chat about time theories ?

i have a few theories that i have come up with on my own
1)what is real: is what we physically sence real or does our mind make the things real around us?
will post more when i get a reply
if you ask me it is just the way you look at it. there cant be a law that something is real because there is just no way of knowing if it is or not.are you sure you came up with that????
i may not of originally came up with it but for a long time i did not know much about the subject and found ideas of my own one day i was listening to a radio show and found out that people have come up with the same idea
Real is relative (your reality, my reality, etc]). Time is relative. Einstein said so. I think it is possible to go back in time, but not the future. Why? Well, everything in space warps space/time (Einstein said that, too.). The Earth warps spacetime. Therefore, everything on the Earth does, too. You and I warp spacetime. If you think of warping spacetime like dropping a pebble into a pond, then ripples of energy are created conforming to your pattern. Everthing you or anyone has ever done has created ripples of energy onto the spacetime medium. There should be ways to detect and "demodulate" those ripples, much the same way modulated radio energy gets demodulated to your speaker. However, it should not be possible to go beyond the point where the time machine was invented, because of those aforementioned ripples.
Just because we make waves in space doesn't mean we can use those waves to send us back in time. A flashlight makes EM waves as its battery discharges, but you can't recharge it by shining light onto it (except for solar-powered flashlights, that is :-)
Why should spacetime be any different?
Because it's a completely different process. What I'm talking about is not sending yourself back into time, but rather, being able to view back in time, like on your videi monitor. When I said you should be able to detect and decode those ripples (like radio signals), I meant to further this by displaying these very same decoded messages. Hey, here's a wild idea. If this can work, think of the possibilities: A new Historically-based Internet! View back in time to whereever and whatever you want to see! This would also have the added advantage of protecting the time-line.
And no, you cannot recharge a flashlight by shining photons back into it. But if this flashlight were beyond the resistive confines of the atmosphere, you would be able to detect its waves from a great distance (given a detector of sufficient sensitivity), and to tell a great deal about it, even display the flashlight on a viewing monitor. We are on the verge of doing something very similar to that on directly viewing planets from other solor systems. I do believe this can be done. All it takes is enough people to belive that it can, and that will propel a start.
Okay, I see what you're getting at. But now the trouble lies not so much in deciphering the "spacetime ripples" as in detecting them in the first place. The only phenomenon I can think of that is similar to your idea of ripples of energy is gravity waves. The problems with detecting these are threefold: one, making a detector has been tried (I believe it involved two large aluminum cylinders and detecting their deformation) and produced a lot of staticky, undecipherable junk. Two, you'd need a *lot* of these detectors, if they worked, to gather data from enough points, and three, the clincher, these waves move out from the source at the speed of light, so to catch up to them to measure them you'd need to go faster than c, which is in and of itself a form of time travel, and in that case the whole apparatus becomes unnecessary anyway.

Oh, and even if you set it all up, you'd only get a kind of "silhouette" image of what happened.
Not necessarily. Remember, when you turn on your TV set, you do not see just silhouettes of images. You see demodulated ripples within the ripples (which, in the case of TV signals, ripples within ripples within ripples, superimposed on other ripples, etc.). Basically, we are modulating spacetime just by being here and moving around. The signals would be weak, for sure (except maybe in the case of the Hiroshima atomic bomb explosions, where they should be relatively strong) and maybe would require the production of a new element that would be sensitive to these kind of things (I have read about new elements being developed to be added to the Periodic Table - some attempts have yeilded very unstable ones - however, historically speaking, its always been the unstable elements in experiments that have yeilded accidental discoveries!). I have not yet heard of the aluminum can detectors. How was that supposed to have worked? Unconventional ideas (like this one about time) require, at least to some degree, unconventional (but still logical, I hope) thinking.
Lighten up scientist and remember the saying "out of the mouthes of babes come gems". Many a new idea came from a remark by someone that "did'nt know what they were talking about."
Yes, science is very real and it is the only way (that we know works) to systematically find anything out. Of course, science would not be science without the scientific method. First requirement: A good scientist maintains an open mind. A good scientist considers all possibilities, even those that seem to contradict popularly accepted theories - for that is how science advances. Second, a good scientist will state a hypothesis (sometimes based upon established data but sometimes, in the case of breaking new ground, not, and then devise an experiment to test that hypothesis and the process grow from there. Once done, the good scientist labels the conclusion a 'theory'. Science has taken an awful beating from within their own ranks, for not maintaining this openmindedness. Science is a process of continually finding out, continually learning, unlearning and relearning (example: everyone long ago who thought the earth was the center of the solar system, or that planets' orbits contained 'epicycles'). Not "This is the proven way it is and that's that." That is not advancement. A good scientist always questions the findings of science, continually.
I'll see if I can find the article I read about the gravity - detector. But at the very least I think my last point still holds: how are you going to catch up to the waves after they're created? Unless you mean standing waves, but those are relatively rare (imagine seeing a standing wave in a duck pond - not a daily occurence, and not a long lasting one, with friction and interference to contend with). And I don't think the analogy of a TV works too well in this case - the signals being sent to you are deliberately designed to be detected - whereas these gravitational waves will be at best muddy and at worst indecipherable (picking a needle from an infinite haystack springs to mind). A general rule is, the less clear the signal you're recieving, the more data points you need to collect. I this case, I think the number of detectors needed is astronomical.

New elements have been created in numerous accelerators worldwide, but are only stable in I think about the femto- to picosecond range. Nano- if you're lucky. So I don't think these would have any connection to this problem. Unstable elements do provide a lot of useful information, but not about time travel.

And 'Scientist': the title of this forum is "Time Travel Institute Discussion Forum" - nothing about science. People can discuss philosophy if they want.
Whatever scientist. You should all see what he said in my Posting. He's not open minded, he's a jerk. And he thinks he's better then everyone else. Just watch it with him, his true colors show bright. Be a little humble man, if your so smart.

Javier C.
you know some of the actions that I have done on this bulletin board. besides I took back what I said. What else do you want. it takes alot to admit that one is wrong.
Janus - Standing waves? Hmmm. I hadn't thought in that context. That would be an interesting avenue. Any wave would be damped by the medium it travels in (unless there's no resistance to the medium - something which currently goes against known physics) and constant interaction with another source at a consistant interval (standing waves) may be what's needed. At any rate, a detector without specifics will only detect random noise. What is needed, of course is a tuned detector. To have a tuned detector, you have to know something about the waves you're detecting - like its frequency, wavelength, time intervals, etc. Since we're talking waves, we need a unit of measurement. In the electromagnetic spectrum, it's Hz(Hertz) or cps (cycles per second). Can we use that, here or do we need something different? What spectrum do spacetime ripples or gravity waves reside in? So the tuned detector is tuned to the specific ripple frequency (or frequecies) of the spacetime medium. The more narrow-band the tuning, the more specific we can make our search. Kind of the opposite of what you were saying, Janus. And , your other major point about getting out in front of those ripples in order to detect them: If a single-energy source (ripple) radiates one undamped pulse uniformly around itself, and that energy wave has a certain velocity, then, yes, it would seem that you'd have to scurry ahead to catch it. Somehow, I think it should be much simpler than that. I know that doesn't sound scientific, but every action has an equal and opposite reaction and if this reaction reacts a small way upon something larger (a larger wave? - easier to detect?), then the products of those interactions upon the larger waves should be easier to detect. And the number of detectors needed would be drastically reduced in favor of tuned detectors. The SETI project was doing something akin to this method - they were surveying broad spectrums of the electromagnetic spectrum but only in individual, narrow-band slices.

Scientist - You are forgiven provided you adhere to your last statement. You never know, out of this seemingly crazy discussion may come something utterly useful and worthy of some serious research. Anytime anyone attempts to censor someone's opinion, there is clear danger. Now, I have read elsewhere in these related postings that you have spent years studying time travel? Is this so? What have you learned that we could add here? I've recently read a paper about tachyons and the mathematical relationship between cause and effect. Do you think tachyons are the particles (or antiparticles) that should be the object of detectors?
No one has actually found or created a tachyon so no one knows if they actually exist. However gamma rays would probably a sure sign that something weird were happening. Gamma rays surround all of the wierd astronomical objects lke black holes. If someone were to successfully make a worm hole then there would probably be gamma rays surrounding that.

<This message has been edited by Scientist (edited 27 May 2000).>