Scientism and Time Travel nonsense. Offending reality is unscientific.

There is no way to move all the particles of the universe in an ensemble backwards or forwards.

Synopsis

According to mainstream physics and cosmology, time-travel is a certainty!  Establishment ‘science’ claims that ‘spacetime’, or the merger of a spatial map with our human-concept and calculation of time, means pace Einstein, that time is ‘relative’.  According to these ‘geniuses’ there is no distinction between the past, the current or the future.  Given that time is embedded in ‘space’, the establishment theory postulates that we can move backwards or forward in time, akin to rewinding or fast-forwarding a tape. 

Spacetime is of course junk science premised on arcane mathematical models.  We need to remember that much of modern science is meta-physics or ‘ontology’, and not mechanical science.  It is easy to make up theories and supporting maths.  It is harder to prove said theories with evidence. 

Previous posts have discussed light, what time actually is, and why spacetime is scientific and even ontological gibberish.  For example, to move backwards or forward in time, you would need to move all the particles in the universe in an ensemble together to that point in time on a non-existing 4-dimensional axis (x, y, z, t where t = time as the 4^th dimension). 

Do you really believe you can forward or rewind all the particles in the universe?  Is there a magic tape recording we can access to do this at the universal level?  The universe does not care about your local time, or your calculation of local time.  There is no mechanism to roll back or roll forward every particle in the universe.  There is no mechanism to roll back or roll forward particles which surround just yourself. 

Entropy and Time

In the physical and real universe, the law of entropy applies.  Entropy measures the level of disorder in a closed system over time.  Within any process entropy will either be unchanged, or it will increase.  Based on what we know, entropy can never decrease.  If we were able to roll back time, we would decrease entropy.  This is physically impossible.  Therefore, time travel is also physically impossible. 

Age and Time

Imagine you are an actor-naut, pretending to train for a trip to the moon.  As part of your training, you take a trip to the upper atmosphere and stay there a while.  You travel to the space station at 250 miles in altitude, then decide to go further to 12.250 miles where GPS satellites orbit.  Let’s ignore the reality of the Van Allen radiation belt which begins at about 400 miles in altitude, which would kill you.  Imagine your vessel has 3 feet of lead on the outside and enough fuel to push on to 12.250 miles distance from the Earth. 

If you could ascend to such an altitude, you would (pace Einstein), age faster than your friends on Earth.  This is because of the weaker gravitational field at this altitude.  Many in ‘science’ claim that this is ‘travelling to the future’.  But of course, it is not.

First, the effect is small and marginal.  Yes, you as the actor-naut may have aged slightly more than your friends on Earth, but the underlying key assumption with time dilation is that you are travelling near to the speed of light, which as an actor-naut you are not even close to achieving. At best you might travel at 1000 miles per hour, not the 186.000 miles per second which is the supposed speed of light in vacuo. 

Second, you did not take the entire universe of particles with you.  You did not fast-forward into your future where your entire past life was transposed into a future state and time.  You did not live in the future.  Therefore no ‘time travel’ would be noticeable. 

Wormy Holes

Establishment cosmological metaphysics waxes enthusiastic about ‘wormholes’.  These ‘holes’ or tunnels, will supposedly allow us to flit from the past to the future, and to other ‘multi-verses’ which must exist pace Banging theology.  As with multi-verses, wormholes don’t exist.  It is pure fiction. 

According to the clever people, a ‘wormhole’ is situated close to a neutron star, where time is retarded, and processes are slower.  If the ‘wormhole’ could be connected to the Earth, we would have access to an end which is older than the other end lying near the neutron star.  If you were to move from the Earth to the neutron star in this tunnel, you would age less given the processes are slower near the neutron star, or pace ‘The Science’, you might travel into a future time dimension.  Cosmologists titter with anticipation. 

It is a load of gibberish of course.  No wormhole tunnels exist at all, including near the Earth. There is no way to prove that wormholes exist near neutron stars, and even if wormholes did exist, there is no possibility to move from the Earth to such a neutron star and take all the particles of the universe with you. 

Light and reality

Previous posts discussed why the dogma around the constant speed of light is wrong.  We also know that the assumptions behind the ‘Doppler effect’ are wrong.  The ‘Doppler effect’ is named after the Austrian mathematician Christian Doppler and describes the obvious phenomenon related to sounds.  You hear a police siren.  The police car speeds by you and the siren sound is very loud.  As the police car moves away, the tone and force of the sound becomes lower until it disappears.  This does not mean however, that the police car was increasing in age as it sped away, or that at some removed distance, the car’s age changed.

We know that sound waves travel at between 500-600 mph. We also know that the frequency of that sound wave will never change in vacuo, no matter what the distance.  The same is true for light. Light’s frequency does not change, even in a medium.

Redshifts don’t mean long ages

(→ but we don’t)

Imagine that you are Galileo on a hilltop and are the receiver of a light beam from your assistant on hill yonder. For a moment you arrest the internal worship of your greatness and begin to move towards your assistant’s light signal. As you do you will notice that the light beam will be seen with a shorter wavelength, or the ‘Doppler effect’.  It will appear to be ‘blue shifted’ within the light spectrum. 

You surmise that this blue shift has a higher frequency than a redshift light which has a longer wavelength.  The blue shift emission therefore has fewer distortions due to gravity or media than a redshift light wave.  Uncharacteristically, as Galileo, you decline to comment on the speed of the blueshift light beam, sagaciously remarking that it was rather ‘instantaneous’. So it is.

We can also remark that the speed of light within the blue shift spectrum may also be greater than the c constant of light speed (which is incorrect anyway).  It does not mean however, that the sender of the light wave (a planet for example, or your assistant on yonder hill) is younger.  It simply means that there is less distortion, less distance, and that the frequency of emission entails a different speed of light, than the redshifted light wave. 

We know that the redshift, which is purportedly the emission of light from an object receding in the distance denoting a great age, is incorrect.  A redshifted light is simply light emitted at a lower frequency.  In reality we don’t see ‘redshifts’ on a continuum. Redshifts vary dramatically within space, which makes the simplistic equation redshift = an older age, wrong.

We do know that the frequency of transmissions never change.  A redshift does not necessarily mean a receding object, nor an object of great or old age.  Age and recession might well be true, but that is not what a redshift is telling us. A redshift is simply an emission of a signal at a lower frequency.  It could mean anything or nothing.

False curves

The dogmatic assertion, that space is curved, is just as absurd as the assertion that time under certain circumstances is slowed down, or that a redshift must mean ‘long ages’.  There is no science to space-time curvature.  If space was curved in a geometric way, it requires a non-existent fourth dimension in which to curve.  We live in a three-dimensional, x-y-z axis universe. 

Consider Pythagoras.  If we have 2 events, with a physical distance between them of 3 meters, and the time difference is 4 seconds, it should give us a result of 5 meters.  But for Relativists this cannot be true.  This is because Einstein regarded time for moving objects to be slower.  To resolve the problem his maths teacher Minkowski calculated distances in spacetime, where time becomes the distance multiplied by itself. 

Minkowski’s tortured calculus concludes that the distance between the 2 events is the sum of the squares of the 4 coordinates (x, y, z, t).  To make the calculations equal to all observers he changes the sign of the contribution from the time difference.  It is mathematical wizardry divorced from reality at its finest.  It means nothing. 

We know that objects in movement do not move slower as a time calculation.  Their velocities may change based on the force, media and other variables, but this does not mean a time dilation. Universal time does not consider local time.  We also know of course that time is a human calculation which resides outside of space and in fact queries objects within a spatial reference model. Therefore time cannot be converted into a distance. 

Bottom Line

Science fiction has taken over real science.  We are now regaled with tales of black holes, wormholes, time travel, time as a distance, spacetime curvature and actor-nauts zooming at the speed of light for trillions of miles to meet up with Chewbaca and friends and have a drink.  Not only is reality ‘relative’ but so is your life and your time on Earth. 

Supposedly you can rewind all the particles in the universe and go back in time, or if you are depressed or curious, take all the particles in the universe with you and fast forward to the future.  Maybe you can meet your ‘other self’ in one of Hawking’s multi-verses, or peer over the edge of this reality to another reality and wave to your future family giving the actor-naut grin and thumbs up. 

Science fiction and the Age of Delusion.  Maybe it is time to rubbish the whole lot of it.

===

Spacetime fantasy and 'The Science'. Why the gospel around 'time' is wrong.

Why the speed of light and the theory of ‘Relativity’ are both wrong

Why Light, Time and Redshifting do not support establishment doctrine