Time Dilation Field Technology - Basic Concept

[AcumenImmortalis]

My initial point still stands. On what basis do you attack speculation and the speculator?

Speculation, by its very definition, is an opinion based on incomplete evidence. The problem here is not khan or anyone else's speculations, it is the hostile attitude and defamatory labeling by those engaging in trolling of threads.

If any of the trollers here were sincerely interested in discussing the thread topics, they could do so in a constructive and mature manner, such as pointing out the idea or ideas they disagree with and at least attempting to explain why they disagree.

When I expressed my own opinion on the matter, I was immediately called a sockpuppet and a crackpot.

Who is the troll is quite obvious.

 

[King_Anarchist]

We have to ask ourselves why are we not being visited by many time travelers from the future, if time travel technology exists sometime IN the future?

1. Humans go extinct before time travel is discovered.

2. The laws of the universe carry grave consequences for messing around too much with causality and the people of the future are wise enough not to mess with the past.

3. Time travel to the past is either impossible or it takes a ridiculous amount of energy which makes it highly impractical.

4. The multiverse theory is true and their is truly an infinite number of diverging worlds. If that is the case, there is a strong chance time travel actually exists on an infinite number of timelines but it might never occur on this one.

5... ?

Another option is that there are time travelers present and all of them keep a very low profile, unlike the supposed time traveler John Titor. They may be keeping a low profile because of the butterfly effect.

 

[AcumenImmortalis]

We have to ask ourselves why are we not being visited by many time travelers from the future, if time travel technology exists sometime IN the future?

1. Humans go extinct before time travel is discovered.

2. The laws of the universe carry grave consequences for messing around too much with causality and the people of the future are wise enough not to mess with the past.

3. Time travel to the past is either impossible or it takes a ridiculous amount of energy which makes it highly impractical.

4. The multiverse theory is true and their is truly an infinite number of diverging worlds. If that is the case, there is a strong chance time travel actually exists on an infinite number of timelines but it might never occur on this one.

5... ?

Possibly, so-called alien visitors could actually be time-travelers.

 

[King_Anarchist]

My initial point still stands. On what basis do you attack speculation and the speculator?

Speculation, by its very definition, is an opinion based on incomplete evidence. The problem here is not khan or anyone else's speculations, it is the hostile attitude and defamatory labeling by those engaging in trolling of threads.

If any of the trollers here were sincerely interested in discussing the thread topics, they could do so in a constructive and mature manner, such as pointing out the idea or ideas they disagree with and at least attempting to explain why they disagree.

When I expressed my own opinion on the matter, I was immediately called a sockpuppet and a crackpot.

Who is the troll is quite obvious.

Perhaps as the best strategy against trolls is by not feeding them, the best strategy against those who accuse you of trolling, is also to not feed them.

 

[AcumenImmortalis]

Perhaps as the best strategy against trolls is by not feeding them, the best strategy against those who accuse you of trolling, is also to not feed them.

You're right, of course. I guess I've been in defensive mode most of my brief time posting here. Hard not to be, really, considering.

 

[King_Anarchist]

Due to the paradoxical implications of traveling backwards in time, it is more likely travelers are jumping to alternate, parallel universes. Then again, if there is a large sea of worlds, past, future, and neither, then what would motivate someone to travel to a particular parallel when there could be many "past" parallels to choose from? Also, given the vastness of this sea of worlds, it is quite possible, if not likely, that there are more parallels than there are travelers; so many parallels will not be the destination of any traveler.

 

[King_Anarchist]

You're right, of course. I guess I've been in defensive mode most of my brief time posting here. Hard not to be, really, considering.

Seems like playing nice secretly means not trolling.

 

[khan2012]

Another option is that there are time travelers present and all of them keep a very low profile, unlike the supposed time traveler John Titor. They may be keeping a low profile because of the butterfly effect.

That is too risky, because they could still affect future history in unpredictable ways.

If Titor is a time traveler and he changed our future history so that the civil war did not occur but 30 years from now, nano-technology will swarm over the planet and devour all carbon based life forms then he altered the future history in our universe in a very bad way - just so he could get a junky IBM computer.

Sure his timeline is doing great but I consider him and his superiors to be time criminals who should be brought to justice.

 

[King_Anarchist]

That is too risky, because they could still affect future history in unpredictable ways.

If Titor is a time traveler and he changed our future history so that the civil war did not occur but 30 years from now, nano-technology will swarm over the planet and devour all carbon based life forms then he altered the future history in our universe in a very bad way - just so he could get a junky IBM computer.

Sure his timeline is doing great but I consider him and his superiors to be time criminals who should be brought to justice.

This presents a paradox for which one resolution would be if there are parallel universes, the traveler moves to a parallel that was just like his home-universe's except set in the past. So Titor (and travelers in general) isn't affecting his timeline whatsoever but ours instead.

Do you think there are more travelers than there are parallels or more parallels than travelers? If the latter scenario is more accurate, then many parallels would never be the destination of a traveler. Our world could easily be one that is apparently not so far visited...at least, as far as the general public knows.

 

[khan2012]

Do you think there are more travelers than there are parallels or more parallels than travelers? If the latter scenario is more accurate, then many parallels would never be the destination of a traveler. Our world could easily be one that is apparently not so far visited...at least, as far as the general public knows.

Some maths prove that some infinities are greater than others and a whole branch of math deals with the relationships of the different kinds of infinities.

Physics is still at the point where it sees infinities as something to be swept under the rug of theorization. That could be a problem for physics... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[King_Anarchist]

I'm not sure how many parallels are theorized to exist but a primary question would be are there infinitely many or finitely many.

This article might provide some insight: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1589v1

It suggests there are finitely many parallels, albeit a large number.

Abstract observers in a Platonic sense would put that total at an infinity as each abstract observer is in a context; each context is, after a fashion, a parallel.

 

[AcumenImmortalis]

Is it possible that the butterfly effect doesn't work in the way we might assume? Maybe only the relative perspective of a time traveller experiences universes that deviate from the "original" future? Perhaps that original timeline is preserved and it is merely the time traveler his or her self experiencing alternate timelines he/she "created", so to speak, with his/her interference as a "change" from that original timeline...

 

[Darby]

When I respond in kind I am called a troll.

No. I suggested that according to your personal definition of "troll" that the case can be made, based on your first 8 posts, that you self-classify yourself a troll. I don't believe that you are. What I believe is that your definition is flawed and that you haven't spent enough time here to make the accusation in any case.

Are you welcome? Of course you are. Is the right forum for you, based on you opinion of its content and members? Probably not. I've been here for ten years and I can assure you that I'm not going to change. I offered up CC and ATS as a contrast. There's not a thing wrong with either site. In fact I'm a member of both, though I rarely post on them. But if you can't take the minor heat here sans any F-Bombs being tossed about you really, really won't like either of them if you come on there during your first day of posting as you've done here.

Solution: relax. This is entertainment with a bit of science and engineering tossed in.

 

[King_Anarchist]

Is it possible that the butterfly effect doesn't work in the way we might assume?

The way the butterfly effect works is not an assumption although the name itself is probably hyperbole. Ultimately, what matters in that regard is how sensitive the future is to present conditions and the direction present conditions are headed towards. If the future is not sensitive to present conditions, then there is little a traveler to do that would change much. I would think the assuming would be about how sensitive the future is to present conditions.

Maybe only the relative perspective of a time traveller experiences universes that deviate from the "original" future? Perhaps that original timeline is preserved and it is merely the time traveler his or her self experiencing alternate timelines he/she "created", so to speak, with his/her interference as a "change" from that original timeline...

This is (at least similar to) the idea that a traveler is traversing parallels rather than traversing the timeline in his own past. The lack of paradox (eg grandfather) makes this line of thought attractive though it is predicated on the theory that there are parallels and maybe we create parallels when we make decisions.

 

[Darby]

We have to ask ourselves why are we not being visited by many time travelers from the future, if time travel technology exists sometime IN the future?

1. Humans go extinct before time travel is discovered.

2. The laws of the universe carry grave consequences for messing around too much with causality and the people of the future are wise enough not to mess with the past.

3. Time travel to the past is either impossible or it takes a ridiculous amount of energy which makes it highly impractical.

4. The multiverse theory is true and their is truly an infinite number of diverging worlds. If that is the case, there is a strong chance time travel actually exists on an infinite number of timelines but it might never occur on this one.

1. Valid observation. That could be the case.

2. Good observation though once the cat is out of the bag (a proper solution is found that answers the question of time travel in the affirmative) then not using the technology "forever" is probably not going to work. During the period that includes "forever" someone will eventually violate the ban and move ahead with the project.

3. I think that is the most likely answer. We do now believe that the energy requirement is truly and literally astronomical and that getting to such a source will itself require the same technology that the energy source is supposed to supply. A sound theory that lacks a practical solution.

4. That one is not so easily addressed. The Many Worlds Interpretation is still a quantum physics solution to what occurs with subatomic particles. Extending what we believe happens to an individual electron to include an entire universe simply because that electron's probability wave is resolved is a stretch.

5. ???

The current evidence is that Hawking's "Chronology Protection Conjecture" appears to be correct. It's not that the universe conspires against would be time travelers to the past. Rather, when all of the known laws of quantum mechanics and general relativity are considered, every tactic proposed for macroscopic object time travel runs up against a known law of physics that prevents it.

 

[AcumenImmortalis]

No. I suggested that according to your personal definition of "troll" that the case can be made, based on your first 8 posts, that you self-classify yourself a troll. I don't believe that you are. What I believe is that your definition is flawed and that you haven't spent enough time here to make the accusation in any case.

By my own definition, I was entering into khan's thread and attacking him and his ideas? Is that correct?

Are you welcome? Of course you are. Is the right forum for you, based on you opinion of its content and members? Probably not.

That appears to be a sly way of telling me to get lost. My "opinion of its content" is, as my earlier posts have already made clear, that I am interested in the subject. I do not have a problem with its content but with certain behaviors some posters exhibit. On that topic, my "opinion of its members" is that I have not yet formulated an opinion of the majority of its members despite my previous, understandably defensive posture - understandable given that I was antagonized from the get-go - and furthermore I hope that such behavior is not the norm.

But if you have, as you say below, been here ten years, then that is indeed a bad sign.

I've been here for ten years and I can assure you that I'm not going to change. I offered up CC and ATS as a contrast. There's not a thing wrong with either site. In fact I'm a member of both, though I rarely post on them. But if you can't take the minor heat here sans any F-Bombs being tossed about you really, really won't like either of them if you come on there during your first day of posting as you've done here.

Oh, really? Please, elaborate on what you mean by how I've "come on" here.

Solution: relax. This is entertainment with a bit of science and engineering tossed in.

I was starting to relax and converse with fellow posters until you gave in to the urge to come back and dish out some more.

I find your last comment ironic, considering that that was my very point all along and it was posters such as yourself who have chosen to act snobbishly and pompous.

 

[AcumenImmortalis]

The way the butterfly effect works is not an assumption although the name itself is probably hyperbole. Ultimately, what matters in that regard is how sensitive the future is to present conditions and the direction present conditions are headed towards. If the future is not sensitive to present conditions, then there is little a traveler to do that would change much. I would think the assuming would be about how sensitive the future is to present conditions.

I understand. I guess I was clumsily trying to express that there may in fact be no actual "change" but that the changes are accounted for by a continuum of possibilities.

This is (at least similar to) the idea that a traveler is traversing parallels rather than traversing the timeline in his own past. The lack of paradox (eg grandfather) makes this line of thought attractive though it is predicated on the theory that there are parallels and maybe we create parallels when we make decisions.

Yes, you're right! I was wondering to what extent a multiversial superposition might subsume all possible action within it, and negate the possibility of paradoxes. Personally, I lean toward the idea that any action that causes "change" is an experience relative to the person and that there may not be any true "creation" of "new" universes.

 

[King_Anarchist]

Yes, you're right! I was wondering to what extent a multiversial superposition might subsume all possible action within it, and negate the possibility of paradoxes. Personally, I lean toward the idea that any action that causes "change" is an experience relative to the person and that there may not be any true "creation" of "new" universes.

Instead of the user creating parallels by making decisions, it's just as consistent to view the universe as replete with a multitude of paths (like a particle's worldline), like a labyrinth or matrix of matrices, where all the alternates exist prior to the user's journey.

 

[AcumenImmortalis]

Instead of the user creating parallels by making decisions, it's just as consistent to view the universe as replete with a multitude of paths (like a particle's worldline), like a labyrinth or matrix of matrices, where all the alternates exist prior to the user's journey.

Interesting... If the "user" of that matrix of matrices is also a part of that matrix - a product, if you will, of that matrix - then as such it may not be able to violate its "rules" to such a severe degree that it could cause a paradox that might endanger anything. In a sense, the user would lack free will, to the extent that all of that user's potential actions are already inherent within the superposition...

 

[King_Anarchist]

Interesting... If the "user" of that matrix of matrices is also a part of that matrix - a product, if you will, of that matrix - then as such it may not be able to violate its "rules" to such a severe degree that it could cause a paradox that might endanger anything. In a sense, the user would lack free will, to the extent that all of that user's potential actions are already inherent within the superposition...

I don't know what do you think: the user believes it has free will insofar as it is unaware of that superposition and unaware of where in the matrix of matrices the user is going next. If one were to know its entire future with certainty, that would cut into free will as that user cannot deviate from what it knows to be the future decisions.