As a layperson, time travel seems impossible to me. Prove me wrong!

You would end up in free space. That doesn't prevent time travel. It just makes it less appealing.

You have the same problem traveling into the future. The earth would be far from your original location. Good thing you need a very fast space vehicle to travel to the future.

 

Going back to my earlier post, if you traveled at 99.9999% the speed of light for 14 years, about 10,000 years will have passed on earth.

Who would want to make the trip?

 

The key concept is called frame dragging. This is the "dragging" of spacetime by a rotating mass; an effect we have to account for in modern satellites and highly significant near a rotating black hole. This paper addresses this concept.

Abstract
As the number of solutions to the Einstein equations with realistic matter sources that admit closed time-like curves (CTC’s) has grown drastically, it has provoked some authors [10] to call for a physical interpretation of these seemingly exotic curves that could possibly allow for causality violations. A first step in drafting a physical interpretation would be to understand how CTC’s are created because the recent work of [16] has suggested that, to follow a CTC, observers must counter-rotate with the rotating matter, contrary to the currently accepted explanation that it is due to inertial frame dragging that CTC’s are created. The exact link between inertial frame dragging and CTC’s is investigated by simulating particle geodesics and the precession of gyroscopes along CTC’s and backward in time oriented circular orbits in the van Stockum metric, known to have CTC’s that could be traversal, so the van Stockum cylinder could be exploited as a time machine. This study of gyroscope precession, in the van Stockum metric, supports the theory that CTC’s are produced by inertial frame dragging due to rotating spacetime metrics.
https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=honors_theses

 

I don't agree that we have sufficient evidence to claim there are aliens flying around the USA.

As to your ideas on what aliens can and can not control, that's without any evidence of any kind.

 

The idea that aliens need energy can't be claimed to be anthropomorphic.

 

That's above my intellectual paygrade.

The only way I can undestand this, is that I used a video camera's 'frame rate' slower than another video camera's frame rate, the cameras representing different speeds
( or gravity pull) so as to understand time dilation..

Thing is, this (time dilation phenomena) doesn't equal 'time travel'. because both are occurring in the 'now'. All that is occuring is the rate of change in the current moment is slowing down. That isn't the same thing as time travel (in the HG Wells fictional sense, which is the sense most people think of when thinking of time travel).

All that is changed is the rate of change. (I'm using 'change' instead of 'time' because, in my view, time is an illusion created by the juxtaposition or recollection of past and future imagination to the current moment ). .

 

The grays are said to have a synthetic skin (as noted in Corso's book and other sources). They are manufactured/modified bionic lifeforms. They could be generated locally by robotic means devised by remote alien intelligences. On the other hand, abductees have described a variety of alien creatures interacting according to apparent ranks among crews. None of this solid evidence of alien visitation, but it's enough to justify firm suspicion.

 

What was THAT supposed to mean?

What is the hypothesis and how are you going to test it?

 

It can be taken with a grain of salt (or not, if waiting for them to land on the White House lawn). I'm not aware of any relevant hypothesis that can be tested, since so much government secrecy makes such matters too inaccessible to the public and scientific community.

 

Relativity tells us (or postulates) that your frame of reference being slowed down is the same thing as moving into the future. Since no difference between the two can be demonstrated from your frame of reference.

 

It isn't Time travel in the HG Wells sense, as portrayed in his famous book, 'The Time Machine'. I don't think any physicist is making that argument.

 

Yes, I agree that keeping secrets like alien landings would be essentially impossible.

First of all, it would have to do with Earth, not the US government (as if the US government can contain a secret).

Those concerned about the Navy or the DoD or whomever not telling us the truth have to start coming up with reasons for some conspiracy of secrecy being followed by all the other navies, DoDs, etc.

 

YOur 'gov can't keep a secret' theory has been debunked many times.

Just google 'black projects'.

 

My post was about the theory that all the governments together can't keep a secret.

On navy (or whatever) in one government can do a reasonable job of keeping a secret concerning what they are doing, but that's not the same thing as all of them maintaining a secret such as "aliens arrived".

 

However, it does suggest that governments can keep such a thing a secret, especially in a 'follow the leader' fashion, the leader being the US.

AS for Russia, her motives for keeping it secret would be the same as ours, not to let such high tech (anti gravity) get into the hands of the enemy because having it would be a game changer.

Your statement, therefore, is not fact, nor is it even reasonable to conclude the government cannot keep such a secret. As long as the aliens do not arrive in extremely conspicuous ways ( such as on the white house lawn) they are keeping it secret, and witness to craft and encounters of the 3rd kind are viewed as crazy people, hallucinations, etc.

In my view, they are keeping it secret and it is extremely easy for them because those who are declaring the government has 'crashed alien craft' or who who say they have been abducted by aliens are viewed as crazy people, conspiracy nuts, which is just the way the government wants it. In other words, keeping it secret is rather easy for the government, given the stigma to the subject. Hell, often when you mention the subject, you frame the subject in a disparaging way. You contribute to the stigma which, in turns helps the government's secrecy.

Now, if the aliens do land on the white house lawn, or make a conspicuous arrival, naturally, that cannot be kept secret. The question is, why haven't the aliens done just that?

There is only one logical answer, and it is a good one, and it is this:

They are operating clandestinely. Their mission is clandestine in nature.

Now, if anyone doesn't think that is reasonable, then those persons are not considering what is entirely plausible. They are being unreasonable.

 

I do not see your ideas on aliens as even slightly plausible.

 

That isn't the point.

The ONLY point was that, IF it has happened, it would not be impossible to keep secret, as you have claimed.

 

Yes. And I don't accept that notion.

 

Yet the evidence doesn't point to that conclusion being plausible.

 

What secret, the one everyone talks about on TV?

How can anyone argue it has been kept a secret? That is absurd!

What's more, many of the most credible reports and testimony comes from former military and intelligence officials. So for all practical purposes, we have already seen official disclosure. Heck, Gordon Cooper described the ET landing at Edwards AFB when he was in charge of test flights, over 20 years ago. This is old news.

 

Beyond that, the first people to claim there was a crashed flying saucer at Roswell was the US Army. They are the ones who retrieved the alleged craft and issued the press release saying they had one.

 

I mean that's kind of a mixed bag. Laser swords of course make no sense, though perhaps something similar-looking could be built it just wouldn't actually use lasers (maybe some kind of plasma and magnetic force, who knows). I thought it was theoretically possible to bend space time in order to travel faster than light in a relative sense. It just seems arrogant to place limits on future technology. When we call something unfeasible we're really only talking about a specific mechanism by which it doesn't seem like it could work, but that doesn't mean it's impossible through unconceived workarounds, sometimes the required workaround are much more complicated than initially expected.

Time travel seems an exception, though. It makes about as much sense to me as making a solid object from a laser beam, it just doesn't work that way.

 

Not true. It may all be a matter of energy. That is where we get the definitions of Type I - V civilizations - The Kardashev Scale

https://futurism.com/the-kardashev-scale-type-i-ii-iii-iv-v-civilization

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ab792b/meta

http://jst.org.in/wp-content/upload...h-Achieving-Kardashev-Scale-Type-1-Status.pdf

With the possibility of civilizations a billion years older than ours, there is no way to know how advanced a civilization can be.

 

Yes, it's fascinating that the super technology direction for warfare would be sword fights!

 

Lol doubtful, the point wasn't actually to suggest plasma sabers would ever be a dominant weapon, only that they might be buildable with sufficient tech, but you never know what kind of sidearms or tools may be useful. I think it was Dune that suggested there could be "armor" that works well against projectiles, but less against slower melee attacks. In that unlikely scenario, maybe melee could make a comeback.