Light traveling from the Sun to Earth

Originally posted by lemon lime
Now let's assume an imaginary observer who is able to view the entire universe, and also assume his clock is the constant.

The existence of a universal observer and clock rules out time travel.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Would this be backwards in time for a clock on earth, or only for the clock travelling with the photon?

Going backwards in time only makes sense if it means skipping back to events that have already happened. And not just to view a repeat of those events, but to actually be a part of them. I'm convinced Einstein was simply illustrating the impossibility of that happening, and not suggesting how it could be done.

I believe the idea of time travel creates unresovlable problems. First you are alone in a room sitting at your computer, but then that time frame repeats and now there is someone else who is talking to you as you sit at your computer. So which reality is true? Are they both true, or does the time travelers appearance in effect cancel out the first scenario? It's not like pulling out a peg and placing it in a previous spot on a board, it would be more like ripping a button off your shirt and trying to place it into another button hole.

I'm not sure what you mean by clocks, but I think all clocks would appear to back up to show a previous time. I'm not sure how a clock traveling with a photon would be affected, or if it could be affected in any way.

Originally posted by humy
WOW you are just such an ignorant moron. Just for once, try actually UNDERSTANDING something about the topic of conversation for just a change and then come back to us.

Well, we know that nothing can move backwards in time. That is science fiction stuff not real science. So your understanding must be screwed up.

The Instructor

Originally posted by twhitehead
The existence of a universal observer and clock rules out time travel.

I think so too. The universal observer and clock doesn't stop it from happening, it observes that it is not happening.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm not sure what you mean by clocks, but I think all clocks would appear to back up to show a previous time. I'm not sure how a clock traveling with a photon would be affected, or if it could be affected in any way.

With relativity, time is relative. The location of the clock is everything.
If an object is moving from the sun to the earth and is accelerates close to c, its time slows down as it accelerates, relative to earths time.
So a clock on earth will show 8 minutes going by when the clock on the object may only show a few seconds.
If the object were to accelerate up to c, then its clock will stop relative to earth. If the object were to surpass c, then its clock should go backwards. However, this does not mean earths clock goes backwards, only the clock on the object, relative to the earth.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, we know that nothing can move backwards in time. That is science fiction stuff not real science. So your understanding must be screwed up.

The Instructor

I CLEARLY did NOT say something can move backwards in time nor do I believe this at all likely.
If anything, you could argue that my post indirectly implied that time travel is impossible, although my post wasn't really about time travel but more about the speed of light limit.
Perhaps you can try READING my posts BEFORE spouting out your ignorant crap.
Read my post again and them come back to us.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Or maybe... what appears to be a short jump back in time could in fact only be an illusion. If so, then this one would be a whopper.

We can know that cause and effect still occur in natural order, with cause coming first and then effect. But that's pretty much all we [b]can know. Because no matter how careful we are or what controls we put into pla ...[text shortened]... seeing now?

Someone wake me up when the aliens get here, I don't want to miss that.[/b]

If "only imaginary... ". to what or whom do we attribute responsibility
for the design and function of the intricate phenomena described?

The following is what you wrote on page 1 of this thread:

According to the equations of relativity, if anything traveled fast than c, it would be moving BACKWARDS and NOT forwards in time! (OBVIOUSLY, you can forget what RJHinds just said; he is talking out of his ignorant ass for he understands NOTHING about the fact of relativity )
So I guess the answer to your question might not seem to make a whole lot of sense! This is one reason (but NOT the main reason ) why Einstein said and believed nothing could go over c and, although I would not totally rule out the possibility he could have been wrong, I believe the most rational default assumption should surely be that he is almost certainly right about this until if or when we have a rational reason or pretty good evidence to believe the contrary.

So it looks to me like you are saying that anything going faster than c would go backwards in time. You even put BACKWARDS in capital letters. Then you say you would not totally rule out this possibility.

So it appears I am not talking out of my ignorant ass after all.

The Instructor

Originally posted by lemon lime
That was the answer I was looking for, but there's another thought experiment I had in mind to follow this one.


Now let's assume an imaginary observer who is able to view the entire universe, and also assume his clock is the constant. In other words, no matter what relative differences in time may be in effect throughout the universe, we are able to ...[text shortened]... erse know exactly when that free will decision was made before it happened?

If light could travel that fast then that is the speed at which time would start going backward. Kazet was right in having you define the rules.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following is what you wrote on page 1 of this thread:

[b]According to the equations of relativity, if anything traveled fast than c, it would be moving BACKWARDS and NOT forwards in time! (OBVIOUSLY, you can forget what RJHinds just said; he is talking out of his ignorant ass for he understands NOTHING about the fact of relativity )
So I guess the a ...[text shortened]... ssibility.

So it appears I am not talking out of my ignorant ass after all.

The Instructor

It is just amazing how you apparently totally misinterpret a perfectly simple and concise post.
I CLEARLY did NOT say nor imply anything of the sort.
Reminder of what I said in the first few words:

“...According to the equations of relativity, IF anything traveled fast than c, ...”
(my emphasis)

Do you see the word IF there? I was NOT saying things CAN travel faster than c and therefore I clearly was NOT implying that traveling back in time was possible nor likely there.

I then CLEARLY indicated that it is unlikely that something can go over c although I did not rule the possibility out completely that something can go over c. Reminder of what I said in the last paragraph:

“...This is one reason (but NOT the main reason ) why Einstein said and believed nothing could go over c and, although I would not totally rule out the possibility he could have been wrong, I believe the most rational default assumption should surely be that he (“he” = Einstein ) is almost certainly right about this (“this” =nothing can go over c ) until if or when we have a rational reason or pretty good evidence to believe the contrary.
...”
(my emphasis and my bracketed clarifying comments inserted)

So, LOGICALLY, I CLEARLY indicated that IF something goes faster than c then it would be going BACKWARDS in time BUT it is unlikely that anything can do that thus I am CLEARLY indicating that it is unlikely that something can travel backwards in time by going over c.

And, obviously, the operative word here is not “ BACKWARDS” as you seem to think but “IF”. The reason why I capitalized the word BACKWARDS is obviously to indicate one of the PROBLEMS of the concept of going over c -NOT to indicate that something could actually GO over c and thus backwards in time!

Originally posted by twhitehead
With relativity, time is relative. The location of the clock is everything.
If an object is moving from the sun to the earth and is accelerates close to c, its time slows down as it accelerates, relative to earths time.
So a clock on earth will show 8 minutes going by when the clock on the object may only show a few seconds.
If the object were to accel ...[text shortened]... does not mean earths clock goes backwards, only the clock on the object, relative to the earth.

If an object is moving from the sun to the earth and is accelerates close to c, its time slows down as it accelerates, relative to earths time.

What about relative to the sun? I assume this would also apply to the sun as well as to earth, but I've never considered if there might be any difference... would it be any different for the object you are approaching than it would be for an object you are accelerating away from? In other words, when you say "relative to earths time" doesn't the same apply to the sun, and we could just as easily say relative to the suns time?

It sounds a little weird to say it that way... I'm not sure but I think Sol is the (proper?) name for our sun, so I think I'll start saying Sol instead of "the sun". I could be wrong, our suns name might be Fred or Joe or Bartholomew... or Sue? No, Sol seems more like a fitting name for a star.

Originally posted by joe beyser
If light could travel that fast then that is the speed at which time would start going backward. Kazet was right in having you define the rules.

He wasn't asking me to "define the rules". He was asking me to do something else.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
If "only imaginary... ". to what or whom do we attribute responsibility
for the design and function of the intricate phenomena described?

I'm intentionally trying to keep the parameters of this as limited as possible, to discourage arguments over other topics. It's not a surefire fail-safe, but at least it keeps me off the firing range and away from stray bullets. Or maybe not... by definition a stray bullet can end up going almost anywhere.

Oops, I almost forgot to answer your implied question (did I happen to mention I'm also a mindreader?). An imaginary observer is not a real entity, it's a tool used to help direct and focus the minds attention on something that may not be, uh, immediately understood or recognized, or necessarily obvious... it's sort of a visual aid for the, uh, imagination impaired? Awww crap, I'm trying to think of a nicer way to say this...

It's a point of reference that doesn't actually exist, but is useful when looking at (examining) something that can't be seen or perceived through our natural senses. For instance, we can't literally see something like relativity, but we can understand it. Our physical ability to sense reality is necessarily limited to our lives here on earth. We have what we need for living here, plus a wee bit of an extra mental bonus enabling us to imagine some things completely different and foreign to anyones personal experience.

Originally posted by humy
It is just amazing how you apparently totally misinterpret a perfectly simple and concise post.
I CLEARLY did NOT say nor imply anything of the sort.
Reminder of what I said in the first few words:

“...According to the equations of relativity, [b]IF anything traveled fast than c, ...”
(my emphasis)

Do you see the word IF there? I was NOT sa ...[text shortened]... oing over c -NOT to indicate that something could actually GO over c and thus backwards in time![/b]

I believe it is possible for something to go faster than c. However, it would not be going backwards in time. I don't believe Einstein ever said anything about going backward in time. That is complete nonsense.

The Instructor

Originally posted by joe beyser
If light could travel that fast then that is the speed at which time would start going backward. Kazet was right in having you define the rules.

Time can not go backwards.

The Instructor