RELATIVITY
Can we travel in time?
There are a lot of misunderstandings about the theory of relativity, as is was developed by Albert Einstein and others. A lot of people seem to think that the theory of relativity is about relativism. Someone believing in God is talking with an atheist and says: "look, for me there is a God, and for you there is no God. It is all relative. Everyone has his own truth." What is meant with this relativism, is that everything is subjective. Everyone would have his own reality, on basis of his own wishes, desires and fears. Therefor it could be possible that in my reality there exists a God, while in your reality there doesn't exist a God. I do not agree with this theory, and furthermore it has nothing to do with the theory of relativism.
The line of thinking as described begs the question: "If everyone has his own reality, then do all of these subjective realities exist?" There are for each subjective reality two possibilities: Either this subjective reality exists, and then the person involved could possibly perceive only this reality, or alternatively, the subjective reality does not exists. Of course the question could also be answered with: "this reality exists for person A but not for person B". However, we could ask then the question whether it is true that the reality exists for person A. And the answer then would be yes. But existence means that something is and that that is true. So in this case it is a true fact in reality that for person A this specific subjective reality exists. There IS this subjective reality for person A, and therefor there IS this subjective reality. And that would be true. A fact. So clearly we have established the conclusion that this reality really exists, although only person A could perceive it and no-one else.
Reality is actually the collection of everything that exists. So at the same time we want to have a concept in which everyone has his own reality.
But all these subjective realities seem to exist. Therefor we can define a beyond-reality, in which all these subjective realities do exists. The beyond-reality is simply defined as a collection of all of the subjective realities. And within the beyond-reality we could say of all of the subjective realities whether they exists or not. So if your subjective reality really exists, than it exists in the beyond-reality as an existing entity. But if I can prove that your subjective reality doesn't exist, then your subjective reality does not exist within the beyond-reality. Then it is not really there.
Now since we are able to define a beyond-reality, we can study on the existence of subjective realities. We can study on the hypothesis that there are a lot of facts in the subjective reality of person A, which are untrue in the subjective reality of person B.
I would say that our experiences and research shows the opposite. We can do experiments in reality, that are repeatable. This is one of the major things we are looking for when doing scientific research. The experiment is repeatable, FOR OTHER PERONS. This clearly shows facts which are true objectively, rather than subjectively. Take for example the working of a computer, or a rocket, or an apple falling from a tree. The claim that there is a subjective reality for everyone, suggests that if I make a computer within my reality, that there is no guarantee what so ever that the computer would work in your reality. But this is clearly not the case. The computer works or it doesn't. If you cannot work with it, there are objective reasons for that, like the setup of your computer is different, there is some adjustment different, you are using the computer differently, of your computer has a defect. In short, in the beyond-reality there doesn't seem to be prove for the existence of subjective realities. There is simply no prove of facts which can be true for you, while they are untrue for me (and the other way around as well).
This subjectivism is in my opinion an attempt to deny the real reasons for the difference between your experiences and mine. I hold that there is only one reality, the collection of that which exists, the collection of facts. In this reality we can find rational explanations for our experiences. In this metaphysical part of philosophy, I am completely agreeing with the philosopher 
Ayn Rand. I would say that we have a subjective valuation of the facts of reality: we all look with our own eyes, are maybe we are a little bit color-blind, a little bit short-sighted or long-sighted, and we all are looking from a different angle. We do not remember everything, and sometimes we remember it wrong. But all of these facts do not alter the independent nature of reality. This reality is the source of all information, which sends signals towards us, independent of whether we pick these signals up, how we interpret these signals and how we remember them. These signals can be studied in a scientific manner, to uncover the truth. The reality is independent because it does not take the receiver into account, until of course, the receiver starts manipulating with reality. If we choose not to manipulate a part of reality, the signals it sends are independent of what we think of them.
The relativism that some people defend, the idea that facts can be true for person A while they are not true for person B, is in fact subjectivism. Einstein and the other scientists that developed the theory of relativity, where not at all defending this line of thinking. This is a wide spread misunderstanding.
|
|
There is an experiment in which a jetfighter flies very fast around the earth. It appeared that when he landed, that his watch was slow in comparison to the watches that did stay on earth. According to Marinus Knoope this would prove that it would be possible to travel in time.
But this is not the theory of relativity at all, and Einstein did never made these claims as Marinus Knoope says.
I hold that the future doesn't exists (yet), and therefor you cannot travel to it. The time of the pilot of the jetfighter simply went slower, and therefor when he returns to earth earth is a few nano seconds ahead. Maybe it would be possible for a rocket to fly around the earth, so that the watch of the pilot is one whole hour behind compared to the watches on earth. But this is still not traveling in time. The pilot was all the time in the present, and time went by moment after moment. But on earth this process went faster than in the rocket, and therefor there is a difference when the pilot lands. But at no moment he could skip some time and actually travel forward in time. He cannot alter the chronology of events. He can only get his time to move slower, so that the earth changes faster and the watches on earth run faster than his, so that he gets for instance one hour behind on earth. But this is clearly not the same as traveling in time. He does not go from one time now, to another time somewhere in the future. This is simply not possible, because the future doesn't exists (yet).
I do agree with another claim of Marinus Knoope, that we are all living in the forever continuing moment of now. Reality is constantly changing. Therefor reality will look different in a second. We can make predictions about these changes. We could say: "If these changes will continue, then the future will look so and so tomorrow". We are then speaking about the future. But this future is not already existing. It is just a prediction!
The past is also not existing anymore. It is over. Reality once looked so and so, and then it changed. It changed and changed, until it became the present. With becoming the present, the past ceased to exist, and will never return.
So now I have told things that Einstein didn't claim. But what did he claim? The theory of relativity claims that speed, distance, mass, and even time, are relative. It also claims that the speed of light is not relative, but that it is an absolute. The speed of light is the same for everyone.
The relativity of speed is easiest to understand. Jim is walking in a train at a speed of 3 miles an hour, in the same direction as the train. He has a speed of 3 miles an hour, in regard to the train. On the roof of the train, a trainspotter is walking. The trainspotter is also walking at a speed of 3 miles an hour, just above Jim, in the same direction. They are both walking at the same speed. A farmer is working in the fields. He can see the trainspotter, but he cannot see the train. This is because there are some bushes in the way, that block the view of the train. But the trainspotter reaches above the bushes, and therefor the farmer only sees the trainspotter going above the bushes.
The train goes at a speed of 40 miles an hour. Since the trainspotter was walking at a speed of 3 miles an hour in the same direciton of the train, the farmer sees the trainspotter move above the bushes at a speed of 43 miles an hour. The trainspotter seems to be moving pretty fast!
Jim, who is walking just below the trainspotter, is not at all aware of the speed of the train. He just walks 3 miles an hour through the train. When the train would have had a roof of glass, he would have seen the trainspotter walking exactly at the same speed above him.
This all shows the relativity of speed, because if the train would have a roof of glass, the trainspotter would move at 3 miles an hour in the eyes of Jim; while in the eyes of the farmer, the trainspotter moves at a speed of 43 miles an hour. It all depends on the relative speed of objects moving, how they perceive the speed of other objects. Therefor speed is relative. The earth is moving through the galaxy with dazzling speed. But while I'm typing this, I'm sitting still. While sitting still however, in the eyes of a passing comet I'm moving with enormous speed!
The theory of relativity holds among others the following peculiar claims:
1. In a jetfighter that moves fast around the earth, distances are smaller. If the pilot would hold a stick near the window with a length of 3 feet, and we would look with a telescope, then we would see a shorter stick, say for instance with a length of 2.99 feet. The pilot himself would instead see the stick being 3 feet.
2. The mass of the pilot and of the jetfighter increase with the acceleration of the jetfighter towards a higher speed. They will remain heavier until they will land on earth again.
3. The speed of change in the jetfighter will go slower. This also causes the hand of the clock that the pilot is wearing, to go slower than it was moving when he was still on earth.
The first time when I was starting to understand the theory, I also assumed that the speed and the acceleration of the jetfighter in regard to the earth would be relative. So I assumed then that instead of the jetfighter taking off from earth, one could just as well say that the earth takes of from the jetfighter at enormous speed and starts circling around the jetfighter. Since it is all relative the situation is clearly symmetrical.
But then, why would not the watches on earth be slower than the watches in the jet-engine, instead of the other way around?
The answer is that acceleration is caused by force, and this costs energy. The jet-engine initiates a lot of force in order to accelerate, and uses up a lot of energy in this process. By means of accelerating, if moves up to a higher speed. The jet-engine did not (or not noticeable) change the cause or the speed of the earth. The earth instead kept on moving like it always did. The jetfighter instead accelerates to get to a higher speed, with all of the consequences of that.
I'm not going in on the evidence for the claims of the theory of relativity. Einstein has written a booklet called "Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie", in which he explains all these matters in normal speaking language (and which is translated in a lot of languages).