"The future ain't what it used to be."

Does anyone really want to talk about time travel?


We seem to be focused on Titor and God and Armageddon, although maybe not necessarily in that order. :D

Whether Titor was a project or a real guy, all that matters is what you take away from the story. Sort of the same situation for Jesus Christ, or Buddha, or Mohammad, if you think about it.

Does anyone want to talk about time travel anymore? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/cry.gif

Stirring the pot.... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif

Kind Regards,
I really think that time travel is near impossible. At the moment.

Time is our 4th dimension, I think we need to look into other ways of interacting with time. And to be honest, I think it involves stepping out of our conventional 4 dimensions, and being able to loop back on ourselves. We will never be able to travel to the future because there are an infinite number of possible futures that could happen. Once we enter the future (hypothetically) we have caused an event to occur which makes the future become an inevitable event in history. This then causes fate to draw a line straight to the event we have created, removing free will from everyone, and drastically affecting life as we know it. I think.

The Doctor
Doctor - if that rules out travelling to the future - then it also rules out travel to the past, because for out present to be affected by a future traveller means that to him our future has already happened, which mean that all events from now, until that future time are already pre-destined.

I have another headache.
Hello TheDoctor:

Time is our 4th dimension, I think we need to look into other ways of interacting with time. And to be honest, I think it involves stepping out of our conventional 4 dimensions, and being able to loop back on ourselves.

I agree with what you are getting at here. Looping-back (closing the feedback loop) is one area of system dynamics that I have dedicated my career towards. This is what I find fascinating about Chaos Theory, is that it is the realm of closed-loop feedback system dynamics, and its complexity.

We are complex beings, indeed! :D

In agreeing with your thought of stepping out of conventional 4-dim views of time, what if we could convince ourselves that there are really NINE total dimensions of physical reality? 3x3. 3 dimensions of mass, 3 dimensions of space, and 3 dimensions of time. All interrelated.

Would this 3x3 matrix be capable of creating energy in any form it chooses?

Kind Regards,
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

im going to put forward my reason for disbelieving time travel. At least in any way that involves a 4th dimension.
We can not think of terms in a fourth dimension, what we often try to do is think of it like a room we cant get access into. Think of this.
1st dimension is a line, a line is a series of linear points.
2nd dimension is a plane, a series of lines existing on 2 dimensions. x and y
3rd dimension is a volume, a series of planes in 3 dimensions, x y, and z to give depth
4th dimension is said to be time, i dont know if this is true.
living in the 3rd dimension we can visualize and see the first and second dimensions, we cant go to or live in them, but we can express them in 3d.
In the 2nd dimension we can express the 1stdimension in 2d terms. but you cant express a 3rd dimension in the 2nd, you cant draw it. And confined to thinking in 2d you can not visualize a 3rd dimension either. all you can do is think about it as another 2dimensional room.

Many of you may be thinking that you can draw a 3d box on a 2d piece of paper. But what you probably are not keeping in mind, is that you are viewing this image from a tangent to it. You are viewing it from a 3rd dimension. If you want a 'more' accurate visual of what a 3d representation would look like in 2d. Draw your image on the piece of paper. turh it 90 degrees and look at it from directly across the edge of the paper. what do you see? you see an edge of paper. the 3d representation is there still, but you cant see what it is, and neither can you get any kind of grasp of what 3d is from viewing it.

The first and second dimensions form the foundation of the 3rd dimension. Take 2 1d lines and connect them at 90 degrees and you get a 2d plane, take 3 2dplanes, connect them at 90degrees to each other and you get a 3d volume. To get a 4th dimension structure you would logicly have to connect 4 3d volumes at 90 degrees to form a 4d structure of whatever it is. I can not imagine this, how to do it or what it would look like. What i know is that this is the extent of my minds thinking on the 4th dimension. I have seen diagrams of what a 4th dimension could be represented as in the 3rd, and frankly i dont find any kind of truth to them.
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

Mass is a property of the atomic density of matter. matter occupies space. time is a measurment of vibration of cesium-133. in 1972, it was agreed to define a second as 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of an atom of cesium-133. this definition gave a reasonable correspondence to existing astronomical time scales. 9,192,631,770Hz is the natural resonance frequency of cesium-133 fwiw. given that time is just a measurment coresponding to the peaks and valleys in the frequency of this wave, i dont see how it could really be considered a dimension in itself. I do consider that time might be what we observe as our interaction with whatever the 4th dimension might really be. this sort of stems from my last post.
I am... well... appalled that you would even *consider* placing Titor in the same category as Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed. That's just patently offensive... and I'm an ATHEIST!!!

WTF did Titor do to benefit mankind? What profound new ideas did he offer? He is more akin to Houdini, or Mezmer... a showman and a charlatan at best.

<beats head against wall>
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

But what you are talking about Jayson is the arbitrary nature of time. You said that we agreed in 1972 that a second would be whatever it was. The argument would naturally follow that when we classify exactly how a unit of time was to be measured then that is when we discovered time.

Time exsists as a 4th dimension. You have to see time not as seconds, minutes, hours, days, etc. because these are names that we have given to the units of measurement. Time is a phenomenon that exsists regardless of what name we give to it. The fact that we age, that we look forward to events and remember events is proof of the exsistence of time. A cronograph is not proof of the exsistence of time, it is proof that we can engineer a machine that measures an arbitrary scale that we label "time".

I'm sure that there are many other dimensions than just 4. We, the scientists and free thinkers, need to work out how we can detach ourselves from the 4th dimension.
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

What good is time travel if there is nothing to percieve?

What I mean is this:

I look at a clock and see the second hand ticking away. If I move away from that clock at exactly the speed of light, the second hand will stop. Why? Because I am keeping the same light waves for that precise moment hitting my eye. If I travel away from that clock at faster than the speed of light, I will "catch up" to "old" light waves and the second hand will appear to go in reverse. I am "travelling" back in time.

Now that is all theoretical because we haven't ever achieved travel at the speed of light. And some debate whether travel faster than the speed of light is even possible.

Now, let's do the reverse. Let's go forward in time....ok so I travel toward the clock at the speed of light.....and....ummmm......hmmmmmmm?????

I guess the clock disintegrates and me with it into oblivion. The point? It is impossible to observe/percieve events that have not yet taken place. Hence, for me, travel forward in time is impossible in the physical realm. Then why am I here on a time travel board you ask? Because I believe that time travel is possible in the spiritual realm. But not achievable by any human means. (no this is not saying that aliens exist)
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

First a note to Siegmund:

I am... well... appalled that you would even *consider* placing Titor in the same category as Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed. That's just patently offensive... and I'm an ATHEIST!!!

No offense intended! Take a minute, cool down, and remember that an analogy is only accurate to a certain level of detail. No one can propose an analogy that "works" at all levels, and that was not my intent. My intent with this analogy was not to claim that JT "did" anything magnificent for mankind. Rather, I was pointing to the story/belief aspects surrounding any single individual. Irrespective of what any of these men did, or whether they were great, you either believe their message, or you don't. Did that remove some of the offensiveness? :D

Now on to the discussion with Jayson and The Doctor:

But what you are talking about Jayson is the arbitrary nature of time. You said that we agreed in 1972 that a second would be whatever it was.

I'm with The Doctor on this one. Just as a "foot" and a "meter" are arbitrary agreements for measuring space, so is the frequency of Cesium emissions an arbitrary agreement for measuring Time. Now, you are free to disbelieve what I am going to say, but evidence for it is clear enough in every single means man has "invented" to track time:

Time is measured and tracked by Matter in Motion. The sundial tracks the relative motion of earth on its axis with respect to sun. An hourglass tracks the relative motion of sand with respect to the hourglass' chambers. Our annual calendar tracks the long-term relative motion of the earth around the sun. The Mayan Baktun tracks the precessional cycle of the earth's axis with respect to the stars. A Swiss watch or grandfather clock tracks the relative motion of the gears/weights it is comprised of. The very sweep of a second hand on a watch is "matter in motion." And yes, Cesium is a certain form of matter whose specific oscillations (motion) is tracked to define the "standard second".

My point in this, and the point of the "tagline" below my signature, is to illustrate the fact that mankind has yet to truly embrace the integrated nature of our three primary measures of physical reality: Mass, Space, and Time. We are so wrapped-up in a "reductionist" approach, where we think that "finding the next sub-sub-sub-atomic particle will reveal the final secrets of the universe", that we cannot see how much this approach fails us in understanding the true nature of the universe.

The whole is always bigger than the sum of its parts. That is a well-known fact of systems engineering, which is why we spend a heckuva lot more time doing "system integration" than we do "system decomposition". Our science needs to stop decomposing and start understanding through integration. And this is exactly what the "closed-loop feedback" concept of Chaos Theory is telling us.

Thoughts? Kind Regards,
Time travel to the future IS possible. Einsteins relativity theory says that it is and it has been proven bij experiments. One of the consequences of Einstein's formula E= mc2 is that the faster you move, the slower time goes. So if you travel at let's say half the speed of light for one year and then you return to earth, a lot of time on earth will have passed, but only one year for you. So you have traveled to the future. Of course this is the theory, whether we ever will be able to do it in reality is another matter. Whether we'll find a way to travel to the past, is also another matter. And of course there wouldn't be much use traveling to the future if you can't come back. But traveling to the future is definitely possible-in theory at least.
I think time travel is possible. I do it everyday. I'm from the year 3128. j/k

Whenever I go to sleep at night, in the blink of an eye (from my perspective) I've just traveled 8 hours into the future. All in the meanwhile the rest of the world was still running.

And the whole idea of going away at the speed of light from the clock, I just don't get. If you move away from a clock faster than the speed of light, how do you know where the light is at that moment in time. Light certainly doesn't keep revolving around earth. It gets reflected and absorbed into another object, or goes running of into space. Wait five seconds, and that light is well past the moon. So I ask the question again, where exactly would one go to catch up to this light. It's just something I've always wondered.
In response to Cyberjunk, the theory you state does not allow you to travel into the future. By exceeding the speed of light you continue to run in the same timeline. As Rainman states, time is the movement of matter in space. Speed is not a factor. By manipulating light and exceeding the speed of light it is possible (hypothetically) to "see" past events as the person "catches up" with the light, but it is impossible to "see" future events as they have not happened. Should a person break the "light barrier" and stop, that person would be able to see what was happening in their present. They would just be in a different location. However, how would we view such past light events? I'm sure that if we travelled at the speed of light in a direction perpendicular to where we were for one year. Stopped, turned round and looked with a big enough telescope, we wold see the events from our start position at the time that we left. (Theoretically it is possible, but I'm sure a planet would get in the way as we travelled.) To see further in the past it would be necessary to travel at multiples of the speed of light. And to be honest, what's the point?

Let's start thinking about transdimensional travel and then the posibilities for "time travel" in the classical sense of the term MAY become possible.

Your thoughts please?

The Doctor
Yes...and then we are really only percieving past events. Our ability to actually manipulate the past physical world is gone. So it is perceived travel to the past. But what is the big deal about that? I can view my past anytime I want....it's called a video camera.

ooooh...that leads me down an interesting rabbit hole. And I have brought this up before on these boards. Is somethign like a video camera a time travel device? Follow me here. We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. And light is energy. Much of time travel theory revolves around the concept of achieving the speed of light. Now, energy CAN be converted, so lets say we take and convert the light energy that would be our perception via sight to a stored media (video cassette). Now, I can call upon the speed of light (electricity) to resurrect that past any time I want. It's just matter of energy conversions!
A tape recorder, VCR, book, etc. are all means of travelling back in time. But it is not satisfying because there is no way to interact with it.

I think we have established how to view past events. Now we want to start looking at visiting the past in an interactive way.

Forget the future, that's unattainable.

The Doctor
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

Well, i am not sure how to word my reply to time being a dimension. But i stand by my opinion(for now). I see your reasoning though, and its not flawed persey. I will answer the other point, a tape recorder, book, vcr, book are not time travel devices any more than a telescope is. It just a recorded index of past events. Time travel involves just that, traveling. A bunch of time capsules.

edit: this isnt eaxctly what im trying to say, but it is somewhat close. I believe the 4th dimension, to be a construct of 3rd dimensions, such as 3d is of 2, 2d is of 1.meening that it actually *has* dimensions. We obviously dont see any true 2d or 1d objects in our dimension. But i can assume that there would be time in 1d or 2d, if life were able to be there. Im sure life wouldnt exist as we know it, though. Maybe time is just a standard harmonic for everything. Lets call time a sort of radiation(though it isnt). Regardless i think we might as well be arguing god, can prove what what cant truely understand. =/
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

To everyone here:
I think that you are all being skeptical of time travel for the wrong reasons. I personally am not an enthusiast of time travel, but John Titor does not travel on one time line. He time travels by jumping "world lines". He's supposed to do this by sitting between the event horizons of two black holes.
Look at it this way: there are, let's say, 100 time lines which have a particular date (eg the year 2000) at different points along the way of each timeline. JT jumps between these time lines and consequently ends up in a different time. Anything he does in one line will not affect the one he came from, since it's a different time line (duh). It's almost like highway lanes.
There are supposedly an infinite number of these time/world lines, and both specific dates AND physical locations occur at different points along each line. Therefore, travelling long expanses of time AND distance are possible in this theory.

This could all be fake, for all I know. I can't even imagine how someone can find the right world line to jump to. But that's the theory you should be discussing, since it's JT's theory and doesn't cause headaches. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif
I think the scientific reasoning of timetravel will remain inconceivable for at least the next 25 years. Especially for me, since I don't have any scientific background. However, I find it interesting to look at everyday phenomena that relate to timetravel. If I recall correctly, some things have already been discussed here several years ago or even more recently.

1) Everybody experiences time in a different way. Sometimes you feel like one hour is very long, but then again sometimes an hour will seem to fly by. This means that - although time is measurable in hours, minutes and seconds - your perception of time defines the length of a particular event. For instance: a good 3 hour movie will seem to last shorter than a 2 hour schoolexam. Remember when you were young, you had to wait for your birthday. Nowadays things you look forward to are over before you even notice. Perhaps this is a very abstract, or perhaps even a blunt reference to timetravel, but please elaborate on this nonetheless.

2) I'm not a very spiritual person. Usually I'm rather sceptic about unexplained phenomena. I also know for a fact there are several valid scientific, psychological explanations for deja-vu's. Still I often have the feeling that I know exactly what's going to happen next. Someone once told me to focus on the present, since deja-vu's are simply said "a miscommunication between your short-term and long-term memory". But there have been occasions where I told people exactly what was going to happen and they were quite baffled when my predictions actually came true. It's almost never more than a minute or even several seconds, but still... Now, again this may sound a bit far fetched, could it be possible that we are experiencing events several days, hours, minutes, seconds or even milliseconds after they actually occur? Could it be that time is ahead of us?

3) Since I'm on the imaginary tour, I might as well share another one of my abstract semi-theories /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif When I try to imagine how time and space are related, I always think of The Langoleers (the movie, not the book). I'm quite sure that many of you have seen the movie. It's probably not at all scientifically accurate, but in my opinion it's the best way to visualize the way time passes. My guess is, that the moment we leave a timeframe* and enter the next, not everything disappears from the previous timeframe (oh boy, now I'm really going on a mindtrip, but alas...). I think the more "active" an object or a person is, the faster it disappears from a timeframe. So if one would be able to travel back in time for lets say an hour, a rock would still be there but any living tissue would be gone. For those of you who are still reading: I don't know if you remember the first generation of videogames that featured parallax scrolling (ie. the foreground moving faster than the background, often in more than two layers)? Well, in addition to the "langoleer" theory, my guess is that time works in the same way... Where the rock is in the background, moving slower in time than a living creature in the foreground.

* When I say timeframe I don't mean a period in time, but more like an animationframe (timeslice if you want).

PS. My appologies for any possible abuse of the English language and the word 'timeframe'.
Re: Does anyone really want to talk about time tra

what about the trees and plants, they may not be sentient, but are they not life? active? plants move and change shape through the course of a day.