Time travel hoax BUSTED

I think you are mistaken.

quora.com/Does-relativity-have-implications-for-causation

>Unless you manage to install a framework in the universe with a functional API it's not happening.
This has already happened. As we may live in a simulation, this is actually entirely plausible.

Divide the time axis by c and you get spatial units. Multiply the spatial axes my c and you get temporal units. It is as valid an axis as any spatial one. It is real.

Your knowledge about computer programming is as laughable as your ideas about time.

>The fact that there is no known reason for particle decay doesn't mean that there isn't one. Quarks maybe moving about and some configuration that they form is unstable, or a neutrino or enough neutrinoes hit the atom making it decay. It could be any number of reasons. The fact that time dilation has an effect on decay would make me suggest internal movement of subatomic particles has something to do with it.
So instead of just postulating that there is no such thing as time, you have to also throw out known particle physics and maybe even all quantum mechanics with it? This doesn't sound simpler or more intuitive than quantum physics + relativity = quantum field theory, especially since you haven't given any mechanism that could account for the random interaction and decay that the standard model can, in some cases, predict with incredible accuracy. Indeed for unstable fundamental particles what you are proposing is tantamount to hidden variables -- a class of theory that has been shown time and time again to disagree with experimental reality.
>Cause and effect without time is easy. Think of computer code. It doesn't have to have time anywhere in it and yet it has causation. Time doesn't dictate cause and effect but order does. Just remove time stamps from "a list of events" and that's it.
But that ordering IS time ordering! You have ordered the events chronologically, then forgotten what the value of t is for each event. That makes sense, physically, because you can always choose a different timelike coordinate, but that doesn't mean time isn't real: there are many different ways to cut a spacetime manifold into a spacelike part and a timelike part, but there will always be one time dimension and 3 (or more generally N) space dimensions.
I don't see how that contradicts anything I said. In fact, Ron's answer is essentially the same as what I said.

Your point about code is stupid. The reason computers don't do all of the code at once, or in reverse, is because of time. The processor receives instruction chronologically.

It is the order of the instructions that matters, not some time dimension. You can do all those same computations pushing rocks around if you like. There's order and it's in a sense chronological order but it doesn't mean time is involved. There are states that happen before and after each other. Not in time, but in order.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine

Oh good, someone is starting to piece things together here. But why stop there. If time does not exist then certainly space doesn't exist either, it has no properties and acts on nothing. Your analogy of a comp program is flawed however, 0 is a placeholder and 1 is the principal. Think more like a holographic type universe where everything is connected to one another in the same toroidal magneto/dielectic form.

and for those CIA flat earth posters:
Yes, the earth is as flat as a baseball.

>what are race conditions

time is distorted by the theory of relativity. if there were no time then y=mx+b would have no meaning and we would all teleport

>Think more like a holographic type universe where everything is connected
That's such bullshit: holography means that quantum gravity in a volume is equivalent to some theory defined on the boundary of that volume (even that is unsure for finite regions of space -- AdS/CFT is exact but the boundary theory is defined on the boundary of all spacetime). That does not mean "everything is connected", just that the amount of entropy or information associated with a region is proportional to the surface area of the region, not its volume.
>in the same toroidal magneto/dielectic form
That's just nonsense.
Gibbering madness.

youtube.com/watch?v=S8OEiTe8_Dc

Holograms can be cut into as many little pieces as you like and they will all have the same image. Kinda like how when you divide a magnet, it just turns into two smaller magnets and so on. It couldn't possibly be because light is somehow dependent on MAGNETISM and DIELECTIC INERTIA.

So these two things already blow the fuck out of any perceived "boundary" the universe has. It never began nor will end. 0 IS THE PLACEHOLDER, 1 IS THE PRINCIPAL.

>0 is the placeholder
You cannot derive something out of nothing. Such nonsense is for atomists who believe some magical special snowflake particle spawned the entire universe.

>1 is the principal
You cannot have everything at the same time for that would mean NO CHANGE occurs.

There are thousands of books on this, Plotinus would be a good start though.

>quantum gravity

Yeah lets just stick the word "quantum" in front of things and then make it completely. Gravity is no different then what most people call "magnetic attraction, magnetic repulsion". There is no attraction or repulsion in a magnet, it creates counter space that follows the right hand rule.

>Volume

Inertia and the loss of inertia is not volume.

The last time I've been on Veeky Forums was like 4 months ago.
This exact same copypasted thread was on the front page back then too.

>The processor receives instruction chronologically.
But this is the central fallacy of your argument I believe.
You are trying to justifying that time exists by basically assuming that it exists (receives instruction chronologically).

lol. everything's a meme these days.
good one OP

>ya

Really?

Games that don't simulate time don't have their characters teleport. Movement in them is simply relative to other events in the game.

What known particle physics would be thrown out if time is removed?

Computer code isn't time ordered in the sense that there's some mystical 4th dimension in it. The code is ordered relative to each other, not relative to some time-entity.

Time travel into the future is of course possible, although it's not as romantic as having a funny looking machine that you pull a lever on and meeting morlocks in the forests of a distant future society. You simply advance cryogenics enough to put people into liquid nitrogen and then wake them up after a period of time, and presto, time travel. If I knocked you out and did that to you and then woke you up in 500 years and told you it was time travel,would you get mad at me when my method was discovered and tell me it wasn't? Time is motion and by reducing them otion inside of you I can essentially make you 99.999% time-proofed.

>Games that don't simulate time don't have their characters teleport.
They do if they used their CPU for timing.

Remember, back in the old days they basically made a processor for a game. If you put that game on a faster processor the game would run proportionately faster.
Space Invaders is an example of this. The speeding up of the aliens was actually just a function of killing them and thus removing the number of things that needed to be rendered. As it was ported to more powerful hardware they had to actually code in the increasing speed or else the aliens would just teleport down the screen.

Every single "real time" game has time simulated in it. Talking about games that don't simulate time? What games?

>the world is a videogame
learn to understand games vs reality. And y=mx+b doesn't exist without time so you're wrong

To give you a definite answer that a certain game doesn't use the clock generator at all I would probably need the source code. It is kinda common knowledge that many old games simply ran as fast as they could (especially if they were designed to be played on hardware that was constant). This is the primary reason why "Turbo" buttons were used and why DosBox limits cycles. I think you are familiar with this considering your post's content. Mortal Kombat was one of these games IIRC.

Anyway it's pretty trivial to make a "real time" game that doesn't simulate time so we shouldn't really be all that interested in how old games were actually coded. Maybe I'll do a simple one at some point with source code visible.

While you might be able fix Space Invader speed problems with some dynamic CPU cycle limiting program, there's another point to be made. Let's put a simulated neural network inside a Space Invaders game that is the player. The faster the game appears to outside viewers, the faster the neural simulation also runs, therefore synchronizing game speed inside the simulation (between the game itself and the simulated player). That simulated neural network player wouldn't see any difference in his perception of time no matter how fast or slow your computer was.

Are you saying that our universe cannot be simulated using a computer?

It's not like the validity of this conversation would change if all games stopped existing. We're talking about theory and principles here, not actual implementations. I'm using games to visualize my point, not to prove it.

What a shitty thread.
>I don't like time therefore it doesn't exist
Go on and write Einstein's equations without time in it. How would you even differentiate between different gamma factors, aka the rate at which time passes?

Time in those equations is considered to be seconds. A second is a certain amount of vibrations of a cesium atom. There's nothing to rewrite if you just consider that the cesium atom doesn't vibrate because some 4th dimension tells it to but because it's interacting with its environment.

A physicist without math is the same as a gamedev without programming. It's basically the ideas guy.

You may say whatever you want, but for as long as there is an explicit time variable, in special relativity, and indeed a whole dimension in general relativity, nobody cares for your ideas. Relativity is the longest standing theory in the history of physics. And just a quick glance at the equations tell you that the only difference between time and space is a minus sign. Other than that, the same fucking thing. So you are not arguing against me here, it's Einstein. And so far, in every debate, he's won.

What's wrong with the ideas guy? After all it was Einstein who said "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

He also said:
“Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it.”

And:
"Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter."

Einstein sadly didn't win always. One thing he "lost" was Copenhagen Interpretation. But that's only because he couldn't prove them wrong and others chose to believe in it without conclusive evidence.

Oh look, it's this copypasta thread again.
Anyone who gets baited by this is fucking retarded. Quit engaging with trolls you morons.

What's wrong then?

A physicist and metaphysicist do not differentiate in the slightest other than the language they use.

>Relativity is the longest standing theory in the history of physics.

Wrong, the fact that light speed has been proven not to be a constant means that....

>And just a quick glance at the equations tell you that the only difference between time and space is a minus sign.

All these equations mean nothing! There is no such thing as "speed of light in a vacuum" because a pure vacuum cannot exist, it is impossible! Space is not a vacuum, space has no properties there is only dielectricity and magnetism.

Because It's all the same shit: Inertia following the right hand rule.

>There's no destination as defined by con-artists getting grant money for fake/stupid study and spend it on booze and cocaine (like my money).

I think this is correct. There's a lot of dodgy shit going on for research money

>All these equations mean nothing! There is no such thing as "speed of light in a vacuum" because a pure vacuum cannot exist, it is impossible! Space is not a vacuum, space has no properties there is only dielectricity and magnetism
There is " no such thing" as a straight line or a circle either. Still the concepts are used every day from manufacturing to building to geometry.
Till we fine tune our understanding further,it's what we presently have and it works fine.

You know c isn't defined as the speed of light right?

Time doesn't exist. Knowing that means you know there's no time travel. That's like trying to debunk god. You are wasting your time.

>There is " no such thing" as a straight line or a circle either. Still the concepts are used every day from manufacturing to building to geometry.
>Till we fine tune our understanding further,it's what we presently have and it works fine.

:|

Time is a convenient way to compare relative rates of change. Acceleration is an example of something that can affect relative rates of change. An accelerating object experiences a slower 'passage of time'. An object that accelerates away from a given point and accelerates back to the same point will change more slowly than the place it left and returned to. This can be thought of as forward time travel. It's a mundane part of the everyday universe and can be confirmed by observation and experiment.

I have been reading science books since Sagan's Cosmos and I must say, that was very well put into words.

>Where is next week?
t + 1 week
>Last week?
t - 1 week

Where t is the current time position

>“Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it.”

I think we're done here yeah. Hollywood tends to interfere with science.

...

>Time is an arbitrary notation created by man
Fuck off with this retarded shit. I could just as easily say "space is an arbitrary notation created by man" and then proceed to say space travel isn't a thing, being walking from one end of the room to another or sitting still on your fat ass for a year and waiting for the Earth to circumnavigate the ecliptic. Fuck off with your basic bitch pseudoscience.

>I could just as easily say "space is an arbitrary notation created by man" and then proceed to say space travel isn't a thing

But it isn't a thing, space has no properties.
see:

>space has no properties
haha
no
Read about vacuum energy you fucking brainlet dropout.

Lol wtf

How does time not exist? Time to me is simply a star going from being born to being a supernova, an infant to a man, iron to rust, alive to dead. All man puts on time is a way to measure and keep track of it.

Don't bother with people who preface their arguments with "time isn't real" or other such handwavings. They are brainlets.

hahaha
NO
>He doesn't know absolute zero cannot exist because of the laws of thermodynamics.

But lets just say there is such thing as a pure vacuum. There would be no energy in this vacuum,in fact there wouldn't be anything because it would be devoid of anything to begin with. The only reason there's potential energy in a vacuum is because outside the vacuum chamber is a DIFFERENCE in pressure and electrical pressure. This energy desperately want to equalize and will do so once the seal is broken.

I bet you this person cannot tell me how time is its own force that affects any phenomena in its own regard. Nothing in nature or the universe gives a shit about what you think is a minute or a second or a nano meter or any other stupid shit that isn't inertia and the loss of inertia. Time nothing but a recording of motion and motion doesn't rely on time. Motion relies on a shit load of different things , but when you get down to it's basically just pressure mediation....

Basically, split a magnet and watch what happens. In fact keep splitting them up as small as you like, it's all going to be the same shit in the end.

Everything is fields and fields [spoiler]are not particles[/spoiler]

"don't bother with people who understand that physics and metaphysics are the same thing"
Great argument

Do you realize that everything you're posting is complete nonsense?

Nothing I said was false.

>lets just say there is such thing as a pure vacuum. There would be no energy in this vacuum,in fact there wouldn't be anything because it would be devoid of anything to begin with.
False. The energy content of a vacuum is proportional to the volume of the vacuum. Your rationalization of how much energy should be in space doesn't hold up to experimental evidence and it's clear you're completely out of your depth.

>motion doesn't rely on time
Cool. So what is motion? Since we've decided that it has nothing to do with time, I suppose that our most basic definition of motion -velocity with respect to a point in space- no longer has anything with how much the space between those objects changes with respect to time. Fuck velocity, we didn't need it anyway. Oh, and frequency? We don't need that either. Measuring the energy content of waves? Completely meaningless. Fuck energy, we didn't need it anyway. The entire universe exists in a timeless amalgam because you say so. You're qualified to say such things because you look at pretty pictures of spirals and toruses and aren't unfamiliar with controlled substances. Who am I to doubt you? You don't need to step foot in a laboratory. You're enlightened! And euphoric!
>it's basically just pressure mediation
Stop right there, scum. Space isn't real because it's just a human construct to measure position. Therefore any instantaneous measurement of force per area is invalid. Area is invalid. Space is invalid. Your move, cunt.

>Basically, split a magnet and watch what happens. In fact keep splitting them up as small as you like, it's all going to be the same shit in the end.
If you split a magnet into enough pieces it no longer can form a magnetic domain, you fucking dropout.

If I didn't consider it animal abuse to assault the retarded I would beat you about the head and face with a textbook.

Time really isn't real, it's a perception of the movement of mass and light around your own physical mass. Things are constantly changing, and space-time waves occur with the flux of the gravity around you, changing your perception of time, without time actually having gone by. You can't really send a message back to yourself, even if you had all the resistors and emmittors required, the information you'd be relaying to yourself would not be relative until the resistor energy distorted time to the point of where you have already sent the message. Sure you can save a few seconds by making precise calculations of language and habit to make a guess before the energy is 100% relative, but it causes a large amount of error. Doing any of this is obviously nuclear because gravity attracts everything, so it becomes tedious and annoying. I would consider it to be almost useless, because you'd have to nuke yourself to send the message back, but also have nuked yourself in the past to hear anything coming from the future, and it wouldn't be logical to do so unless it was required. It would cause a causality sending a message to yourself, and thus also prevents you from ever hearing the message in the past, before its relative, because you hadn't hit the send button yet! In a sense, all of this energy used has always been traveling forward, and never traveled backwards at all, it was just perceived differently in the present as you notice it occurring. There are several forms of "time-travel" and a lot of really friggin cool physics out there which haven't been publicated yet. Things like quantum gravity theory, and several other things are involved. I learned some basic physics in school, but I'm quite fascinated with figuring out how the universe started, how things happen, and how we can change things. I hope people realize time travel is never safe, because its not meant to be safe. Dont try that shit at home kids.

>definition of motion -velocity with respect to a point in space- no longer has anything with how much the space between those objects changes with respect to time

I'm not the guy you replied to but in my opinion you don't need to replace "time" in equations. A second is just "9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom". It's an assumption that time has anything to do with these transitions.

You can't have transitions if there is no time. You can't have periods if there is no time. Time is a prerequisite for such concepts. The fact that we measure time in seconds and define a second to to be "9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" is ultimately irrelevant to time as a concept. We could use a different unit of time called the 'dilwick' which I have just decided is equivalent to "10 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom", but we don't. Why? Because such a measurement isn't easily applicable to our lives. This is the same reason we prefer to measure distance in meters instead of cubits or angstroms or light-seconds or light-dilwicks. The choice of measurement unit is arbitrary but the need to measure is valid. Talking about the decision to define what a second is and the justification of the use of the second as a measurement of displacement in time is irrelevant. This guy thinks time doesn't exist and we don't need to measure it with ANY unit.

Space is meaningless. One meter is the same thing as the length of my dick. It's meaningless and completely arbitrary and only exists as a construction as we compare the pysical realm around us to my huge dick.

Why do you assume there cannot be transitions without time?

I know that it's arbitrary to use cesium as time keeping tool. You cannot measure time. Only events.

> push things back where they were
Lel

A transition is a change. If you have a definition of change which doesn't require any reference to time, please share it.

Change relative to previous state.

Pic related.

>previous
And there's your reference to time.

What reference would that be?

A state is not time. Transition is not time, it's a change in state.

If you're describing something as "previous" to something else you're putting events in order. Perhaps this ordering could be called... "time".
I'm trying my hardest to not be pedantic or condescending towards you but there's no other way to get this concept across.

time travel forwards is currently theoretical and not just hypothetical

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy7rrrCQh2w

Well, you are corrent in that it *could* be called time. And it numerical ordering does have lots in common with time (previous state, current state, next state). But it's not time in the sense that it's a 4th dimension, something that exists or that has an effect on anything.

Traveling forwards in time is what you are currently doing
take your fucking meds

Time "exists" in the same sense that space "exists". And time and space are linked through the concept of motion. You can't conceptualize motion if you discard time or space. That's just how it is. So I don't know what you mean when you describe time as having "an effect" on something but I do find it highly ironic that you're talking about disregarding time while simultaneously using the language of cause and effect. Try conceptualizing cause and effect if you aren't measuring the displacement between a cause and its effect on some kind of time axis.
Furthermore, try accurately describing any event in 3D space without also specifying when it happened. I would guess it would be apparent that you need 3 spatial coordinates to specify where and 1 additional non-spatial coordinate to describe when the event was taking place. I would guess that'd make the universe describable with 4 independent coordinates. But you're telling me the 4th coordinate is irrelevant. Whatever.

Time travel forwards (past the regular rate), this is literally the only thing covered by the video I posted

I didn't think that I would need to add this so I didn't, but I suppose there are dumb and arrogant people to consider

>he didn't consider the dumb and arrogant
Where do you think we are?

Motion is the relative distance between objects changing from one state to another. I don't see why I would need a 4th dimension for this to happen.

Spontaneous radioactive decay is one thing where time is supposedly doing something to a particle without any other cause.

Think about describing an event using a movie. You don't need time in it. It's just a ordered set of frames.

This is the gist of it yeah. The thread started of pretty good but we had to go full blown Veeky Forums haven't we

>False. The energy content of a vacuum is proportional to the volume of the vacuum. Your rationalization of how much energy should be in space doesn't hold up to experimental evidence and it's clear you're completely out of your depth.

>something that has nothing has volume and energy, we harvest vacuum energy to prove it!

You desperately need to learn what "counter space" is before you make any more posts about magnetic fields and vacuums.

>Stop right there, scum. Space isn't real because it's just a human construct to measure position. Therefore any instantaneous measurement of force per area is invalid. Area is invalid. Space is invalid. Your move, cunt.

That is basically what I said yes. I don't know what move I'm supposed to take other than to say that you're correct. Thank you for further proving my point. Space has no properties and therefore does not exist. It is filled with fields.
If you would like to explain what a field is next I'm all ears as no one has done so yet. Go ahead and bring up Maxwell's equations and I will be happy to tell you that they do not explain what causes a field. Don't yourself an aneurysm over something that has no quantity.

>If you split a magnet into enough pieces it no longer can form a magnetic domain, you fucking dropout.

My God. I'm not even going to bother correcting you and why that statement is patently false, but it's okay since you think that you're smarter than ever electrical engineer to ever exist.

Algebra, test it. a,b,c,d,e,f defined:

a = f
b = a
c =

Wait, f-b=e-a obviously f=b

please make more videos about sacred geometry and natural science

I'm a fan!!!!!!!!!!!

>Inertia following the right hand rule

can you define inertia ?

I discovered the secret in this alchemical image

look the exact point of intersection between the triangle and square...

>Space has no properties and therefore does not exist. It is filled with fields.
lmao. That's so retarded it doesn't even qualify as "wrong".

the secret is far older than that.

should have said "loss of inertia".

I have a 20 page paper due on Monday, please teach me how to transcend time so I can finish it

...