can prove that you haven't with one of your supposed gotchas:
The universe, as we see it, is an infinite space with particles/atoms that build suns, planets, lifeforms, etc.
Another glaring omission on your part is whether the Universe is infinite or not?
You came back 4 days later only to claim I "omitted my view" that the universe is infinite (same as Hawking's) and referred to said omission as "glaring." Your failure to read is what's glaring! If I'm gonna bother to read everything in your posts, at least bother to read mine before smarting off - if not, f--k off!
I don't understand that time is a dimension
Last time you stated it as your view, not it's just fact ? We'll agree to disagree - The definitions of time, their misuse is what I believe leads to confusion. Pretty sure not all scientists see that the same way either, so don't try to act like you have consensus there!
I know for a fact that the universe is infinite yet somehow it's expanding faster than the speed of light so I ignore my own contradictions.
Your boy Stephen Hawking also agrees the universe is infinite, and I'm pretty sure most scientists do as well. He's not a good enough source for you now ? You keep pimping his name around like he's the only physicist we should ever listen to! You seem to cast doubt by sarcastically adding "I know for a fact."
And "it" expanding ? An infinite space aspect is just infinite. Stuff expanding is stuff expanding... You're assigning some kind of boundary concept it seems to an infinite black space which if there was no matter in it, it'd still be an infinite black space. You have communication problems and that's a big reason why we're still arguing. If you're referring to all the solar systems being detected as moving outward from the big bang point, all the collective matter from our big bang, I mean, I'm somewhat familiar with that, but I don't see what point you're trying to make. You're going off on tangents in your "you don't know this/that" shtick. There can be no end to the universe which makes the most sense.
What exactly are my alleged contradictions as a result of my premise ? Back it up or STFU! You've gotten away with making many many claims and I've not forced you to fetch source quotes/links or explain further, but I think I might just have to on this one. You're already going by some false straw mans and at least one issue with Hawking was corrected.
Also, please stop wandering off into 100 different directions. I'm losing interest reading you...
I ignore the fact that there may be multiple universes.
Oh, that's a fact now but the infinity of the universe is questionable to you ? You have no evidence for speculative, alleged, arbitrary boundaries in our one infinite universe. Since it is your claim, you actually need to prove it instead of just stating it as fact. Regardless, I don't see how it is useful or interesting here.
What is this boundary that you allege that separates one verse from another ? Forget it, I mean, that's a nice tangent, but not really interested in exploring it with you. I never liked you on the forum to begin with. I hope nully does some more drawings of you that drove you so mad for all that time.
It's funny, you like an arbitrary imaginative boundary concept, state it as fact, and above you question my certainty of the infinity of the universe all selectively like a little bitty baby! Awwww. "Support *my* concept and I'll support yours!" Hah!
I think a freezer is a time machine.
In a manner of speaking, and it's a feasible, possible concept (
we can already freeze embryos for later use) which I clearly already explained to you - it accomplishes the same thing if a human body is traveling at the speed of light and it biologically ages less and less. Velocity is acting on the human body causing this and achieving preservation, while temperature, as in freezing a human body, acts on it and will cause 100% preservation - "time" as in the biological clock/atomic motion has 100% stopped for the body.
Moreover, if we hope to travel to other solar systems, we'll NEED this rather than just rely on the effect of time dilation, but yeah, both accomplish the same thing, while one is 100%. A spaceship trying to explore the universe can't have its human passengers wasting oxygen, pissing, crapping, eating away their food supply, you're gonna NEED to deep freeze them for the journey if it is to be succesful!
And guess what, nutjob ? I'll make YOU a bet: I bet you we'll figure out how to safely cryogenically freeze/unfreeze a human body WAY BEFORE we can ever build a spaceship that can safely travel at the speed of light or close to it! You'll need good AI computer technology by then as well, not just cryogenics, as no human will be able to make the split-second decisions to avoid collisions to asteroids at high speeds, etc.!
But yeah, how does your brain NOT see any comparison or understanding ? So desperate you are for a contradiction ? With all that, even so, I wouldn't refer to that ship traveling as "time travel" - I would refer to it by what it actually IS,
space travel! Yes, the humans onboard will age less than on earth, but that's a side effect (much like deep cryo sleep) and "time" is not a destination you can travel to per se! That is all
space travel WITH the benefit of preservation, that is, biological aging slowed down (or stopped 100% with cryogenics) - that's it!
Again, are you denying that cryogenically freezing/unfreezing a human is a plausible, feasible concept in the near future because you saw it on Buck Rogers or Demolition Man ? You're the nut that believes in backwards time travel, but something that we're pretty close to achieving is too much of a stretch for you ?? And the comparison of atomic preservation being achieved given high velocity versus low temperature is *totally* lost on you ?? No, you're NOT that dumb, you're just a hackish troll!
I site sources from Stallone movies.
This attempts to falsely suggest I acted as if I pretended to cite a scientific news source in simply mentioning a plot device from a Stallone movie. You know full well what my intent was - I referred to Demolition Man and Buck Rogers, an old TV Show, as a helpful reference point for those that might remember the cryogenics concept. That doesn't make the concept absurdly fictional! We can freeze embryos now for later use! You keep repeating Stallone Stallone Stallone as if it discredits cryogenics/cryonics as a serious in-the-near-future scientific advancement yet you're a guy that believes in "multi-earth, evil twin" possibilities in the "100%" - how curious!
I get it though, you're angry, butthurt, and you're looking for whatever you can for ridicule but it's dishonest. The cryogenics concept is what was the point and what it can accomplish (
have you wake up 200 years from now if that's what you pay for or deep space travel to conserve resources!) versus a speed-of-light traveling spaceship (Star Trek) which is a creation we won't see for centuries/millenniums, if ever! Just because I connected cryogenics/cryonics to a movie people might've seen here (in a F--KING MOVIE THREAD), doesn't discredit something that's actually feasible, plausible in-the-near-future versus that magical spaceship we need to send your ass off on your way one day to
boldly go where NO emo has gone before!!! One way ticket for you EmoX, my treat!!!!
P.S. Do check out Interstellar some time, it's right up your alley, tailored-made for nutters like you!
