 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / August 2008Time travel = perpetual motion machine? Time travel = Horn of Plenty? OR NOT?
Hi. I was thinking about this. In addition to all the various "obvious" issues with time travel (namely, causality paradoxes where the trip is rendered causally impossible) -- there seems to be one other I haven't heard much discussion of: namely, that it seems that if time travel is possible, a perpetual motion machine could be created. It would work like this: 1. Make some matter and a corresponding amount of anti-matter. Keep them away from each other. 2. Wait a little. 3. Send these packets back in time to after they were created but before the "present". 4. Now the "past" time has 2x the amount of M/AM as it had "before". So the "present" should have 2x the amount of M/AM -- we've gotten more fuel! 5. Repeat 2-5 until we have as much M/AM as we please, then annihilate it for all sorts of FREE ENERGY! Keep a little to fuel further repetition of the process (selfrunner)... And so we have it -- ultimate perpetual motion with a gazillion times over-unity performance. In addition, the perfect method for duplicating anything we want an unlimited amount of times -- the mythical "horn of plenty"? Or not? Go ahead and demolish my silly kook theory. Laugh and chuckle at it all you want, it's not meant to be a serious "crusade" against physics, but rather something speculative to toy with, ask some questions, have some discussion, and maybe learn something in the process -- it would be cool even to see it shown wrong! Somehow I doubt a horn of plenty really exists... I'm probably waaaay off base with all this. Of course it assumes time travel is possible -- if it's impossible then none of the above even matters, but what if it is? Is the above _still_ wrong, and if so, why? One objection I noticed right off the bat is this would seem to contradict the quantum no-cloning theorem, and so also the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Would that be a viable line of attack? Another possibility is step 4 -- is there a fallacy there in deducing that the "present" would now have more matter/anti-matter? If so, what is it? (I bet the whole thing is one giant fallacy, anyways, I'm just curious as to why that is so.) | Hi. | [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] | is it? (I bet the whole thing is one giant fallacy, anyways, I'm just | curious as to why that is so.) It is the nature of sci-fi that if you break one law of Nature you can break them all. Call it a "theory" if you want to, it is still fiction. If you believe it, then you are indeed a silly kook. Just don't call it science. > | Hi. > | [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > If you believe it, then you are indeed a silly kook. Just don't call it > science. I do not really believe it, that's why I readily called it kook, and why I'd like to hear a good rebuttal (or a pointer to a source I would be capable of accessing where I can find one), because then I can learn some more about physics, and to fill whatever ignorance the "theory" came out of. I won't bother defending it, that's for sure, and just want to hear why it's wrong. I'm pretty sure it would be wrong, as it seems just "too good to be true", and that's why I'd like to know _why_ it's wrong. >> | Hi. >> | [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > I do not really believe it, that's why I readily called it kook, Uh huh... and I said "IF". > and > why [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > know > _why_ it's wrong. Ok, let's see if an example helps. Suppose I have a theory: bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in black holes. I've just come up with an unbelievable theory just you I did. Why is that right (or wrong)? You began with a questionable hypothesis ("it seems that if time travel is possible") and then developed it further as though it were valid, loaded with "if" and "seems". If you write a computer program you'll soon discover computers are intensively logical machines and will spit out even poor syntax, but garbage in is garbage out. Whenever you say "if" you need to add "else". IF "time travel is possible" then { a perpetual motion machine could be created (Fill in more argument) } ELSE { \The above is nothing but babble. } Now I must correct myself. If you write a computer program you'll soon discover computers are intensively logical machines and will spit out even poor syntax, but garbage in is garbage out. else you may never learn formal logic. > >> "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > I've just come up with an unbelievable theory just you I did. > Why is that right (or wrong)? Well, there's no way to really _test_ if it is right or wrong since we cannot go to a black hole and see if bright green flying elephants do lay their eggs there. Same goes for time machines: we do not have any of them. So we cannot _test_ the questionable hypothesis, and time machines may not even be possible. What I was asking is this: Is there something in physics that would contradict this idea, even if we assumed time machines were possible? In other words, what does currently-accepted physical _theory_ have to say on the matter? Since we have no Time Machines to test with, we have to fall back on predictions from tested theories, which may not be correct, but nevertheless seem quite likely to be so. For example, it was hypothetical questions like this that lead to the consideration of, say, the grandfather paradox: we _imagine_ time travel is possible, then try to guess as to what would happen if you used it to kill your grandfather. Although in my case it is not to discover something "revolutionary", but more to try to learn something about physics. "Uncle Al"'s response did suggest at least that the question has been asked before and has been answered before, and didn't give a reference as to WHERE I could find the answer, making the reply quite useless (there are thousands and thousands of books and other reference materials in existence -- there's no way one could hope to scan it all in one's lifetime without some hints or pointers or CLUES as to where to go, plus I don't have a lot of money so I can't buy a lot of books. Maybe accruing wealth isn't always a bad thing if you use it for stuff like this. It's not all greed you know.). > You began with a questionable hypothesis ("it seems that iftimetravel is > possible") [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > else you may never learn formal logic. Actually, I've written lots of computer programs, thank you very much. Um... >> >> "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 159 lines] > Actually, I've written lots of computer programs, thank you very much. > Um... Did any of them ever work or would they crash on my data, falling back on the operating system to catch the errors? You can show me one of your programs if you like, Um. > >> "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 168 lines] > > You can show me one of your programs if you like, Um. Some of them actually worked but they were more for generating data than processing input data. Others were just "toys" to do one thing and one thing only (like ad-hoc programs to spit out a graph of some function that couldn't be spit out with any easily-available graphers (read that don't cost lots of $$$)). On Aug 15, 3:58 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 185 lines] > > You can show me one of your programs if you like, Um. Some of them actually worked but they were more for generating data than processing input data. Others were just "toys" to do one thing and one thing only (like ad-hoc programs to spit out a graph of some function that couldn't be spit out with any easily-available graphers (read that don't cost lots of $$$)). =================================== Some programs that generate data, the rest are toys and you've written lots of them. Understood, thank you very much. *plonk* > On Aug 15, 3:58 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 203 lines] > lots of them. Understood, thank you very much. > *plonk* Some of them also process data (e.g. an FX compositor was one), and hadn't crashed on anything I sent through there. Maybe you could send me your pix? > > "mike3" <mike4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 210 lines] > and hadn't crashed on anything I sent through there. Maybe you could > send me your pix? That is, some pix to composite that you're sure will crash that prog. > Hi. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > possible, a perpetual motion machine could be created. It would work > like this: Actually, you may want to learn the real probelm with time travel. The real problem is no speed changes time for all things, Acceleration and traveling through different g-potentials simply make clock malfunction. No "time travel" is occuring at all, And the second part is, no speed will make a cause happen before an effect. So there is no causality problem with any speed that is actually timed correctly instead of by the observer bullshit timing method that relativity uses. You can move at 5 times the speed of light and not have any problems with causailty if you are using a standard timing method.  SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman > Hi. > > I was thinking about this. Braggart. > In addition to all the various "obvious" > issues with time travel (namely, causality paradoxes where the trip is > rendered causally impossible) -- there seems to be one other I haven't > heard much discussion of: namely, that it seems that if time travel is > possible, a perpetual motion machine could be created. It would work > like this: [snip rest of crap] Where were you 50 years ago when this was old? It is a library's goal to prevent new ignorant gits from repeating old ignorant gits' perambulations. Read one. SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > Hi. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to prevent new ignorant gits from repeating old ignorant gits' > perambulations. Read one. Could you _debunk_ my stupid idea? Because it's there to be debunked, not to be believed. This idea was not proposed to try and convince someone into believing it, no, quite the opposite. I was not even alive 50 years ago. Do you know where _EXACTLY_ I could find a refutation of this idea? You seem to claim it has long been rebutted. May I see the rebuttal, or be told a source where I can find a rebuttal? As for libraries, I don't have access to a good academic library -- it's some 100 miles from where I am at and with my poor financial situation and the high cost of gas you can see how that might be a problem. But if you can tell me a source, or even the name of this known fallacy, then perhaps I could find the cheapest and easiest way to get said source. > > > Hi. > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I could > find the cheapest and easiest way to get said source. And even if I did have an academic library at my fingertips I don't even know WHAT to look for as I don't know what the NAME of this debunked "theory" is. See, the purpose of the post was to try and learn something, to fill my ignorance with knowledge, or to find places where I can do such a thing. Like what would debunk this claim, for example. Simply saying "go to a library" is not helpful, as there are so many materials in there. Even if I could go to one, it is not helpful. To go through every single book even in the _physics_ section would take a very, very long time. Even if you narrowed it to only those that deal with relativity and time travel. But you _seem_ to know of a rebuttal offhand, so why not provide it or tell me where I can find it myself without spending months or YEARS searching just for this 1 answer to a trivial and already-answered question. Do you want to be helpful or not? > Hi. > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > is it? (I bet the whole thing is one giant fallacy, anyways, I'm just > curious as to why that is so.) Any serious critiques of this? I'm pretty sure I'm wrong, I'd like to know _why_ and then I can put this to bed. >"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e4f57310-5d85-488c-acaa- >Any serious critiques of this? I'm pretty sure I'm wrong, I'd like to >know >_why_ and then I can put this to bed. Speed does not change time. No speed will create an effect before a cause situation. Time does not change rate in science. Put time travel and anything that is based upon "time" changing rate to bed, and bury such because it is all dead. SignatureJames M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.