Transient001
Quantum Scribe
Perplexing enough if you go back in time and meet yourself you will both have the same soul but different times!!!!!!
Why the conservation of Matter/Mass is not violated over time.
- Thread starter Designer2
- Start date
John Thomas
Temporal Navigator
It's not that difficult.
All ten cats have souls and are identical in every way.
The only difference is that they are slightly different ages.
They are different ages because every time you went into an alternate universe, you spent a variable amount of time collecting and preparing to transport the cat into the alternate universe where you've been storing all the cats in one box.
Which brings us to the subject of souls.
A soul is the 5th dimensional memory and consciousness of the cat.
Each alternate universe has it's own 5th dimension.
So every cat has a soul from an alternate universal 5th dimension.
All ten cats have souls and are identical in every way.
The only difference is that they are slightly different ages.
They are different ages because every time you went into an alternate universe, you spent a variable amount of time collecting and preparing to transport the cat into the alternate universe where you've been storing all the cats in one box.
Which brings us to the subject of souls.
A soul is the 5th dimensional memory and consciousness of the cat.
Each alternate universe has it's own 5th dimension.
So every cat has a soul from an alternate universal 5th dimension.
John Thomas
Temporal Navigator
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. ++++++++++ gold ++++ gold ++++++ gold ======= take gold into time machine.
C. ++++++++++ gold ++++ gold ++++++ gold ======= go back in time 1 hour.
D. ++++++++++ gold ++++ gold ====== take gold and now two bars.
Nope. Why would you go into the same alternate universe where you've been storing the gold to get the gold?
If you get the gold from that universe, the gold won't be there when you go back again.
The answer is that you go into 9 different alternate universes and collect 9 gold bars.
You store all the gold bars in the 10th alternate universe.
B. ++++++++++ gold ++++ gold ++++++ gold ======= take gold into time machine.
C. ++++++++++ gold ++++ gold ++++++ gold ======= go back in time 1 hour.
D. ++++++++++ gold ++++ gold ====== take gold and now two bars.
Nope. Why would you go into the same alternate universe where you've been storing the gold to get the gold?
If you get the gold from that universe, the gold won't be there when you go back again.
The answer is that you go into 9 different alternate universes and collect 9 gold bars.
You store all the gold bars in the 10th alternate universe.
Transient001
Quantum Scribe
Right! That is yet another ingenious way to understand it. But here is yet another. What if I am collecting the gold from alternate millitimes and not from alternate worlds. Understand this the distance between 1 and 2 is nothing, right? No, its infinite. So I simply go into a fractal descending pattern backwards between millisecond 2 and millisecond 1. It would be like following the trails of number 1 in my avatar in an inward direction, but in a straight line.
From absurdity to falderal.
Begin with a faux experiment based on an unlikely premise and 1 gold bar. The usual beginning.
Engage in the logical arguments that result. This is the fun part.
Posit some conclusions based on unfounded assumptions. These always come up.
Throw in a few cats. Hmmm??
Voila, you end up with 10 Universes. But of course.
Does anyone actually wonder why Time Travel "must be" impossible?
Begin with a faux experiment based on an unlikely premise and 1 gold bar. The usual beginning.
Engage in the logical arguments that result. This is the fun part.
Posit some conclusions based on unfounded assumptions. These always come up.
Throw in a few cats. Hmmm??
Voila, you end up with 10 Universes. But of course.
Does anyone actually wonder why Time Travel "must be" impossible?
Transient001
Quantum Scribe
Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand. Albert Einstein
We are doing the imagination part right now....
...however I never understood where the blessed cats came from, but discreetly took it in as if they've been there all the time. 
We are doing the imagination part right now....
...however I never understood where the blessed cats came from, but discreetly took it in as if they've been there all the time. 
RainmanTime
Super Moderator
I'm with Gpa. There is nothing wrong with "imagination" but if you wish it to lead to scientifically defendable conclusions (which Einstein did), then they need to be based in WHAT WE KNOW IS TRUE that science has already told us. This whole thread has been a fantasy fest, with very little grounding or reference to veridical science. Once you introduce an assumption that cannot be proven (or even worse, cannot be falsified) you have left science behind.
Again, for those of you who freely admit to not being "good with the math" or the hard sciences, no harm and no foul with fantasy stories, but they are just not my cup of tea. And I would prefer discusions that stray into clear fantasy to be occurring in the fan fiction forum, but I am not going to be strict about it. However, you can expect me to step in and call BS, especially if another poster also points out the absurdities.
RMT
Darby
Epochal Historian
You may have read that but it certainly was not a "theory" - at least not something based on our knowledge of physics. You don't create just one electron. They are created in pairs: electron-positron. After that you have a "minor" violation of CPT symmetry that leaves mostly photons, a timy bit of normal matter and almost no anti-matter. How do we know? We look out at the universe around us and that's what we observe. Most everything in the universe is photons will a very slight dusting of matter with an overall neutral charge, not 100% electrons.
What you probably read was something concerning Feynman's onetime view of electrons and positrons where positrons are electrons propagating against the arrow of time - a position that he eventually disavowed in his discussions with Wheeler in the 1960's.
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Darby
The way the word "Theory" is used today does tend to indicate I used it correctly. But in all honesty, my little remembrance of that electron theory I mentioned, probably came out of a science fiction novel. I used to read lots of science fiction when I was younger.
When I was in school, I was taught that a new proposal, to describe some unknown suspected aspect of a gathering of facts, was labelled a hypothesis. After being peer reviewed, if accepted as potentially viable, the hypothesis was upgraded to theory status. But under no circumstance was a theory ever considered to be fact. The real fact is, that if a theory does become fact, it is no longer a theory.
Nowadays anybody and his brother will make something up, and call it a theory. So apparently the parameters, of what is called a theory, has changed over time. But I tend view both types of uses for the word "Theory" as just fiction anyway. Since a theory is not fact. Perhaps a better definition for the word "Theory" could be called "suspected fact".
As for the idea of using time loops to create paradoxical copies of a object? I like it. It could be the basis for replicator technology. I could turn just one gram of gold into a couple of kilograms in no time. LOL...
The way the word "Theory" is used today does tend to indicate I used it correctly. But in all honesty, my little remembrance of that electron theory I mentioned, probably came out of a science fiction novel. I used to read lots of science fiction when I was younger.
When I was in school, I was taught that a new proposal, to describe some unknown suspected aspect of a gathering of facts, was labelled a hypothesis. After being peer reviewed, if accepted as potentially viable, the hypothesis was upgraded to theory status. But under no circumstance was a theory ever considered to be fact. The real fact is, that if a theory does become fact, it is no longer a theory.
Nowadays anybody and his brother will make something up, and call it a theory. So apparently the parameters, of what is called a theory, has changed over time. But I tend view both types of uses for the word "Theory" as just fiction anyway. Since a theory is not fact. Perhaps a better definition for the word "Theory" could be called "suspected fact".
As for the idea of using time loops to create paradoxical copies of a object? I like it. It could be the basis for replicator technology. I could turn just one gram of gold into a couple of kilograms in no time. LOL...
John Thomas
Temporal Navigator
But, but alternate militimes are alternate worlds.
Transient001
Quantum Scribe
Yes its very interesting, John. This is the main problem with Designer's experiment. You could place an object and observe it for four hours. But the minute you use a time machine to travel back with the object, lets call it P, and take that same object P1 you enter into several contradictory prepositions. First if you take the object in the past, the past will re-arrange around you and the minute you interfere with P1, object P will vanish from your time machine. The only way you could actually replicate the object by going back in time is to create a "Temporal Event Waiting Room." I shall explain that in another thread, but I say this its mind boggling and as a colleague of mine used to say.....it would be leaving the cat with no fur.
John Thomas
Temporal Navigator
Transient001, exactly. And for those of you who are reading our conversation and wondering why I'm using cats in boxes or hats for that matter, it is obviously related to the UNCERTAINTY principle -- a principle that Einstein rejected.
Dexter
Temporal Novice
When you took the gold bars, you were taking them from that period in time. So, if you fist took a gold bar from a latter point in time, then traveled back and took another gold bar from an earlier place in time, the first bar you took would become tangent, or unsustainable. The second bar that was taken however, would remain intact whereas the first one obtained would not.
Transient001
Quantum Scribe
Exactly Dexter, you seem to understand my point.
John Thomas
Temporal Navigator
We're talking about the same gold bar in the same universe right? If you took that bar at Future Location A and moved it to Past Location B, that would be impossible. There won't be 2 bars. You can't change your own universe for this very reason.
If you went into Universe B at some point, you could only take the gold bar at some future point.
You can change events in Universe B at some future point.
It would never change your original Universe A.
So this is what John Titor could do.
He could move his family out of Florida in this Universe B.
He could change a computer by putting future technology in it here so that John Titor B could use it here in Universe B later.
But John Titor A's world will not have changed one bit. He could get stuff from this Universe B in the past that was lost in Universe A. That's about the only benefit he could get out of time travel for himself.
Notice how he kept talking about old movies, music and books. Perhaps his real mission is really dull. Maybe he's just collecting popular culture.
..ah, I forgot. There might be one way to change Universe A. It's called the Stein's Gate principle. That's where you make an event happen in a very similar way. For example, "Death of a President" the movie, might avert the death of a real President.
Transient001
Quantum Scribe
Where can I get more information on the Stein's Gate Principle, didn't found any.
Dexter
Temporal Novice
Well, when the Many Universe theory is applied as in your example, most paradoxes are nullified. But in the absence of this interpretation, being that there were only one universe in which the gold bar existed, my presumption would still stand. It really just depends on how time is viewed, as a; Linear Timeline, where time is its own existence, or a Multiple Universe interpretation. Regardless of the viewpoints however, two of the gold bars cannot exist in the same place in time(or location).
John Thomas
Temporal Navigator
Universe_1 Gold_Bar_1 can most certainly exist by Gold_Bar_2 taken from Universe_2.
Gold_Bar_1 and Gold_Bar_2 are not in Universe_2.
The theory that eliminates the most paradoxes is likely to be the correct one if we are assuming that time travel exists.
Einstein
Dimensional Traveler
Here is my plan. Buy 1 gram of gold at market value. Place that gram of gold on a table in an isolated room that only I have access to. Lock the door to the room. Wait one week. Then check to see if that gram of gold is still there. It is of course. I go into the room and put the gram of gold in my backpack. Then turn on my time machine and go back one minute. The gram of gold is back on the table. Grab it and put it in my back pack. Then turn on my time machine and go back one minute. The gram of gold is back on the table. Grab it and put it in my backpack. As you can see by going back in time a minute at a time I acquire a gram of gold each time. At 16 hours and 40 minutes into the past I have acquired 1 kilogram of gold. That is 56,672 at current market value. Maybe a little less if I go back in time one year and cash in. Of course I'm probably getting a little tired after all that repetitious work. Not bad for a days work.
John Thomas
Temporal Navigator
Once again, is it 1 gram in the same universe or is it 1 gram in multiple universes? You must specify. If it is 1 gram of gold in an isolated universe, you will find that if you take the gold out of the room and put it in your backpack, the gold will no longer be in the room when you go back in time. And if it is the same you, you'll no longer know why you traveled back in time as the gold is no longer in the room. You'll find it is mysteriously in your backpack which is something you wanted. But you can't duplicate the gold here. We can play this little logic game for eternity. You can't duplicate gold without duplicating universes.
