It Won't Be Space Travel

Too bad we've called it space travel because once are out there no one
will be calling it "space travel" anymore. They will be calling it "time
travel." The spacefarer's (rather timefarer's) position will always be zero,
the coordinate system will always be light time distances to planets and
stars, and the numbers will always be negative numbers -- from zero -- for
those light time distances to.... in the coordinate system.

Negative time to zero will be time that has to be covered in positive
numbers of time like positive spatial distance has to be covered on Earth in
positive numbers of time. But the time traveler will have to expand the
positive number of time to zero beyond the light time distance to his
destination to also cover his calculated travel time to his destination. The
total of time he gets from his calculations will be the total actual
distance of his time travel [up through time] toward and to his destination
in space.

For close to a hundred years there has been speculation about travel
faster than the speed of light to awesomely distant places in the galaxy and
beyond. If you truly have a bent for physics and mathematics, or logic, you
will realize from what I've laid out above that no travel either through
interplanetary space, or through interstellar or intergalactic space, will
be at any actual speed faster than the speed of light. You have only to
divide the traveler's "total of time" calculated by the "light time
distance" to his destination to be covered (the light time distance as is,
unconverted to a negative number) to always arrive at a positive number
result. A positive number result means a travel at less than the speed of
light no matter what the traveler's calculated and experienced -- per his
ship board clock -- travel time.

It continues to amaze and appall me that people, especially many
physicists dealing in cosmology, believe they are observing "space" out
there, when they are doing no such thing. Some might argue that they aren't
doing any such thing. I would emphatically argue yes they are if they are at
all using the three space, one time, 4-d coordinate system which is and will
be invalid in any discussion of, or calculations concerning, future "space
travel." Particularly invalid when it comes to any discussion of, or
calculations concerning, anything having to do with future "space
travelers." It will not be space travel as such, it will be time travel in
space. They will not be space travelers as such, they will be time travelers
in space.

I would also argue emphatically yes they are if they are at all using
"velocity," including the "speed of light" or 'c', in any discussion of, or
calculations concerning, anything having to do with future "space travel" or
"space travelers." Velocity would not come into play in any travel out there
until a traveler gained enough relativity in time to some entity in space
and time the traveler is closing up with. Enough relativity in time to bring
'relative velocities' (plural) into play. Calculation of velocity is
relative to some nearer ground or some other nearer anchor for it and the
traveler will be in a vacuum without any such anchor for calculating
velocity.

Don't even think of the speed of light, or 'c', as being such an anchor.
The speed of light will be measured aboard the vessel exactly as it is for
being in a vacuum ('c'). External to the vessel it will be the speed of
light in a vacuum and therefore rightly presumed to be at all times 'c'. The
traveler will have no velocity whatsoever as such. He will be strictly a
time traveler directionally time traveling in space midst countless
differing points of light-time in space. He will be traveling up through
time ahead on his way to gaining some relativity in space and time to some
real [physical] entity. He will be on his way up through time from being
behind in time (minus) working his way toward getting even in time with his
destination (reaching zero from minus -- relative to his destination). He
will be traveling down through time (from being even in time, or less behind
or minus in time) behind him, losing relativity behind him to everything
that will be falling farther and ever farther back in time behind him,
relatively speaking that is. This is what the ever continuing constancy of
the speed of light in a vacuum ('c') will mean to him, do to him, and do for
him; and mean, do to, and do for, all travelers whatsoever, out there.

Gravities of acceleration, inertial mass and motion, will of course
continue to mean something to the traveler even during the vast majority of
travel time that his velocity won't mean anything to the time traveler in
space.

The one exception to the above concerning velocity would be if the
traveler gained so much velocity through whatever his acceleration, enough
velocity, to become relative to the entire galaxy itself as a unitary entity
rather than a dispersed entity. In which case he had better be on his way
out of it to travel over and back into it or to travel somewhere else other
than it.

It won't be space travel, not largely, it will be time travel through
time...in a vacuum of space.

GLB

"G. L. Bradford" wrote in message
m...
| Too bad we've called it space travel because once are out there no one
| will be calling it "space travel" anymore. They will be calling it "time
| travel."

****head!

Androcles

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
GLB Best it be called "Spacetime Exploring" Bert


No! Not even "spacetime exploring" since it is time travel through time in
a vacuum of space.

I can see now that few if any can perceive that even Earth's moon is out
of time with all observation of it from Earth, therefore even a traveler's
observation of it while waiting on Earth to travel to it, by about 1.3
seconds (rounded off). The real moon is +1.3 seconds up or ahead in time
from that observed moon (observed from Earth).

Mathematicians and physicists keep on talking about mathematics being an
exact science, and mathematical physics, and cosmological physics, being
pursued as accurate science (science of accuracy). Not true when they refuse
to put the moon 0 - 1.3 seconds from Earth and that traveler,
observationally, and go on to refuse to have travelers do something about
that negative in time of 1.3 seconds that they will have do something about
OBSERVATIONALLY, really, in traveling to the moon.

Also "not true" when if a robotic traveler from Earth takes -- say
hypothetically -- precisely six months from launch at Earth to go from the
surface of Earth to the surface of Mars, landing on Mars -- say
hypothetically -- when Mars would be precisely 240 light seconds from Earth.
NASA engineers would have to observe the landing on Mars as having to have
taken, not precisely six months from launch, but precisely six months and
240 seconds more of time from launch on Earth to landing on Mars. But
observationally, if such means is included with the robotic traveler, the
"means" would have to do about that 0 - 240 seconds -- that 240 second
[absolute minimum] difference between the real Mars the traveler travels to
and the Mars observed from the surface of the Earth -- during its
precisionally known precise six months of travel from surface of Earth to
surface of Mars. Of course at launch the difference is a lot greater than
240 seconds, but landing takes place when in time Mars is 240 light seconds
from Earth. The robotic traveler has to do something about that "lot greater
than 240 seconds" to 240 seconds difference in the observed Mars from Earth
and the real Mars landed upon. The Einstein-like scientist who puts himself,
or herself, in the place of the robotic traveler, and any other traveler,
has to do something about that [negative number to zero] observation-wise,
time-wise, physics-wise, mathematics-wise, if scientists are to be believed
when they say they try for scientific accuracy, including mathematical
accuracy. When they say they are going for picturing -- and presenting it to
the rest of us who pay their way, as well as to our children in education --
reality.

That catch up in time, or speed up in time, concerning a 240-plus second
difference in time between virtuality and reality is utterly insignificant
within a span of travel time of six months, but when cosmological physicists
start talking four, ten, a thousand, light years (0 - 4 years, 0 - 10 years,
0 - 1000 years) that catch up time -- observationally -- to the reality,
that speed up in time -- observationally -- to get even in time with the
reality (so to arrive at all at the reality), becomes significant in the
extreme of significance. The physicist has to place the traveler, relative
to the traveler's destination, somewhere negative in time relative to his
destination starting out. The physicist is not doing that; has never done
that. Which is why there remains a "twins paradox," a supposition of "faster
than light travel," and the possibility remaining in physicists' minds (such
as Steven Weinberg's mind, and even Stephen Hawking's mind) that travel back
in time to change history, a violation of causality, can't be ruled out.
I've ruled all these aboves things out, definitively. That light time
distances mean a negative number concerning time to travelers, starting them
out behind or negative in time to their destinations, renders the "twins
paradox," a supposition of "faster than light travel," and "travel back in
time to change history" (thus violating causality), impossible and thus
meaningless.

I've pictured for all to see how it really works. But what physicist today
wants anything to do with reality? They are utter liars when they talk about
seeking scientifically accurate picturing of 'c', "time" and "travel." There
is a lot of things about cosmology and cosmological physics that will have
to remain in the realm of conjecture, but the whats concerning 'c', "time"
and "travel" are very definitely not among them. It is the one area I can
pin down...nail down...acutely. The one area in which I'm ready, willing and
able to logically slug it out with anyone with even half a brain to see who
tries to take me on concerning it.

GLB

G. L. Bradford wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
GLB Best it be called "Spacetime Exploring" Bert


No! Not even "spacetime exploring" since it is time travel through time in
a vacuum of space.

I can see now that few if any can perceive that even Earth's moon is out
of time with all observation of it from Earth, therefore even a traveler's
observation of it while waiting on Earth to travel to it, by about 1.3
seconds (rounded off). The real moon is +1.3 seconds up or ahead in time
from that observed moon (observed from Earth).

Mathematicians and physicists keep on talking about mathematics being an
exact science, and mathematical physics, and cosmological physics, being
pursued as accurate science (science of accuracy). Not true when they refuse
to put the moon 0 - 1.3 seconds from Earth and that traveler,
observationally, and go on to refuse to have travelers do something about
that negative in time of 1.3 seconds that they will have do something about
OBSERVATIONALLY, really, in traveling to the moon.

Also "not true" when if a robotic traveler from Earth takes -- say
hypothetically -- precisely six months from launch at Earth to go from the
surface of Earth to the surface of Mars, landing on Mars -- say
hypothetically -- when Mars would be precisely 240 light seconds from Earth.
NASA engineers would have to observe the landing on Mars as having to have
taken, not precisely six months from launch, but precisely six months and
240 seconds more of time from launch on Earth to landing on Mars. But
observationally, if such means is included with the robotic traveler, the
"means" would have to do about that 0 - 240 seconds -- that 240 second
[absolute minimum] difference between the real Mars the traveler travels to
and the Mars observed from the surface of the Earth -- during its
precisionally known precise six months of travel from surface of Earth to
surface of Mars. Of course at launch the difference is a lot greater than
240 seconds, but landing takes place when in time Mars is 240 light seconds
from Earth. The robotic traveler has to do something about that "lot greater
than 240 seconds" to 240 seconds difference in the observed Mars from Earth
and the real Mars landed upon. The Einstein-like scientist who puts himself,
or herself, in the place of the robotic traveler, and any other traveler,
has to do something about that [negative number to zero] observation-wise,
time-wise, physics-wise, mathematics-wise, if scientists are to be believed
when they say they try for scientific accuracy, including mathematical
accuracy. When they say they are going for picturing -- and presenting it to
the rest of us who pay their way, as well as to our children in education --
reality.

That catch up in time, or speed up in time, concerning a 240-plus second
difference in time between virtuality and reality is utterly insignificant
within a span of travel time of six months, but when cosmological physicists
start talking four, ten, a thousand, light years (0 - 4 years, 0 - 10 years,
0 - 1000 years) that catch up time -- observationally -- to the reality,
that speed up in time -- observationally -- to get even in time with the
reality (so to arrive at all at the reality), becomes significant in the
extreme of significance. The physicist has to place the traveler, relative
to the traveler's destination, somewhere negative in time relative to his
destination starting out. The physicist is not doing that; has never done
that. Which is why there remains a "twins paradox," a supposition of "faster
than light travel," and the possibility remaining in physicists' minds (such
as Steven Weinberg's mind, and even Stephen Hawking's mind) that travel back
in time to change history, a violation of causality, can't be ruled out.
I've ruled all these aboves things out, definitively. That light time
distances mean a negative number concerning time to travelers, starting them
out behind or negative in time to their destinations, renders the "twins
paradox," a supposition of "faster than light travel," and "travel back in
time to change history" (thus violating causality), impossible and thus
meaningless.

I've pictured for all to see how it really works. But what physicist today
wants anything to do with reality? They are utter liars when they talk about
seeking scientifically accurate picturing of 'c', "time" and "travel." There
is a lot of things about cosmology and cosmological physics that will have
to remain in the realm of conjecture, but the whats concerning 'c', "time"
and "travel" are very definitely not among them. It is the one area I can
pin down...nail down...acutely. The one area in which I'm ready, willing and
able to logically slug it out with anyone with even half a brain to see who
tries to take me on concerning it.

Where did you get 240 seconds from? Mars is anywhere from 35 million to
154 million miles from the earth, therefore 190 to 830 light seconds
from the earth. What is the significance of 240?

Perhaps I won't argue the speed of light with you, but I willl discuss
Martial orbital mechanics with you if you like.

Eric


GLB

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
oups.com...

G. L. Bradford wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
GLB Best it be called "Spacetime Exploring" Bert


No! Not even "spacetime exploring" since it is time travel through time
in
a vacuum of space.

I can see now that few if any can perceive that even Earth's moon is
out
of time with all observation of it from Earth, therefore even a
traveler's
observation of it while waiting on Earth to travel to it, by about 1.3
seconds (rounded off). The real moon is +1.3 seconds up or ahead in time
from that observed moon (observed from Earth).

Mathematicians and physicists keep on talking about mathematics being
an
exact science, and mathematical physics, and cosmological physics, being
pursued as accurate science (science of accuracy). Not true when they
refuse
to put the moon 0 - 1.3 seconds from Earth and that traveler,
observationally, and go on to refuse to have travelers do something about
that negative in time of 1.3 seconds that they will have do something
about
OBSERVATIONALLY, really, in traveling to the moon.

Also "not true" when if a robotic traveler from Earth takes -- say
hypothetically -- precisely six months from launch at Earth to go from
the
surface of Earth to the surface of Mars, landing on Mars -- say
hypothetically -- when Mars would be precisely 240 light seconds from
Earth.
NASA engineers would have to observe the landing on Mars as having to
have
taken, not precisely six months from launch, but precisely six months and
240 seconds more of time from launch on Earth to landing on Mars. But
observationally, if such means is included with the robotic traveler, the
"means" would have to do about that 0 - 240 seconds -- that 240 second
[absolute minimum] difference between the real Mars the traveler travels
to
and the Mars observed from the surface of the Earth -- during its
precisionally known precise six months of travel from surface of Earth to
surface of Mars. Of course at launch the difference is a lot greater than
240 seconds, but landing takes place when in time Mars is 240 light
seconds
from Earth. The robotic traveler has to do something about that "lot
greater
than 240 seconds" to 240 seconds difference in the observed Mars from
Earth
and the real Mars landed upon. The Einstein-like scientist who puts
himself,
or herself, in the place of the robotic traveler, and any other traveler,
has to do something about that [negative number to zero]
observation-wise,
time-wise, physics-wise, mathematics-wise, if scientists are to be
believed
when they say they try for scientific accuracy, including mathematical
accuracy. When they say they are going for picturing -- and presenting it
to
the rest of us who pay their way, as well as to our children in
education --
reality.

That catch up in time, or speed up in time, concerning a 240-plus
second
difference in time between virtuality and reality is utterly
insignificant
within a span of travel time of six months, but when cosmological
physicists
start talking four, ten, a thousand, light years (0 - 4 years, 0 - 10
years,
0 - 1000 years) that catch up time -- observationally -- to the reality,
that speed up in time -- observationally -- to get even in time with the
reality (so to arrive at all at the reality), becomes significant in the
extreme of significance. The physicist has to place the traveler,
relative
to the traveler's destination, somewhere negative in time relative to his
destination starting out. The physicist is not doing that; has never done
that. Which is why there remains a "twins paradox," a supposition of
"faster
than light travel," and the possibility remaining in physicists' minds
(such
as Steven Weinberg's mind, and even Stephen Hawking's mind) that travel
back
in time to change history, a violation of causality, can't be ruled out.
I've ruled all these aboves things out, definitively. That light time
distances mean a negative number concerning time to travelers, starting
them
out behind or negative in time to their destinations, renders the "twins
paradox," a supposition of "faster than light travel," and "travel back
in
time to change history" (thus violating causality), impossible and thus
meaningless.

I've pictured for all to see how it really works. But what physicist
today
wants anything to do with reality? They are utter liars when they talk
about
seeking scientifically accurate picturing of 'c', "time" and "travel."
There
is a lot of things about cosmology and cosmological physics that will
have
to remain in the realm of conjecture, but the whats concerning 'c',
"time"
and "travel" are very definitely not among them. It is the one area I can
pin down...nail down...acutely. The one area in which I'm ready, willing
and
able to logically slug it out with anyone with even half a brain to see
who
tries to take me on concerning it.

Where did you get 240 seconds from? Mars is anywhere from 35 million to
154 million miles from the earth, therefore 190 to 830 light seconds
from the earth. What is the significance of 240?

Perhaps I won't argue the speed of light with you, but I willl discuss
Martial orbital mechanics with you if you like.

Eric

"240" was just arbitrarily chosen as the light-time distance in the
scenario. In case you didn't notice it happens to be between "190" and "830"
light seconds.

GLB

G. L. Bradford wrote:

Too bad we've called it space travel because once are out there no one
will be calling it "space travel" anymore. They will be calling it "time
travel."


Travel anywhere outside Earth's atmosphere (and on or very close to
the surfaces of other planets) is and will continue to be called 'space
travel' or 'space flight.' If people are uncomfortable with the
redefinition of Pluto, they'll *never* accept re-definitions of the
concept of 'space.'

(I recently read Brian Aldiss's 'White Mars,' and one of the
irritating things about it, was calling it travel through the 'matrix.'
I never understood why.)

It'll be a while before we do it fast enough for relativistic
effects to become signifigant (would that we could), and that's the only
occasion to start thinking about time dilation effects.

And just as traditionally, most of us have a somewhat different
notion of what 'time travel' means.


--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"Man who say it cannot be done, should not interrupt man doing it."
- Chinese Proverb

G. L. Bradford wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
oups.com...

G. L. Bradford wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
GLB Best it be called "Spacetime Exploring" Bert


No! Not even "spacetime exploring" since it is time travel through time
in
a vacuum of space.

I can see now that few if any can perceive that even Earth's moon is
out
of time with all observation of it from Earth, therefore even a
traveler's
observation of it while waiting on Earth to travel to it, by about 1.3
seconds (rounded off). The real moon is +1.3 seconds up or ahead in time
from that observed moon (observed from Earth).

Mathematicians and physicists keep on talking about mathematics being
an
exact science, and mathematical physics, and cosmological physics, being
pursued as accurate science (science of accuracy). Not true when they
refuse
to put the moon 0 - 1.3 seconds from Earth and that traveler,
observationally, and go on to refuse to have travelers do something about
that negative in time of 1.3 seconds that they will have do something
about
OBSERVATIONALLY, really, in traveling to the moon.

Also "not true" when if a robotic traveler from Earth takes -- say
hypothetically -- precisely six months from launch at Earth to go from
the
surface of Earth to the surface of Mars, landing on Mars -- say
hypothetically -- when Mars would be precisely 240 light seconds from
Earth.
NASA engineers would have to observe the landing on Mars as having to
have
taken, not precisely six months from launch, but precisely six months and
240 seconds more of time from launch on Earth to landing on Mars. But
observationally, if such means is included with the robotic traveler, the
"means" would have to do about that 0 - 240 seconds -- that 240 second
[absolute minimum] difference between the real Mars the traveler travels
to
and the Mars observed from the surface of the Earth -- during its
precisionally known precise six months of travel from surface of Earth to
surface of Mars. Of course at launch the difference is a lot greater than
240 seconds, but landing takes place when in time Mars is 240 light
seconds
from Earth. The robotic traveler has to do something about that "lot
greater
than 240 seconds" to 240 seconds difference in the observed Mars from
Earth
and the real Mars landed upon. The Einstein-like scientist who puts
himself,
or herself, in the place of the robotic traveler, and any other traveler,
has to do something about that [negative number to zero]
observation-wise,
time-wise, physics-wise, mathematics-wise, if scientists are to be
believed
when they say they try for scientific accuracy, including mathematical
accuracy. When they say they are going for picturing -- and presenting it
to
the rest of us who pay their way, as well as to our children in
education --
reality.

That catch up in time, or speed up in time, concerning a 240-plus
second
difference in time between virtuality and reality is utterly
insignificant
within a span of travel time of six months, but when cosmological
physicists
start talking four, ten, a thousand, light years (0 - 4 years, 0 - 10
years,
0 - 1000 years) that catch up time -- observationally -- to the reality,
that speed up in time -- observationally -- to get even in time with the
reality (so to arrive at all at the reality), becomes significant in the
extreme of significance. The physicist has to place the traveler,
relative
to the traveler's destination, somewhere negative in time relative to his
destination starting out. The physicist is not doing that; has never done
that. Which is why there remains a "twins paradox," a supposition of
"faster
than light travel," and the possibility remaining in physicists' minds
(such
as Steven Weinberg's mind, and even Stephen Hawking's mind) that travel
back
in time to change history, a violation of causality, can't be ruled out.
I've ruled all these aboves things out, definitively. That light time
distances mean a negative number concerning time to travelers, starting
them
out behind or negative in time to their destinations, renders the "twins
paradox," a supposition of "faster than light travel," and "travel back
in
time to change history" (thus violating causality), impossible and thus
meaningless.

I've pictured for all to see how it really works. But what physicist
today
wants anything to do with reality? They are utter liars when they talk
about
seeking scientifically accurate picturing of 'c', "time" and "travel."
There
is a lot of things about cosmology and cosmological physics that will
have
to remain in the realm of conjecture, but the whats concerning 'c',
"time"
and "travel" are very definitely not among them. It is the one area I can
pin down...nail down...acutely. The one area in which I'm ready, willing
and
able to logically slug it out with anyone with even half a brain to see
who
tries to take me on concerning it.

Where did you get 240 seconds from? Mars is anywhere from 35 million to
154 million miles from the earth, therefore 190 to 830 light seconds
from the earth. What is the significance of 240?

Perhaps I won't argue the speed of light with you, but I willl discuss
Martial orbital mechanics with you if you like.

Eric

"240" was just arbitrarily chosen as the light-time distance in the
scenario. In case you didn't notice it happens to be between "190" and "830"
light seconds.

Yes, I notice and you are not wrong when using 240 seconds. I just
wonder about why it was chosen that's all. No need for nape hairs on
your neck to stand up. Basic discussion.

Eric


GLB

G. L. Bradford wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
oups.com...

G. L. Bradford wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
GLB Best it be called "Spacetime Exploring" Bert


No! Not even "spacetime exploring" since it is time travel through time
in
a vacuum of space.

I can see now that few if any can perceive that even Earth's moon is
out
of time with all observation of it from Earth, therefore even a
traveler's
observation of it while waiting on Earth to travel to it, by about 1.3
seconds (rounded off). The real moon is +1.3 seconds up or ahead in time
from that observed moon (observed from Earth).

Mathematicians and physicists keep on talking about mathematics being
an
exact science, and mathematical physics, and cosmological physics, being
pursued as accurate science (science of accuracy). Not true when they
refuse
to put the moon 0 - 1.3 seconds from Earth and that traveler,
observationally, and go on to refuse to have travelers do something about
that negative in time of 1.3 seconds that they will have do something
about
OBSERVATIONALLY, really, in traveling to the moon.

Also "not true" when if a robotic traveler from Earth takes -- say
hypothetically -- precisely six months from launch at Earth to go from
the
surface of Earth to the surface of Mars, landing on Mars -- say
hypothetically -- when Mars would be precisely 240 light seconds from
Earth.
NASA engineers would have to observe the landing on Mars as having to
have
taken, not precisely six months from launch, but precisely six months and
240 seconds more of time from launch on Earth to landing on Mars. But
observationally, if such means is included with the robotic traveler, the
"means" would have to do about that 0 - 240 seconds -- that 240 second
[absolute minimum] difference between the real Mars the traveler travels
to
and the Mars observed from the surface of the Earth -- during its
precisionally known precise six months of travel from surface of Earth to
surface of Mars. Of course at launch the difference is a lot greater than
240 seconds, but landing takes place when in time Mars is 240 light
seconds
from Earth. The robotic traveler has to do something about that "lot
greater
than 240 seconds" to 240 seconds difference in the observed Mars from
Earth
and the real Mars landed upon. The Einstein-like scientist who puts
himself,
or herself, in the place of the robotic traveler, and any other traveler,
has to do something about that [negative number to zero]
observation-wise,
time-wise, physics-wise, mathematics-wise, if scientists are to be
believed
when they say they try for scientific accuracy, including mathematical
accuracy. When they say they are going for picturing -- and presenting it
to
the rest of us who pay their way, as well as to our children in
education --
reality.

That catch up in time, or speed up in time, concerning a 240-plus
second
difference in time between virtuality and reality is utterly
insignificant
within a span of travel time of six months, but when cosmological
physicists
start talking four, ten, a thousand, light years (0 - 4 years, 0 - 10
years,
0 - 1000 years) that catch up time -- observationally -- to the reality,
that speed up in time -- observationally -- to get even in time with the
reality (so to arrive at all at the reality), becomes significant in the
extreme of significance. The physicist has to place the traveler,
relative
to the traveler's destination, somewhere negative in time relative to his
destination starting out. The physicist is not doing that; has never done
that. Which is why there remains a "twins paradox," a supposition of
"faster
than light travel," and the possibility remaining in physicists' minds
(such
as Steven Weinberg's mind, and even Stephen Hawking's mind) that travel
back
in time to change history, a violation of causality, can't be ruled out.
I've ruled all these aboves things out, definitively. That light time
distances mean a negative number concerning time to travelers, starting
them
out behind or negative in time to their destinations, renders the "twins
paradox," a supposition of "faster than light travel," and "travel back
in
time to change history" (thus violating causality), impossible and thus
meaningless.

I've pictured for all to see how it really works. But what physicist
today
wants anything to do with reality? They are utter liars when they talk
about
seeking scientifically accurate picturing of 'c', "time" and "travel."
There
is a lot of things about cosmology and cosmological physics that will
have
to remain in the realm of conjecture, but the whats concerning 'c',
"time"
and "travel" are very definitely not among them. It is the one area I can
pin down...nail down...acutely. The one area in which I'm ready, willing
and
able to logically slug it out with anyone with even half a brain to see
who
tries to take me on concerning it.

Where did you get 240 seconds from? Mars is anywhere from 35 million to
154 million miles from the earth, therefore 190 to 830 light seconds
from the earth. What is the significance of 240?

Perhaps I won't argue the speed of light with you, but I willl discuss
Martial orbital mechanics with you if you like.

Eric

"240" was just arbitrarily chosen as the light-time distance in the
scenario. In case you didn't notice it happens to be between "190" and "830"
light seconds.

Yes, I notice and you are not wrong when using 240 seconds. I just
wonder about why it was chosen that's all. No need for nape hairs on
your neck to stand up. Basic discussion.

Eric


GLB

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
ps.com...

G. L. Bradford wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
oups.com...

G. L. Bradford wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
GLB Best it be called "Spacetime Exploring" Bert


No! Not even "spacetime exploring" since it is time travel through
time
in
a vacuum of space.

I can see now that few if any can perceive that even Earth's moon is
out
of time with all observation of it from Earth, therefore even a
traveler's
observation of it while waiting on Earth to travel to it, by about 1.3
seconds (rounded off). The real moon is +1.3 seconds up or ahead in
time
from that observed moon (observed from Earth).

Mathematicians and physicists keep on talking about mathematics
being
an
exact science, and mathematical physics, and cosmological physics,
being
pursued as accurate science (science of accuracy). Not true when they
refuse
to put the moon 0 - 1.3 seconds from Earth and that traveler,
observationally, and go on to refuse to have travelers do something
about
that negative in time of 1.3 seconds that they will have do something
about
OBSERVATIONALLY, really, in traveling to the moon.

Also "not true" when if a robotic traveler from Earth takes -- say
hypothetically -- precisely six months from launch at Earth to go from
the
surface of Earth to the surface of Mars, landing on Mars -- say
hypothetically -- when Mars would be precisely 240 light seconds from
Earth.
NASA engineers would have to observe the landing on Mars as having to
have
taken, not precisely six months from launch, but precisely six months
and
240 seconds more of time from launch on Earth to landing on Mars. But
observationally, if such means is included with the robotic traveler,
the
"means" would have to do about that 0 - 240 seconds -- that 240 second
[absolute minimum] difference between the real Mars the traveler
travels
to
and the Mars observed from the surface of the Earth -- during its
precisionally known precise six months of travel from surface of Earth
to
surface of Mars. Of course at launch the difference is a lot greater
than
240 seconds, but landing takes place when in time Mars is 240 light
seconds
from Earth. The robotic traveler has to do something about that "lot
greater
than 240 seconds" to 240 seconds difference in the observed Mars from
Earth
and the real Mars landed upon. The Einstein-like scientist who puts
himself,
or herself, in the place of the robotic traveler, and any other
traveler,
has to do something about that [negative number to zero]
observation-wise,
time-wise, physics-wise, mathematics-wise, if scientists are to be
believed
when they say they try for scientific accuracy, including mathematical
accuracy. When they say they are going for picturing -- and presenting
it
to
the rest of us who pay their way, as well as to our children in
education --
reality.

That catch up in time, or speed up in time, concerning a 240-plus
second
difference in time between virtuality and reality is utterly
insignificant
within a span of travel time of six months, but when cosmological
physicists
start talking four, ten, a thousand, light years (0 - 4 years, 0 - 10
years,
0 - 1000 years) that catch up time -- observationally -- to the
reality,
that speed up in time -- observationally -- to get even in time with
the
reality (so to arrive at all at the reality), becomes significant in
the
extreme of significance. The physicist has to place the traveler,
relative
to the traveler's destination, somewhere negative in time relative to
his
destination starting out. The physicist is not doing that; has never
done
that. Which is why there remains a "twins paradox," a supposition of
"faster
than light travel," and the possibility remaining in physicists' minds
(such
as Steven Weinberg's mind, and even Stephen Hawking's mind) that
travel
back
in time to change history, a violation of causality, can't be ruled
out.
I've ruled all these aboves things out, definitively. That light time
distances mean a negative number concerning time to travelers,
starting
them
out behind or negative in time to their destinations, renders the
"twins
paradox," a supposition of "faster than light travel," and "travel
back
in
time to change history" (thus violating causality), impossible and
thus
meaningless.

I've pictured for all to see how it really works. But what physicist
today
wants anything to do with reality? They are utter liars when they talk
about
seeking scientifically accurate picturing of 'c', "time" and "travel."
There
is a lot of things about cosmology and cosmological physics that will
have
to remain in the realm of conjecture, but the whats concerning 'c',
"time"
and "travel" are very definitely not among them. It is the one area I
can
pin down...nail down...acutely. The one area in which I'm ready,
willing
and
able to logically slug it out with anyone with even half a brain to
see
who
tries to take me on concerning it.

Where did you get 240 seconds from? Mars is anywhere from 35 million to
154 million miles from the earth, therefore 190 to 830 light seconds
from the earth. What is the significance of 240?

Perhaps I won't argue the speed of light with you, but I willl discuss
Martial orbital mechanics with you if you like.

Eric

"240" was just arbitrarily chosen as the light-time distance in the
scenario. In case you didn't notice it happens to be between "190" and
"830"
light seconds.

Yes, I notice and you are not wrong when using 240 seconds. I just
wonder about why it was chosen that's all. No need for nape hairs on
your neck to stand up. Basic discussion.

Eric

I'm stunned, Eric. Therefore you have my apology. You're right, the nape
hairs on my neck did stand up, automatically from experience. I'll have to
give you this round from my hitting air and over balancing myself -- damnit.

GLB

G. L. Bradford wrote:
Too bad we've called it space travel because once are out there no one
will be calling it "space travel" anymore. They will be calling it "time
travel." The spacefarer's (rather timefarer's) position will always be zero,
the coordinate system will always be light time distances to planets and
stars, and the numbers will always be negative numbers -- from zero -- for
those light time distances to.... in the coordinate system.

What a lot of verbiage for nothing more than the revelation that you
have misconceptions about which reference frame to use, and what
definition of "space traveler" to use. What it amounts to is a semantic
version of a temptest in a teapot.