Because you're misunderstand what they're saying and taking it mean something else. I'm in total agreement with them because I know the math that they're doing, it's your interpretation of what they're saying that I'm disagreeing with. CTCs are a consequence of GR in specific circumstances. None of these circumstances exist.
It absolutely violates the law of physics.
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/time-travel.htmlTime travel to the past is more difficult. We do not understand the science as well.
Against the laws of physics. No arguments.I'd like to time travel to when Sterling is decent.
No, you're disagreeing with them. You're stating that backwards time travel is imposible:
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/time-travel.html
NASA say backwards time travel is "more difficult" than forward time travel. You say backward time time travel is "impossible". I don't see an agreement there.
Mate that's a kids site ran by a bloke at NASA.
It's on NASA's site. Are NASA in the habit of posting false information on their kid's section?
I have a lot of respect for you and your intelligence on these matters, however, there is something that says your views are exactly the same as those that called Gallieo an idiot.They're in the habit of posting vast simplifications and will refrain wherever possible to call something "impossible" yes. In fact I seem to recall that it's part of their guidelines (the not calling something impossible thing) in terms of outreach.
They're in the habit of posting vast simplifications and will refrain wherever possible to call something "impossible" yes.
I have a lot of respect for you and your intelligence on these matters, however, there is something that says your views are exactly the same as those that called Gallieo an idiot.
(Not a kid's site :) )
Backwards time travel is theoretically possible by several different methods using general relativity. However, each of these methods has its own peculiar problems that could destroy the time machine before it has a chance to operate
Only an idiot could believe that science requires martyrdom – that may be necessary in religion, but in time a scientific result will establish itself?This is a pretty simple thing actually. One of the MAJOR issues in astrophysics specifically is how "pop-sci" says things that people want to hear rather than the full reality in context. I know that Jim thinks he's correct and I know why he thinks he's correct. Hell, if I were him I'd think I was correct too.
The problem is that what they're talking about are hypotheses built on top of presumptions and often built on top of thought experiments. Godel solved some field equations in GR on the presumption that all matter rotates, but that is not the Universe that we live within. Others make varying assumptions on string theory, on Minkowski space and the ability to "bend" something called a light cone, or just on the nature of causality itself.
This is all fine but it's not science, it's speculation. Either they're changing other laws or they're presuming things work a certain way that nobody has any evidence that they work that way.
Until people make real studies that prove these assumptions work in the way that they are assumed for these ideas to be true then it remains in the realm of the impossible.