Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, September 23, 2016

A simple question from his wife -- Does physics really allow people to travel back in time? -- propelled physicist Richard Muller on a quest to resolve a fundamental problem that had puzzled him throughout his 45-year career: Why does the arrow of time flow inexorably toward the future, constantly creating new "nows"?

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Muller's new idea: Time is expanding because space is expanding.

"The new physics principle is that space and time are linked; when you create new space, you will create new time," Muller said.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Well, I hate to say it but this is more nonsense built on top of nonsense. We have now accepted a bunch of concepts that have dubious 'proof' like the Big Bang, Black Holes, and the Theory of Relativity. I think the evidence is pretty clear that time is entirely a man made concept - like religion. Our attempts to measure 'time' result in mechanical instruments that are influenced by their environments in the sense that 'time' (as a concept) is constant but can be shown to 'slow' via application of speed which influences our instruments rather than time itself. I realize this is this minority opinion when it comes to such things but the 'bolt-ons' required to keep the old systems in place (back holes and dark matter to patch over holes in Relativity), Pulsars to explain problems with red shift, etc show that we have some truly fundamental problems with the accepted physics (based almost exclusively on math rather than observation). I think the latest em drive findings further show the needs for ever more bandaids.

#1 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-23 12:42 AM | Reply | Funny: 5

#1 You do know that GPS and the LHC wouldn't work at all without Relativity, right? That pulsars and black hole mergers have been measured in minute detail? That the cosmic background radiation wouldn't exist without the Big Bang?

#2 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-09-23 12:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Big Bang, Schmig Schmang.

Signed,
USinVN

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-23 12:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 5

We have now accepted a bunch of concepts that have dubious 'proof' like the Big Bang, Black Holes, and the Theory of Relativity.

All of which have multiple lines of supporting evidence brought about by predictions made based on the initial postulates or observations...

If you're doing science and your knowledge isn't getting bigger and more complicated you're not doing it right.

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2016-09-23 01:37 AM | Reply

Our attempts to measure 'time' result in mechanical instruments that are influenced by their environments in the sense that 'time' (as a concept) is constant but can be shown to 'slow' via application of speed which influences our instruments rather than time itself. I realize this is this minority opinion

Actually I think you just descried relativity, which is the orthodox opinion.

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-23 01:43 AM | Reply

#1

Don't forget gravity. Such shenanigans, lol.

#6 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2016-09-23 01:44 AM | Reply

to such things but the 'bolt-ons' required to keep the old systems in place (back holes and dark matter to patch over holes in Relativity), Pulsars to explain problems with red shift, etc show that we have some truly fundamental problems with the accepted physics (based almost exclusively on math rather than observation). I think the latest em drive findings further show the needs for ever more bandaids.

Why is this at all surprising?
How much of the universe do you think we can observe from our little perch here on earth?
How long have we been able to observe what little we can?

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-23 01:45 AM | Reply

"#1 You do know that GPS and the LHC wouldn't work at all without Relativity, right?"

GPS does not relativity in any of its calculations. The fact that it works despite not using relativity kinda disproves your point. As for LHC - does not require relativity to function in the slightest.

"That pulsars and black hole mergers have been measured in minute detail?"

Simply not true. There have been some measured effects that have been attributed to black holes but black holes have never been observed or proven to exist. As for pulsars, they have been assigned magical properties (rotational velocity and mass) because they violate red shift.

"That the cosmic background radiation wouldn't exist without the Big Bang?"

Not true. There are many other explanations for this that do not require a Big Bang. Further, the predicted levels of the radiation was not aligned with Relativity until the theory of Relativity was given yet another bandaide.

#8 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-23 02:59 AM | Reply

"Actually I think you just descried relativity, which is the orthodox opinion.

#5 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

No - according to Relativity, it is time itself slowing NOT the instrument used to measure it. I think speed and gravity have effects on our instruments, not time itself.

#9 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-23 03:00 AM | Reply

is time itself slowing NOT the instrument used to measure it

If i were to say it's not time that's slowing, it's your forward progress through time that is slowed, would that be a distinction without a difference? I don't know.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-23 03:24 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"If i were to say it's not time that's slowing, it's your forward progress through time that is slowed, would that be a distinction without a difference? I don't know.

#10 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

You are missing my distinction I guess. Space-time assumes that time in your reference frame actually changes vs. another frame (the twin paradox). My contention is that time does not change at all - the only change is our ability to measure it due to the effect gravity and velocity have on our instruments. Time itself does not change because that is solely a human construct.

#11 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-23 04:33 AM | Reply

USINVN you are incorrect.

Satellites have to correct for the time difference of relativity for GPS to function correctly. So you are just not correct there.

#12 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2016-09-23 10:53 AM | Reply

"Satellites have to correct for the time difference of relativity for GPS to function correctly. So you are just not correct there.

#12 | POSTED BY KWRX25"

No, they do not. The time corrections is explained by Newtonian physics such as the doplar and Sagnac effects. There are many papers you can access online about future enhancements that may use relativity to make more accurate estimations but it is not used today. Further, read any paper about the GPS before implementation and you will see paper after paper from the relativists stating that the system will not work because they do not correct for relativistic effects.

#13 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-23 01:47 PM | Reply

#8 And you are wrong. physicscentral.com

#14 | Posted by 726 at 2016-09-23 01:52 PM | Reply

"#8 And you are wrong. physicscentral.com

#14 | POSTED BY 726 "

Sorry, you linking to an academic paper from a Relativity believer trying to squeeze in relativity AFTER the system is already working is nonsense. For GPS to work, all that is required is for the clocks aboard the satellites to be in synch. Your receiver does not perform any relativistic computations and its movement is completely removed from the GPS calculations (which is not possible in relativity in defining the frames). In short, GPS was invented without relativity and even the former big 'proof' for relativity, precession of the perihelion of Mercury, has been debunked given more accurate measurements and explained 100% with Newtonian physics.

#15 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-23 02:02 PM | Reply

My contention is that time does not change at all - the only change is our ability to measure it due to the effect gravity and velocity have on our instruments. Time itself does not change because that is solely a human construct.

So then how do you explain two atomic clocks taking off from the same airbase and flown around the world in opposite directions end up out of sync, and also out of sync with the clock that stayed put? Hafele–Keating experiment en.wikipedia.org

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-23 04:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

usinv... read it and weep.

www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu

GPS satellites do account for relativity time drift, and are constantly adjusting their clocks to account for it.

#17 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2016-09-23 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The new physics principle is that space and time are linked; when you create new space, you will create new time," Muller said.

And that is obviously true.

It takes time to cross space so it has to be related. But why? And is there a way to trick space and find a shortcut? It's a great question and it is good to see brilliant minds looking into it instead of discarding it as "nonsense" as some would. It is certainly NOT nonsense and may even hold the secret to Life the Universe and Everything.

Speaking of Everything...it seems that everything we see (and do) has already happened in the past because it takes time to cross space and to get into our brains and processed. We have tricked ourselves into thinking everything is happening now. The further from us things are happening the further into the past they are. If you raise your arm by the time you see it and sense it "it" has already happened (if only by nanoseconds).

The only place we can truly be in the present or "surfing on the leading edge of time" is in our minds and only when we think of Nothing. For even in thinking it takes time to pass information across our synapses. So by the time we even finish forming a thought Time has passed. WE can usually only achieve this state of being fully in the present in deep Meditation.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-09-23 07:25 PM | Reply

#18

Yog-Sothoth knows the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the gate. Yog-Sothoth is the key and guardian of the gate. Past, present, future, all are one in Yog-Sothoth. He knows where the Old Ones broke through of old, and where They shall break through again. He knows where They have trod earth's fields, and where They still tread them, and why no one can behold Them as They tread.

-- H. P. Lovecraft, Prophet of the Aeon

#19 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-09-23 07:44 PM | Reply

"So then how do you explain two atomic clocks taking off from the same airbase and flown around the world in opposite directions end up out of sync, and also out of sync with the clock that stayed put? Hafele–Keating experiment en.wikipedia.org

#16 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

First - the clocks were so inaccurate that they actually did not show that at all. Second, this would simply be proving my point on that effect being one of travel impacting the clock itself rather than the nature of time.

#20 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-23 07:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"usinv... read it and weep.
www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu

#17 | POSTED BY KWRX25 "

This is the same paper cited every time there is a discussion on relativity and GPS - again, the professor did not work on the design of the GPS system. There is a clock offset adjusted for prior to the satellites being placed in orbit but that delay is based on Doppler and Sagnac effects and NOT relativity. As I stated - the GPS system as it works today completely ignores the user and simply focuses on the satellites themselves - that fact alone violates relativity. Your GPS receiver does not perform ANY relativistic calculations.

#21 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-23 08:03 PM | Reply

#20 Do you know what an atomic clock is and how it operates? Also, if you deny relativity, do you deny atomic bombs too?

#22 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-09-23 08:04 PM | Reply

"#20 Do you know what an atomic clock is and how it operates? Also, if you deny relativity, do you deny atomic bombs too?

#22 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT"

First, an atomic bomb does not require any knowledge of relativity - this is a ridiculous argument so you can go full stop on that one. Second, ANY clock can be effected by gravity - that does not mean that the nature of time is changed, just that our clock is changed. In the simplest terms, think of bumping a sand filled hour glass vs. leaving it alone.

#23 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-23 08:17 PM | Reply

#23 An atomic bomb is based on E=mc^2, which is derived from the theory of relativity.

#24 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-09-23 08:36 PM | Reply

"#23 An atomic bomb is based on E=mc^2, which is derived from the theory of relativity.

#24 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT "

An atomic bomb would work regardless of this equation....which was published before Relativity regardless.

#25 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-23 08:49 PM | Reply

#25 E=mc^2 is derived from the general theory of relativity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Check Wiki or something if you don't believe me. Einstein discovered it. It does not predate Relativity, it is part of Relativity!!!!!!!!!!!

That's basic college Physics I.

#26 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-09-23 09:03 PM | Reply

"That's basic college Physics I.

#26 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT "

Actually, no it is not.

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com

"Do you even need to know that E=mc² to make an atomic bomb? Perhaps surprisingly, you don't! There are other, more physically intuitive ways to calculate (or measure) the energy release from a fission reaction. If you treat the fission process as being simply based on the electrostatic repulsion of two fission products, you get essentially the same energy output in the form of kinetic energy. This is how the physics of fission is often taught in actual physics classes, because it gives you a more concrete indication of how that energy is getting released (whereas E=mc² with the mass-defect makes it seem like a magical lightning bolt carries it away)."

#27 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-23 09:06 PM | Reply

Are you ret@@@@d? The satellites are constantly adjusting their clocks...how hard is that to comprehend? If they weren't constantly adjusted their time would drift out of sync do to relativity.

#28 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2016-09-23 09:07 PM | Reply

"Are you ret@@@@d? The satellites are constantly adjusting their clocks...how hard is that to comprehend? If they weren't constantly adjusted their time would drift out of sync do to relativity.

#28 | POSTED BY KWRX25"

You don't understand how the system works. The satellites adjust their clocks to keep them in synch WITH THE OTHER SATELLITES - the reading on your earth based receiver is not used (you don't have an atomic clock in your iPhone) so they get their timestamps from the satellites themselves which are synched weekly. Again, it is not relativity if you ignore the receiver in the equation. If relativity was really coming into play, then your GPS would be widely inaccurate at the poles vs. the equator AND at any significant altitude as that would change your velocity vs. the satellites. Again, understand the system before posting because you clearly do not.

#29 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-23 09:19 PM | Reply

#27 Ah. A conspiracy site. And the dude is completely wrong....

#30 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-09-23 09:28 PM | Reply

#27 "If you treat the fission process as being simply based on the electrostatic repulsion of two fission products, you get essentially the same energy output in the form of kinetic energy."

No. You don't. The weak nuclear force is the only way to calculate the mass conversion. Electromagnetism? Yer a troll. Good night.

#31 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2016-09-23 09:30 PM | Reply

Ray?
Is that you?

#32 | Posted by YAV at 2016-09-23 09:54 PM | Reply

Ray?
Is that you?

Ifhe says anything relative to gold, we'll know. But based on his location and calculations, he could be Vern.

#33 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-09-23 11:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I think the evidence is pretty clear that time is entirely a man made concept - like religion.

Nonsense. Everything from mountains to isotopes degrade whether they are measured or not. Time simply measures the rate of change. It is as much a physical reality as height, weight or volume are. At least below the speed of light. At the speed of light there is no passage of time, so that photon we see from a galaxy a hundred million light light years away thinks it is still back there as well as here.

To go back in time, at the least we'd have to move everything in the universe at faster than the speed of light. Since galaxies are currently accelerating away from the center of the universe, there would be some we should see moving backwards towards the big bng basement, but we're not, so maybe that's not a speed we can reach.

#34 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-09-23 11:23 PM | Reply

#23 An atomic bomb is based on E=mc^2, which is derived from the theory of relativity.
#24 | POSTED BY HELIUMRAT "
An atomic bomb would work regardless of this equation....which was published before Relativity regardless.

#25 | POSTED BY USINVN

Yes, it would. But without the theory predicting the big kaboom, nobody would have done it.

#35 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-09-23 11:25 PM | Reply

If you treat the fission process..

It doesn't matter how you can treat it post hoc.

Did they or didn't they use relativity to discover the processes that allowed the building of the bomb?

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2016-09-24 01:12 AM | Reply

"Did they or didn't they use relativity to discover the processes that allowed the building of the bomb?

#36 | POSTED BY JPW "

No - it was simply not needed so it was not used. Einstein has ZERO to do with the bomb. In fact, his work in photonics was much more important than any relativity related to the bomb.

#37 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-24 01:36 AM | Reply

"Yes, it would. But without the theory predicting the big kaboom, nobody would have done it.

#35 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3"

Utter nonsense....that is all this comment deserves.

#38 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-24 01:38 AM | Reply

I don't think they used relativity in that many processes. The hard part was the same part that's hard for Iran today, the centrifuges.

They go fast, but they're not relativistic.

I don't know why you're belaboring the point, though. The atomic clocks flown around the world are staring us all right in the face. They are out of sync. Because they travelled distances apart from one another. Which caused them to travel through time more slowly, relative to objects at rest in that frame of reference. End of story.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-24 01:41 AM | Reply

"To go back in time, at the least we'd have to move everything in the universe at faster than the speed of light.
#34 | POSTED BY NORTHGUY3 "

Funny that you realize this - that the current 'Big Bang' nonsense assumes faster than speed of light expansion of the universe after the Big Bang event...so, even their own Big Bang invention violates relativity. I know there will be another magic celestial object invented soon to bandaide over this latest contradiction.

#40 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-24 01:41 AM | Reply

"Which caused them to travel through time more slowly, relative to objects at rest in that frame of reference. End of story.

#39 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

No - "time" did not slow - the atomic clocks mechanical/electrical process did..which is our measurement of time and not time itself. It is an important distinction. The sooner the relativist die off and new theories can take hold, the sooner we actually start to make scientific advances again.

#41 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-24 01:44 AM | Reply

Seeing the effects of relativity with the naked eye
condensedconcepts.blogspot.com

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-24 01:50 AM | Reply

No - "time" did not slow - the atomic clocks mechanical/electrical process did..which is our measurement of time and not time itself.

I didn't say time itself, I said the passage through time was slower, relative to people not in the airplane.

Traveling relativistically doesn't make time itself slow down within your own frame of reference.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-24 01:55 AM | Reply

the atomic clocks mechanical/electrical process did.

Can you give an explanation for how this works to back your assertions?

In other words, can you provide an evidence-based explanation for how increased velocity changes physical constants of electromagnetism, mechanical motion ect?

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2016-09-24 01:56 AM | Reply

Traveling relativistically doesn't make time itself slow down within your own frame of reference.

You'd think the "relative" part of "relativity" would make that clear LOL

#45 | Posted by jpw at 2016-09-24 01:57 AM | Reply

"Seeing the effects of relativity with the naked eye
condensedconcepts.blogspot.com
#42 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

Nonsense explanations applied after the fact - Hg is liquid at room temp because of the inert pair effect regardless of how hard the relativists try to finagle in their nonsense.

#46 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-24 02:01 AM | Reply

"In other words, can you provide an evidence-based explanation for how increased velocity changes physical constants of electromagnetism, mechanical motion ect?

#44 | POSTED BY JPW "

See anything as it related to aether.

#47 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-24 02:06 AM | Reply

So...no.

#48 | Posted by jpw at 2016-09-24 02:27 AM | Reply

"So...no.

#48 | POSTED BY JPW "

Google to complex for you? Well, I guess then expecting you to read and internalize the articles is asking too much. Enjoy your ignorance but don't pretend your relativity belief is any different than the Christian religion.

#49 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-24 02:42 AM | Reply

No - "time" did not slow - the atomic clocks mechanical/electrical process did..which is our measurement of time and not time itself.

For "time" to appear to have slowed to the "atomic clocks and mechanical/electrical process(es)" perspective, those processes would have had to have sped up.

#50 | Posted by YAV at 2016-09-24 07:58 AM | Reply

The satellites adjust their clocks to keep them in synch WITH THE OTHER SATELLITES - the reading on your earth based receiver is not used (you don't have an atomic clock in your iPhone) so they get their timestamps from the satellites themselves which are synched weekly.

Oh my word!

Not but a 100 miles in the plains of eastern Washington we have 3 GPS ground towers so there is a constant with a boat 50 miles out to sea. Do you not understand Mass? Velocity?

#51 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-09-24 09:19 AM | Reply

The satellites adjust their clocks to keep them in synch WITH THE OTHER SATELLITES

LOL!

"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre minds"

#52 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-09-24 09:22 AM | Reply

For "time" to appear to have slowed to the "atomic clocks and mechanical/electrical process(es)" perspective, those processes would have had to have sped up.

Or moved closer.

#53 | Posted by Crassus at 2016-09-24 09:24 AM | Reply

"Not but a 100 miles in the plains of eastern Washington we have 3 GPS ground towers so there is a constant with a boat 50 miles out to sea. Do you not understand Mass? Velocity?

#51 | POSTED BY CRASSUS "

Can you try this again in English?

#54 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-24 01:52 PM | Reply

"LOL!
"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from mediocre minds"

#52 | POSTED BY CRASSUS"

Before you post anything else either stupid or incomprehensible, please do 15 minutes of research on how the basics of GPS works. You subsequent posts show that you have absolutely no idea as it seems to reference TDOA triangulation which is not how satellite based GPS works.

#55 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-24 01:57 PM | Reply

In other words, can you provide an evidence-based explanation for how increased velocity changes physical constants of electromagnetism, mechanical motion ect?
#44 | Posted by jpw

I'll settle for a simple equation that describes the process.
Which is a thing that relativity provides in spades.
The four-dimensional space time tensor model accurately predicts observations.

Could it be wrong? Sure. Newton was "wrong" but you'd be hard-pressed to find an application whee his laws will lead you astray. GPS being one of the few.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-24 02:04 PM | Reply

"GPS being one of the few.

#56 | POSTED BY SNOOFY"

So clueless on how GPS functions. Sad really.

#57 | Posted by USinVN at 2016-09-24 02:07 PM | Reply

K, show me your equations that predict things.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-09-24 02:56 PM | Reply

Google to complex for you?

It isn't my job to do the leg work finding supporting info for your position.

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2016-09-24 03:40 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

Drudge Retort