Does Einstein's T.R make any type of B.B. theory impossible?

[EarthScienceguy]

Question to debate

Does Einstein's theory of relativity make anytype of big bang scenario impossible?

Einstein's theory of relativity speaks of an universe in which past present and future all exist.

https://www.pbs.org/video/nova-the-fabr ... n-of-time/

starting at 19.00

If past, present and future can all exist then the Big Bang had to create not just the beginning of our present timeline but every moment every in our entire timeline. Everything that we perceive as happening in a logical chronological order would had to have been created by chance at the "big bang".

Talk about ludicrous speed.

If your answer is you have faith that science will one day come up with a solution, how would free will not be violated?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 29 by Diagoras]

Quote:
Now lets say train A was traveling at 99.999% the speed of light and train b was traveling at 10% the speed of light and we both left the <same starting point> at 10 am to travel to a star that is 4 light years away. Those inside of train A would reach the star 4 light years away in

... a little over four years. Not sure why you have them going faster than light? Moving on...

Just as I expected you really have no idea of how relativity actually works in different frame of references. I intentionally wrote my response the way I did to see if you actually understood relativity or not.

Traveling at 99.9999% the speed of light time in train a would virtually stop so in trains a frame of reference they would reach the star in less than 30 seconds from when they left.

An observer from Earth would see them arrive in 4 years. Everything is relative to your speed and the direction of your speed.

Quote:
Those in train A would be waiting for decades for those in train B to arrive at the star. But the only reason way that those in train A would be waiting for those in train B is because

... they travelled faster relative to Train B and therefore arrived sooner. Seems to be the same in real life.

Again, you are showing again that you do not understand relativity. They wait for years because they stopped and changed the rate at which time ticks.

Quote:
But let's say that Train A did not stop and wait for train B but kept on going traveling at 99.9999999 % the speed of light. They could travel to the edge of the universe and back to the star that they were originally traveling to But when they get their (sic) they do not find train B or even the star. The star would have long ago ran out of energy and would be nothing more than a white dwarf if that. Those in train B would have died billions of years earlier.

Those in train A would be in the future of those that were in train B

In a rather peculiar way, you’re just describing the effects of time dilation, but that doesn’t falsify my example. There’s still no point at which those in Train B will (somehow, across the vast expanse of the universe) see the watches of the Train A passengers as running ‘faster’ than theirs. Both trains perceive the other train’s watches to be running slower.

Oh, my no. Time is relative the the % speed of light that you are moving. This is exactly what the time dilation equation says will happen. t'=t square root (1-(v2/c2). Since velocity is squared this equation is independent of direction of motion and is dependent only on the speed of light.



For now, I’ll leave the other unanswered points from my previous post. I’d now like to hear from someone else who can either back you up or else corroborate my answers.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 23 by Divine Insight]

EarthScienceguy wrote:

There is no such thing as universal simultaneity. If two observers are moving at different speeds whether they are going towards each other or not they will not agree on the when events happen in time. Both observes can agree that certain events happened but they will not agree on when said events happen.


This isn't true at all. In fact, this statement is totally incompatible with Einstein's Relativity.

Well talk to the professor at Pitt university he seems to agree with me. i think I would trust a professor at a major university before I would trust Wikipedia. Good luck with using Wikipedia in a research paper.

I'm quite certain that the professor at Pitt university does not agree with you, for if he did he would surely be fired.

You are confusing relative perspectives with a notion of absolute time, which I'm sure your professor at Pitt would correct you on.

Take the twin brother's paradox.

The brothers start out together at the same age at a point in spacetime. One brother goes on a starship journey traveling near the speed of light and then returns. For the traveling brother time passed more slowly so when he arrives back at earth he is younger than his twin who remained on earth.

Did anyone travel into anyone's future? Yep! They both did! This is necessarily true since they are both existing at the same point in time when the traveling brother returns.

The proof that you are wrong is when they compare their watches. The time on their watches will not match. Therefore you are wrong to claim that anyone traveled into anyone else's future. All that happened is that their own personal time flowed differently due to their relative motions.

By the way, the key to understanding this has to do with acceleration. One brother underwent an acceleration when the other one did not. Time slowed down for the brother who underwent the acceleration.

So no one needs to exist in anyone's future. You were wrong.

Can we now please have an acknowledgement from you that you are the one who doesn't understand Relativity?

Thank you.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 31 by Divine Insight]

Whose absolute time are you referring to?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 31 by Divine Insight]

Ok, lets say it again like this. The equation for time dilation is t' = t (square root) (1-v2/c2). Let's say that we have a ship that can travel within 1E-25 of the speed of light. So the radical in this equations works out to around 3.16 E-13. Let say you blast off from the earth to travel to the rim of the galaxy lets say 25 billion light years away and back. So in earth's time frame that trip would take 50 billion years. Yet for those on the spaceship it only took 5.7 days to go the whole round trip.

So when the people in the spaceship get back the sun would be nothing more than a white dwarf and there would be no earth. But if before they left 50 billion years in the past before they left they entangled a set of wormholes out on the pluto using negative mass. General relativity says that they could walk through these wormholes and walk out at the year they left. They could describe the future of universe to those there were still billions of years in the past.

For this to happen, the past present and future would all a would still have to exist.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 31 by Divine Insight]

Ok, lets say it again like this. The equation for time dilation is t' = t (square root) (1-v2/c2). Let's say that we have a ship that can travel within 1E-25 of the speed of light. So the radical in this equations works out to around 3.16 E-13. Let say you blast off from the earth to travel to the rim of the galaxy lets say 25 billion light years away and back. So in earth's time frame that trip would take 50 billion years. Yet for those on the spaceship it only took 5.7 days to go the whole round trip.

You can say it however you like, but you are still demonstrably wrong.

Let’s agree that we are using your very fast ship on a very long journey. Incidentally, the entire width of the galaxy (the Milky Way) is only 105,700 light years, so your proposed journey length would be more accurately described as being to a point a little over half the radius of the observable universe. That’s ok though, we can stick with 25 billion light years.

You will take a little over 25 billion years to reach the end of your journey - from your perspective. Your ship’s clock will show 25 billion years have elapsed (plus a few days). You seem to believe that you will ‘see’ your own clock practically stop, but please remember that both you, the ship and the clock within it are all in the same frame of reference, i.e. all moving at the same velocity. I really hope you can agree that objects in the same frame of reference do not experience time dilation between them. Therefore, it really will be 25 billion years of travel, and will feel like it to you.

However, I’m not in the same frame of reference. To me, your ship’s clock has practically stopped, so even though I can track your ship by my own clock and verify that it indeed took about 25 billion years to get to journey end, I can see that your clock, running remarkably slowly, has only crept forward by 5.7 days (by your math). Incidentally, your ship will also appear to be wafer-thin in the direction of travel, but you of course will not be feeling any more cramped within the ship’s sumptuously appointed interior.

Just to complete the picture, we should also consider your observations of me at the launchpad. Given that we’re discussing relativity, and I have already laboured the point about reciprocity, I’m asking that the general reader of this thread try to work out if: from your perspective, my launchpad clock is running:

A) very slowly indeed
B) at the same rate as your ship’s clock
C) whizzing along very fast
D) stopped entirely
E) running backwards (at any speed)

Anyone is free to post their answer here, of course - it’s not a restricted exam.

But if before they left 50 billion years in the past before they left they entangled a set of wormholes out on the pluto

Let’s just take this one step at a time, shall we? Have a go at the multiple choice before we get entangled on the pluto.

[Divine Insight]

General relativity says that they could walk through these wormholes and walk out at the year they left.

You apparently confuse science fiction with science. Nothing in General Relativity says that anyone can walk through any wormholes, much less end up thousands of years in the past.

You're trying to pass off speculation as science.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 33 by Diagoras]

Let’s agree that we are using your very fast ship on a very long journey. Incidentally, the entire width of the galaxy (the Milky Way) is only 105,700 light years, so your proposed journey length would be more accurately described as being to a point a little over half the radius of the observable universe. That’s ok though, we can stick with 25 billion light years.

Yea, I was thinking the rim of the universe but wrote galaxy my mistake.

You will take a little over 25 billion years to reach the end of your journey - from your perspective. Your ship’s clock will show 25 billion years have elapsed (plus a few days). You seem to believe that you will ‘see’ your own clock practically stop, but please remember that both you, the ship and the clock within it are all in the same frame of reference, i.e. all moving at the same velocity. I really hope you can agree that objects in the same frame of reference do not experience time dilation between them. Therefore, it really will be 25 billion years of travel, and will feel like it to you.

Oh my!!! You really believe that this is the way relativity works!!!!

No we cannot agree with that at all. Time in the spaceship actually slows down. The clocks, biological functions everything on the spaceship would indicate that only 5 days elapsed. To the person in the spacecraft only 5 days has elapsed.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 34 by Divine Insight]

You apparently confuse science fiction with science. Nothing in General Relativity says that anyone can walk through any wormholes, much less end up thousands of years in the past.

You're trying to pass off speculation as science.

It most surely does. Look it up.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 34 by Divine Insight]

You apparently confuse science fiction with science. Nothing in General Relativity says that anyone can walk through any wormholes, much less end up thousands of years in the past.

You're trying to pass off speculation as science.

It most surely does. Look it up.

Moderator Comment

At the very least, please provide an authoritative link along with such a comment. Better yet, support your assertion with evidence in your own words.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 34 by Divine Insight]

You apparently confuse science fiction with science. Nothing in General Relativity says that anyone can walk through any wormholes, much less end up thousands of years in the past.

You're trying to pass off speculation as science.

It most surely does. Look it up.

I don't need to look it up. I've already studied General Relativity and I know that there is nothing in it that says that anyone can walk through a wormhole and end up thousands of years in the past.

Some scientists have speculated that the equations of GR might be able to be used in a way to potentially allow for this to happen. But those speculations have never panned out. In fact, Kip Thorne and Stephen Hawking have both looked into this quite extensively and came to the conclusion that these speculations are most likely wrong.

So you are wrong to claim that GR says that these things are possible.

You need to quit watching speculative science shows and claiming that this represents actual science. There is nothing in modern day science that says that time travel into the past is possible. That's all speculation. Nothing more.

While some scientists might claim to believe that this is possible, if they haven't actually shown how it can be done, then all they are doing is speculating.

You really need to pay attention and stop embracing speculation as though it represents verified scientific facts. Just because a particular scientist might favor a particular speculation doesn't make that speculation science.

A prime example is Sean Carroll who favors the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. This doesn't make the "Many Worlds" interpretation of QM true.

So you really need to be careful when listening to scientists offer their opinions on things. A scientist's opinion does not equate to scientific knowledge. It's just an opinion and could be dead wrong.