[seeker3 (OP)]

Time is not a physical place that you can travel to. There is no where to find past or future. Past or future are not on any maps.

What is the meaning of time travel? Word puzzle? Word salad? Science fiction? Science scam?

[seeker3 (OP)]

Simple fact and logic, time travel is not even a meaningful thing.

Why many scientists talk about it on youtube?

Are they try to mislead?

[Bored chemist]

time travel is not even a meaningful thing.

I don't know about you, but the rest of us recognise that we are moving through time at one second per second.

[seeker3 (OP)]

time travel is not even a meaningful thing.

I don't know about you, but the rest of us recognise that we are moving through time at one second per second.

[seeker3 (OP)]

Where is the next second? Where is the past second?

All stars, all matters, all energy, all existence, is existing at forever ongoing now.

All past already became now, all future will become now. 

You look around, wish her forever young.

[seeker3 (OP)]

Simple fact and logic, time travel is not even a meaningful thing.

Why many scientists talk about it on youtube?

Are they try to mislead?

Maybe they do. Some scientists even support and promote flat earth.

[seeker3 (OP)]

Foolishness or evilness?

Either way, promote wrong science is very bad for the world. What is the purpose?

[seeker3 (OP)]

Show off? Make $? Paid for?

Really confusing me.

[Kryptid]

This whole thread is founded on a faulty premise. Nobody said that the future or the past were physical places. Time travel as defined by relativity is little more than saying that two objects in different reference frames experience time passing at different rates relative to each other. It isn't like hopping into a modified DeLorean and going to the future or past at will.

[seeker3 (OP)]

I am continually amazed at how Einstein's theory of Mass warping space, is considered dogma when the only real "proof" of his theory is Edington's observation of a star behind our sun, during a solar eclipse. Edington did not take into consideration the coronosphere of the sun. When the light from our sun enters Earth's atmosphere, it is bent, refracted, by the Earth's atmosphere. So when the light coming from the star that was behind the sun was visible here on Earth, it was because the sun's atmosphere/coronosphere refracted the light from that star so that it bent around the sun. Space was not warped, nor has it ever been warped. And because the universe is filled with pockets of gas that are invisible at great distances to the spectrographs that we have here on Earth, light passing through those gas pockets is refracted. But no one is talking about this. And as for Einstein's idea that speed warps time, this was supposedly "proven" by sending one of two sister atomic clocks into space where it travelled at thousands of miles per hour. And when it was returned to Earth, there was a difference in the times of the two clocks. But the truth of the matter is that atoms act differently in different strength magnetic fields. So the clock in orbit and the one on Earth were in different strength areas of the Earth's magnetosphere. So that totally blows apart Einstein's "space-time" theories

[Kryptid]

I am continually amazed at how Einstein's theory of Mass warping space, is considered dogma when the only real "proof" of his theory is Edington's observation of a star behind our sun, during a solar eclipse.

That isn't the only evidence for mass warping space.

So when the light coming from the star that was behind the sun was visible here on Earth, it was because the sun's atmosphere/coronosphere refracted the light from that star so that it bent around the sun.

And the amount of that bending conveniently matched Einstein's predictions based on space-time distortion? Right...

But the truth of the matter is that atoms act differently in different strength magnetic fields.

And that, again very conveniently, matched the amount of time dilation expected based on Einstein's theories...

[seeker3 (OP)]

Time is absolute.

Put same clocks on every planets for 24 hours earth time, every clock will have different reading.

But they all experience the same time duration. Readings on the clock is just readings in the clock.

It is like 1 kg=2.2 lb, different number, same weight.

People are confused about gravity speed, easily fooled by relativity word puzzle.

[seeker3 (OP)]

The only time existing is now, all past became now, all future will become now.

Past and future are imagination in our heads.

What is time travel?

Science fiction or science scam?

[Kryptid]

And how does any of that explain how Einstein got the numbers right?

[seeker3 (OP)]

The only thing Einstein got right is this:

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, D i c k and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. -Albert Einstein

[Kryptid]

So you admit that you have no way of explaining how he correctly predicted the magnitude of time dilation and gravitational lensing.

[seeker3 (OP)]

He was a truth seeker.

After won nobel prize for his photoelectric effect theory 50 years, still searching the answer of what are light quanta. He was godfather of quantum theory. Why?

Why scientists don't take his word?

Why you don't take his word?

[seeker3 (OP)]

So you admit that you have no way of explaining how he correctly predicted the magnitude of time dilation and gravitational lensing.

Clocks reading changed at different location, but time is the same.

Gravitational lensing is misinterpretation. Gravity only affect matter. Gas and plasma deflected light not gravity.

If gravity can attract light, bigger star light will be slower.

[Kryptid]

Why scientists don't take his word?

They do. They are smart enough to know the difference between, "I don't know what it is." and "It doesn't exist."

Why you don't take his word?

I do. I'm smart enough to know the difference between, "I don't know what it is." and "It doesn't exist."

Clocks reading changed at different location, but time is the same.

Gravitational lensing is misinterpretation. Gravity only affect matter. Gas and plasma deflected light not gravity.

If gravity can attract light, bigger star light will be slower.

No, no, I'm asking how he got amounts right. The correct numbers.