Topics Limited to 11 Pages?

Darby,

I am a physics doctoral student at an american university. I do not have time to sit around and spin some elaborate web of a story of being a time traveller on multiple websites. I am much more interested in factual and experimental information than fictional story telling. I do occasional come to this site to see if anyone has the slightest glimmer as to what they are talking about. So far, I have not seen any indication of that. And for that reason, I have neglected to post the information I have concerning the subject.

As far as John Titor or TT_0 is concerned, I believe that I shined a light on a hole in his story awhile back. The fact that he added that he could not complete a 0 divergent trip meant that he could not return to his timeline and hence a mission into the past to help his people was logically flawed. In fact, since I posted that, his postings have been infrequent and sparse.

((The fact that he added that he could not complete a 0 divergent trip meant that he could not return to his timeline and hence a mission into the past to help his people was logically flawed. In fact, since I posted that, his postings have been infrequent and sparse.))

I thought we went over that to your satisfaction? Doesn't everyone know after looking at a Perrose for a Kerr singularity that you have to travel faster than light to get to the "exact" same worldline?

I can see your not amused that we would be confused as the same person. I did find it flattering. I think you find some of the physics questions we're dealing with on other sites quite interesting...perhaps even convincing.

Time traveler_0: Hi. I do believe in time travel, that man will eventually interact with reality in ways that we are only beginning to imagine. It is still extremely hard for me to set aside the possibility that you are just toying with people here on the forum, and as I hear from some, in other forums as well. Your story is extremely interesting, however, and I don't want to miss an opportunity of a lifetime to gather insight from someone who has supposedly "been there done that", so I will set aside my human urge to judge you, and see were this goes. So - I'd like to ask you a few questions.

1) I saw on another page of this board that you are from 2036, and still use batteries and solar cells. why do you still use batteries, when such great men (thats my faith talking) such as Tom Bearden and the former Floyd Sweet and Bruce Depalma, have possibly made great strides in the areas of free energy. What happened to limit the success, and widespread distribution and developement of these discoveries?

2) have your scientists found a link between consciousness and reality?

3) Is light speed as you understand it simply the capacitive reactance of our spacetime/quantum vacuum?

4) I'm gonna throw my idea of how a time machine works out there, and it would be cool if you could key me in on how far I am from your truth:

A time machine in my book, is slightly like a teleportation device. It zeroes in on a specified pattern of quantum states (like the quantum states of the particles involved during a significant event) and then reconstructs the coinciding reality. This is because reality is possibly a hologram, related to the wave interactions at the virtual (fundamental) particle/wave level, and if you look at a small portion of a holographic plate the entire image will be on that section as well as the whole plate, just with a lower intensity. The quantum patterns duplicated by the time machine will be interpolated to form a complete reality. Now, the time machine records and impresses your quantum imprint on the resulting reality, causing virtual particle/wave interactions to form your resulting physical body. The virtual state of a particle, is possibly just the period in its life where it does not interact with the surrounding environment. A virtual particle does not exist in time, which is the reason it can become virtual in the first place. A virtual entity lends itself to the creation of time however, in that its interactions with other particles gives rise to the property of time. When one virtual particle exchanges its information with another virtual particle, a real particle results (one that is measurable - actually the mere process of measurement creates a real particle because of the unescapable exchange of info between what is assumed to exist (the virtual particle that will soon become half of the observed entity), and the virtual particles that confirm that asumption by interacting with the inferred particle). The concept that a fundmental particle has a virtual state is where the possibility of time travel comes into play. Actually, what is actually happening is inter-reality travel. There are an infinite amount of virtual particles (because they can not be observed) so they constitute the realm of possibility. Any and every potential transfer of energy takes place out of the virtual particle flux, because of its zero/infinite existence in time. Therefore, when one decision/observation is made, a whole new universe is started. This happens in jumps, due to the interactions of virtual particles. At any given instant, however, consciousness (the mediator/observer of particle interaction) can only see/exist in its own universe, but the potential for its existence in others as a parallel entity is infinite. I'm starting to run out of time, so I'll quickly sum it up. We now have the mehanism for time travel and teleportation - they are extremely similar, but instead of materializing something in its own time, another time is chosen. each time a travel is made, you make a reality jump to a different "world line". You would not be able to return to your exact world line, but to one so close, it could still be considered your world line. You would have left in a time machine in that world line (your parallel you), and Upon your expected arrival, the first "you" that left would be replaced by "you", on time, as expected.

Dear Trott,

What do think about the following theory that I posted to expain how gravity might work? Having a doctorate degree would you do me a favor and quickly read over this theory and tell me if it sounds like the theory might have any grounds(that is if the theory might have some accuracy to it).

If you find flaws in the theory would you mind jotting them down real quick (if it won't be too inconvenient for you, I know you are probably busy and I appreciate you taking the time to look in on this forum from time to time.)

I look forward to learning from your next reply. I might add..will you do me a favor and even if you think the theory might be correct will you prove it wrong for me. If you prove it wrong I will be able to have a much deeper grasp on the conscepts that I am theorizing on because you will be hitting on point's that I have neglected or overlooked which will give me more knowlege to correct my theory( actually everone's theory who works on it).

I really appreciate it.

If you want to send lot's of technical information please fill free to do so. I ask that you write in what ever manner you are used to and not to worry about trying to explain it in terms that I would not understand.

If I get confused I will look up words, phrases, or conscepts that you jott down that I do not understand and will learn about them. This will help me develop a stronger vocabulary with which to comunicate more intelligably to the scientific comunity. Thankyou for your time.

Regards,

Edwin G. Schasteen U.S.M.C. Active

here is the post:

I am aware of the limitations of our measuring technology and it is a good question as to wheather or not it is the measuring equipment that produces the affect(paradox) or if the particle is truelly in the form of a wave and sometimes in the form of a particle.

However to me, it seems that the energy density verses space-time density is merely a simple coscept of one kind of energy occupying energy in the form of a container(space). A simple visual aid to help assist in visualizing the conscept that I am suggesting is to take a single piece of string and tie the ends together so that you have a loop. Now take the loop of string and make a one-half twist so that you have a figure eight.

Now hold the figure eight out in front of you so that the figure eight looks like the infinity symbal. Let the loop that is pointing to your right represent energy and it's density, let the loop that is pointing to the your left represent the density and quantity of space-time that is occupied by the energy.

Now if you increase the radius of the right loop-which symbolizes the energy the left loop will decrease in size and density. If you make the right loop twice it's original size the left loop representing space will shrink to half it's size.

This is the conscept that I am suggesting is accuring with electrons and all energy and mass. Energy occupies space such that when you increase the density of energy the partical absorbs energy from the space that it occupies thus decreasing the density and space that the partical of energy occupies through displacement.

This results in a decrease in the radius of the partical as a result that the particle has more quatity gained from the vacuum of space and has a smaller radius and thus a greater density.

I would say that the the majority and most likely all the extra density gained by and electron of high energy interaction would be absorbed solely from the space-time that the energy occupies resulting in a low space-time pressure intertial hole in the within the quantum matter making up the electrons energy.

I would say that there would be a low pressure region of space-time around the electron itself caused by the space-time of high density surrounding the electron gravitating towards the intertial hole created by the displacement of space-time quantity into electron density.

So I believe that the electron does not absorb energy from the surounding space-time quantity to create the gravitational field surrounding the electron but absorbs the space-time quantity from into energy to add density to the electron during high energy interactions only from the space-time that the electron occupies and that the gravitational field surrounding the electron is caused by the space around the electron to gravitate towards the intertial hole or low space-time pressure within the area that the electron is localized.

This, in my oppinion, is a static system and that the space-time does not flow into the electron from outside the electron but creates a static flow into the electron.

An easy visual aid to observe this kind of phenomenon is to observe the spinning candy cain pole at your local barber shop. Notice that the red and white spirals(helixes) do not actually move up to the top of the cylindrical cain but the rotation of the cylinder makes it appear as though the red and white spirals move toward the top of the candy cain pole.

The helix of the spinning candy pole can represent the space-time in the form of helixical waves spiraling towards the electron mass of low space-time density as a result of the centripital(or centrifical) forces(I am always getting these two confused) at work within the electron.

It is sort of like the whirl wind created in a blender. The water does not flow through the bottom of the blender but all the blobs of chocolate mix is carried by the water toward the blades of the blender. The low pressure created by the spinning blades combined with the torque of the blades creates the static whirl wind affect which is quite similar to the dynamic whirl wind affect created by the water draining in your toilet when you flush it.

The space time quantity is laiden with all kinds of waves fields of space-time quantity but when the low pressure space-time is created by the presence of dense energy the space-time waves of high pressure gravitate towards the space-time of low pressure creating the spin affect of the space-time waves and fields. This process creates a dynamical flow of energy in the form of energy or mass(not space) toward the region of low space-time density in the same way that the nestles quik is carried on the milk that is spinning in the blender toward the low pressure milk at the surface of the blender blades.

What I mean by "the energy and mass are dynamic and space is not" is merely that the chocalate coco moves toward the blades of the blender but the milk itself as a whole does moves very little towards the blades of the blender if at all.

What does everyone think? Does any of this make sense?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen

I was not offended, I did find it amusing. That is why I responded to it. Your argument as to my point was not sufficient. You suggested that an alternate you would most likely return to your world line. It just does not seem logical for one to go back in time on a mission for their world line only to return to an alternate worldline where the mission goal may or may not have bearing if completed.

By the way, the Kerr ring singularity is a spacetime possessing CLOSED timelike curves. You would clearly need a naked singularity so that the chronology violating region would not be hidden behind the event horizon. This places limits on the size of the ring of the singularity, i.e. radius>Mass, using geometrized units.

Perhaps, I have mistaken your backgrounds. If anyone can provide a proof to this, I will share what I know on the subject:

If a spacetime contains a causality-violating time machine, but does not contain a chronology-violating time machine, then the only closed causal curves in the spacetime are closed null geodesics.

((Your argument as to my point was not sufficient. You suggested that an alternate you would most likely return to your world line. It just does not seem logical for one to go back in time on a mission for their world line only to return to an alternate worldline where the mission goal may or may not have bearing if completed.

By the way, the Kerr ring singularity is a spacetime possessing CLOSED timelike curves. You would clearly need a naked singularity so that the chronology violating region would not be hidden behind the event horizon.))

As you are aware, approaching a rotating singularity can be done quite easily without experiencing the negative side effects of a massive gravitational field and it’s very possible to “pass” through the center of the ring. Besides, if you did need a naked singularity, all you would have to do is increase the rotation or electric charge so the inner even horizon equals the diameter of the outer event horizon.

I realize my posts here have become tiresome and my “story” is old so If I don’t post it’s not because I don’t enjoy the physics debate. If you’re interested, I will be posting more pages from the manual and a cut-a-way drawing of the distortion unit.

Mr. Grunt, it seems to make sense to me. maybe an electron is a standing low-pressure wave of spacetime. What if spacetime itself could be modeled as a random flux of particles? when these particles are ordered, energy appears out of the "vacuum". Now, what if an electron where just a standing wave of negative energy density, set into motion by a disturbance in the randomness of the vacuum? A statistical change in the amount of order at a central location sets a ripple in spacetime into motion. This ripple is one half of an electromagnetic wave. This wave spreads out as na energy density wave, and can be seen as longitudinal in nature. It then hits spots of more and less dense spacetime (level of particle order) and parts of it get reflected back in on itself, as a converging energy-density front, towards its origin. We now have a time reversed wave, bringng energy back instead of giving it off. This happens at an incredible rate, and is possibly what sustains the reaction. now we have a standing wave, and at 1/2 wavelength away from the origin, a low pressure buildup might possibly occur. We have a particle with a one wavelength diameter, with an electric field surrounding it. the electric field is the phase shift of the two interacting wave fronts, moving outward from the origin.

Trott,

Hello. It seems that your name and the anagram for John Titor is simply a coincidence.

I've posed this scenario to John as a strong argument against time travel. I received a sophisticated and humorous response from him, which I appreciated. But he didn't attempt to explain hiw it could happen or what prevents it from happening...

We tend to talk about time travel in terms of going forward or back in time a number of years, decades or centuries. But what of a small trip? A trip of 10 seconds with only a small (several feet) change in physical location.

A proposito:

The early time travel researcher plans a 10 second trip into the past where he will be physically displaced several feet from his original location. He has the experiment set to go. 10 seconds before he throws the switch his duplicate appears in the lab several feet from him.

Intrigued by his apparent success-to-be he enters into a discussion with the duplicate. He learns the following: the duplicate remembers entering his machine and throwing the switch - he also remembers seeing a duplicate of himself appear in the lab 10 seconds before throwing the switch.

The "original" researcher declares success and never does enter his machine and throw the switch. He concludes that by simply building a viable machine and thinking about a time trip he has caused the duplicate to appear.

If time travel is possible then this absurd failure of causality and chronology is also possible.

The absurdity is worse if you consider that it would appear that there is an endless chain of duplicates entering machines and seeing another endless chain of duplicates arriving at the lab 10 seconds prior to the throwing of the switch. What is the result of the endless chain of duplicates arriving in the lab simultaneously? If they arrive at, and simultaneously occupy, the same 4-dimensional coordinate they violate exclusion. I'm aware of but one construct that can have that property (of violating exclusion)...and it would be naked unless the duplicates were drunk and spinning.

Using John's estimate of 2.5% divergence on a 60 year trip, I don't see divergence as being a factor in a 10 second trip. These duplicates wouldn't be appearing on alternate timelines.

TT0 PLEASE answer my posted question? Please? You keep ignoring it, why? Don't ask me "what question" it's the one in the posting "Where is Time Traveler" or something like that.

Dear Richer18,

I do not want to be hasty in making any oppinions but what you stated from my stand point sounds like a perfectly legitimate possibility to me. As I know it the substance of 'quantum stuff' has been held to actually be composed of the substance chance or 'waves of chance' to be more precise by many quantum physists for some fifty odd years now.?

I myself subscribe to this model. I believe that the dynamics you stated in your last transmission are plausible and possibly correct. I must add that I am not a physisist and unfortunately am not educated fully to the current model. Some of my knowlege dates back one hundred years or so. I can say this because it was not to long ago that I learned that it has been known for many years that light slows down through a medium such as glass and that this property is responcible for convexing(is this the correct word) of the light.

I do not let this stop me from thinking and I do not let this stop me from coming up with theories. I believe that in the future I will have a wealth of knowlege that I have gathered and ascertained about various processes and functions and this gained knowlege will enable me to affectively adapt my theory to fit the current more accurate current model(As long as the current model is not completely and obviously flawed in some very obvious manner-that is- I do not believe in accepting flawed interpritations that are come too as a result of misunderstanding the proscess or more accurately misunderstanding the intent and content of the proscess.)

I believe that trott might be able to answer your theory and mine more accurately based on his education. How about it trott? Will you evaluate our theories?

Thanks for the replies?

Regards,

Edwin G. Schasteen

P.S. ( I am not meaning to inply that you are not educated richer18 just that I am not) So please forgive me if that was offencive. Surely, I meant no offence by the form of my paragragh.

ok first of all i do NOT wish to take sides

on belivers or non-belivers, nor do i want any enemys because of my actions.

i will be the"common sense" adviser when i find somthing i dont think is possible in your little....hmmm how shuld i put it.....SQUABBLES tha u online peeps have.

i have seen the pics of TT_O time traveling machine and... well to say the least it looks primative. I mean why doesnt it look like the inside of a jet or something?

secondly, not to demoralize u because i am NOT choosing sides, but if u guys(and by that im tlaking about TTA and TT_O)

are really time travlers, isnt your most important task warning of plage and/or other life thretning situations and not how many pages u can post on your lovely forums?

just thought id ask.(hehe imagion the troble im in now)

VERTIGO

"if its not dead,its not within one hundred feet of me"

Dear Fellow Time Travelers:

In about 30 days, I will be leaving this worldline to return home to 2036. I first want to say thank you for the wonderful conversation and insight into your society. I have learned a great deal and my opinion on quite a few things has changed dramatically.

I will finish the questions that have been posted on this site up to this date. Unfortunately, I must now spend my spare time preparing to leave and I will not be on the computer very much. I do however want to repeat my offer and add a slight twist.

After going over my flight plan home, I have discovered my VGL holdover period is a bit longer than I expected. I will be spending at least three weeks in April of 1998 as I make my way back to 1975. Therefore, I not only offer you the chance to leave a message to yourself in 2036 but I offer you the chance to leave yourself a message in 1998. I will take any compiled messages and email addressees you provide and send them on the net when I get to 1998.

Granted, this will not affect you on your worldline now but you make take some comfort that another “you” on another worldline has the advantage of knowing something you wish you knew three years ago. Based on the earlier questions I’ve seen, I’ve decided a day-to-day record of the Dow a day in advance should convince you that the messages are real in 1998.

In addition, I am hopeful a series of photocopies and photographs will be available for you that may give you more insight into the technology of the distortion unit. I will let you know the address of the site when it is available. I also plan to have my parents videotape my departure. If they succeed, it will also be posted after I leave.

I look forward to these last few weeks with my family and I will check in periodically to check this site.

Live in Peace 2001,

Thank you for the offer TT_0 but, I will pass. If I ever have the chance I will always go forward and come back to my starting point and go no futher back. I preffer things as they were. (Even though in some timeline this is not the case.) It has been really nice hearing your story. Remeber that drink when you get home.

Djay

[This message has been edited by djayr42 (edited 11 March 2001).]

John has asked me if I wouldnt mind collecting the emails for him again and forwarding them to him.

anybody who wants to can write me using my email address found in my profile and I will forward your letters or "messages to 1998" ,"messages to 2036" to John.

All messages I receive I will keep confidential and they will be forwarded right to John.

sincerely,

Pamela

Darby:

Yes!

Take it one step further.

He travels back 1/10th second in time to his neighbor's bedroom at a most delicate moment, which is virtually identicle to going there NOW. The first time this happens, Time Travel will be outlawed forever.

I go back to last night when the Met Museum is closed and steal a valuable painting.

I go back to last week and stop the school shooting by taking the gun from the house the kid used.

This can get even more absurd as we go here.

Daviper and Darby: There is no paradox in what you propose, if you were to accept the multiple universe theory. Once you flip the switch and actually go back to your previous location, you will in fact see what appears to be yourself. It's not, however, you. This being's existence is in a universe that is very close to yours, but is not solely regulated to follow the same timeline as yours. As soon as you appear in the parallel reality you break it away from your own, in that you decouple the two parallel timelines.

after your encounter, your twin may or may not enter his time machine, and the path of that reality is not altered - it only continues to branch. There is no change in any future, because that future has not happenned yet, in all cases.

One more thing - divergence WOULD be a factor, no matter how short the trip. It is not possible to have a non divergent trip, as far as time travel is concerned. as soon as you leave your time-line, you can only get back to one that is similar to it. it may be similar by 99.99995%, but it is still a different timeline. it is free to break away from its once-parallel (to your original universe) line of motion, so altering it is not possible. You can only cause it to branch, and that is what it is doing anyway. As far as violating the exclusion principal, that is not of concern. you must have hardware that can map out the entry position so as to prevent your being trapped in a solid structure, but the immense field that would be produced as a product of the time travel device would clear a path for you, by annihalating the particles in its vicinity, then gradually diminishing to reveal its contents.

TTO can I go with you? Your time sounds awesome...I dislike now, especially with how we(those who are in school) are being controlled by the government...I really dislike being forced to 'learn' to help our nation keep up with other nations. Whatever happened to our liberties? our freedom? I asked my teacher at school that question and he said that in school we have no liberties...almost like prisoners.

Sigh...

Trott,

I get the drift of the CTC's and closed null geodesics but that may be just a bit too deep for this particular thread. If I were you and wanted to continue to cast doubt on John's story I'd continue with using John's own data as your weapon.

For instance, he has stated that his society is not involved in space travel. He's also stated that the temperature in and around his device while in use is approximately 100 degrees (approx 375 kelvin).

If the Hawking Radiation of a black hole stated in Kelvins is:

6x10^-8/M) where M is Solar Masses and John has given a temperature of 100 degrees (approx 400 kelvin), then the mass of his singulatities should be about:

3x10^20 kg. (1/6,600,000,000 Solar Masses)given that the sun contains approx. 330,000 Earth masses and the mass of the Earth is 5.98*10^24 kg

Or - he's taken a slice of the Earth about 1.2 miles wide at the equator from pole to pole down to the center of the Earth and compressed it into a singularity. And his machine has two of them, GE has a larger unit (C206) and there are multiple machines of each model (C204 & C206).

If his society doesn't space travel - then they are gobbling up the Earth to make their singularities.

((For instance, he has stated that his society is not involved in space travel. He's also stated that the temperature in and around his device while in use is approximately 100 degrees (approx 375 kelvin). ))

I’m not sure I understand the connection between no space travel and the temperature around the device.

((If the Hawking Radiation of a black hole stated in Kelvins is…))

The singularities are not unstable; therefore, uncontrolled evaporation is not possible. In addition, there is no extemporaneous matter near the singularity that would cause it to give off radiation or heat.

((Or - he's taken a slice of the Earth about 1.2 miles wide at the equator from pole to pole down to the center of the Earth and compressed it into a singularity. And his machine has two of them, GE has a larger unit (C206) and there are multiple machines of each model (C204 & C206). ))

A singularity about the size of an electron would only require the mass of a large mountain. The singularities inside the C204 are much small than that. And no, I didn’t make them.

((If his society doesn't space travel - then they are gobbling up the Earth to make their singularities.))

You know… E = MC squared can be written to solve for mass too.