Implications of the possibility of time travel. Watch

This discussion is closed.
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#41
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
I am afraid i will have to disagree with you my learned friend - humans either psychologically, physically, or spiritually are ever changing and how we are now are as a result of choices we have made or that have been made for us. therefore we cannot be the same people over time other than in our society which recognises our physical shell.
As for rivers - rivers right down to microcosms of life are ever-changing from one moment to the next and again the river has changed in content and location (soil erosion) therefore Heraticus quotes are plausible
But we are defined as the same by society.
But i do get the point.
But the same man can bath in the same river, as long as you are only watching, and you are not that man.
Because they are still the same person and river to you, so from your own perception it must be possible.
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#42
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#42
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
Because it's pointless, centuries have proven right Heraclitus.
If something changes isn't the same anymore.
So vague statements are arguments now?
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 16 years ago
#43
(Original post by Iluvatar)
But we are defined as the same by society.
But i do get the point.
But the same man can bath in the same river, as long as you are only watching, and you are not that man.
Because they are still the same person and river to you, so from your own perception it must be possible.
Society's perception is physical and takes longer to react to changes within the man's soul - whereas for the man - he could be batheing in the river and suddenly have an epiphany - he would be changed forever - an extreme example i know - far less extreme examples are also plausible
0
EI_123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 16 years ago
#44
(Original post by Iluvatar)
So vague statements are arguments now?
I don't need any argument, you pointed yourself to be wrong.
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#45
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#45
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
Society's perception is physical and takes longer to react to changes within the man's soul - whereas for the man - he could be batheing in the river and suddenly have an epiphany - he would be changed forever - an extreme example i know - far less extreme examples are also plausible
Exactly my point. Physical perception states that it is possible for the same man to bath in the same river.
And as we rely heavily on physical perception for are very existence, we therefore rely on the conclusions it can draw. If sight can say it is true, it is more likely to be true than if it is to do with a persons perception of internal changes.
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#46
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#46
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
I don't need any argument, you pointed yourself to be wrong.
I pointed out that i can see why other people may believe that i am wrong.
0
EI_123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 16 years ago
#47
(Original post by Iluvatar)
Exactly my point. Physical perception states that it is possible for the same man to bath in the same river.
And as we rely heavily on physical perception for are very existence, we therefore rely on the conclusions it can draw. If sight can say it is true, it is more likely to be true than if it is to do with a persons perception of internal changes.
No, you can see that it isn't the same river, the waters are flowing...
And you know, but you can't see it, that it isn't the same man, the human body has internal processes working on all the time.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 16 years ago
#48
(Original post by Iluvatar)
Exactly my point. Physical perception states that it is possible for the same man to bath in the same river.
And as we rely heavily on physical perception for are very existence, we therefore rely on the conclusions it can draw. If sight can say it is true, it is more likely to be true than if it is to do with a persons perception of internal changes.
But the theory of time travel may rely not on physical but the spiritual
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#49
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#49
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
No, you can see that it isn't the same river, the waters are flowing...
And you know, but you can't see it, that it isn't the same man, the human body has internal processes working on all the time.
But do you see the water itself move, or merely the surface change?
No, you cannot know. You cannot know something to be true to any extent unless you can percieve in some way that it is.
0
EI_123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 16 years ago
#50
(Original post by Iluvatar)
But do you see the water itself move, or merely the surface change?
No, you cannot know. You cannot know something to be true to any extent unless you can percieve in some way that it is.
Ergo the wind doesn't exists.
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#51
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#51
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
But the theory of time travel may rely not on physical but the spiritual
But it is the physical which would create the ability to travel through time, so you cannot deny that it will be at least a reliance on both for time travel.
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#52
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
Ergo the wind doesn't exists.
Wind does exist. You can feel it is there, and feeling is a form of perception.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report 16 years ago
#53
(Original post by Iluvatar)
But do you see the water itself move, or merely the surface change?
No, you cannot know. You cannot know something to be true to any extent unless you can percieve in some way that it is.
But then if that is the case then scientific theory is bunk - we cant perceive the particles of wind that clearly comprise it - yet we know that air particles are contained within that which blows on our faces (especially today brrr!!!)
0
EI_123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 16 years ago
#54
(Original post by Iluvatar)
Wind does exist. You can feel it is there, and feeling is a form of perception.
After this you shouldn't say that you aren't atheist or I will laugh a month.
There's something else beyond perception, reason.
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#55
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#55
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
But then if that is the case then scientific theory is bunk - we cant perceive the particles of wind that clearly comprise it - yet we know that air particles are contained within that which blows on our faces (especially today brrr!!!)
All theory is bunk.
We can percieve through touch, as we can physically feel the winds existance.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#56
Report 16 years ago
#56
(Original post by Iluvatar)
But it is the physical which would create the ability to travel through time, so you cannot deny that it will be at least a reliance on both for time travel.
I agree with you there - but the thrust of the point (which you are replying to) was that there is less of a reliance on the physical changes than the spiritual changes for the "theory" of time travel - without which there cannot be time travel
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 16 years ago
#57
(Original post by Iluvatar)
All theory is bunk.
We can percieve through touch, as we can physically feel the winds existance.
Yes, but then u are dispelling the existence of air particles in wind which has in fact been proven
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#58
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#58
(Original post by Eternal Idol)
After this you shouldn't say that you aren't atheist or I will laugh a month.
There's something else beyond perception, reason.
I am not atheist.
I believe in god, but only as a moral philosophy.
0
Bhaal85
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#59
Report 16 years ago
#59
Interesting article I stumbled upon:

Toward the end of the 19th century scientists believed they were close to a complete description of the universe. They imagined that space was filled everywhere by a continuous medium called the ether. Light rays and radio signals were waves in this ether just as sound is pressure waves in air. All that was needed to complete the theory was careful measurements of the elastic properties of the ether; once they had those nailed down, everything else would fall into place.

Soon, however, discrepancies with the idea of an all-pervading ether began to appear. You would expect light to travel at a fixed speed through the ether. So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether.

The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887. They compared the speed of light in two beams at right angles to each other. As the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun, they reasoned, it will move through the ether, and the speed of light in these two beams should diverge. But Michelson and Morley found no daily or yearly differences between the two beams of light. It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving.

The Irish physicist George FitzGerald and the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz were the first to suggest that bodies moving through the ether would contract and that clocks would slow. This shrinking and slowing would be such that everyone would measure the same speed for light no matter how they were moving with respect to the ether, which FitzGerald and Lorentz regarded as a real substance.

But it was a young clerk named Albert Einstein, working in the Swiss Patent Office in Bern, who cut through the ether and solved the speed-of-light problem once and for all. In June 1905 he wrote one of three papers that would establish him as one of the world's leading scientists — and in the process start two conceptual revolutions that changed our understanding of time, space and reality.

In that 1905 paper, Einstein pointed out that because you could not detect whether or not you were moving through the ether, the whole notion of an ether was redundant. Instead, Einstein started from the postulate that the laws of science should appear the same to all freely moving observers. In particular, observers should all measure the same speed for light, no matter how they were moving.

This required abandoning the idea that there is a universal quantity called time that all clocks measure. Instead, everyone would have his own personal time. The clocks of two people would agree if they were at rest with respect to each other but not if they were moving. This has been confirmed by a number of experiments, including one in which an extremely accurate timepiece was flown around the world and then compared with one that had stayed in place. If you wanted to live longer, you could keep flying to the east so the speed of the plane added to the earth's rotation. However, the tiny fraction of a second you gained would be more than offset by eating airline meals.
0
Eru Iluvatar
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#60
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#60
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
Yes, but then u are dispelling the existence of air particles in wind which has in fact been proven
How has it been proven?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (216)
67.92%
No (102)
32.08%

Watched Threads

View All