1. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    20 Feb '09 11:29
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    And paradoxes are a sign that something is illogical and cannot exist.

    [b]If we extend and exaggerate the time dilation effect to Jeff's time frame moving ten times slower than Bob's then Jeff might arrive back on earth after 10 years had passed here (but 1 year for him). If Bob set a watch going the moment Jeff left earth and waited for that watch to ...[text shortened]... meister is in City B now'? Could I phone you up and learn about City B before I get there?
    And paradoxes are a sign that something is illogical and cannot exist.
    ----------------------whitey--------------------

    Only if they are true paradoxes based on a complete understanding. There are many "apparent" paradoxes that are based on assumptions and misunderstandings.

    My contention is that the FW v O "paradox" is one of these and it is one that is fervently latched onto by Atheists because they feel it's a trump card. The probelm is that there are many complex issues here involving the nature of time , the universe and relativity (and eternity) . So many seem to want to not accept that these issues change things and make what "seems" like a paradox into something more believable.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Feb '09 12:022 edits
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Only if they are true paradoxes based on a complete understanding. There are many "apparent" paradoxes that are based on assumptions and misunderstandings.

    My contention is that the FW v O "paradox" is one of these and it is one that is fervently latched onto by Atheists because they feel it's a trump card.
    As always you seem convinced that my atheism has something to do with my arguments here. It doesn't.

    The probelm is that there are many complex issues here involving the nature of time , the universe and relativity (and eternity) . So many seem to want to not accept that these issues change things and make what "seems" like a paradox into something more believable.
    But you simply cannot get away with 'my God is illogical so that explains it'.
    I pointed out a paradox and you jumped on it like it was a good thing. It isn't. You acted like noticing that something is a paradox solved the problem when in fact it merely highlighted that what you are claiming is currently a paradox and therefore illogical until you can find and explanation that removes the paradox.

    [edit]
    If your argument is at its heart basically illogical or paradoxical then it isn't really an argument. You say maybe Einsteins ideas help with your argument but they don't. They haven't remove the paradox. Are you perhaps just trying for the age old Christian tradition of dressing up a problem by making it sound even more complicated until the audience looses track and think that something has been answered when in reality it has been compounded rather than answered.
  3. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    20 Feb '09 12:32
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Despite this you do agree that if Jeff had travelled at high speeds even of maybe 500,000 mph for 30 years or so , when he returned he would be likely to experience some distortion of time would he not?

    I was under the impression that experiments had been done already to prove this effect using highly sensitive time pieces in planes and such like. ...[text shortened]... based on this idea was presented in the novel Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle."

    WIKI
    ….Despite this you do agree that if Jeff had travelled at high speeds even of maybe 500,000 mph for 30 years or so , when he returned he would be likely to experience some distortion of time would he not?
    ..…


    Yes -but this is just time DILATION.
    Time dilation may allow you to ‘travel’ (well, perhaps ’survive’ would be a better word here) further into the future in the very narrow sense you pointed out but that would really have a similar effect to frozen hibernation for you would have still “past through” (if that is the correct term) that period of time rather than “jumped” from point in time X directly to point in time Y. I am not sure if that should be considered “true” time travel because if time DILATION is “time travel” then why wouldn’t the fact that we are “passing through” (if that is the right term) time right now (with or without time dilation ) be also “time travel” !? (for example, first I existed at 12 o’clock then I existed at 1 o’clock -so I have time travelled 😛 ) I mean, in everyday English people would NOT normally say we are “time travelling” just by passing through time as we normally do -right?

    (And also, time dilation wouldn’t allow you to go back in time unless you go over the speed of light which is supposed to be impossible -but you may already know this)
  4. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80156
    20 Feb '09 13:01
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]….Despite this you do agree that if Jeff had travelled at high speeds even of maybe 500,000 mph for 30 years or so , when he returned he would be likely to experience some distortion of time would he not?
    ..…


    Yes -but this is just time DILATION.
    Time dilation may allow you to ‘travel’ (well, perhaps ’survive’ would be a better word her ...[text shortened]... ou go over the speed of light which is supposed to be impossible -but you may already know this)[/b]
    I suppose it depends who you ask. For example, in The Time Machine (the film, don't know if this is the case in H G Wells novel), the protagonist remains existing in the time machine while passing through the time in between. This is also the case for the film Primer. Therefore, you could argue that we are going forward in time at the moment, just people do not recognise this at the "normal" rate we do so. Changing this rate by exploiting time dilation, you could say we are time travelling in the publicly recognised sense.

    I can't see any way of jumping gaps in time with our current models in physics though.
  5. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    20 Feb '09 13:132 edits
    Originally posted by lausey
    I suppose it depends who you ask. For example, in The Time Machine (the film, don't know if this is the case in H G Wells novel), the protagonist remains existing in the time machine while passing through the time in between. This is also the case for the film Primer. Therefore, you could argue that we are going forward in time at the moment, just people do n e.

    I can't see any way of jumping gaps in time with our current models in physics though.
    Ah, The Time Machine (1960, Best Cinematography). One of the ten best SciFi pictures of all time IMO.

    Great musical score too, by composer Russell Garcia.

    Both versions of the movie are close to the novel in that regard of a person traversing the ages in a moment. Other embellishments of Well's novel exist. But the novel graphically discribes the world changing in fast motion around the time traveler.

    I don't think this kind of time travel, back and forth in a machine, will ever be possible.

    Since this is a Spirituality Forum the Bible does record some instances of John being transported off "in spirit" to the distant future to witness the end of the age and the climax of God's salvation.

    That is about the closest thing I can think of to time travel. He was able to write about what he saw. But much of what he saw in his revelation was presented to him as "signs" or symbolic visions.
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    20 Feb '09 13:22
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]….Despite this you do agree that if Jeff had travelled at high speeds even of maybe 500,000 mph for 30 years or so , when he returned he would be likely to experience some distortion of time would he not?
    ..…


    Yes -but this is just time DILATION.
    Time dilation may allow you to ‘travel’ (well, perhaps ’survive’ would be a better word her ...[text shortened]... ou go over the speed of light which is supposed to be impossible -but you may already know this)[/b]
    ===============================
    Yes -but this is just time DILATION.
    Time dilation may allow you to ‘travel’ (well, perhaps ’survive’ would be a better word here) further into the future in the very narrow sense you pointed out but that would really have a similar effect to frozen hibernation for you would have still “past through” (if that is the correct term) that period of time rather than “jumped” from point in time X directly to point in time Y. I am not sure if that should be considered “true” time travel because if time DILATION is “time travel” then why wouldn’t the fact that we are “passing through” (if that is the right term) time right now (with or without time dilation ) be also “time travel” !? (
    =====================================


    I agree completely.

    You must have said something wrong!
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Feb '09 14:011 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Since this is a Spirituality Forum the Bible does record some instances of John being transported off "in spirit" to the distant future to witness the end of the age and the climax of God's salvation.

    That is about the closest thing I can think of to time travel. He was able to write about what he saw. But much of what he saw in his revelation was presented to him as [b]"signs"
    or symbolic visions.[/b]
    And this demonstrates a type of time paradox. The book of Revelations has had such far reaching consequences that its future has been changed by it. The writer was seeing a future that would not have existed if he didn't see it (and live to write about it).
    I suppose that such a time loop is theoretically possible however it could not be planned by God in the scenario proposed by knightmeister. God would not have known the result until after implementing it, and would be powerless to change it if it didn't work out the way he wished. One wonders then why he would bother with such and experiment.
  8. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    20 Feb '09 14:40
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]….Despite this you do agree that if Jeff had travelled at high speeds even of maybe 500,000 mph for 30 years or so , when he returned he would be likely to experience some distortion of time would he not?
    ..…


    Yes -but this is just time DILATION.
    Time dilation may allow you to ‘travel’ (well, perhaps ’survive’ would be a better word her ...[text shortened]... ou go over the speed of light which is supposed to be impossible -but you may already know this)[/b]
    You forget , I wasn't making a case for time travel as such , I was more interested in the relative perspectives on events that Jeff and Bob would have. For Jeff it would only take 2 years of his time to be able to see what Bob is doing 20 years in the future. Bob would feel that Jeff had been away for two decades.

    Whether Jeff is time travelling or not , he will experience being able to get access to Bob's future well before he will feel entitled to see it.

    One could say that he infallibly knows Bob's future choices before Bob does because it only takes him two years to know it. But it would also be true to say that until Bob moves forward to that point 20 years in his future then his future choices are not yet made.
  9. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80156
    20 Feb '09 14:461 edit
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    You forget , I wasn't making a case for time travel as such , I was more interested in the relative perspectives on events that Jeff and Bob would have. For Jeff it would only take 2 years of his time to be able to see what Bob is doing 20 years in the future. Bob would feel that Jeff had been away for two decades.

    Whether Jeff is time travelling o moves forward to that point 20 years in his future then his future choices are not yet made.
    You are talking about time dilation, but you have completely misinterpreted what actually happens. Jeff will experience 2 years in his life within his reference frame. The relatively stationary reference frame (Bob) will experience 20 years. When Jeff gets back, 20 years have still passed for both, but Bob has only aged and experienced 2 years.

    EDIT: Calculated that for this situation to occur, Jeff will have to travel at 94.9% the speed of light relative to Bob.
  10. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    20 Feb '09 14:591 edit
    Originally posted by lausey
    You are talking about time dilation, but you have completely misinterpreted what actually happens. Jeff will experience 2 years in his life within his reference frame. The relatively stationary reference frame (Bob) will experience 20 years. When Jeff gets back, 20 years have still passed for both, but Bob has only aged and experienced 2 years.

    EDIT: Calcu ...[text shortened]... r this situation to occur, Jeff will have to travel at 94.9% the speed of light relative to Bob.
    So for Jeff time will not be experienced in the same way as Bob and he will only have aged two years compared to Bob's 20 years.

    The implications are that for Jeff he will see Bob's 20 year future choices in two years time.

    For Bob it will feel like 20 years. If this is true then how do we know when Bob's choice actually happens? Is it not correct to say that it happens in two years and in 20 years and that both are correct?
  11. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    20 Feb '09 15:06
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    As always you seem convinced that my atheism has something to do with my arguments here. It doesn't.

    [b]The probelm is that there are many complex issues here involving the nature of time , the universe and relativity (and eternity) . So many seem to want to not accept that these issues change things and make what "seems" like a paradox into something ...[text shortened]... omething has been answered when in reality it has been compounded rather than answered.
    If your argument is at its heart basically illogical or paradoxical then it isn't really an argument.
    ----------------whitey--------------------

    What I am trying to communicate is that it's not my argument that is paradoxical but it is your view of my argument that makes it seem paradoxical.


    There are two possible truths here....

    1) My argument is paradoxical and I just can't see that it is

    2) You have misunderstood my argument and it just seems paradoxical when it isn't.

    We both know what each other thinks about 1) and 2) so there is little point just stating that my argument "is paradoxical" - what you need to do is try and understand why I don't think it is and then prove me wrong.
  12. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80156
    20 Feb '09 15:071 edit
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    So for Jeff time will not be experienced in the same way as Bob and he will only have aged two years compared to Bob's 20 years.

    The implications are that for Jeff he will see Bob's 20 year future choices in two years time.

    For Bob it will feel like 20 years. If this is true then how do we know when Bob's choice actually happens? Is it not correct to say that it happens in two years and in 20 years and that both are correct?
    No, not quite. Jeff wouldn't actually be seeing anything in Bob's future when he comes back, he will just be seeing the present as normal (which will be 20 years in the future for both). Like if Jeff left in 2000, and got back in 2020, they will both still be in 2020. Just that to Jeff, it feels like only 2 years have passed, just Earth time to him has speeded up 10 times.

    I suppose the best analogy will be that if you could slow down Jeff's metabolic rate by 10 times in a way that the outside world to him appears to speed up 10 times in year 2000. Leave him like this for 20 years. He would have only aged by 2 years. Change his rate to normal again and it still will be 2020 to him and Bob. There will be no future to see as such, just that to him, it feels like he got to the future much quicker.
  13. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    20 Feb '09 15:08
    Originally posted by lausey
    You are talking about time dilation, but you have completely misinterpreted what actually happens. Jeff will experience 2 years in his life within his reference frame. The relatively stationary reference frame (Bob) will experience 20 years. When Jeff gets back, 20 years have still passed for both, but Bob has only aged and experienced 2 years.

    EDIT: Calcu ...[text shortened]... r this situation to occur, Jeff will have to travel at 94.9% the speed of light relative to Bob.
    EDIT: Calculated that for this situation to occur, Jeff will have to travel at 94.9% the speed of light relative to Bob

    ----------lausey--------------------

    Which doesn't really matter because we know time dilation occurs anyway. I could make the same argument if Jeff went round the sun and back at 300,000 mph for a few weeks. The problem is that the dilation factor would be very small and it's harder to illustrate the point. Even if we are only talking milliseconds the principle is the same.
  14. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80156
    20 Feb '09 15:12
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    Which doesn't really matter because we know time dilation occurs anyway. I could make the same argument if Jeff went round the sun and back at 300,000 mph for a few weeks. The problem is that the dilation factor would be very small and it's harder to illustrate the point. Even if we are only talking milliseconds the principle is the same.
    Yes, true, and can understand why you would extend the analogy to beyond this for the sake of argument. Cheers. 🙂
  15. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    20 Feb '09 15:18
    Originally posted by lausey
    No, not quite. Jeff wouldn't actually be seeing anything in Bob's future when he comes back, he will just be seeing the present as normal (which will be 20 years in the future for both). Like if Jeff left in 2000, and got back in 2020, they will both still be in 2020. Just that to Jeff, it feels like only 2 years have passed, just Earth time to him has speede ...[text shortened]... no future to see as such, just that to him, it feels like he got to the future much quicker.
    I agree , but the point is that Jeff's experience of events occuring in time would be very different from Bob's because of relativity.

    This is what is meant regarding God. God experiences your future choices in a different way than you do. The choice you will make in 1 year's time is being experienced by God in what might be called an eternal "now".

    It's not as if God sees you make a choice and then when you get there you make the choice "again" because the point where you make that choice and where God sees it is one and the same , his time reference intersects with yours at the same point , just like Bob's 20 years intersects with Jeff's 2 years.

    Jeff might say when he leaves on his journey "bye Bob , I will see you in two years when you retire" (bob is 40) , Bob confused says " Ok , see you in 20 years then " Who is right? Or are they both right? When exactly does Bob retire?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree