AcumenImmortalis
Timekeeper
Sorry, don't quite understand the question. Could you rephrase? Thanks.
Time Dilation Field Technology - Basic Concept
- Thread starter khan2012
- Start date
Sorry, don't quite understand the question. Could you rephrase? Thanks.
King_Anarchist
Timekeeper
Just wondering if a certain type of ignorance would give the user back his freewill, or at least the appearance of such.
Or perhaps instead of saying "in a sense," we could say the user's path is fixed; now whether or not the user realizes this is a personal question. That fixity would seem like a loss of freewill, if what is fixed were known.
AcumenImmortalis
Timekeeper
Oh yes! I see.
Well, I suppose that if the totality of all possible "movements" or potential vectors of time were viewed from an outside perspective, then it might appear as a static 4-dimensional object. In that sense of total knowledge of every possible course, the "path" might be described as completely deterministic.
You know, it's interesting... in Buddhism, ignorance seems to be considered the "Prime Mover" or root of all perception yet no explanation is ever given for this, AFAIK.
AcumenImmortalis
Timekeeper
For some reason, I am also reminded of a zen saying I've encountered before in my reading: "Not knowing is most intimate."
Don't know why that re-occurred to me just now.
Don't know why that re-occurred to me just now.
King_Anarchist
Timekeeper
Exactly!
Movement of the type you mentioned above appears to be movement out of lesser and lesser degrees of ignorance within that static object. As more of the static object is known, there is less ignorance of the matrix of matrices, and movement appears to ensue.
AcumenImmortalis
Timekeeper
What you say seems to make sense, I must admit...
Again, I am reminded of a koan I encountered during my reading.
Again, I am reminded of a koan I encountered during my reading.
Twighlight
Timekeeper
Some years ago, I came to be in correspondence ( as a result of a scientific paper I published ) with an ( at the time ) charming Australian gentleman who claimed to have a new fundamental theory about the nature of energy.
I read his work. There was masses of it...complete with impressive looking equations. But the guy seemed paranoid as hell, and claimed that newspapers and journals were 'denigrating' his work and people were conspiring to defame....maybe even to steal the ideas.
I soon discovered why, as the whole thing had some prior history. His impressive looking equations had a fundamental flaw. Somehow he had arrived at a 'solution' where the second ( an arbitrary unit of time ) was a fundamental unit of time ! He'd made a serious mathematical cockup.
As soon as I pointed this out ( which I learned others had long since done )....he changed from being polite and charming to being totally paranoid and accusing me of being hostile, inflamatory, unconstructive, etc, etc, etc.
The guy was incapable of grasping that he was just plain WRONG ! He'd spent 15 years of his life on his 'theory'...and now serious cognitive dissonance had set in.
Frankly....your comments above remind me of the same thing. You want to be able to post a load of totally unscientific and demonstrable BS.....without anyone calling it just that. It's like someone who wants to 'speculate' that 2 + 2 = 5.......and who then accuses anyone who points out that is nonsense as being 'hostile and defamatory'.
To me that makes YOU ( and your sock puppet ) the troll here. A troll is not just a person who 'attacks'...but also any prima donna who deliberately sets themselves up in a situation where nobody else is allowed to critique or make valid comment....or is only allowed to make comments that the troll considers legitimate.
Mr. Acumen may or may not be a troll but he is not my sock puppet and your sweeping judgements and generalizations are just more of the same type of thing that goes on at usenet newsgroups, where highly imaginative crackpots are attacked without mercy by the evil academic trolls, over and over again.
Sure, call me a crackpot or whatever else you like to but don't call me late for supper :D
AcumenImmortalis
Timekeeper
Excuse me? What the #@$% are you on about NOW?? I was having a decent conversation until you showed up with more stupidity.
Is this forum for scientists only? I've already made it known that I am simply an interested layman yet still you persist in downplaying any and all of my input. How is my conversation about time with that poster any business of yours, really?
What load of BS have I posted? I've only tried to engage my fellow posters with my own views... and I've done so politely for the most part, I should add, despite the constant denigration I've put up with. Why do some of you feel compelled to continue dissing me?
Buddy, I am not a sockpuppet of anyone at this forum. You are really starting to push my button.
Listen, I'm going to make this real simple: While I am capable of dealing with anything trolls throw my way, I find your outrageous and hateful babble unworthy of my time and effort.
Seriously, I've already made myself perfectly clear on this. Now scram.
Another possibility is that time travel to the past may become plausible in the future but one will only be able to travel back to the point in time when the first time travel method begins.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/timetravel-01a.html
quote:
"
To twist time into a loop, Mallett worked out that he would have to add a second light beam, circulating in the opposite direction. Then if you increase the intensity of the light enough, space and time swap roles: inside the circulating light beam, time runs round and round, while what to an outsider looks like time becomes like an ordinary dimension of space.
A person walking along in the right direction could actually be walking backwards in time -- as measured outside the circle. So after walking for a while, you could leave the circle and meet yourself before you have entered it.
[...]
Mallett's circle of light won't allow anyone to travel back beyond the point where time first formed a closed loop. So it will be impossible to go back to a time before it was set up.
"
I am not sure how they could control the flow of information coming from the future to the first moments that the time device was turned on.
King_Anarchist
Timekeeper
As an analogy, the mind breathes life into the static:
http://interactive.usc.edu/members/yuechuan/archives/optical-illusion-wheels-circles-rotating.png
Twighlight
Timekeeper
This is a public forum for discussion. If you or anyone else wish to post 'speculation', then it is perfectly legitimate for anyone else to 'poopoo' that speculation however much they like. Nobody has some God given right to post whatever they please and demand that self-evident nonsense be treated with respect and consideration.
There's an old saying about heat and kitchens.
King_Anarchist
Timekeeper
Missed this.
There are problems I try to solve and if I get really engrossed in the investigation, with the uncertainty of my ability to solve the problem, then I become intimate with the problem after a fashion.
There are problems I try to solve and if I get really engrossed in the investigation, with the uncertainty of my ability to solve the problem, then I become intimate with the problem after a fashion.
AcumenImmortalis
Timekeeper
Obviously, if talking sh!te is all you're interested in then no one can stop you... since this forum appears to have no proper moderation.
But as I said, if you hang around in threads just to throw mud, what does that tell us?
There's an old saying about shoes fitting.
AcumenImmortalis
Timekeeper
Yeah, I think I know what you mean. It's like a deep focus or being "in the zone".
Sometimes it helps to sleep on it too, as the saying goes.
Packerbacker
Timekeeper
The insight I get from this is that in "knowing" we objectify that which is known, and hence position ourselves external to it. There is separation.
The intimacy of not knowing means we do not make this separation. This means we do not destroy our oneness with it. There is a line of thinking--Merrell-Wolff, for example--involving "knowing by becoming that which is to be known". Wolff calls this faculty "introception." This type of knowing also reported by Plotinus, among others, especially in Eastern philosophy.
It is becoming obvious to me, as I discover more interesting properties of the synchrotons, they are an idea that subsumes both string theory and loop quantum gravity, and they absolve many of the theoretical difficulties between them. I shall make a time capsule for the future generations :D
The protective bubble of spacetime within the negative synchroton field needs to be modulated such that the outer shell of the bubble is not compromised during time travel to the past, otherwise the passengers within the bubble will be phased out of existence or even worse, turned into a blob of gooey reality.
http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/superposition/superposition.html
The protective bubble of spacetime within the negative synchroton field needs to be modulated such that the outer shell of the bubble is not compromised during time travel to the past, otherwise the passengers within the bubble will be phased out of existence or even worse, turned into a blob of gooey reality.
http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/superposition/superposition.html
AcumenImmortalis
Timekeeper
The insight I get from this is that in "knowing" we objectify that which is known, and hence position ourselves external to it. There is separation.
The intimacy of not knowing means we do not make this separation. This means we do not destroy our oneness with it. There is a line of thinking--Merrell-Wolff, for example--involving "knowing by becoming that which is to be known". Wolff calls this faculty "introception." This type of knowing also reported by Plotinus, among others, especially in Eastern philosophy.
Interesting... It sounds like you're suggesting a nonduality of "knower" and "known" or maybe non-conceptual mind? Is that right? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Introception... I like that word! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
..knowing by becoming that which is to be known. That's a profound idea. It makes me think of of panpsychism, mind layered in mind knowing itself ad infinitum.
Well, as you can see, I lean more toward mystical intepretation than scientific.
RainmanTime
Timekeeper
You are about 1-2 BS posts like this away from having this whole thread (arguments and all) moved into the Fan Fiction forum. Unless you can, of course, rigidly define and support the science behind your babble.
So it's your choice. We know your time dilation is cooked-up baloney. You tell us whether you are making a TT claim, or just having a good fictional story-tell.
RMT
Twighlight
Timekeeper
I would imagine that time travel is just a LITTLE more complex than simply drawing a bubble with a +1 and another around it with a -1. With that level of maths one would not even build the Wright Brothers plane....let alone a time machine !
