Time-travel Paradoxes!

[rgrunt]

My conversation with Draco was strictly out of my admiration for ancient european history.

I am a christian and therefore do not agree with the ways of the accult and do believe that any religion that is against christ is not from God but from the devil.

I do not mean to insult anyone with this but it is my belief and I hold them also to be true. One day the lord will return and those who have believed on the name of Jesus and who have called upon Jesus to be saved shall be transfigured into an infinite immortal body. At that time all the things that we were involved in here that did not pertain to god will be meaningless.

For at that time time travel and our discussions here will be obsolete to us. God is the one who created the universe and he is the one that will destroy and recreate it again. When we stand before the judgement seat of christ for those who have accepted christ will be judged on there spiritual work. They will be given payment for the work they did for God. That means that if you do your day to day job to the best of your ability to please God and not just for personal gain: in addition to recieving your salary and raises here on earth you will also be payed by god when youre works are being evaluated at the judgement seat of Christ.

That is why I bring religion into this because I credit Jesus for all I have. He is given the glory for any success of mine.

God bless,

Edwin G. Schasteen

 

[Prophet1]

Amen brother!

 

[Time021121]

TT_0 Please read this, ang provide us with your comments...

(How many of the others here, have read this yet?)

(POLL) say AYE if you have, NAY if not,

"Not Yet" but plan to do so latter.

Time Travel Research Center : Interview with Dr. David Anderson@Frankfurt, Germany http://www.time-travel.com/timetech.htm

 

[DrMises]

Aye, but only recently!

(caught your post in another thread)

-Theo

 

[DaViper]

Aye.

And been to his site as long ago as two and a half years.

Or was it only yesterday? ?

 

[Paul]

MY BOOK!

I didn't think a topic about time-travel paradoxes I started would provoke so many replies! I wrote a book about my interest in time which is titled "Hope to time-travel". For those interested I'm willing to e-mail softcopies for free. Just email:[email redacted] (requesting a copy). I advertised my book in the Time Travel Institute Discussion Forum along with other places. I'd be grateful if you could send feedback, but you don't have to.

 

[Prophet1]

DrMises:

Is your name in honor of Ludwig von Mises?

 

[DrMises]

Prophet,

Perceptive, but not really.

Dr. Gustav Fechner (1801-1887).

He was a scientist and precursor to experimental psychology who had a difficult time settling an internal conflict between his psychophysical research and his conflicting viewpoints.

To alleviate this strife, he published a series of scathing articles under the pen name "Dr. Mises."

It felt appropriate, for slightly different reasons. Thanks for asking!

-Theo

 

[1984]

John,

Iam worried about you let me know you are ok.

-psalm 139:7-10

 

[Fast1]

Paul...

i dont think your first post provoked this discussion..it was TT_0's claims of time travel...

FastWalker2

 

[DaViper]

There is really only one thing I don't understand the "Theory" of. (Relative to the topic of this board that is.) Or why it is even a Theory at all.

That is of "Parallel Universes" or "Alternative Timelines". It remains a Paradox for me.

Someone correct me where I'm wrong here but as I understand it, these Parallel Universes or Alternative Timelines are "created" by events in our own, (timelines) or even in others.

What events? For instance...

I prevent Lee Harvey Oswald from assassinating JFK? OK. This one is easy to follow. But...

What "authority" or controlling force determines just what "events" qualify for the creation of a new timeline or universe?

God? Is this then just another Religious theory?

Or perhaps ALL events create new timelines and universes. Like the collision of two snowflakes during a snowstorm. How about the collision of the outer molecules of the snowflake with the molecules of the atmosphere? Each collision as it falls? Each snowflake? Each storm? Each molecule? WOW!

There must be a lotta Timelines out there and alternative Universes huh. Infinitely so even.

If infinite, then why am I possesed with the gift of individual thought, free will and the choice to make my own descisions since nothing I think matters anyway in view of all the possibilities that are all true anyway. Given these infinite timelines.

Hmmm.

This seems a bit foolish to me but I can't DIS-prove it. But then in science, dis-proving something, should be easy. Except a negative which is a folly in logic.

It would seem to me that "infinite" universes and timelines is totally contrary to the principle of Occam's razor. But then Occam's razor is not an axiom, merely a postulate. Although it has worked really well so far.

Actually, in science, "Multiverse" theory is something that has NEVER been proven. For lack of evidence. It crops up from time to time as a way to explain certain SEEMING paradoxes like the EPR double slit experiment with polarized light. But then, just because it can be used to explain something doesn't mean it is so.

Tiny invisible rubber bands could explain gravity if it weren't for the fact that it simply isn't true.

Multiverse Theory is not automatically true because it "explains" some things. Lot's of things explain "some" things. Most of them are NOT true.

So help me here. Where did multiverse come from as a theory? Where is the observable evidence of it's existence and the experiments to back it up that can be duplicated with certainty and repitition?

Like the speed of light for example. Or Time Dilation which is so easy to demonstrate now it's considered commonplace. (It occurs on every single filght of the Space Shuttle.) At least science is TRYING to prove "Frame Dragging" which IS an experiment under way.

But "Multiverse"? Who can demonstrate this with integrity?

Thank you.

 

[[email protected]]

Dear Everyone,

I was thinking yesterday and came up with an addition to a conscept I stumbled into last week while thinking.

I was reading a book on astronomy that states that the universe is expanding. Now as the unverse expands the temperature of the universe decreases. The author that wrote the book stated that scientist now believe that micro seconds after the big bang there was one super force composed of strong force, weak force, and electromagnetic force. Gravity was seperate from these forces at that time as it is today...so they say. As the universe expanded and cooled this super force broke up into three seperate forces; strong, weak, and electromagnetic. This is what I propose. I believe that space is confined to a fixed shpere of a fixed size and more space is added so that the pressure of the space begins to build up and the density of space begins to increase. One would normally think that compressing space would result in an increase in the temperature of space as a result of the compression of energy that is confined to that region of space. However I believe the opposite is true. To compress space by increasing the volume of space is to confine the energy within that region of compressed space to a greater volume of space. This results in a decrease to the density of energy. If one doubles the volume of space that a quantity of energy occupies, the energy density of that energy will be equall to the inverted square of the density of the new density of space. (S=1/e^2) where s=new density of space, and e=the density of energy occupying that space. Further more, I believe that energy is also expanding at the same rate as space. One might say, if this is so then why does the energy density of space decrease as space expands? If the increase of energy is proportionate to the increase of space, then shouldn't the space-time temperature remain constant? The answer, quite counterintuitively, is no. The reason is that even if a quantity of space doubles and the energy in that space also doubles, the new energy and space must form around the old energy and space because the new energy and space cannot occupy the same region. This of course does not explain the differential in energy density from space density. The reason that energy density deacreases is because to quanta of energy that are closer to one another gain extra density. This manifested in a magnetic field for as the photons increase there distance as they stray from each other the density of the field and strength of the field decreases. The oldest energy is closer then the new energy. The increase in density decreases the density of space in the old energies region and increases the density of space in the new energies region. This creates the warping of the space-time continuum that is present in a dense grouping of energy. Got to goe

 

[Lara1]

The mulitiverse theory, basicly, is that everything that can happen, does happen. It doesn't 'decide' to split if you change history, or if two snowflakes collide or don't. The possibilities already exist.

Anyway, who's to say we have free will or thought? For all we know we could be playing a role, like mindless zombies. Not a pleasant thought, but just as possible as anything else.

I guess the big question is why? If there are infinite universes, what would the point be of their existence? If time travel is possible, it would prevent paradoxes. Is that the only reason, like some sort of self preservation mechanism?

 

[borgus]

grunt...

why are you so sure that the universe is expanding? the only evidence for a big bang is the doppler effect of the light from the surrounding stars and galaxies. What if this effect is caused, not by expansion, but by the pattern of light slowing down as it enters our galaxy.

It makes equal sense that if manipulation of space is possible, then space itself is a force occupied only within a galaxy. The goal would be to create a void within space equal to that outside the galaxy (where there would be no gravity.) This idea is based on a non-gravity universe, where gravity only exists within galaxies.

Therefore galaxies do not attract each other, and do not risk being hurled into a big bang. Instead they are freely floating in a nuetral environment where light can travel much faster between them.

Light then slows down as it enters the force of a galaxy and creates a pattern we see as the doppler effect.

This means that light speed is related only to the amount of galaxy force it is traveling through. If you create a void within the galaxy force, then light could travel faster, and then relative to that of course, would be time travel.

 

[[email protected]]

Borgus,

I am not at all convinced that the universe is expanding. I was in such a hurry to post due to time constraints that I was not able to post my views accurately. I appologize for the confusion. I am more convinced that the universed is fixed and not expanding. I believe God when he says that nothing can be added and nothing taken away. But at the same time I am not fully convinced that the universe is entirely a closed system either. I believe that energy can be formed at an area where no energy is present by drawing energy from beyond the center of a measured region. I call the area beyond the centermass of every particle and field subpoint space because it is an area that exists beyond the centermass. This is my theory and it is not even a theory yet. It is truelly a hypothesis. In a littly while I may be able to produce evidence to support or deny my hypothesis. As soon as I have confirmed the viability of my claims or lack there of, I might post the results. The conscept I was trying to describe above is more related the how energy and space interact. The theory you proposed also sounds like a viable alternative to the current model. I believe that there are limits to every field and that at some distance from a given grouping of mass there is zero gravity. For example, if you quantize space and allow for a device pump space into a given container such as cup that has an internal temperature of 91degrees farhenheit, then the temperature in that cup will decrease more as the numerical quantity of thermal photons occupy a greater volume of space. Basically as an electromagnetic field occupies a greater volume of space the density and strength of that field decreases. Now if one were to vacuum out the space from the cup that is 91 degrees farhenheit, then the temperature within that cup will increase significantly as the numerical quantity of the thermal photons within that space occupy a lesser volume of space. Basically, as an electromagnetic field(or any other photon mediated field) contracts to occupy a lesser volume of space, the strength and density of that field will increase. This goes right along with your own theory about areas outside the galaxies. For an area with zero densityand infinity energy density the velocity the vacuum velocity of light will increase without bounds. If one decreases the energy density within a given region to zero then the space-time density within that region will increase to infinity and the light speed velocity in that region will decrease to zero absolute velocity.

regards,

Edwin G. Schasteen

 

[observer1]

You forgot to space your sentences.

 

[DaViper]

rgrunt:

You had me going in your first post. I thought it was well thought out. Well reasoned, and stimulating. Whether it is correct or not I cannot say. Maybe, maybe not.

But then you lost me again in your subsequent post(s) by bringing what you say you believe "God Says" into it.

Not sure just where "God Says" this. It ain't in the Bible anyway.

Besides, in contemplating the very existence of God one is left to ask "Who Created God"? Then if the answer is "God always was", it begs the further question, "If God COULD always have been, why not the Universe itself without the need for a God to 'create' it"?

Not that I'm Atheistic, merely Agnostic. If God exists, so be it. If not, so be it. Only one thing is for sure...Whether one BELIEVES in a God or not, has no effect whatsoever on whether there truly is or is NOT one.

Besides, I've never been one to let others make descisions for me. I can do that quite well by myself thank you. I won't dismiss God, but I'm really not sure why I need him.

Borgus:

Yes, I've heard views similar to yours before, and no offense intended, but they don't answer my question. For instance, if we extrapolate just a tad further, I could ask that if infinite universes exist, and I have no free will control over my own fate in any of them, why not just commit suicide. I'll go on in another universe, since "all things are so". I could just keep commiting suicide until I finally arrive at a life timeline where I consider EVERYTHING to be SO perfect that I stick around for a while.

But then, this line of reasoning is really pretty silly isn't it.

Naw, Multiverse is a nice cute theory that, like I said, crops up over time to explain certain paradoxes, but it has never been resolved to be provable by any evidence. Besides, as such, I see it as a cop out for side stepping the issue of Time Travel.

If Time Travel is to be solved, we have to begin to think beyond the old easy trains of thought and try to grasp that which we do not yet even understand the concept of.

We need to re-examine our old concept of what we refer to as "Time" itself.

We've exhausted the old theories. They don't work. There are no Time Machines. And PROBABLY no "parallel" Universes. Other Universes perhaps, but not Parallel Ones we have "counterparts" existing in. Can't buy it.

New thought is what is called for.

I may not be capable of it, but those who are need to focus ahead into new territory. Not hack away at the old.

Peace.

 

[DaViper]

Hey Moderator.

I DID NOT post that last post twice. I did get a 505 Internal Server error on the first one tho.

I got one last night also, but it did not result in two identical postings.

(Just FYI)

 

[[email protected]]

Deviper: I believe that I read that quote from revelation, but I respect your beliefs and yor right to have them. I am not here to convince anyone that God exists. I am only here to speak the truth as I know it.

I am just a vessel and god hardens whom he wants to harden and softens the hearts of whom he wants to soften. As for the qoute, it was stating that what ever God has done, said, or created can not be added to or taken away from.

A similar conspeptual logic exists in science as well, the law of conservation of energy,mass,and momentum. Even in the case where energy is borrowed from the vacuum of space there is no vialation of this in that the source of energy was gained from an existant source...space. If energy is gained from nothing; then this law is vialated.

Edwin G. Schasteen

Everyone:

I appologize for not double spacing, I was in a hurry. I also got that screen and that is why I have three of the same posts. Hmmm.

 

[borgus]

Well, I don't have much confidence in the parallel timelines (multiuniverse existance) theory of time. It makes much better sense to consider time a property of motion in the 4th dimension (axis).

But if time is indeed a 4th dimension then it is always difficult to convert that into a visual model that our brains can understand.

What if time is a property of gravity... where you fall through time at a constant rate relative to the gravity. Problem with this is that time would pass at different rates on different planets (which hasn't been proven either way).

If you imagine yourself, and everything else on Earth, falling through time. Then Newton's laws of motion would apply to time. If an object is falling through time it will continue falling until a force stops it. The force required to stop it (or accelerate it) is proportional to the velocity and mass. And there must be an equal and opposite reaction to motion through time.

Using this (fictional) model how would you stop someone from falling through time, or accelerate them away from it (back in time)?

You would need to understand the properties of the time-force, whether it is related to gravity fields, whether it is related directly to mass, or space.

Also this would delete the notion of parallel timelines. If one object were to be pushed into an acceleration away from the time force, then they would no longer exist in their previous position in relation to everything else that is falling. Once they are placed in a location behind the previous, and began to fall again at a constant rate. Would they, or not, be in the past? Would familiar objects be seen around? ..existing in a previous time? Becuase you have to visualize it as another plane of existance. so the other dimensions would be connected to it.

Like i said, its very hard to visualize the 4 dimensional properties. But perhaps the "falling" model will help.