101. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171060 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 9:31 am

You're missing my point Steve. Phatbat and I are discussing what many theists believe. We can certainly use the bible to affect their thinking.

Do you ever put down your sword? I am not evangelizing.

102. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171055 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 9:24 am

Comment #171043 by Steve Zara

Actually just one. But I'll make another: God is not omnipotent, either.

God is as powerful and as knowledgeable as is necessary to get the job done. Maybe even a bit more so, to the extent that he or we are inefficient. But not infinitely powerful and knowledgeable... that makes no sense.

103. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171054 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 9:22 am

Phatbat,

A theist that feels good because they are following their own misunderstanding of God is not to be condemned, but corrected. They are more of a victim of this way of thought than we are. They are simply deluded... unless we're talking about Fred Phelps, or someone else intent on misleading others. Then they deserve scorn and derision. Otherwise they deserve correction, and perhaps a little sympathy.

We are the sum of our experiences, and they have yet to have a good experience that has shaken their notion that belief in some specific deity is all that saves them from hell. They need help; perhaps you can help them. They are believing in the bible as inerrant, and therefore embracing the idea that a just God would do such a thing.

But actually, even with the errors and omissions, the bible provides good textual support for what I have said about the afterlife. I wish that more theists would consider the matter of the third alternative... But people get stuck in well worn ruts (especially when those ruts are maintained by people that wish to use religion as a carrot and stick to achieve their ends).

Rather than taking offense, help them out of the rut.

104. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171037 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 9:02 am

Tyler,

1) God is not omniscient.

2) The fact that there is no actual consensus about God belief is hardly a fallacy.

3) Try opening your windows, or maybe get some plants... you seem a little oxygen deprived.

105. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171030 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 8:54 am

Phatbat:
To clarify what I was saying in my first paragraph above, I mean that theists should be mindful of the corrupting influence of humans on recording, preserving, translating, or selecting from any 'revelations' that God has bestowed upon us.

A Catholic will say that we must adhere to some standard, and that the books of the bible were selected by committee in open dialog. A protestant will say that in spite of this wise selection, the Catholic Church managed to turn the gospels into a protection racket, and their pure understanding is better. A gnostic will say that the protestants adhere to a limited set of books and an overly rigid interpretation. A messianic Jew will say that gnostics are rabble rousers that blaspheme Yahweh. An orthodox Jew will say that messiah never came and will continue to adhere to the texts that they believe Moses (and the other prophets) faithfully transcribed word for word from God's own mouth... In spite of the transparent judeocentrism, internal inconsistencies, and potential for abuse of power inherent in the Tanach laws/history, they won't even consider that basing one's concept of God and society exclusively on books is fraught with peril.

Oh well. My point is that God is good, but that people who adhere like lichen to the "rock" of their books need to beware of the purposes those books have served and think carefully whether their just God would really endorse every page.

106. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171005 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 8:24 am

It's something i think should be called foul on more, whenever a theist takes up the idea that their bible god is good and loving and worthy of worship.

It is closer to the target to take them to task for thinking the bible is inerrant. No two theists believe in exactly the same god, since the belief is something in themselves and not an attribute of God.

The bible is an interesting collection of writing on many levels; but anyone that embraces it without reservations is condemning themselves to a prison of their own making. According to Revelations only 144,000 souls are written in the Lamb's book of life. It is unlikely that simply believing in Jesus will put you in that book because over a billion people believe in Jesus with all their hearts. So Christians should be a little more curious about what will happen to those not on the short list...

107. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170988 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 8:08 am

Hey now, al-rawandi... I take exception.

Besides, don't chase Dick away... we might get him to share some of those holy whippets.

108. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170975 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 7:50 am

Edit: That was weird. phpbb ate my post about my dad's "Lapsed Unitarian" joke.

109. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170973 by Kardashovel on April 28, 2008 at 7:47 am

MPhil,

I am very sorry for your loss, and I am encouraged by how you have accepted it.

I lost both of my remaining grandparents last year. Neither one was a believer, and the circumstances of their passing were similar to what you have described here.

Though I am a theist, and I believe that Jesus rules the Kingdom of God, I do not believe that our grandparents are going to suffer for eternity in hell fire. On the contrary, I believe that the afterlife for them will be much like the life they led, and that is not a bad thing at all.

110. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170308 by Kardashovel on April 27, 2008 at 3:35 pm

I've just finished some veggie burgers, in keeping with my newfound confusion about pescatarianism. Can I survive on plants and shrimp alone? I miss my lox. DAMN YOU, STEEEEVVVEE!

Presently I need to bathe my children...
But I just wanted to say to Corylus... I can't get those cake recipes off my mind. I've thought about proposing, but my wife won't stand for polygamy. I showed her the cake recipes, which gave her pause; but in the end her resolve held firm. I am not to read any more of your recipes, and that is that.

111. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170249 by Kardashovel on April 27, 2008 at 2:06 pm

I was just joking, Havok.

Have you recovered from your virus?

112. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170241 by Kardashovel on April 27, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Besides, humans do not have the power to destroy this planet, even if we wipe ourselves out.

I can destroy the planet.








:D

It's a good thing I am ethical or I could charge a handsome ransom.

113. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170235 by Kardashovel on April 27, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Steve, you make me laugh. You almost sound like Rush Limbaugh talking about global warming.

114. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170217 by Kardashovel on April 27, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Can anyone (preferably someone reasonably SANE) please tell me why so many people are so completely obsessed with all this End Times stuff? Why has it taken hold of so many people's brains (or what passes for them)? Even in my Christian days I could never see the book of Revelation as anything more than the disturbed outpourings of a disturbed and quite probably drugged mind.

Greetings Paula,

If you ask your comrades here they will tell you that I am not sane. But I will tell you why I am concerned about the apocalypse.

Never before have so few been able to kill so many without a reasonable check on their power.

Never before have those who wield this power been so divorced from understanding the unintended consequences of their lust, let alone grasp their as yet unfulfilled potential.

Meanwhile the spirit of socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, coupled with the frantic pace and information overload enabled by modern technology has most of the world feeling the pinch of each of our diminishing shares of the resources.

How much longer can the situation persist before a crippling correction takes place?

115. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170158 by Kardashovel on April 27, 2008 at 12:54 pm

My statement was based on observation of their behavior. It seems fairly evident that Irate is not at peace with the idea that theists continue to affect his life and future. Far from it.

116. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170154 by Kardashovel on April 27, 2008 at 12:51 pm

I did think his idea was very much like Tiplers OPT

I'm not sure since I was unfamiliar with Tipler until someone (I believe it was Eepeist) mentioned him much earlier in this thread.

As it turns out I have one of his books sitting on my shelf: "The Physics of Immortality". Perhaps I'll have a look. I had always dismissed it as yet another pop-sci book that someone gifted me during my incarceration within the ivory tower.

117. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170146 by Kardashovel on April 27, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Stryer is an asshole, Diacanu... it's not just a matter of accusations.

Perhaps he has a reason for it, like Irate_Athest... and perhaps they shall pick at their scabs until death finally brings them to peace.

118. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166147 by Kardashovel on April 22, 2008 at 8:44 pm

A friend of mine sent me a link I thought I would share. I enjoyed this visualization of the time line quite a bit.

http://www.johnkyrk.com/evolution.html

So did my son. It may be old hat around here, tho.

119. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166122 by Kardashovel on April 22, 2008 at 7:08 pm

Stryer, post 3136:

Lest it go unsaid - I also have to say that Steve has shown far more class, courtesy and intellectual honesty throughout this little entanglement than Kardo has been able to do, despite his efforts

I will take no more shots at Steve's intellectual honesty. In fact, I owe Steve an apology, because Penrose's proof that Kerr Rings are unstable is not based on quantum gravity. So I was wrong to accuse him of hypocrisy.

But, Stryer, I defy you to show an example of where I have demonstrated intellectual dishonesty.

If you can come up with one, I will remedy it.

If you can't, then you should apologise.

If you can't come up with one, and you ignore this post and let your slander stand, then... well then, fuck you.

120. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166115 by Kardashovel on April 22, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Steve, post 3127:

There is all the difference in the world between physical law not forbidding something, and being able to do it.

There is nothing in physical law to prevent motion of objects into space. But that does not mean that if you look up in the sky, and wish very hard, and jump, you will get there.

Let's go with this analogy, because your pigs can fly analogy is hardly an accurate representation of what has happened here. Let's say that in a past life you and I were discussing space travel prior to the dawn of rocketry. Here is how that conversation might have looked if it is to mirror this one:

Kardashovel: I bet that a future civilization will figure out how to travel from the earth to the moon!

Steve: That is not possible according to the currently understood laws of physics.

Kardashovel: You clearly don't know much about physics. I'm not sure how they'll do it, but there is nothing in principle in Newton's equations which prevents us from reaching for the moon.

Steve: Didn't you say you're hearing voices (snicker). Prove it. Airplanes will never be capable of reaching space... there is no air to lift the wings, and no oxygen to power the motors. You're just wishing and calling it science! How dare you make a mockery of physics.

Kardashovel: I'm not mocking physics. It is precisely because of Newtonian physics that I think that it may be possible. I've heard of these new things called jet engines... maybe they could do it.

Steve: Dream on kardashovel. Jet's need to burn air too. And anyway they will never be powerful enough to carry any reasonable sized craft to space, along with all of the necessary fuel. Do you realize that it would take most of the fuel just to lift the fuel, never mind the need for air to burn it. You are just torturing science to satisfy some fantasy that you have. I won't stand for it.

Kardashovel: OK, I've had enough of this shit. You said that current physics precludes the possibility that space travel is possible... here is a peer reviewed source that surveys and provides citations for several methods that could theoretically do it.

Steve: You don't even understand the first one of those methods! Jet engines need air to function! There is no air in space! Your idea is crap.

kardashovel: OK. I acknowledge that jets won't work. But these rocket things that carry their own oxidizer might work just fine. There is nothing in the Newton's theory that precludes using that solution.

Steve: Rocket ships won't fly! How are you gonna stabilize the damn things and keep them from blowing up on the launch pad? Show me the blueprints to your rocket ship, or you're just blowing smoke.

Kardashovel: Admit it, Steve; the theory permits my idea, even if I can't show you a functioning rocket ship.

Steve: It may be possible, under very unrealistic circumstances and assumptions, that Newton's laws would permit a trip to the moon. But that is not the same as proposing a workable method. You lose, sucker.

Kardashovel: Thank you, Steve, for admitting that travel to the moon is possible according to current physical theory.

Steve: You can't be serious! Show me the plans for the rocket ship! Don't you get it? It's like you're saying that you could travel West for a while and end up in the East, but you don't even have a clipper ship. Show me the proof, or you're just a schizo who thinks wishes are reality.

MPhil: Well, Mr. Kardashovel, perhaps it is logically possible to travel to the moon. Perhaps it is even physically possible to travel to the moon. But your ideas of space travel are wildly improbable. It's just science fiction. You need to consider the epistemic probability before any of us would even consider the idea of travel to the moon... and you shouldn't believe it either.

Kardashovel: Sheesh. You don't have to believe that travel to the moon is remotely likely, but what makes you so fervently against the idea that you would ignore Newtonian physics and flatly say that it is impossible?

The Peanut Gallery: Way to go Steve! You kicked his ass!

121. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #166110 by Kardashovel on April 22, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Steve, post 3127:

Busted.

Not at all. I really don't know how many times I have to repeat this.

Hawking is not taking about arbitary time travel. He was only talking about whether or not a time machine would destroy itself when switched on.

You seem to be deliberately confusing the two issues.

I admit I find this rather infuriating. I can't tell if it is out of ignorance or malice.

You ding dong! :)

In post number 3121 you say that even a "physics porn purveyor" like Kaku would not stoop to suggesting that time travel could go back before the creation of the time machine.

Then, in post 3126, I quote Kaku directly, and bold the part where he is speculating about why the advanced aliens wouldn't want to have anything to do with us. To wit, at the end of the quote, Kaku says this: "In conclusion, don't turn someone away who knocks at your door one day and claims to be your future great-great-great-granddaughter. She may be right."

See how that kind of throws a bucket of ice water on your post number 3121?

That is why I said, "Busted." And you think I'm stuck talking about Steven Hawking...
Sheesh. Smell the coffee, Steve.

~~~

As for Dr. Hawking, if we are talking about the Chronology Protection Conjecture, then I would agree that Hawking was not concerned with pre-invention retrograde time travel (rather he was worried about the break with causality, and the likelihood that QM effects would interfere with the stability of any CTC's). This conjecture has faced serious challenges, with various methods proposed to stabilize wormholes, and Dr. Ori's invention of a time machine that does not rely on exotic matter. Anyway, this subject is all about time travel to times no sooner than the creation of the machine.

But contrary to your assertion, Hawking has discussed the issue of time travel to times prior to the invention of the time machine. Here for example: http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps3.html

A possible way to reconcile time travel, with the fact that we don't seem to have had any visitors from the future, would be to say that it can occur only in the future. In this view, one would say space-time in our past was fixed, because we have observed it, and seen that it is not warped enough, to allow travel into the past. On the other hand, the future is open. So we might be able to warp it enough, to allow time travel. But because we can warp space-time only in the future, we wouldn't be able to travel back to the present time, or earlier.

This is hardly a justification within the context of physical theory, and rather smacks of a wish that there should be order in our universe. But the laws of physics are demonstrably strange, as Hawking knows; and based on Dr. Ori's work mentioned (and linked) in my previous citation, Hawking backed off of this position, and rather states (as you have) that universes that permit arbitrary time travel seem "rather unlikely", but not outside the bounds of general relativity. He is an agnostic too, Steve, and a doubter... just like you. Nothing wrong with that. But unlike you he never flatly rejected the idea.

122. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165799 by Kardashovel on April 22, 2008 at 11:05 am

If Kaku isn't prepared to "talk dirty" about unlimited time travel, then I would be very surprised if any other respectable physicist would.

Really? Because here is the full text of what I quoted from him earlier, here: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/kaku1-1.html

Interestingly enough, Stephen Hawking once opposed the idea of time travel. He even claimed he had "empirical" evidence against it. If time travel existed, he said, then we would have been visited by tourists from the future. Yet we see no tourists from the future. Ergo: time travel is not possible.

Because of the enormous amount of work done by theoretical physicists within the last five years or so, Hawking has since changed his mind, and now believes that time travel is possible (although not necessarily practical). Furthermore, perhaps we are simply not very interesting to these tourists from the future. Anyone who can harness the power of a star would consider us to be very primitive. Imagine your friends coming across an ant hill. Would they bend down to the ants and give them trinkets, books, medicine, and power? Or would some of your friends have the strange urge to step on a few of them?

In conclusion, don't turn someone away who knocks at your door one day and claims to be your future great-great-great-granddaughter. She may be right.

Busted.

Gotta go.

123. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165798 by Kardashovel on April 22, 2008 at 11:03 am

Karda's argument boils down to "there is a chance that scenario A may be feasible", therefore it must happen for sure, therefore God exists and have done a, b, c for certain and therefore his faith is vindicated.

Let's be clear about this. My argument around the issue of time travel has been to reject Steve's statement that my ideas of God contradict modern physics. They do not.

Now if I want to show that my idea of God should be compelling for you too, then I need to give more specifics on why and how God would travel back in time. But that is separate from the discussion that has transpired, no matter how much Steve wants to back peddle from his former statements. He has now conceded the point. He cannot claim that current physical theory rules out my concept of God. That was my objective for this part of the discussion, and it has been achieved.

124. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165797 by Kardashovel on April 22, 2008 at 11:02 am

Me:I am just arguing that GR does not restrict CTC's to situations where the beginning of the loop occurs later then the invention of a first time machine.

Steve: It doesn't. Physics doesn't say that you can't get up into space. But you need to build a spaceship to do it. Your ideas are sort of like saying that you can kind of get into space first, then build the spaceship.

Steve again: General Relativity does not forbid arbitrary time travel.

Thank you, Steve, for finally backing off from your statement that our current understanding of physics forbids the possibility that future beings could travel back to affect our time.

Welcome to the wonderful world of agnosticism, where people don't make statements of certainty based on our incomplete understanding.

Now it is true that if I were interested in proving my concept of God I would need to provide a lot more specifics on the method, and essentially invent the future physics. It is true that I rely on faith to support my belief that God is a time traveler...

But it is also true that you have no grounds to have made your earlier statement about the impossibility of arbitrary retrograde time travel according to the understood laws of physics. And now you have finally admitted it. Good for you.

125. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165758 by Kardashovel on April 22, 2008 at 8:51 am

Both ends of the wormhole will have aged the same, so even if you could travel through it, it would take you to a part of the universe 13.7 billion years old.

Hmmm. While it is not necessarily the case that they have both aged the same, you have a valid point here. The far end of the wormhole might be stuck at the big bang from our perspective, but it will have aged at its own pace in it's section of the universe. So, unless I begin to postulate objects that don't age locally, I am stuck. Touche.

I concede that wormholes won't work for arbitrary retrograde time travel in the context of our current understanding of physics. For that I would need FTL travel, which is also discussed at some length in that article, but I will withdraw from this area of the board for now...

You finally get it!

Steve, let's not forget what we are discussing here. You have made the statement that the current laws of physics specifically preclude time travel to a time prior to the invention of time machines. I am flatly rejecting that notion, though I have now conceded that wormholes probably are not the mechanism. I have never stated that I know how God will time travel, or that I have the blueprints to a Tardis.

I am just arguing that GR does not restrict CTC's to situations where the beginning of the loop occurs later then the invention of a first time machine. Gott's "machine" and the refined Ori-Soen machine are descriptions of valid solutions to the field equations, and the latter could conceivably describe an artifact that occurred naturally at the big bang. Godel's universe undermines the very idea of time with a past present and future, at a universal level. Kerr Rings could occur naturally, and the solution to the field equations would permit arbitrarily retrograde time loops.

In summary, GR is agnostic about arbitrarily retrograde time travel. As far as we can tell, it is permitted. Physicists that work in this field (like Hawking), have made various attempts to "save" GR from this "flaw", but the consensus is that future physics will need to resolve the issue. Meanwhile GR stands as one of the most respected theories of modern science and it contradicts your assertion. I note that you have retreated from accusing me of misrepresenting Dr. Hawking, whom you errantly used to support your assertion... why is that Steve?

Kerr Rings are unstable, and Cosmic Strings aren't practical. To travel back just one year, you would need a cosmic string arrangement the mass of half a galaxy, and you still could not get back to before you set the arrangement up.

Saying it does not make it so, Steve. Gott himself would quite disagree with you. Have a look at this link:
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc98/4_11_98/fob3.htm
It further links to this article, which is whimsically titled, "Can the universe create itself?": http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9712344.
While that question is left open, Gott can demonstrate that your assertion is flatly wrong.


As for your statement that Kerr Rings are unstable, that would depend on "Quantum Gravity" a theory that does not exist yet in any complete form... aka, future physics. So you are happy to allow yourself to speculate based on future physics, but you would forbid anyone else to do so. We have a word for this technique of argumentation: hypocrisy.

~~~

You need to read what you post. It is says nothing about travel before a time machine was made. You might just as well have copied something off the side of a cereal packet.

I read every word. Have a look at the following quote from the article Section IV.A.4:

It is also interesting to verify whether the CTCs in the Gott solution appear at some particular moment, i.e., when the strings approach each other's neighborhood, or if they already pre-exist, i.e., they intersect any spacelike hypersurface. These questions are particularly important in view of Hawking's Chronology Protection Conjecture [140]. This conjecture states that the laws of physics prevent the creation of CTCs. If correct, then the solutions of the EFE which admit CTCs are either unrealistic or are solutions in which the CTCs are pre-existing, so that the time -machine is not created by dynamical processes. Amos Ori proved that in Gott's spacetime, CTCs intersect every t = const hypersurface [227], so that it is not a counter-example to the Chronology Protection Conjecture.

In other words, the appearance of such a "machine" would mean that the CTC's would exist prior to its "creation".

Sniff.

If you read on to section IV.B.2., you'll see a discussion of what can happen if the "absurdly advanced civilization" can generate exotic matter and locally violate the energy condition. A localized "Gott-like" solution that permits arbitrary CTC's, in theory. So, instead of happening upon the CTC's that occur at a Gott string passing, God could actually provoke this to happen, given access to galaxy-levels of energy and tha ability to manipulate matter in ways that are currenly beyond our understanding. Meh. Maybe that's how he did it... I don't know. We're just babies.

I have said nothing about the impossibility of closed timelike curves.

I never said you did, Steve. Unlike you I haven't stooped to misrepresenting my opponent's argument. I made it quite clear that you are talking about CTC's that precede the "creation" of the time machine.

~~~

And finally, for all of you that are telling me to lay off Steve, grow up.

What have I said? I said that he put his ignorance on parade... ignorance of GR is hardly a source of shame or 99.999% of the population should hang their heads in shame. Now if those that are ignorant of GR insist on telling me that GR forbids arbitrary time travel, and carry on like that because one particular mechanism (the Morris-Thorne machine) is limited, then I'd call that a parade.

All of the other idioms or personal slights that I have launched at Steve are no worse than what I have received from him, and considerably more mild than the typical banter around here. I'm not interested in cataloging Steve's digs at me because I have a thick enough skin that I can endure them and focus on the discussion, rather than getting the vapors.

So quit your whining, ya pansies. :p

126. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165613 by Kardashovel on April 21, 2008 at 9:31 pm

Steve:

1) Humans can think and the natural selection of one human over another (gets to live and breed) will often depend on their capacity to think. As a species, thought (=>intention=>purpose) is a factor in our survival, and in the destruction of our adversaries.

2) You have acknowledged that humans have continued to evolve up until the present day.

1) and 2) => Some evolution has served a purpose.

~~~

Moreover, since humans weren't the first animal capable of abstract modeling, intention, purpose, I submit that this process of purpose-affected-evolution has been going on for some time.

Please discuss without resorting to accusing me of saying that every branch on the tree of evolution serves some purpose.

127. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165608 by Kardashovel on April 21, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Crap. phpbb just ate my next comment. Note to self to copy comments before posting.

Quetzalcoatl, I was going to add, in response to your speculation, that I actually did my masters thesis on superluminal tunneling. QM is not as satisfying as GR for this discussion because it requires fragile entangled states and small particles... can't really expect God to fit in a single molecule, unless maybe you worship amoeba dna as the most complex system going...

Aharonov's time machine is interesting, but it will only work sporadically and it will only allow the transmition of messages, not people.

128. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165606 by Kardashovel on April 21, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Quetzalcoatl,

You should not assume that my discussion about wormholes with Steve implies that I am committed to the idea that God uses a closed timelike curve to effect the initial observation that sets the fundamental constants of the universe. As I have repeatedly stated, primordial wormholes provide the possibility of access to the initial space time conditions at the big bang. A worm hole that formed during the time of inflation that has one end inside of our visible universe, and the other outside of it, will connect us to that time because the other end is effectively moving at c, compared to us.

So, all that needs doing is for the conscious observer to drop into our end of that worm hole and whamo, they're looking at one of the highly improbably universes that could have spawned their existence.

I agree that the idea of constructing a Morris-Thorne time machine from a primordial wormhole is far fetched, since it would involve faster than light travel to connect both ends. FTL, in and of itself can be construed to permit time travel.

If you want to explore these concepts with some rigor, I suggest this article as a good jump base: http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai:arXiv.org:0710.4474
If you want to get to the gravy, have a look at section II.J.

In any case, primordial wormholes are not a workable mechanism for continuous meddling by God in the affairs of earth. For that you need something else... a solution to the GR field equations that permits retrograde time travel to an arbitrary time and a reasonably convenient location.

The candidates for such a time machine that I have already mentioned are Kerr Rings (annular black holes) and Gott Strings (which are discussed in some detail in the article linked above). Since I have not looked into these matters for well over a decade, I was unaware of the work of Ori and Soen, which refines the Gott solution to a fully local phenomenon with flat space time at the borders. That means that such an anomaly could exist within our universe and we would not know it until it was discovered. Same goes for Kerr Rings.

Many have objected to treating Kerr Rings as a viable physical solution because of the notion that a naked singularity is likely at odds with quantum gravity... but hey, that's future physics, right, and you folks won't brook any speculation around here, so this time it bites you in the ass. GR says, yes it is possible, and in fact is the likely result of certain types of star death. Such a phenomenon could present the opportunity to travel to times and space arbitrarily far from our current space-time coordinates.

Now, as discussed in some detail in the article that I linked, many physicists have suggested that closed time loops, FTL travel, and other anomalies of GR theory are simply exposing where the theory breaks down. That is also what they said about black holes thirty years ago, and the current consensus is that there is a monstrous black hole at the center of our galaxy.

Let me close with a quote from the article that I found amusing, as well as a nice summary about how I feel when Steve insists that current physics in no way supports time travel prior to the invention of time machines. I've bolded the bit that highlights the spirit of Steve's refusal to let go of the side of the swimming pool:

There is no convincing demonstration of the Chronology Protection Conjecture, but the hope exists that a future theory of quantum gravity may prohibit CTCs. Visser still considers the possibility of two other conjectures [2]. The first is the radical reformulation of physics conjecture, in which one abandons the causal structure of the laws of physics and allows, without restriction, time travel, reformulating physics from the ground up. The second is the boring physics conjecture, in which one simply ceases to consider the solutions to the EFEs generating CTCs. Perhaps an eventual quantum gravity theory will provide us with the answers. But, as stated by Thorne [148], it is by extending the theory to it's extreme predictions that one can get important insights to it's limitations, and probably ways to overcome them. Therefore, time travel in the form of CTCs, is more than a justification for theoretical speculation, it is a conceptual tool and an epistemological instrument to probe the deepest levels of general relativity and extract clarifying views.

129. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165272 by Kardashovel on April 21, 2008 at 9:25 am

Once someone starts insulting Dr. Zara with phrases such as 'get a grip' or 'I would cheerfully throw away your understanding of GR, Steve. Like losing a bad habit.', I feel wholly justified in calling them a fucktard.

Congratulations, Dr. Who, consider yourself well and truly 'tarded.

Riveting, Irate_Atheist. You've really done me in. I'm gonna need to call my mommy now.

Steve deserves what he gets from me. He is arguing only to protect his own reputation (as are you, with your pathetic defense), putting the man before the science. Check out this quote:

What karda is after is an admission that "evolution" can be for a purpose. If he gets that, he will attempt to say we have agreed that "evolution" as we have seen it could have been purposeful. He is trying to broaden the sense of the common use of evolution so that if we admit that any change in life could be purposeful, then he is allowed to claim a victory.

So, I am trying to ensure a single use of the term "evolution" in the context of this discussion - what we have observed in the history of life on this planet.

But Steve himself has stated that evolution has continued up until today for humans, and humans directly affect the evolution of our own species as well as others by intentionally pursuing our main purpose: survival.

Steve is treating this like a game, but when he stoops to misleading others about the science and claiming that I am conceding the point, he will get the bottom of my boot in response.

130. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165254 by Kardashovel on April 21, 2008 at 9:08 am

the Kerr Ring

Is that:

1. a sound from a Batman comic;
2. a heavy metal magazine; or
3. something belonging to the singer out of the Simple Minds?

For a popsci explanation, try this link, PBUM: http://www.mkaku.org/articles/blackholes_wormholes.php

An while you're at it, check out this article by Dr. Kaku: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/kaku1-1.html

Allow me to quote a relevant section:
"Interestingly enough, Stephen Hawking once opposed the idea of time travel. He even claimed he had "empirical" evidence against it. If time travel existed, he said, then we would have been visited by tourists from the future. Yet we see no tourists from the future. Ergo: time travel is not possible.

Because of the enormous amount of work done by theoretical physicists within the last five years or so, Hawking has since changed his mind, and now believes that time travel is possible (although not necessarily practical)."

Hmmmm...

131. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165248 by Kardashovel on April 21, 2008 at 8:58 am

I think all this God traveling back in time business may be interesting as the plot of a series of science fiction novels, say Dan Simmon's Hyperion Cantos, but why are you so convinced of it? I mean I enjoyed the books, that also contained numerous references to the Tlielhard that Epeeist made. Clearly I didn't enjoy them as much as you did.

Never read it. I'm not much of a science fiction buff. I checked out the wiki and I was not particularly impressed. But this guy Tielhard seems interesting.

132. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165244 by Kardashovel on April 21, 2008 at 8:53 am

I would cheerfully throw away your understanding of GR, Steve. Like losing a bad habit.

I did not say I have a time machine. I said that time travel conforms to our current understanding of physics, whether you take our theory of the very large/massive (GR) or our theory of the very small (QM). This is truth. Has been for well over 50 years. Various attempts have been made to salvage causality, but those are as speculative as me drawing up plans for a Tardis. The fact is that our best physical theories permit arbitrary time travel for a sufficiently advanced technical agent. This runs contrary to your claim that modern physics precludes time travel to the primordial past, which you have repeated again and again, putting your ignorance on parade. And now you change the subject and tell me to deliver you blueprints for a time machine. Get a grip. Find a physicist friend and ask them to verify what I have said.

133. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164931 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Gotta go. My baby girl is crying and momma is tired.

May the force be with you, Goldy.

134. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164930 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Sweet. Show us a picture!

135. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164926 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 9:04 pm

What kind of vehicle are you restoring?

136. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164925 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 9:03 pm

Holy crap. There are 7700 posts on the most popular thread.

RD.net gets some traffic, eh? How many people do you suppose have read my deranged rantings?

137. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164923 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Shite. Sorry to hear it. FWIW, I understand that eyes are remarkably robust organs.

I hope you feel better.

138. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164921 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 8:56 pm

Wow. I've never been on a thread that exceeded 3000 posts before.

139. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164918 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 8:55 pm

What of it, MaxD? Steve acted like I conceded a point that I certainly do not concede. It's disingenuous, and I expect better from him.

140. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164917 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 8:54 pm

here is a chance that you (pre-change) exist in another universe.

You exist in the same universe, but at the time that you travel to. Of course future time travel is also possible...

141. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164911 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Did you get LASIK Goldy?

Each god that is created by the machinations of time tinkering is a brand new god. Of course, all over the place there are other universes coming into existance (always having existed?) where that other god exists.

I don't buy that other universes are created by this process. Certainly there is no mechanism for that in GR, and you would need to adopt more than just a probabilistic interpretation of QM for that purpose.

Instead, the former Gods stay where they land, in the past, and continue to evolve along with us. I pity the God that has to hang out for five billion years while the first generation of stars produced the heavy elements.

142. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164909 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Oh for fucks sake, whats this new age mumbo jumbo mixed with new age scientism.

And you know this how?

Alovrin, you claim that you don't care what I think. So why don't you just polish your knob or find someone else to pester, squirt.

If anyone else harbors the same question it is because of the weak grandfather paradox... Anytime you change the past, however trivially, you will change the future. You don't need to kill your granddad to affect your future self, so by definition 'you' cease to exist in the new, updated universe, even though a being much like you may take your place.

143. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164905 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 8:39 pm

As for the capitals, it's a habit. I have spent some time talking to other Christians and I adopted some of their conventions so as not to wrankle. Does it bother you, Goldy.

144. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164901 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Ummm....if he ceases to exist (in any form) how can he do the following?

God didn't stop the first time... he has to optimize it.

Because He recreates Himself. The old one, the first one, no longer exists. A new one comes about with similar capabilities, but perhaps different attributes.

MPhil told thisisme that an entity cannot create its own attributes... and this is true in the sense that God' has attributes chosen by the random pressures of evolution and the actions of God. Likewise, God'' is configured by God' (and the path to His emergence).

145. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164898 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 8:29 pm

More fun with GR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

This one is not really useful, even in principle. But it is a fascinating solution to the field equations. Still, not only do you need large negative-energy densities from strange matter, but that matter would have to exceed light speed outside of the local distortion of the metric.

Ah well, no warp drive this year.

146. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164893 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Still not sure how this works. If God does a whoopsy and ceases to exist, how can he come back and correct the mistake?

I am using shorthand. Every time that God goes back He ceases to exist, at least in His prior form. But He is reinvented, hopefully sooner and better than before. He takes one for the team, again, and again, until the process is as refined as He dares to make it. He can't go from protoplasm to God in two years. There has to be a method. Incidenty, this is my answer to Quine about the possibility that we are just a dead end and that other aliens will be the path chosen. God didn't stop the first time... he has to optimize it.

A better question is to focus on the first time, and what came before it.

147. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164892 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 8:10 pm

It would be like the character in a movie being able to travel outside the screen.

I remember there is a Woody Allen movie like that. I think it is called the purple rose of Cairo or something like that. Watched it on TV.

If you have not seen it, I strongly recommend that you check out: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100519/

Phenomenal movie. Tom Stoppard is a damn genius.

148. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164891 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Sigh. OK Steve, here we go.

You are probably under the impression that wormhole based time travel cannot lead to a past before the creation of the machine because you are thinking about the method proposed by Morris and Thorne, twenty years ago. They suggested a system in which a wormhole is deliberately created using two sets of Casimir plates, one set of which is accelerated to relativistic velocities. If the accelerated plates were looped back to the original location, and the worm hole ends could actually be coupled (and expanded to a size useful for time travel), then the resulting worm hole would present an opportunity for time travel into either the past or the future, depending on which direction you loop through it. Subsequent work has shown that such a wormhole could be stabilized and expanded to permit actual time travel, although the technical limitations on travel near light speed and gigantic, perfect Casimir plates are beyond our technical dreams at the moment. The problem, as you have doggedly noted is that the end of the wormhole that undergoes time dilation can almost stop time (if it goes close to c), but cannot reverse it. So this type of time machine cannot permit travel to a time before its creation, as you have slavishly insisted.

However, if we construct a stable wormhole loop from a primordial wormhole, by connecting our modern end with the end that has been traveling away from us at close to c from the start of the universe, then we are not subject to the limitations imposed by Thorne's proposal. It does not matter that the end that you need to seek is moving away at close to c because of spacetime expansion. Contrary to your smarmy assertion that I have conceded the point, time does not care why the ends were moving so quickly relative to each other but only that they do so. In fact, the real problem is that we need to find one end of the tiger's tail in our own spacetime, and then drag it to the edge of our visible universe to find the other end that has been receding near light speed since the end of inflation. That is the trick. But still, it solves Einstein's equations, and would produce a loop between the time now, and the time of the relativistically receding primordial black hole (aka, right after inflation). Sounds like fun.

An alternate mechanism (according to our current understanding of physics) is to use giant concentrations of mass, moving at relativistic speeds, in appropriate configurations, to create a local solution to the GR field equations that permits arbitrary time travel along certain paths. For a few notable examples, the Gott Loop, the Kerr Ring, and famous Van Stokum Cylinder (which admittedly is infinitely long and therefore is not localized).

I have left out Godel's rotating universe because it is more of a challenge to the very notion of time, rather than a prescription for a time machine. Godel is a favorite of mine, though. What a brilliant mind. My advisor was a close personal friend of his up until the time of his death.

Now you can make technical objections to any or all of these methods, but the point is that they all solve the GR field equations in such a way that arbitrary reverse time travel is possible, and since GR is one of the most sacred and well tested theories of contemporary science

There are also theoretical proposals for time machines within the context of quantum mechanics, most notably from Aharonov. Likewise there are experiments which demonstrate superluminal travel (Chiao) of photons (not just the theoretical tachyons). In both cases the chance of non-causal communication is rare (1 in 10k) an the idea of using such a machine to transfer macroscopic objects is far fetched. But again my point is that the slavish notion that causality is inviolable has been roundly rejected by both of the pillars of modern physics for well over half a century. Give it up, Steve. We certainly know enough about physics to know that only a fool would bet against time travel. It won't happen tomorrow, but within a billion years, if we don't first slaughter ourselves, our descendents will get it working.

Now as for Dr. Hawking, he claimed that he found it unlikely that reverse time travel is possible to a time before the invention of the time machine, because otherwise we would have been visited by the travelers. He rejected the concept because UFO's angels, and hearing God's voice from the future in your head was just too much for his fine mind to accept. He believed that this lack of tourists from the future constitutes empirical evidence against the possibility of time travel to the past. He has since recanted in the face of the various theoretical efforts in this field. So should you, Steve.

What now, Steve? More insults? More denial? Or perhaps for the first time in our dealings you can have the decency to admit that there is reason not to be so certain of your beliefs.

149. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164756 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Then it's in your god's interest not to muck about with the settings now, is it?

Boom. Goldy gets another star. If it's done catastrophically wrong, God would never even show up to be able to create our universe by observing the Big Bang. If God kills us (or allows us to be killed), then there goes His grandfather. And any no-fatal screw-up could be a setback costing millions of years before Elohim hits the jackpot.

But the good news is, that once it happens, an arbitrarily powerful and clever God will be able to tune it to make His existence arrive sooner and sooner after t=0... even with the Adversary playing his own game.

No Goldy. Jesus is patient. There is a dependency missing. It involves the discussion of the secular apocalypse...

150. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164744 by Kardashovel on April 20, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Good to know about the beer and the bong hits, Goldy. I may be making a pilgrimage to Kiwiland next year. I'll be sure to PM you so that you can meet my crazy-ass family. Don't worry, tho... I'll leave the guns stateside. ;P