Meeting Myself!


Temporal Novice

I honestly believe that one day in the future I will travel back in time. You can call me crazy! Within the next few years I hope that wormholes will allow me to move back to 31/10/1983 00:00. Try to understand me, I seriously hope to time-travel!

This topic really gets me excited and it's what I want to do with my life. So if I ever manage to travel back in time I probably would be able to visit my younger self, which is me. Despite the suggestions that seeing or touching your other self would be destructive I find no reason to believe that.

If I just remember a place and time to meet myself until I became my older self we could meet. Cool! Following are times & places where I tried to meet my older self. I'm not even sure if he was there or not.

Meeting Myself Attempt 31/10/1983

At the exact time requested(according to my watch) I seen a man passing me with a dog nearby. We were the only ones in that quiet area. Could that man have been the time travelled version of me without the freewill to come over to or talk to me? I don't know but I will find out! I didn't see him in much detail. I think and hope it was me.

Meeting Myself Attempt 25/12/2000

It was very dark and scary. From about 10 to 8pm until 8pm I stood near area.

I couldn't find my older self!

Possible reasons why my older self was not at the area planned:

*Lack of freewill(because he's a time traveller)

*The older version's knowledge of remembering when he was me I didn't meet him that time.

*Painful fear(shock of meeting)

*Snow and ice make it impossible to walk to location.

*He's already dead!

*He left this time.

*It's very difficult for us to meet because if we do, the older me would probably reveal my future which could cause paradoxes. It's necessary for me to work things out on my own.

Plan:Just stare at my older self. Don't ask about those things I really want to know.

Meeting Myself Attempt
2/1/2001 4am in my bedroom

I was asleep and found nothing suggesting an older me was here.

Without a long talk with my older self I can't help feeling less sure. But I certainly still hope to time-travel...
Paul Curran Co Derry, Ireland

Paul Curran
Hi Paul,

I have given it much thought and I finally realized how difficult it would be to actually meet your future self.

Why? Well, think about it. As we feel it, time passes by. We are only aware of "the moment we live in". You're not physically aware of what happened two seconds ago, or even two nanoseconds ago. Sure you remember typing a letter or taking a breath, but you have already lived that moment. The same goes for the future. I know I'm going to type the word "next" next :-) but I wasn't actually aware of the event until it physically happened.

Now imagine you writing a letter to your future self that asks him to meet you at a specific moment in time... let's just say 01/01/2002, 11:00:00 pm in your room. If your future self is capable of timetravel he would have to travel back in time precisely to the time you have specified, according to your present sense of time. If he arrives only 1 nanosecond early, you won't be aware of the event of him meeting you, because you are already aware of the nanosecond after his arrival.

(Wow, this is hard to explain)

Assuming such an event takes place (your future self arriving 1 nanosecond before your "awareness") you would have to have somekind of memory of it, but as your "present you" wasn't physically there when it happened I guess it would be a strange memory.

Anyone want to elaborate on this?

Greetings from cold, but not rainy Amsterdam
Sorry Roel, but I don't really understand what you're saying. Why wouldn't he be aware of him, even if he was one nanosecond early? If I say I'm going to meet my friend at starbucks at 10 PM, and I'm a minute early, I'm still probably going to meet her.

If, in fact, Pauls future self is going back to see him, I don't know if 'young' Paul would ever meet him. Paul might invent a time machine and go back and meet himself, but he will never have met his future self.

It's the whole alternate universe and splitting time theory. Since Paul will be changing the past by traveling back in time, he will end up in an alternate universe, not the one the present Paul now occupies.

Me, I wouldn't want to meet my past self. I've had a pretty sucky life, but it could have been alot worse.

If I did give her some advice it might put her in the wrong place at the wrong time, and end up dead somehow.

I guess the point is you never know how your interactions will effect the time lines.

Light a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a night. Light a man ON fire, and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

I never judge someone untill I've walked a mile in his shoes...and than he's a mile away and shoeless, so I don't care.

<This message has been edited by Lara (edited 19 January 2001).>

There is a 50/50 chance that a parallel self is of the opposite sex. If they were to meet in the past and tried some funny stuff, would it amount to cloning around?

"Two funnies in one post."

Be sure to get the guys shoes first.
Perhaps the topology of time itself might explain. Let us say that one connects point B in the present to its cause point A. Now B has a negative time component and therefore is superluminal, where as point A is subluminal. I will finish this later. I have ran out of time. If anyone else wishes to elaborate on my beginning go for it.


Edwin G. Schasteen

Lara, I see what you mean. Indeed, if I were to meet someone at a specific time it wouldn't matter if I was a minute earlier or later. But it's a bit more complicated in my opinion.

Imagine the present "you" having a date with the future you. Now imagine the future you arriving a few seconds early. It would still be you she's meeting, but it wouldn't be the present "you". So all that you'll be having is a memory of meeting the future "you".
Sounds insane... but perhaps I'm making a mistake here.

Greets, from snowy Amsterdam...


*I wanted to write something funny here, but I couldn't think of something*
The Problems with Meeting Myself...

I don't particularly want to have a sex change in the future but what if I did? If or when I meet my older self we could have sex and have a child! Why would that child have to be me Lara?

Maybe that child would become very interested in time-travel exactly like me. After growing up to become me he might even manage to travel back in time...

If this was the case I would remember having strange parents(probably claiming to be me at a different age. This would imply that I am "really" the only member in my family! My true family tree would me as my own son (and later or sooner) father and mother.

I doubt this because I'm not trying to be my own parents.

My older self might try to kill me to experiment with time paradoxes. If he succeeded he wouldn't live long enough to succeed!

If my older self gives me a copy of his autobiography would this cause a paradox? I probably would read it to learn about what going to happen to me. When will I first have sex and with who? Who will I marry? Are my attempts of having a book published worth it? Will I ever be a famous writer? My certain future cannot be written unless it has already been predetermined. If I can't stop these events from happening to me (including what I will do) then I have no freewill!

Since I alreadt have this book I didn't write it. I just copied every word out of the book I was given by my older self. Is that possible? How can a book exist if noone actually wrote it? I don't know the answer but I don't see why physical laws would prevent time-travel from creating matter...

I don't think that when my older self travels back in time he'ill be changing history or entering another universe. I just plan to move in time remaining within the same four dimentional universe. So when I plan to do things in the future I expect them to have effects on the past and present. This is how I hope to meet myself! I simply couldn't prevent myself from being born so there is no paradox.

Paul Curran
You touched on alot of points, so I'll try to take them individually.

First off, just a note, even with a sex change you can't have any children.

*My older self might try to kill me to experiment with time paradoxes. If he succeeded he wouldn't live long enough to succeed!*

Sure he would. See, it is possible for your future self to kill you. (Not you you, but an alternate you, since by his time traveling, he will arrive in an alternate timeline, not yours.) One of the ways for that to happen is if there are parallel universes.

*If my older self gives me a copy of his autobiography would this cause a paradox?*

Look in the book. Does it say anything about recieving an autobiography from your future self? If not, than you have a paradox. Even it does, why write the book when you already have it?

*My certain future cannot be written unless it has already been predetermined. If I can't stop these events from happening to me (including what I will do) then I have no freewill!*

What is freewill? If you could see one hour into the future, you can see what you're going to decide. If I want an icecream, I can just look in the future to see what flavor I picked.

That could imply destiny. Let's say I don't like that and I change my mind, picking strawberry. But since I can see in the future, I know I'm 'destined' to pick strawberry, so I change the flavor again, and again, etc.

The end result would be I'm looking at infinite possibilities of choices, which can be resolved with parallel universes; each of my 'other selves' can each get a flavor and be happy. (Oversimplication, but it's just an analogy.)

*Since I already have this book I didn't write it. I just copied every word out of the book I was given by my older self. Is that possible? How can a book exist if no one actually wrote it?*

That reminds me of another classic time paradox. An inventor is working to build a time machine and it's not going to well.

Suddenly, there's a flash of light and a man appears in the room, sitting in a futuristic contraption. "Hello," the man says. "I am a historian, here to witness the building of the first time machine."

"Amazing," the inventor says. "But I can't seem to figure out how to build one." The historian smiles. "No problem. Just look mine over and copy it."

The obvious question is, who invents the time machine?

The answer would seem to be the inventors 'other self' who occupies another universe.

*...but I don't see why physical laws would prevent time-travel from creating matter...*

But there is a phycical law. "Energy cannot be created or destroyed." A book, or a time machine spawning from nowhere would put more energy into the universe than it started with.

This is one of the arguments against time travel, but I think it can be solved with a transferance from this universe to the alternate one the time traveller is from. If 'they' come here, something, of exact equal energy, has to go there to balance everthing out. How can you do that? Heck if I know.

*I don't think that when my older self travels back in time he'ill be changing history*

Ah, but he will. Wether your future self intends to create a paradox or not, DIRECT (no parallel universes) time travel would always lead to one. Ever heard of that story where a butterfly flapping his wings in africa can create a tornado in the US? It's the domino effect, one small change leading to bigger ones.

Say your future self left on a clear, sunny day. When he arrived in the past, the air he displaced could eventually create a thunderstorm on the day he leaves, creating a lightning bolt that short circuits his time machine, preventing him from leaving.

Granted, that's not likely to happen, and I'm oversimplfying everthing. Even if his displacement of air, or movement of a single molecule didn't drasticly effect time, it will still be a change that wouldn't have happend if he stayed in his own time.

Since he did create a change that didn't exist in 'his' past, he'd have to be from another universe.

Anyway, the point is that time travel seems to imply splitting timelines, no matter your intention.

*I simply couldn't prevent myself from being born so there is no paradox.*

You're right. There is no way he can prevent you from being born. And with splitting timelines, there never is a paradox.

<This message has been edited by Lara (edited 24 January 2001).>
I appologize for the going to delay. I am finish my previous post:

Let us say that affect at point B in the present connects to it's cause at point A in the past. Now point B is a mass body such as the moon and point A is the moon in the past and the forces leading the moon to arrive at point B in the present.

Now let us say the energy mass contained in the moon is 1,000,000 Mev energy. (a small number compared to the true amount of energy). At point B in the present the energy mass of the moon is 1,000,000. The energy contained in the moon in the past was equal to 1,000,000.

Now if we take the moon from the present and send it back in time along it's origonal world line path, then the energy contained in the moon will be infinite and the mass will have an infinite density for we are confining the moon of the present which has an energy of 1,000,000 to the same energy state or same space that the moon in the past occupied. By confining 1,000,000 Mev energy in the form of mass into the same space as 1,000,000 of that same energy has the same affect as compressing a mass to an infinitely small point.

By creating an infinitely dense mass at a position one creates a black hole. When we send the moon back just a single instant into the past the moon upon arrival at one instant back in time the moon begins to progress forward in time. In but a single instant the moon will have traveled into the infinite future do to the intense warping of space-time as a result of the black hole.

Now an instant is an infinitely short peeriod of time. Therefore an instant has a numerical quantity or progressive value of zero. Therefore, to send the moon back in time one instant is to send the moon back in time by an amount of zero units of time.

Thusly the moon never leaves the present and is free to interact with all events in the present even if it exists one instant back in time. The same goes for if the moon exists one instant in the future. This means that we can increase the energy mass of the moon infinitely while keeping it in the present by sending the moon one instant back in time to occupy the former energy state at one instant in the moons past.

If we translate this conscept to a time travel ship if we want to send a ship infinitely into the future all we have to due is send the ship one instant back in time which will increase the gravitational mass of the mass contained in the materials of the ship to infinity sending the ship infinitely into the future in an infinite period of time for us in the ship and an infinitely short period of time to those observing us at a distance.

This ,of course, poses us a problem in that we do not live infinitely long lives. The answer to this dilemna is quite simple. By accelerating a mass to one instant into the past we accelerate temperally into the future at a constant temperal velocity to the point of view of us in the ship, but at an exponential acceleration to those outside the ship such that we arrive at the speed of light instantly to them outside the ship.

This is caused by increasing the density of energy in the ship to infinity which results in a decrease in space-time density within the ship to zero. Outside the ship where the energy density is far less and spacetime density far greater, our outside viewers precieve us as traveling at a much greater velocity then we see ourselves traveling at.

All derivitaves of velocity within the ship decrease to zero in the ship and to infinity outside the ship. This means that there is a zero field horizon barrier between the outside of the ship and the inside of the ship that seperates the perception that changes the exponential acceleration outside of the ship to constant velocity inside the ship.

If we want to accelerate infinitely into the future in a finite amount of time we must accelerate expontially into the past. This will create a constant exponentiall temperal acceleration inside the ship and a non constant exponential acceleration ouside the ship. To the viewers outside the ship the ship will appear to disapear and then reappear some distance away in what ever direction the ship is traveling.

The velocity of that ship when it reapears will be some exponential quantity. It will apear to be skipping portions of it's acceleration so that it may be existant from 6:00 to 6:01, then disappear and reapear at 6:01 and one instant on the dot. From 6:00 to 6:01 the ship will have squared it's speed from 5 to 25 mph. When it reapears at 6:01 and an instant the ship will have a velocity of 625 mph. The ship will have appeared to accelerate from 25 mph to 25 mph^2 instantly.

It really has not its just that when the ship skips farther into the past the differential from the velecity outside the ship and velocity inside the ship causes the ship to accelerate temperally smoothly inside the ship as the ship accelerates exponentially back in time.

There is a definate mathematical connection between the velcocity at which the mass accelerates back in time and at which the mass accelerates in the present.

When the ship travels back in time the position of space that the ship accupies gets split so that that portion of space exists in more then one place simultaneously.

These different areas of space are out of phase and therefore cancel the position of the ship for a period of time until the ships temperal acceleration reaches a velocity at which the space that the mass of the ship occupies becomes in phase causing the ship to assume the form of a mass instead of a wave. Basically it all works the same way an electron does.

What do you think, can you follow or is this to unclear. I will reexplain when I have more time.


Edwin G. Schasteen
My older self did visit me once. My grandma died a few months ago. The only doctor in the hospital who cared about her (I'm not exaggerating) was one who looked just like me, but about 30 years older.

I don't think it could just be someone who just looked like me, because while he was talking to us in the waiting room, he sat so that none of us could see the right side of his face, where I have a small but visible scar, which I got in an accident when I was six. For some reason, he, I mean, I didn't want me to know.

Have any of you ever read Timeline by Michael Crichton? In Timeline, the way to time-travel is to be scanned using a quantum computer and then beamed a la Star Trek to your destination in a parallel universe in which it is now the past. Unlike Crichton, I think you could actually visit the past, because relativity states that space and time are not independent. Anyway, to scan a person, you need the power of 32 billion parallel processors. (I think it's safe to assume that, since Crichton does a lot of research for his stories) According to Moore's law, that will be available in 2035!
Micheal Crichtons timeline, was a top book. he does do a hell of alot of research for his books. but, i never did quite get how, if time travel is not traveling back in timke, but rather traveling to a parralell universe where the present is the same as our past, how the effect of the time travellers in that parralel universe could change the universe from which they came. by this i am talking about the glasses that were left behind, and discovered by the scientist at the dig sight. The other universe is not attached in any linear fashion to the original, so how then, did the glasses come to be in the original universe??
Dear Paul,

YOU WILL NEVER TRAVEL INTO THE PAST. You an everyone else in here are stupid freaks. It will never happen so get you head out of the clouds. You people walk around with your crazy theories that are all just plain stupid. GET A LIFE!

You might be right. We may never create time travel. And our theories might be crazy(even if they are right). After all if our theories are right and we do bring something like timetravel into existance would you not still think we are crazy for bringing such a dangerous technology into existance? Don't you think that Einstien, Oppenheimer(correct spelling?), and the other scientist that worked on the manhatten project, were crazy for bringing the nuclear bomb into existance. At the time they did not even know whether or not the chain reaction would continue indefinately resulting in the destruction of the entire planet. I imagine that they and the entire goverment would be considered crazy for flipping the switch the first time to see if the bomb would in fact blow up the earth. They were willing to take the risk as was Thomas Edison who flew a kite in the electric storm. The only real difference between Thomas Edison and the Einstien fellows is that Thomas risked only his own life to test his theory while Einstien among others risked every life on the face of the planet including all future life to test their theory to see if it was plausible.

The truth is I don't believe that they believed that the bomb would blow up the earth. I do believe that they could not at the time provide more information to support the belief that the bomb would not blow up the earth then they could provide to suggest that the bomb would blow up the earth. I believe that the truth is that all men are men of faith more then they are men of science. I am not saying that all men are men of faith more then they are men of science. But I believe that the majority probably are. I mean how much knowlege do we accept by faith? I mean how many of us questioned every bit of knowlege given to us by our teachers in grade school? In high school in college? How much of that knowlege that we were taught do we teach our selves as fact that we have not even bothered to examine or test for ourselves? I will be the first to admit that I am a man of faith. I have yet to test thuroughly anything that I have been taught. This is why I very rarely state things as fact anymore because I have learned by conm
Dear Paul,

Welcome to Reality. If you have ever read any scientific paper of any good scientist, you would not be asking these questions.

read this article, it souds like he is trying to say it is possible to travel in time. Read it very carefully, it is possible to go to future(you spend 5 hours in space near light speed and when you come back you spent 5 years compared to Earth time). It is possible, Simple theory of physcs called time-dilation. But if you want to time-travel in future and meet yourself, gave a nice dream.

you will understand if you read this article very carefully, but this article is also not flaw-lwess.
Science is diffedent than fantasy.
It is highly doubtful you will ever time travel. In my time and the the past 500 years (my past) time travel is regulated by the government and you can only go back if you are a historian, researcher (see what happened in the past) or a time guard (to stop people like time terrorists or satanists from changing the past).

So unless you work for the government you will never time travel. sorry.
Either you're a poster/lurker on Anomalies or you've just been involved in an extraordinary coincidence.

A post from Paul was where the first message from Titor was ever posted... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

It seems Paul does indeed attract TTers... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif