Time, existence, and reality - Page 2

Steven Hawkins has Proved that in a way time travel is possible, but only to the future and that time travel to the past is not possible because of his theroy he calls the mad scietest, heres how it goes. " A scientist creates a worm hole ( The first method of time travel) he makes this worm hole be one min in the past. then he assemblys a gun infront of the worm hole and walks to the other side of it. through the worm hole he sees himself assemblying the gun and he raises the gun and shoots himself through the wormhole....so in theroy if he shot himself before he could assembly the gun. Who actually shot him? This is why steven hawkins believes time travel ( the excitence of time) to be only possible in a manner of speeding up time instead of slowing time and becoming "immortaly"

Cynicbullrider:

I am glad that you entered this discussion.

dazedNconfused:

I would not want you to have a headache, or any other pain. But sometimes muscles do hurt when you strengthen them with exercise. I enjoy your input greatly.

Theory:

I should not have worded some of a post introduction as I did. I know that you will understand me when I say: “ be careful.” You are probably more intelligent than I, and my only advantage is the length of time that I have put into this life. That said, you know as well as I do, that one stops learning the moment he thinks he 'knows.'

Cynicbullrider:

Yes, it is a conundrum. How is it that every other force; gravity, strong force, weak force, electro-magnetic force, or whatever can exhibit both forward (positive) and rearward (negative) vectors, but time cannot?

The question seems similar to Einstein's question of why any object's velocity in time equals the velocity of the object, at the time of release, PLUS the velocity of the origin -- EXCEPT light; which has no additional velocity regardless of origin, but travels at a constant rate.

I do not regard my self intelligent at all but feel i can grasp aspects of reality better than the majority of this sleep living world.
I do agree with you comment regarding knowledge and i take great heed.

The weired thing about my existence is the fact i question everything. Non stop in my head.... often to no prevail. As many of the questions are implausible to answer. Yet i continue to question.
The only tool i have is logic.

In an attempt to bring the conversation back into the thread.....
Lets get Back to "Time"
Cbr---- you say Hawkins refers to only being able to go forward well aren't we already doing this right now? If you wanted to travel forward freeze yourself and wait.
Ive always been under the impression that if one travels faster than the speed of light (a lot faster) given that you can survive this you will arrive moments before you left. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

PS i do not regard myself smarter than you "thx" as age is wisdom.

Just out of curiosity thx would you agree that time is infinite?

Theory, we are going to give dazedNconfused another headache. Is time infinite? The intuitive answer if of course yes. But the answer could be counter intuitive. Or the question could be nonsensical.

As accepted, it is a component of spacetime. Hence, it would exist only as long as spacetime exists. At one point it was thought that the universe had enough matter to slow, and then reverse the expansion of the big bang. In what was dubbed the big crunch, it would again become a point of zero size and infinite mass. Time would become meaningless. Spacetime would end. In this scenario, time had both beginning and end.

Much to the surprise of every cosmologist, it has been shown that the universe's expansion is actually speeding up. Given this, the universe will continue to expand, decreasing in density and cooling toward absolute zero. At some point should man still be, he would know of no other galaxy, for he would be moving to far away from every other one to ever have the light from one reach him. And would continue to expand toward no light. Something we call forever would exist, but might not the have the meaning it does now. In this scenario, time had a beginning, but no end.

Taking about infinite anything quickly becomes nonsensical. I can conceive of a set of numbers such that x: 0 < x <1. I could say that this set has an infinite number of members. There is no 'lowest number,' as any fraction can be lessened. (e.g 1/123456789 is greater than 1/2123456789) and similarly, on the other end, there is no singular greatest number as it approaches 1. Now if I define x: 0< x< 2. I have every number between 0 and 1, AND every number between 1 and 2, AND 1. So here, you could argue that this set of numbers has more members than the first set of numbers because it contains the first set and then more. But both sets have an infinite number of members. Does it make sense to say one infinity is greater than another infinity?

Does it make any sense to say that time may be infinite, but not necessarily eternal? Does it make sense that eternity can exist without time? Present string theory purposes the possibly of a singular eternity with multiple different versions of time. Now I have a headache.

Even if space were to "crunch" I don't feel time would cease to exist because what ever it is that makes everything up in the universe would still exist, or at least I think. I base this idea on the assumption that somehow something can come from nothing and by nothing I mean absolute void, and whatever came from the absolute void cannot revert back to absolute void because of the idea that energy cannot be destroyed. That being said Einstein stated that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another, and how absolute void is able to produce anything is beyond my comprehension.

The concept of mass from no mass is difficult, but it is in alignment with present physics. Imparting mass to an object requires the Higgs boson to exist. (That is why non-scientist layman labeled it the 'God particle.' )

Scientists did find the Higgs boson. They isolated one at CERN 's Large Hadron Collider in 2012.

Theory,
I like your post. Here's my take as well. All we have is the...now! Time is in our mind. Past present/now and present are all represented by...the now. Thoughts please? pljames

Time, existence and reality.
If one is in the (now) time stands still. Our consciousness and self awareness prove we exist. If one cannot prove their reality, mental health is looking for you. Paul