1. Time and Light Speed
This topic was written after I finished watching an anime called Steins;Gate, which “supposed” was using the modern interpretation of what time travel is all about. Sadly very few people really understand the actual theory behind it and even fewer bother to look further than what Hollywood has done with the Terminator or Back to the Future. So, leaving all the cool stuff we see in movies, do you really think time travel is possible? And don't start the E=mc2 explanations because they make no sense if you are not capable of expressing it in plain words.
Before I start explaining anything, let me first make clear that I do not agree with whatever Einstein said about timespace. The guy was contradicting himself all the time, so don’t anyone dare to bring him up as proof of anything. So what if he is considered the greatest mind of the previous century and I am just some nobody? Theories don’t need geniuses to self-excuse themselves. And if you don’t believe me, here are the things I disagree with.
1. Where Einstein went wrong
- He kept saying how he based all his research on simple mathematics. He claimed that the biggest mysteries in the universe can be explained in a very simple way. Which is a big fat lie, since very few people worldwide can comprehend his theories and all his followers instead of further simplifying his work, they just made it a gazillion times more complicating than it already was. You failed miserably at that Einstein.
- Another thing he said is that if you want to find the solutions to unanswered problems, you shouldn’t base all your work on what famous scientists did before your time. This was meant to excuse why he disregarded the established Newtonian physics and even Euclidian geometry as means to find his own theories. Yet look at that, every time someone tries to offer a second opinion today (even me) he always faces the exact same obstacle. “You are wrong because you disagree with Einstein”. You failed miserably at establishing that too Einstein.
- And the final contradiction is how he treats matter and energy differently, depending on circumstances. Meaning, everything is relative because the properties of an object change based on its state at the moment you observe it. This is what the whole quantum theories are all about after all. It is impossible to have a clear picture about a particle and you can only study it the moment you stop it for analysis. Meaning, you intervene to the point it is not natural anymore. All that is just an excuse, since he is practically telling us there is nothing but convenience in whatever happens. He even went as far as treating light as particles in some of his theories and as a wave in others (aka a wavacle), just for the sake of making the numbers to add up. And guess what every single piece of software is using today in its calculations in order to turn out proper results. Imaginary numbers! They just cover up things they can’t explain with things that don’t exist. So much for objectivity…
So, the text below is supposed to offer you a much more reasonable and simple form of what time is all about. If you find no contradictions or parts you don’t understand, then we have a winner!
2. Let’s start with something simple and commonly accepted … and prove it wrong
They keep saying that if you run faster than light, you time-travel. How is that possible? Light does not define time, it is just photons that help us see. If you run almost as fast as light speed, time does not really slow down, you just "see" things moving slower because the "frames per second" the human eye catches lower as well. And if you run at exactly light speed, time does not freeze, you just constantly see the same light beam by travelling next to it. And if you run faster than light, time does not go backwards, you just outrun light beams and see stuff as they were before. The moment you stop, you are still in the present.
In this regard, light is like the film tape of a movie. Static images roll by our eyes in such a speed that gives us the impression of movement. Yet if we could run as fast as the film tape in a straight line, we would see the static images and no motion at all. This does not mean that the film stopped moving. Thus whatever you may think of light, it does NOT define time. Just our perception of it.
So what is light if not the definition of time? Simple, it is just the maximum speed with which we can perceive the passing of time. Our eyes can’t perceive anything faster than it, and thus if there can be particles than can outrun light, then we won’t be able to see them anyway. In the same logic, these particles don’t really travel in time because they outrun light.
This topic was written after I finished watching an anime called Steins;Gate, which “supposed” was using the modern interpretation of what time travel is all about. Sadly very few people really understand the actual theory behind it and even fewer bother to look further than what Hollywood has done with the Terminator or Back to the Future. So, leaving all the cool stuff we see in movies, do you really think time travel is possible? And don't start the E=mc2 explanations because they make no sense if you are not capable of expressing it in plain words.
Before I start explaining anything, let me first make clear that I do not agree with whatever Einstein said about timespace. The guy was contradicting himself all the time, so don’t anyone dare to bring him up as proof of anything. So what if he is considered the greatest mind of the previous century and I am just some nobody? Theories don’t need geniuses to self-excuse themselves. And if you don’t believe me, here are the things I disagree with.
1. Where Einstein went wrong
- He kept saying how he based all his research on simple mathematics. He claimed that the biggest mysteries in the universe can be explained in a very simple way. Which is a big fat lie, since very few people worldwide can comprehend his theories and all his followers instead of further simplifying his work, they just made it a gazillion times more complicating than it already was. You failed miserably at that Einstein.
- Another thing he said is that if you want to find the solutions to unanswered problems, you shouldn’t base all your work on what famous scientists did before your time. This was meant to excuse why he disregarded the established Newtonian physics and even Euclidian geometry as means to find his own theories. Yet look at that, every time someone tries to offer a second opinion today (even me) he always faces the exact same obstacle. “You are wrong because you disagree with Einstein”. You failed miserably at establishing that too Einstein.
- And the final contradiction is how he treats matter and energy differently, depending on circumstances. Meaning, everything is relative because the properties of an object change based on its state at the moment you observe it. This is what the whole quantum theories are all about after all. It is impossible to have a clear picture about a particle and you can only study it the moment you stop it for analysis. Meaning, you intervene to the point it is not natural anymore. All that is just an excuse, since he is practically telling us there is nothing but convenience in whatever happens. He even went as far as treating light as particles in some of his theories and as a wave in others (aka a wavacle), just for the sake of making the numbers to add up. And guess what every single piece of software is using today in its calculations in order to turn out proper results. Imaginary numbers! They just cover up things they can’t explain with things that don’t exist. So much for objectivity…
So, the text below is supposed to offer you a much more reasonable and simple form of what time is all about. If you find no contradictions or parts you don’t understand, then we have a winner!
2. Let’s start with something simple and commonly accepted … and prove it wrong
They keep saying that if you run faster than light, you time-travel. How is that possible? Light does not define time, it is just photons that help us see. If you run almost as fast as light speed, time does not really slow down, you just "see" things moving slower because the "frames per second" the human eye catches lower as well. And if you run at exactly light speed, time does not freeze, you just constantly see the same light beam by travelling next to it. And if you run faster than light, time does not go backwards, you just outrun light beams and see stuff as they were before. The moment you stop, you are still in the present.
In this regard, light is like the film tape of a movie. Static images roll by our eyes in such a speed that gives us the impression of movement. Yet if we could run as fast as the film tape in a straight line, we would see the static images and no motion at all. This does not mean that the film stopped moving. Thus whatever you may think of light, it does NOT define time. Just our perception of it.
So what is light if not the definition of time? Simple, it is just the maximum speed with which we can perceive the passing of time. Our eyes can’t perceive anything faster than it, and thus if there can be particles than can outrun light, then we won’t be able to see them anyway. In the same logic, these particles don’t really travel in time because they outrun light.
Vastaukset 4
Vanhimmat
3. Past and Future
Then there is this notion that time increases in proportions. That the past increases as time goes by and that it is "stored" somewhere, where you can access it somehow and even alter it. Well, in this regard, it is like a line of bricks. Each moment, a brick is created next to another brick. If you know how, you can return to a previous created brick. Yet, the way I see it there is no more than one brick. Each moment the universe changes shape. The shape it was a moment ago no longer exists. It was recycled into the next moment and so on. So, there is no line of bricks. Just one that is smashed and recreated anew. With this simple thought, I say time travel is not possible because time is not linear. Time is a dot, a zero-dimensional ever-shifting present. And since there is no past to go back to, thus time travel is not possible.
What I am getting at here is practically that there is no existing past. The past does not exist somewhere; it is a previous shape of the current present. Our memories of the past are not proof of its existence either, but rather of its passing. Just like memories, photographs are not “stored time”. Looking at the photograph of a building from 150 years ago, you just see something as it was. By no means does it mean that it still is. It will definitely have been demolished or remade many times since then, and the photograph is just the proof of it existing status at one fixed point in time. That point in time is NOT stored on the photograph. It is just the result of reflecting light on a light-sensitive piece of paper. The photograph itself is NOT part of the past, even if it is 150 years old. It exists NOW and not in the past.
4. Time Paradoxes and the 10 Dimensions
The biggest problem with time travel in a linear time model are of course the typical time paradoxes. If you change the past then how did you know the difference in the present to still need to go back? If you kill your father then how were you born to go back? And so on. The easiest way to ask this is to wonder the following: If everything is cause and effect, then how can the effect take place before the cause which resulted to it?
The latest trend is that there are different dimensions and alternative universes, so every time you change something; a completely different timeline is formed that doesn’t affect your own. That still contradicts the notion of “matter can’t be created out of nowhere”. Yet with this sort of model, every time you go back in time and create an alternative reality, you practically bring into existence matter equal to a universe. Furthermore, just you going back in time, materializes extra matter with your body in that universe, which again contradicts the above notion. Such things are still not allowing time travel EVEN in a linear model.
Modern theories tend to explain all that with a 10 dimensional model, the explanation of which is described here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw
As before, this model assumes that time is linear, a thing which I disagree with. To me this fancy explanation is nothing but guidelines for writing good science fiction regarding time travel (of which I don’t believe is possible). It must also be noted that even in fiction, there are few to none works which manage not to make a blunder of their own in-laws, even when they are following the formula. This alone proves that even the fundamentals of this model are yet to be perceived properly, much less the ability to see past them and moving to the Zero Dimensional model.
5. The Dark Age duality
The thing which eventually made me turn away from all current famous theories regarding time is their stuck-to-the-dark age-logic. In medieval times, as well as in most undeveloped civilizations the world is perceived as a duality. Meaning, everything is separated into 2 opposing forces, the interaction of which is the result on our world. If you think about it most of our so-called advanced civilization is incapable to judge something outside of duality. Something can be either good or evil, white or black, lawful or chaotic, logical or emotional. This childish fairy tale way of perceiving things tends to expand even in so-called modern theories and thus we have the all famous string theories, M-theories, and a bunch of related theories that do the exact same thing. Their fundamental logic is that there is matter and anti-matter, there are positive particles and negative particles, there are clock-wise spins and counterclock-wise spins. THERE CAN’T BE ANYTHING ELSE! And this is why their theories are all based on a 1-dimensional model, which is basically two points in space connected with a line, and one point is the opposite of the other. The line is set and the direction of motion dictates which of the two points does a particle belongs to.
Well I find all that complete nonsense. They keep talking about anti-matter for example and yet there CAN’T be anti-matter because the moment it interacts with normal matter they both cease to exist. Even lab-created anti-matter doesn’t have a life span of more than a few milliseconds. So how can something that can’t even exist for more than a fraction of a second is otherwise the stuff of which half of the universe is made up from? How can we even be talking about positive and negative from the moment that their interaction is negating one another? They can’t coexist because they would self-destroy themselves and yet here they are trying to convince us with thousands of pages filled with weird symbols that civilization is still stuck in the dark age and everything in science is still defined with angels and demons. In this regard, all these theories ain’t better than the time people thought the Earth was flat and angels lived in the clouds.
Here is what I think. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOOD PARTICLES AND EVIL PARTICLES. There is no alternative “dark” universe, which is the exact opposites of our own and where everything there is the exact reverse of what happens in our own world. That is b-grade science fiction for low-tier entertainment.
6. The amount of energy
What actually happens in the universe in my mind is again based on zero-dimensional logic. There are not two opposite forces in the cosmos. There is only one (which I will simply call energy), which tends not to have homogenous field strength in all its parts. Some parts of the universe have more energy than others; and that is all the explanation you ever need to have. For example, we have stars and suns which produce light, but not everything in the universe emanates the same amount of light. Some actually don’t emanate at all (planets) while others suck it in (black holes). This does not mean we should view the cosmos in terms of lightness or darkness. There is only light (energy particles) which in some parts is more abundant than in others. So basically, although we have an opposite word for lightness that does not mean darkness is a different and opposing force. Darkness is simply the absence of light. It otherwise DOES NOT EXIST. The same thing can be said about a magnet. Although it has two poles and that separates magnetism in positive and negative, it is otherwise the same type of force moving towards the same direction and we do NOT have two sides that oppose each other. Thus the universe simply runs on one of a kind type of forces which tend to be weak in some parts and strong in others. This difference is what makes everything run around, like two bottles of water connecting and having a flow forming from the bottle with the most water towards the bottle with the less water.
And you may now ask if the universe will one day stop moving if all its parts get to equilibrium, like the two bottles having the exact same amount of water and so they have no flow. It is what the scientists call heat death. I don’t see that ever happening since energy is never lost and everything moves and shakes non-stop to the point you can never get equilibrium.
Ketjun keskustelukieli on Suomi, ei peruskouluenglanti.
"And if you run faster than light, time does not go backwards,"
Prof Maalampi: "Valonnopeus tyhjiössä c on siis suurin mahdollinen signaalinopeus, kun oletetaan kausaalitettin invarianssi. Jos kausaliteetin invarianssista luovutaan, on ylivalonnopeus periaatteessa mahdollinen".
Wow, puhuuko/kirjoittaako Kimmo lontoota?
Einsteinkin puhui sitä, joten heidän täytyy olla yhtä neroja!!!