 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » We cannot go back in time "The Direction of TIME is... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| cjcountess... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hi this is Conrad Countess
Over the weekend, I posted a comment on "Discovery" site, concerning
the LHC, and references to going back in time. I also post a copy of
it on a connected blog, were the members are said to be all physicist,
but it was still open to the public for comments also.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/10/14/spooky-signals-from-the-future-telling-us-to-cancel-the-lhc/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/10/19/talking-about-time/#comments
When I returned to check any responses these post, both, to my
surprise were deleted.Furthermore will not allow me to repost it.
Have I struck a nerve?
Does anyone have comment
Here is the post as well as I can remember it
This is Conrad J. Countess
This is why we cannot go back in time.
In order to go back in time one must reverse the movement of
everything including the orbits of the planets, stars, and the
expansion of the visible Universe. At the same time, one would have to
keep oneself from going back in time at the same rate, as that would
reverse and erase any knowledge of our ever going back.
To truly go back in time, we must reverse the time of even our own
existence, which may very well reverse ourselves right out of
existence, if we go back beyond the point of our birth and conception.
Otherwise, we must reverse the existence of everything in the entire
Cosmos, except ourselves if we are to truly whiteness this. But than
this would mean that we would not really go back in time as the
additional awareness of our going back in time, adds a extra frame of
reference, in which to view the reversal, which itself would have to
continue at the forward rate of time.
And so even if we were to go back in time, we could never know it,
because everything would go back at the same rate, and in direct
proportion to each other, thereby canceling out any chances of ever
measuring, or being aware of it.
Have we found another theory of time dilation? If so it can be stated
as:
“THE DIRECTION OF TIME IS CONSTANT”, if we were to go back in time,
everything, including our own awareness of it, would go back at same
constant rate, thereby eliminating any chances of ever knowing or
measuring it.
We could be going back in time right now but we could never know it.
Conrad J Countess |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
cjcountess wrote:
[snip crap]
[quote]This is why we cannot go back in time.
[snip more crap][/quote]
Time rachet. Like nylon handcuffs, there is no getting out of time
unless you remembered to thread straight pins in your cuffs and
lapels. Zathras knows - "You are the One Who Was. You are the One
Who Is. You are the One Who Will Be." Always threes.
[quote]To truly go back in time, we must reverse the time of even our own
existence,
[snip even more crap][/quote]
Hey fucking stooopid - go 360 degrees around a Moebius band and you
are reversed. Going back in time merely requires going forward around
a non-orientable manifold. The problem is finding a closed loop.
String theory details that.
[quote]“THE DIRECTION OF TIME IS CONSTANT”
[snip rest of crap][/quote]
1) Time-like and space-like events re simultaneity.
2) Rotating Kerr and Kerr-Newman black hole event horizons.
3) idiot
[quote]Conrad J Countess
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedo
A comedo of errors.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| cjcountess... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
HI this is Conrad J Countess
Wow!!, it is amazing that Uncle Al, who disputes me every chance he
gets, even though his arguments are illogical, is the only one who
responded to this post.
He has guts, and does not mind making a fool out of himself and I
appreciate his allowing me to carry on this important thread, because
this seems to be the basis for allot of time and money being invested
in something that is false. In thes hard economic times when we have
so little time to waste, this is money and time that could be better
spent elsewhere. Even though this subject incites the imagination,
which is in and of itself a great return on investment, still the
elimination of this avenue of persuit, can still free us up and allow
for the investment to be channeld in a different and more fruitful
direction.
Uncle Al, you are basing you conclusion on string theory which is not
solid and as you sae if you look at the logic that I laid out it is
just illogical to conclud that we can go back in time even if we go in
a circle because even then the direction remains constant as forwards
is backwards and vice/versa
I once read in an article from Michio Kaku, that it is no longer on
the sholders of the physicist to prove that time travel is possible,
but the opposite, that it is on those who object to prove otherwise.
I understand that lots of time, pride, and money has been invested in
this hypothesis, but from the perspective that I logicaly laid out, it
is not posible to go back in time.
Can anyone else with a little mores sense defend this time travel
hypothesis? why did the Discovery website delete my post? Do they have
a valid reason after what I said or is it finaly clear to them that I
am correct and they have no deffence?
I think that serious people out there should request an answer. I will
be happy to give Discovery organization an interview to discuse not
only this but the (Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2), and all its
implications.
It is REVOLUTIONIZING physics and would not it be best to explore it
instead of denying it.
Is not it our responsibility to explore all reasonable theories,
especialy one such as this, that is so revolutionary is having such an
impact on physics, whether you are in step with it or not.
THERE IS NO WAY AROUND IT!
Conrad Countess |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim BandTech.com... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 11:25 am, cjcountess <cjcount... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]HI this is Conrad J Countess
Wow!!, it is amazing that Uncle Al, who disputes me every chance he
gets, even though his arguments are illogical, is the only one who
responded to this post.
snip
I once read in an article from Michio Kaku, that it is no longer on
the sholders of the physicist to prove that time travel is possible,
but the opposite, that it is on those who object to prove otherwise.
[/quote]
Kaku is leading an awareness on time reversal physics, which I believe
is a fallacy. Because time is unidirectional its representation with
the real number is inherently fraudulent. This has direct consequences
on geometry and dimensionality. Consider that there is a number which
represents the unidirectional nature of time cleanly: the one-signed
number, rather than the two-signed real. To understand these one-
signed numbers fully we must generalize sign, which I believe that
anyone with patience could do, but here is my own rendition:
http://bandtechnology.com/polysigned
This exposes that the one-signed numbers are also zero dimensional
from the perspective of traditional dimensional interpretations. Yet
there is slightly more here than a geometrical point, which is cause
to be critical of traditional mathematics. The unidirectional ray is
zero dimensional, yet it is capable of algebraic qualities. This is
time from pure math, including the seeming paradoxes that time
presents the cartesian thinker. Beyond this further natural
correspondence exists in polysign with natural spacetime
correspondence, suggesting that the arithmetic product plays a
fundamental part in physics, but stating this cleanly appears to
recast all of modern physics, from Maxwell up. I believe that the
successful expression of charge will yield an inherent spin rather
than needing to conglomerate the raw charge with a spin structure.
This is because electromagnetism is inherent to spacetime itself, as
indicated in the polysign progression P1,P2,P3 which is a sufficient
spacetime representation, with a natural breakpoint.
- Tim
[quote]
I understand that lots of time, pride, and money has been invested in
this hypothesis, but from the perspective that I logicaly laid out, it
is not posible to go back in time.
Can anyone else with a little mores sense defend this time travel
hypothesis? why did the Discovery website delete my post? Do they have
a valid reason after what I said or is it finaly clear to them that I
am correct and they have no deffence?
I think that serious people out there should request an answer. I will
be happy to give Discovery organization an interview to discuse not
only this but the (Geometrical Interpretation of E=mc^2), and all its
implications.
It is REVOLUTIONIZING physics and would not it be best to explore it
instead of denying it.
Is not it our responsibility to explore all reasonable theories,
especialy one such as this, that is so revolutionary is having such an
impact on physics, whether you are in step with it or not.
THERE IS NO WAY AROUND IT!
Conrad Countess[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| G=EMC^2 Glazier... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
To Ya all Time can run backwards. It was speculated way back in the
time of Plato. Plato said if the heavens reversed direction so would
time. Today we have men like Thomas Gold,that has light and heat going
back into objects giving a reverse in time flow. Did not Hawkings tell
us that time would flow backwards in a contracting universe. He went so
far as to suggest that the laws of QM have no objection for the arrow of
time to reverse. Feynman went along with this too. Ooops must not leave
out Murray Gell-Mann who could see time reversed. My own thought (what
ever they are worth),goes against the universe spacetime ever reversing.
Best to keep in mind I have my convexing of spacetime curve,and that
means accelerating time and space forever (Infinity time goes forward )
Bert |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
[quote]Did not Hawkings tell
us that time would flow backwards in a contracting universe. He went so
far as to suggest that the laws of QM have no objection for the arrow of
time to reverse.
[/quote]
Hawking (not Hawkings) was wrong and admitted that he was wrong. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
cjcountess wrote:
[quote]
HI this is Conrad J Countess
Wow!!, it is amazing that Uncle Al, who disputes me every chance he
gets, even though his arguments are illogical, is the only one who
responded to this post.
[snip crap][/quote]
Old pair of shoes. Stepped in dog shit, discarded soiled brogans in
neighbor's garbage can.
[quote]Conrad Countess
[/quote]
God save us from the congenitally inconsequential.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:10 am
|
|