time travel

[phoenixthoth]

here's how you do it.

suppose it's 2:08pm and you're in ione, california.

place an ad in the front page of every newspaper in the world (this requires lots of money--for someone like bill gates) that says the following:

time travelers: go to ione california (give address) at 2:15pm.

then at 2:15pm, time travelers will show up at your door after someone uncovers your message in the distant future when we have the technology for time travel.

that's it.

cheers,
phoenix

[Zantra]

Except for one minute detail. You'll have every news agency, nutjob, wacko, and psychopath show up. So even if time travellers did show up, you couldn't tell the difference between them and the real deal.

[phoenixthoth]

observe carefully: 2:08 and then 2:15. that's not enough time for wackos to show up. also, a neutral site would be choosen and wouldn't you say that the media would probably ignore such an attempt at contact with time travellers. someone like art bell might be interested. basically, as soon as the orders are placed over the phone, that should send into motion the correct sequence of events neccessary to contact time travelers.

cheers,
phoenix

[Zantra]

I stand corrected. Of course it would be presumptuous to assume they would time travel back to meet you. Unless you were destined to make some huge discovery, i can't see them doing that. There are probably time laws or rules governing time travel, otherwise we'd have seen proof of time travel long before this.

Of course that leads to the question, if we've never seen proof of time travel, will it ever even exist? And if it did, they wouldn't be to interact with us for fear of changing the timeline, so in fact we'll probably never know until it's invented(not likely in our lifetimes) It's a disappointing paradox.

[phoenixthoth]

check this out:

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5396

cheers,
phoenix

[Zantra]

So WHAT IF this john titon guy is authentic? Skepticism is the first reaction, but he hasn't been proven a fake yet. And as he pointed out, even if he were the genuine article, who would believe him?

[phoenixthoth]

i am currently undecided on the john titor issue. i believe it is PLAUSIBLE, at best, that he is a bona fide time traveler from 2036. the only thing that would convince me is to go for a ride with him; i'm currently trying to get in touch with him so that i can gain access to his machine so i can decide for myself...

cheers,
phoenix

ps: if you could travel to any point in time, where would you go first?

[Sunfist]

PLEASE, not this idea again. I'm trying to not use words such as "stupid" here because that's just rude, but the fact of the matter is that you are asuming that someone will come. WHY? There is no reason! Even if you have, say, a million dollars, that isn't even going to be worth anything to someone from the distant future. Also, you have to assume they are actually going to see the add. This is also highly unlikely. There are just way too many problems with this theory, the least of which being that time travel is very unlikely in the first place.

[Zantra]

Sunfist has a point

though if you believe him, I supposed your first instinct is to try and validate that. And he did suggest sending messages to yourself, so I suppose sending him a message in the future would be plausible. But why would he contact you, or me for that matter? I suppose if we were important enough. If one of us is that "farmer general" he talked about, he might bother with it, but otherwise he would have nothing to gain by contacting some random person.

[phoenixthoth]

"PLEASE, not this idea again. I'm trying to not use words such as "stupid" here because that's just rude, but the fact of the matter is that you are asuming that someone will come. WHY? There is no reason! Even if you have, say, a million dollars, that isn't even going to be worth anything to someone from the distant future. Also, you have to assume they are actually going to see the add. This is also highly unlikely. There are just way too many problems with this theory, the least of which being that time travel is very unlikely in the first place."

no one is forcing you to read this.

i'm not at all assuming anyone will come. not at all. in fact, all experiements i've tried (on a limited budget) have lead to no results; this indicates to me that it is unlikely that the idea will work. in addition to taking an add out in every newspaper, ON THE FRONT PAGE, you can also deposit the message in ten trillion self replicating time capsules and scatter them all over the solar system. eventually, theory has it, an archeologist will stumble across the message at apoint in time when the technology for time travel exists. then, after a thousand more years, a time traveler may decide one day to go ahead and visit the first one to come up with this idea, which is yours truly, and show him a thing or two. this i would be very curious about.

it wouldn't be about offering them monetary rewards for coming back. it would be about history.

you say time travel is unlikely in the first place, and while i agree, let me point out that they once said that breaking the sound barrier was impossible, UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE, and now it's done on a daily basis. while science fiction is still just fiction, it can sometimes give us new directions and goals to acheive in science.

of course, no one like cosmic catalyst is willing to forward such ideas to kaku so as, presumably, not to "waste his time." but i wonder what someone like him would say about my time travel idea. of course, he's set it up so that it's not easy to ask him questions. i suppose i could always try to call his radio show but i don't even know where to start on that quest. it's not his approval i'm after; i'm just curious what OTHERS think about such ideas. if he has an actual criticism, i'd like to hear it for no one else has raised a real point yet that makes it seem like my idea WON'T work 100% without a doubt. i realize it is unlikely, but i find it difficult to see a PROOF that it WONT work. and it's not because i desire to meet time travelers. i'm quite content with a society without time travelling tourists from the future; i'm not convinced they wouldn't screw things up from my perspective. they're just more people to meet and interact with.

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

[phoenixthoth]

"Sunfist has a point

though if you believe him, I supposed your first instinct is to try and validate that. And he did suggest sending messages to yourself, so I suppose sending him a message in the future would be plausible. But why would he contact you, or me for that matter? I suppose if we were important enough. If one of us is that "farmer general" he talked about, he might bother with it, but otherwise he would have nothing to gain by contacting some random person."

that is an interesting question i haven't spend much time considering: why would they want to meet me? what does little young me have to offer a person from the future? nothing that i can see. so i can easily see why this idea hasn't worked yet; i prove to be an insignigicant person in the future and a waste of time. another judgement from society, the future society.

these ideas were on mkaku.org but they felt a need to delete all messages. how can i make any progress when all my messages get deleted?? i know i can't do this alone with the amount of money i have. i'm hoping PF will be a more permanent home to my idea and that just maybe someone in the future will notice. i purposely haven't disclosed my address, yet, at least, for fear of the wrong kind of contact. so i'm not sure where to go next in my "research" of time travel.

if you can come up with a better time travel idea that uses what technology we currently have, i'm all ears.

cheers,
phoenix

[Zantra]

Before we go any further, I feel you should read this link. I'm no physics expert, so I couldn't even begin to refute or confirm some of the things this Titon guy brings up in his story. I do know that it gained enough following that people like hawking were contacted. Most probably laughed it off, but one did reply, and here's his take on things- curious that he even uses Kaku as a possible source for this very intricate story. But read on.

http://www.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=000482

[everneo]

How about this one :

suppose it's 2:08pm and you're in ione, california.

place an ad in the front page of every newspaper in the world (this requires lots of money--for someone like bill gates) that says the following:

time travelers: go to ione california (give address) at 2:07pm and kill me at once.

then at 2:07pm, time travelers will show up at your door after someone uncovers your message in the distant future when we have the technology for time travel and kill you.

you would not be there to give the ad. at 2:08pm. time travellers could not read that then. they could not kill then. loop. casuality paradox.

that's it.
[;)]

[Ashikuzzaman]

Could not understand the issue....[:((]

[Edwin]

The paper below may have some interesting implications regarding the prospects of time travel. The probability of finding evidence for the existance of a time travel event may infact be proportional to the probability that a sum of a set of progressing events will lead up to a time travel accurance. Thus, if a particular event triggers a series of accurances that ultimately lead up to a time travel event, then that particular accurance is in some way proportional to the sum of events that it triggered leading up to the time travel event. This would be analogous to the infinite variety of complex spirals composing the mandelbrot set is still proportional to the initial condition defined by the equation (z^2+c), where z is a real number, and c is a complex number. So if a set of events leading up to a given occurence are proportional, then that means they are all defined by a single expression, like the expression defining the mandelbrot set. If the expression defining the outcome of a series of events does not change, then the probability that those events are going to occur is 100%. On the other hand, if the expression defining a set of events changes gradually over a period of time, then the outcome of those series of events will also change gradually over a period of time. Therefore, in the case where an expression defining the outcome of a series of events, or rather what form that a series of events will assume, the probability that the original set of events, which are defined by the initial expression, will occur is 0%. Therefore whether or not a series of events will unfold is strictly a matter of whether the expression defining those events is variant or invariant.

Regards,

Edwin


http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/anomalous-dispersion.html

Anomalous Dispersion, not Faster than Light
In the 20 July 2000 issue of Nature, Wang, Kuzmich & Dogariu talk about faster than light transmission. However, this is really just anomalous dispersion, as the authors readily admit. A pulse of light can be decomposed into a sum of sine waves with different wavelengths, as shown below.




The black curve shows the sum of the red, green and blue sine waves. When all of the waves are delayed, but the longer wavelengths [red] are delayed more and the shorter wavelengths [blue] are delayed less, then the overall pulse appears to be advanced in time!



This is how the pulse in the Wang et al. (Nature, 20 Jul 2000) experiment was advanced by 62 nanoseconds while passing through a gas cell only 6 cm long. Even if the speed of transmission was infinite, that could only shave 0.2 ns off the time. The actual advance was much larger, representing time travel into the past, not faster than light travel. But it was really only anomalous dispersion. Normal dispersion in glass delays the blue light more than the red light, while in anomalous dispersion the red light is delayed more than the blue. As shown above, this causes the pulse peak to shift earlier in time.

Tutorial: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
FAQ | Age | Distances | Bibliography | Relativity

© 2000 Edward L. Wright. Last modified 20-Jul-2000

[phoenixthoth]

thanks for the input. is it possible that the idea i have has started a sequence of events leading to a time travel occurance, however unlikely?

now about the question of time travelers killing me before the ad gets placed, resulting in an apparent paradox. i'm considering it possible that the universe splits into two intitially parallel universes when "paradox" events occur. in one universe, it went one way, while in another universe, it went another way. so, in roughly half of the universes, i never placed the ad and in roughly half of the universes i did place the ad.

i have yet to read ample evidence debunking the multiverse theory; i belive it is the answer to time travel paradoxes, or, at least, it has the potential to resolve time travel paradoxes.

to put it rather simply, let me draw the following anaology. shakespeare called the world a stage, with players who make their entrances and exists. and, if the universe were a stage, you can certainly go back in time and kill your grandfather without the stage collapsing. such things happen on star trek all the time...

do you think the eastern approach is correct, that reality is an illusion, which would lend evidence towards the universe being a stage? if not, what is your evidence that reality is not an illusion? should i trust what my sense tell me? they tell me strange things, btw. descartes taught us that the senses decieve us; do you think he was on to something or not?

cheers,
phoenix

[phoenixthoth]

sunfist,

why are you still here?

i called you a liar once (though i don't remember why) and you said you're reluctant to call my time travel idea "stupid", but that's exactly what you do when you even hint that it is stupid or that someoen might call it stupid.

tit for tat, is that the way it goes?

"cheers,"
phoenix

[Boffin]

Here is another time travel soap opera.

Buy a huge amount of stock in a company you think will do really well. Then immediatly jump into your spacecraft and travel around the world high up in space at high speed for many months. Time will slow down for you. Have ground radio you every day as to how the stock is doing. When the stock peaks on Earth in August you land. Because time has slowed down for you, your digital watch shows that it's May. So you are able to buy a huge amount of stock for cheap prices, wait for 3 months and sell it just before it peaks. You become a billionaire.

Now when you are in space is your time what your watch says, what the radio broadcasts say, or what Earth people say when you get back. Your time arrow has nothing to do with the time arrow on earth. Your time arrrow doesn't control the time arrow on earth. Sorry guys, when you land it is Earth's time that controls the events. These types of time differences are common in many present relative situations but it doesn't result in people being able to go back or forward in the future.

Comments appreciated though.

[Edwin]

Our existence: To be-- or not to be--an illusion, that is the question. Ha, ha.

It is a very good question, indeed. When one observes the universe as an illusion, what exact property of our universe does one, infact, percieve that leads one to conclude that our universe is an illusion? After all, it is a specific perception of some specific property that one sees in many different categories of existance. Does this not lead to the perception that this very property is intertwined deeply within the inner workings of existance as we know it? What line of logic does one use to come to the conclusion that the true nature of our universe is obscurred by the facade we percieve as the manifestation of everyday reality? Is it that our perception of everyday reality is filled with inconsistancies that we do not percieve? Consider for a moment the limitation of our 5 human senses. We can hear only so much, see only so much, and feel only so much. Yet there is so much out there at any given time that we do not hear, that we do not see, and that we do not feel. In fact, I believe that we aquire knowlege about less then 100% of all physical phenomenon that is taking place within sensory range, including our subconscious, and even less about what is taking place beyond the range of our senses. The lack of knowlege does not neccesarily inhibit the existance of that knowlege. So the conclusion of that which is happening around us will no doubt appear somewhat inconsistant to us, but would probably become quite clear to us if we had a way of retrieving the knowlege we missed.

Now about that specific perception:

Now when I question how real an event is, what I am really asking myself is how real the form that the particular event takes on is. In my perception, the more solid the form that the event takes is, the more real that event's form is. To me, the occurence of the event is infinitely real, but the form that the event takes is more or less real. A good physical example would be energy. Energy can take many forms, as either potential form, like mass, or kinetic form, like light. The existance of energy itself as an event is infinitely real, because it is capable of exerting an infinite resistance to being made unreal. Otherwise, stars like Red Giants would not be able to resist the potentially infinite crushing force of it's gravitational field. Note that there are two infinities working to create a counter-balance: The force of gravity trying to crush the Red Giant into a point making it 0 dimensional, and the other force, trying to explode the star. It is clear that the two infinities when measured over a long period of time turn out to not be the same infinities. Ultimately, it is the force of gravity that wins against the forces trying to resist being crushed. This would mean, to me, that the force of gravity is a higher infinity then the kinetic forces resisting compression. In other words, the form of the infinite force of gravity is more real, or solid, then the forms that compose the infinite forces trying to prevent the massive star from being crushed. What happens to the force of gravity after the mass is crushed to a point? Well, the mass assumes an indeterminate state, while gravity keeps on ticking. If the form of the mass ceases to change under the force of gravity, once the mass is crushed, then it would seem to me that the mass, and the gravity, assume a balanced, mixed, or unified state once the mass is crushed to a singularity. If the third possibility happens to be the correct assumption, and mass is as stable as it can be in that particular state, then one form of the grand unified equation would have to reduce to an equation defining a singularity of the most stable sort. To find this equation would be, perhaps, the first step in finding it's higher dimensional analogue, "The Grand Unified Field Equation" for the four fundamental forces in gravito-thermodynamic equalibrium.

Maybe, those time travelers have the answer!

Regards,

Edwin

[Sunfist]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
sunfist,

why are you still here?

i called you a liar once (though i don't remember why) and you said you're reluctant to call my time travel idea "stupid", but that's exactly what you do when you even hint that it is stupid or that someoen might call it stupid.

tit for tat, is that the way it goes?

"cheers,"
phoenix

I am here because I choose to be.

I am not a liar.

Your idea isn't "stupid" as much as it is simply not going to work. There are too many factors. I'm glad you are trying to come up with some way of proving time travel, but I'm afraid this isn't going to be it.

If time travellers are not visiting people such as Lincoln, Washington, Einstein, etc, why would they want to come see me or you? That's even assuming they find your invitation. Let me put it this way: If tomorrow you received an invitation to someone's house several states over, would you go? You don't know this person, you have no way of contacting them, they just asked you to come see them. Now, you might actually go, but I am sure most people would not.

There are simply too many factors. Keep thinking. You might come up with a new idea.

[Zantra]

This guy has been exposed as a fake:

http://www.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=000462

[phoenixthoth]

edwin,

would i be oversimplifying your answer if i suggested you basically said that the senses tell us what reality is?

if so, then what about those whose perceptions tell them things no one else's perceptions tell them? how would they ever know what is real and what is an illusion? like dr. nash, for example, or someone with schizophrenia.

on one side, some people believe that the senses are lying and that all is an illusion. this seems to be a buddhist type point of view. a westerner then asks the perfectly valid question such as was it an illusion when america dropped the bomb on japan? i'm reading "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenence" and phaedrus' philosophy teacher said, yes, that was also an illusion. there is no differnece between a hallucination and a non hallucination.

i have a different point of view.

i believe what our senses tell us (INCLUDING our sixth sense) is NOT an illusion. however, i believe the picture our senses give us is incomplete. i looked at a coffee cup with the icon of a coffee cup on it once and i then could articulate what my impression is. and my impression is this: the computer screen i'm looking at is just an icon for what is really there. what is really there? well, i think that the screen has a counterpart in another world, the world of abstract thought. this is the domain of the other part of reality. the icons are very real but so are the underlying concepts the icons are representing. either way, even if we are in an illusion like the matrix then we can still see that this illusion has rules and that we should obey the rules or else we're going to an either mental or physical prison.

sorry if it sounds like i'm rambling...

may your journey be graceful,
phoenix

[phoenixthoth]

sunfist,

i doubt you are a liar on purpose. very much so in fact. so i'd like to officially retract what i said about you.

heck, i'm a liar too whenever i put forward a wrong idea. in a sense. but i'm trying to not lie.

i know i'm grasping at straws here, but i think that i have the potential of waiting for the entire future of the universe within the span of five minutes. i put in a request for time travelers for five minutes from now, too soon for a faker to reach me. then it may take ten thousand years for one traveller to be willing, but to me, no time passed at all.

why would they come and meet someone like me or you and not einstein or lincoln? good question.

here's a pet theory i'm working on. time travelers can see anonymously through the eyes of someoene in the past. all they have to do to meet einstein is see through the eyes of his wife or through the eyes of others around him and through his own eyes. but what a pointless idea due to the impossibility of ever having evidence either way on whether this is the way things work.

cheers,
phoenix

[Edwin]

The idea of our six senses not picking up on everything, I think, is correct. I mean, just look outside at some object that is not transparent, such as a mountain. You can clearly see the mountain, but what about the little concealed canyon half way up the mountain? It is obscured from your sight by the geometry of the mountain. The information about the existence of that canyon is clearly missing from your five senses due to the unique perspective at your location on the ground. However, say that your friend, Dr. Nash, is halfway up the mountain at a unique position, perhaps information about the existence of the little hidden canyon reaches his five senses, being that, he is located at a position that gives him the proper perspective to sense the canyon. However, from his position, he can not see the cliff on the opposite side of the mountain, but your position gives you the proper perspective to sense the cliff on the side of the mountain. So Dr. Nash has part of the information about the mountain of truth, and you have some of the information about the mountain of truth. The sum of the two truths is closer to the ultimate truth of the mountain.

You can tackle this from another perspective: Your senses does not give you information about the entire mountains surface; however, it does give you quite a bit of information about the mountain. It may be possible in some cases to piece together the information in order to deduce a consistent, unchanging, pattern. Say you have 78% of the information about the one side of the mountain you are viewing. Suppose that when you piece together that data, you find a solid pattern that defines all 78% of the information that you have collected via your senses. Then you may formulate an equation to define the data you have collected. In such a case, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the other 22% may be ascertained without the use of your senses by merely plugging in your equation to solve for the missing data.

I like your idea about the symbolical nature of physics: that perhaps certain forces are merely icons from some underlying series of logic statements, say a series of cosmic 1's and 0's.

Consider the following:

You look into a painting of the leaning Tower of Pisa. What do you see? Well you see a three-dimensional landscape transcribed onto a two-dimensional surface. But it is not the three-dimensional leaning tower of pizza (I like domino's myself, ha, ha) that you see, but an image of the three-dimensional leaning Tower of Pisa and landscape that has been re-concocted in the mind of the artist. So, what you are actually seeing is the image of a landscape in the imagination of another person. This landscape is "imaginary," indeed. Now suppose for a moment that you have two friends: One is computer graphics artist that double majored in photographic chemistry, and the other is a professional photographer. Now over the summer, your friend, the photographer, goes on a vacation to Europe and stops by to take a photograph of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Meanwhile, your computer artist friend get's an itch, and decides to create a computer generated image of the Leaning Tower of Pisa that is so realistic, that when printed, not even a chemist examining the printed image at the molecular level could tell the difference between the printed computer image and an actual photograph of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. So your friend, the photographer, returns from his trip, and the three of you get together and compare the actual photograph with the printed computer generated image of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and you find that, indeed, the two photographs are identical in every respect. Now let's say that you have a fourth friend who is a philosopher, and a Mathematical Physicist, and he creates a special type of mathematics to define three-dimensional images that are transcribed onto two-dimensional surfaces. So at a party, your fourth friend takes one of the photographs and, just for the fun of it, puts together a system of equations that define the distances in the photograph that not only describes the distance represented in the photograph, but even accounts for the two-dimensionality of the photograph itself. Now you look at the photograph, and equations with amazement, but then realize that you don't remember whether the photograph you brought to the party is the photograph that your friend, the photographer took, or whether it is the printed computer generated image created from the imagination of your friend, the computer artist.
So, you ask your friend, the philosopher, whether the system of equations he created defines the two-dimensional image of the real Leaning Tower of Pisa, or whether his system of equations describe the two-dimensional image of the Leaning Tower of Pisa in the imagination of your friend, the computer artist. Your friend the philosopher replies, "I can not tell whether my equations describe the actual Leaning Tower of Pisa, or the one in your friend's, the computer artist, imagination; because, the photograph, and the printed
computer generated photograph are identical." and "My system of equations produces the same numbers for both images." "Based on this, the geometry describing the two-dimensional representation of the three-dimensional place your friend imagined, and the geometry describing the two-dimensional representation of that identical real three-dimensional place can not be distinguished." your friend, the philosopher, concludes.

What do you think? Is it possible that the two-dimensional representation of reality is numerically equivalent to the two-dimensional representation of a persons imagination?

Inquisitively,

Edwin

[radagast]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
sunfist,

i doubt you are a liar on purpose. very much so in fact. so i'd like to officially retract what i said about you.

heck, i'm a liar too whenever i put forward a wrong idea. in a sense. but i'm trying to not lie.


Pheonix,
Lying is defined as trying to intentional decieve (usually using and untruth). You cannot lie without knowing it. You may put forward incorrect/untrue information, but without the intent to decieve, it is not lying.

[Zantra]

I agree with radagast. If sun didn't intentionally decieve you, then he wasn't lying.

[Sunfist]

I was about to say the same thing. Everyone makes mistakes. You are only a liar if you are intentionally misleading people.

I still don't remember why I was called that in the first place, but it's no matter now.

:-)

[phoenixthoth]

a bright light brought to a sad remembrance day.

sunfist, i don't even remember why i called you a liar but i got banned for it and all my messages were deleted prior to the site completely going down. luckily, i almost knew that was going to happen and i saved my articles myself. i apologize for my outburst.

edwin, you have painted a real interesting canvas. a multifasceted approach indeed. use the experts in various fields and rely on them for different perspectives. only when combined can you even begin to suspect you know what's happening. that leads me back to pythagoras who believed the following five things:

(1) that at its deepest level, reality is mathematical in nature,
(2) that philosophy can be used for spiritual purification,
(3) that the soul can rise to union with the divine,
(4) that certain symbols have a mystical significance, and
(5) that all brothers of the order should observe strict loyalty and secrecy.

while i may not agree with all five items, especially the last one (which has to do with contradicting society), i find it an astonishing opinion from an ancient MATHEMATICIAN, one that i am inspired by.

i'm going to start a new site called the semicircle, after his "cult", in which metaphysics, religion, science, philosophy, mathematics, art, literature, ancient wisdom, and personal experience build the backbone and no one is censored. right now, i'm not planning on releasing this address to search engines but i haven't made a final decision.

you'll all be invited to come drop by and engage us in an exchange of wisdom or supposed wisdom. the goal is to leave a permanent legacy of information accessible to whoever seeks such knowledge.

suppose that on this site someone calls someone else a liar. here's what i would do as one of the administrators. i would send the accuser a private messages inviting him to give concrete evidence for his claim publicly. i would *not* delete all messages by the accuser and erase his existence.

cheers,
phoenix

[Sunfist]

By the way, man, you didn't get banned for calling me a liar. Let's not talk about this here, though, it's not the time or place. Still, I'm glad you had a chance to save the things you wanted to save. That was, of course, the reason why we gave you advanced warnings. :-) Anyway, if you have a desire to discuss that further, which I don't really feel it needs discusing, don't do it here, ok? :-D

Oh, and, apology accepted, of course! :-D

[phoenixthoth]

sunfist,

you're absolutely right in that this is not the place to be discussing why i got banned from mkaku.org. i'm about to pm you for further details.

cheers,
phoenix

ps: let's get back to time travel, shall we?

[Edwin]

That will definitely be an interesting website, a safe haven to unleash the virtually infinite phenomenon of creativity! Speaking of profound ancient Mathematicians, I was surfing the web yesterday trying to dig up some information on advanced electro-magnetics that might relate to time-travel concepts and stumbled upon a most interesting website containing a birage of experimentally obtained data regarding various advanced quantum-electrodynamics.
You won't find this stuff taught at any local University within the United States, but you might find it taught at the University of Moscow.

Happy Reading!

Edwin

http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/References/glossary1.pdf

[hypnagogue]

phoenix,
If you adhere to the parallel universe interpretation of time travel, then I can instantly see a hitch in your plan. Say there are infinitely many versions of you in infinitely many parallel universes who each puts forth the advertisements for the time traveler(s). Say that humans don't blow up the planet in all possible timelines, and that time travel to the moment in time you specify in your ad is indeed possible. Even if there are infinitely many time travelers in infinitely many parallel universes who stumble upon your newspaper ads and decide to act on it, you (the phoenix who is reading this message right now) may not be one of the infinitely many phoenixes who is indeed visited by one of these time travelers, for the same reason why we can construct a matching between two infinite sets A and B where not all the elements in A and B are elements of the matching between them.

[phoenixthoth]

interesting. kinda like hilbert's hotel.

have you ever heard of the amber series by roger zelazny? there were two true realities, amber and chaos. in between there were shades of grey realities that weren't really real nor were they unchangable. the princes of amber could walk a pattern on the floor of the castle and then have the ability to traverse those other realities using consciousness as a tool. they'd think as they walked, wouldn't it be nice to find myself in an orchard soon? wouldn't it be nice if there was a sword behind that tree? and, sure enough, soon there was an orchard full of swords.

every prince of amber has *shadows* that live in the alternate realities. but the key is that the real prince of amber influences every shadow. if the prince gets sick, they all get sick to one degree or another or they all show some sign of decay.

when one prince fights with his brother, all shadows of the prince fight all shadows of the other one. the manefestation is different. in one reality, corwin may pick up a phasor and desintegrate brand but in another reality, brand may give corwin an evil look and corwin turns away.

they had trump cards, which were like tarot cards, and they were pictures of the whole family of the true reality. through the cards, they could contact each other wherever they were in the multiverse.

what if i'm a prince in amber? what if what *i* do has an influence on the other parallel me's?

another way to look at it is that there is heaven and hell and the only real beings are like angels; i'm no angel. it has been suggested to me that the reincarnation cycle does come to an end; i've been told that this may be my last life as a physical being, not neccessarily something i buy into. but it makes me wonder if i'm special among my parallel me's. once, i visited a parallel me through a dream and told my family that i was a parallel me from a distant universe and that your brian will not remember this. they had a weird look at me indeed.

cheers,
phoenix

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by phoenixthoth
interesting. kinda like hilbert's hotel.

Not familiar with that one.

what if i'm a prince in amber? what if what *i* do has an influence on the other parallel me's?

Interesting idea. My first impulse was to say that parallel universes (as conceived at least) are pretty much independent entities that can't affect eachother. But then I remembered that the idea of quantum computing hinges on parallel universes actually interacting. The theory is that a quantum computer could instantly compute problems that would take today's computers billions of years to compute, and that such computing power would indicate that on the quantum level the problem is being computed in parallel across many many parallel universes-- so information is being exchanged across universes, at least on the quantum level. That's the hitch; according to today's physical theory at least, you couldn't interact with your other "you's" except on a quantum level. And this theory also wouldn't allow one or the other to be special or existentially "privileged," insofar as being the "real one" or the leader whose actions affect all the others'. But that's just what today's physical theory has to say, of course.

In any case, though, even if you could somehow have some sort of interaction with your other selves, that wouldn't preclude the possibility that you wouldn't be one of your selves to be visited by a time traveler-- altho maybe if there is a quantum-like effect to consciousness you would have a dream or intuition about it via information shared by your other selves.

[phoenixthoth]

kinda weird that you say that i might get some intuition or sign that another me is contacted by a time traveler.

a guy by the name of john titor has contacted me.

cheers,
phoenix

[Zantra]

Phoenix,

It's funny you mention it. There's a newly created person browsing these forums named John Titor. That struck me right away, because I went through those anomaly forum posts, and watched the drama there unfold. In case I hadn't posted it, he was already exposed as a fake. Some guy (probably well versed in physics, at least enough to fool the average joe schmoe.) was playing a little mind game, and he obviously fooled those idiots on that forum. Now if he was a little more bold, he would have plied his trade here, but no doubt his explanations would have been picked apart within a matter of days, if not hours..

Nonetheless.. I'd hate to see you be taken in by some "John Titor" copycat who is just bored. Heck, I could be john titor pming you, for all you know (I'm not, but you get the point). Tell your John titor buddy to start a post on here or PF in the physics forums. I'll take bets that he doesn't last 1 day. Personally I'd love to have a crack at this idiot.

Just some friendly advice- be weary, and don't be so quick to accept[;)]

[Edwin]

Indeed John Titor was a very interesting case. I always wondered what his motivation actually was. Whether he was trying to stimulate the people on the forums imagination to try to get people to advance outside the box of what they were taught in an attempt to stimulate a boom in theory and ultimately technology by fueling a curiosity, and interest, in such concepts as time travel. Or whether he was just screwing with some peoples minds. Perhaps he was trying to build peoples faith in the possibility of such an accurance. It seems that, historically, people empowered by a solid faith in the plausibility of developing the seemingly impossible within their fields, have historically created technologies that seem nearly supernatural to others. For example, the television, flight, the automobile, computers, radio, electricity, the light bulb, puting a man on the moon, and last but not least, cologning technology. Imagine 110 years ago, when we were still riding around in horse and carriages, that some quack told a group of average joes back then, that within 110 years we would have the television, flight, the automobile, computers, radio, electricity, every home would have a light bulb, we would put a man on the moon, and last but not least, we would have cologning technology. Would not the quack be telling a story that is, seemingly, as far fetched to those living in 1893 as the story A.K.A. John Titor told those on the forums is to us?

Inquisitively,

Edwin

[phoenixthoth]

"be weary, and don't be so quick to accept"

john isn't claiming to be a time traveler. i am quick to accept john for who he is even though i know that's not his real name. weary? almost always.

cheers,
phoenix

[Spacestar]

Hi, I want to share my mind with you.

The concept of time is a man made factor to account CHANGE in the real world. Time is a construct of our mind referencing our always-moving reality.

Our mind today is wrongly considered metaphysical, not a part of physics, and not affected by physical means. Even though relativity depends entirely on the idea of the “observer”. But Mind occupies time, and when we measure and affect time, our mind itself can be measured and affected directly. Then, we gain our dignity and humanity by establishing the reality of mind and thought to science.

Time travel is really easy, actually much easier that you might expect. All you have to know is just some basic Einstein to figure it out, and of course, an open mind, that I think is the main factor why most people don't even dream about TT being possible or real (thank goodness). It seems like a thin line, but there's a huge gap between people minds and the truth.

The technology is a fact, but there’s a lot of misinformation out there, like on the movies that they show gigantic and complicated machines just to displace someone in s/t (for example in the movie contact, just ridiculous), who knows maybe with the purpose to foul the uninformed public!!??

[hey.like]

Travel by time, the time system is not one only. To pass in different time system and get the travel profit easy, That is fun enough.
In travel time system , if it is fast enough and safety enough, it is a good time travel system .In daily life time system , it should be same as now.

[Spacestar]

BTW, I'm not trying to sell anything! Or anything like that!

[pelastration]

Interesting link on time.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/t/time.htm#DEFINITION

[Rader]

Time is an illusion. Time is a history of spatial movements of our consciousness in our material dimensional world. Consider this: If you were quicker than light, there is no-time. The Alfa becomes the Omega. The entire known universe and beyond becomes one. Everthing becomes onething. Movement at slower speeds than light create vibrations matter and time.
The size of strings and the entire universe then become one. There is only one thing quicker than light, a thought, its no joke, its the mind of God.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/cship.html

The site above is a even trade for the one you gave me. Thanks

[:D]

[Sunfist]

I have to completely disagree that if you were to move faster than light then time wouldn't exist. I think in a classic Einsteinian model, you are correct, but in reality, I think you might be in error.

[Jeebus]

Time is of your own making;
its clock ticks in your head.
The moment you stop thought
time too stops dead.


Is time real? Does it flow in one direction only? Does it have a beginning or an end? What is eternity? None of these questions can be answered to scientists' satisfaction. Yet the mere asking of these questions stretches our minds, and the continual search for answers provides useful insights along the way.

Wouldn't it be a wild world to live in if time travel devices played important roles in the development of humanity -- like the computer and the telephone?

What about the world of one time and three space dimensions that we (appear to) live in? Can causality go awry in our Universe? Look at spinning black holes and a quantum-field powered wormhole for examples where propagation backwards in time can happen, at least in theory.

[Rader]

Sunfist> we all have abit of supernaturalism in all of us. But if you look at the link on my previous post and investigated the site it is a scientific fact that the faster we travel to the speed of light the universe shirinks and time slows down. Upon reaching light sped the universe shrinks to o meters and time stands still. [g)]

[phoenixthoth]

earlier i had mentioned that i'd start my own discussion forum.

here it is:
http://alephnulldimension.net/scgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi

[Eddie French]

My understanding of time travel is that any future time traveller would not be capable of travelling any further back in time than the very day that time travel was (Invented/Discovered).
So Tomorrow we invent time travel
The day after that we are able to travel back to (Tomorrow)
We could never visit (Today)
Anybody?[?]

[Finhed]

yeah i've heard that too.

i seem to recall a passage that stated you can't travel through time without traveling through space.

[Chronos23]

I have heard of a theory that states that if you could get a space ship up to the speed of light and shot a projectile from it, the projectile would exceed the speed of light and, in theory, travel though time.

[selfAdjoint]

That idea is wrong. If you got a spaceship up to near the speed of light and fired a projectile ahead at any speed less than light relative to the ship, the relativity law for addition of speeds would make the projectile travel at a speed less than light relative to all other observers. And less than the sum of the ship speed and projectile speed. If the ship shone a search light ahead it would move at the speed of light for all observers, including those on the ship, but the ship's speed would not be added.

In general adding speeds only works at low speeds like here on earth because the relativistic corrections are too small to observe.

BTW near the speed of light relative to what? There isn't any fixed point of view in the universe that you can refer to for a general case like that. For a spaceship it's reasonable to think that it started somewhere and accelerated up to its speed, so relative to its home base would be reasonable. But not all observers see the same thing. Another ship, traveling alongside at the same speed would see your projectile firing ship as standing still!

[THE[>U<]DUDE]

In my unlearned opinion, Time Travel is impossible and will always be (confined?) in the realms of Science-Fiction and flights of imaginary fancy.

TT is like the Fermi Paradox concerning the existance (or not) of ETs. If Men from the future can travel backwards in time then they would surely be here by now. Of course, this doesn't take into account the possibility of multiple timelines!

Some points to consider against the likelihood of TT:

1. Fact - The Universe is continuously expanding. Theory - The connections between superstrings must be expanding accordingly.

The atomic structure of a Time Traveller from the future would be comprised of 'larger' superstrings. Therefore, his very appearance in an earlier (smaller superstring) era would create a shift in the universal equilibrium, with possible devastating results for all.

2. Fact - As space expands, the Solar System is continously moving - and pretty darned fast too! Any Time Traveller coming from even a few days into the future (let alone three decades as Titor claimed) would find himself stranded in space (unless his Time Vehicle is a spacecraft too - and not many Corvettes are!).

3. Fact - The Time Traveller is comprised of matter. Matter redistributed by consumption/absorption et cetera from other external sources (we are all made from starstuff!). This matter would exist in a different form prior to the Time Traveller eating it. This different form would exist in the Time Traveller's past (our present). Which means upon appearing in our time, identical atoms would suddenly exist in two places at once! Paradox! Our universe would suddenly contain MORE matter than it did a moment before. Since matter and energy are inter-transferable, this would destabilize the universal equilibrium, again with untold bad results.

4. Fact - Nature likes balance. Moving matter/energy through the timeline willy-nilly would go against the grain. Theory - No Creator in His right mind would allow it. I wouldn't!

[phoenixthoth]

this is an argument stephen hawking mentions as well.

i'm not sure how old mankind is. in other words, i'm not sure how long homo sapiens have been around. and how long we've been using language, tools, etc...

but let's say that homo sapiens has been around since year x. i would guess that (2003 - x)>15000 but i'm not sure.

let's pretend, for a moment, that time travel, back and forward, is possible and it gets invented in the year 2003+y, y years from now. the set of times for which mankind will have existed by then is
[x, 2003+y] which is the same as [x,2003]&cup;[2003,2003+y]. the age of mankind by then will be 2003 - x + y. just for the sake of making a calculation, let's say that the probability of a time traveler coming from a year in [2003+y,&infin;) to any specific year in [x, 2003+y] is equally likely. to say it will be more likely to come in [1900,2003+y], for example, is to guess what time travelers would be more interested. although by that argument, it's also a guess that any time travelers would be interested in the interval
[x,2003+y] and not something before that. so let's for the moment pretend all years in [x,2003+y] are equally likely to receive visits from a time traveller in [2003+y,&infin;). then the probability that a time traveler will visit any particular year, decade, and century are given, respectively, by
P1=1/(2003 - x + y),
P10=10/(2003 - x + y),
P100=100/(2003 - x + y).

i think it's pretty safe to assume that 2003 - x > 15000 and y > 5. this gives upper bounds on P1, P10, and P100:
P1<1/15005&asymp;0.0000666445
P10<10/15005&asymp;0.000666445
P100<100/15005&asymp;0.00666445.

for example, the probability that a time traveler visits the 21st century is less than 0.007. and this was assuming y > 5, time travel is invented only 5 years from now. it could be that y>10000 which would lower the upper bounds.

however, this is only the probability that one time travler visits a time in the interval [x, 2003+y]. there could be, of course, a googleplex of time travelers coming from the interval [2003+y,&infin;) which would raise the odds of there being at least one visitor to a random year.

the probability of there being at least one is equivalent to there being 1 or 2 or 3 or ... time travelers. then the probability of there being at least one time traveler to any given century would be approximated by some infinite series:
P100(n&ge;1)=SUM[ (100/(2003 - x + y))n : n&ge;1]. this geometric series has sum 100/(1903 - x + y) if i did all the math right. this isn't hugely bigger than 100/(2003 - x + y) since the odds of n time travelers visiting a particular century get lower when n gets larger. assuming 1903 - x > 14900 and y > 5, the probability that at least one time traveler comes in any particular century is at most 0.00670916. at most. now if y is much bigger than 5, in other words if time travel is invented more than 5 years from now, the upper bound lowers. if y>1000 then the new upper bound for the probability of at least one time traveler coming to any particular century is 0.00628931, about one-sixth as likely as getting blackjack in one game of 21.

therefore, the argument "why haven't they come yet" is not something that i put much stock in.

i was thinking about time travel and was wondering about the multiverse theory. perhaps a machine that transports one to a different sub-universe that exactly resembles the previous sub-universe except x years in the past or x years in the future. seems like this could resolve the grandfather paradox because you wouldn't be killing your grandfather, you'd be killing the grandfather of your copy in a different sub-universe. if this multiverse theory is correct and in some sub-universes there are machines that enable their users to cross into other sub-universes, and if there are infinitely many sub-universes, then the probability of one of them appearing in this universe is 0 (or is it?). on the other hand, some people think that other sub-universes are sometimes accessed through consciousness states rather than machines.

[Odaiba]

3. Fact - The Time Traveller is comprised of matter. Matter redistributed by consumption/absorption et cetera from other external sources (we are all made from starstuff!). This matter would exist in a different form prior to the Time Traveller eating it. This different form would exist in the Time Traveller's past (our present). Which means upon appearing in our time, identical atoms would suddenly exist in two places at once! Paradox! Our universe would suddenly contain MORE matter than it did a moment before. Since matter and energy are inter-transferable, this would destabilize the universal equilibrium, again with untold bad results.

I aggree to a point. even an atom element that would only travel back 1 millisecond in the center of space would cause an universe PARADOX. It has nothing to do with cause and effect rather than the stablity and rules of the universe. BUT, this is only in a perspective of a constant rate of the expanding universe. What if the Universe can flex like a ballon?(see my other post about the ballon theroy) That changes in time (going backwards only) pulls the universe inwards (negative growth) to the select time frame. The universe will start OVER based on that new reference (which I like to call a TIMEPOINT). So if any matter gets extracted from the current TIMEPOINT of the universe, that matter will pull the universe to its (backward) direction. This in turn will protect the rules of grow of the universe so no two identical atoms would share the same space.

[phoenixthoth]

i was thinking about time travel and was wondering about the multiverse theory. perhaps a machine that transports one to a different sub-universe that exactly resembles the previous sub-universe except x years in the past or x years in the future. seems like this could resolve the grandfather paradox because you wouldn't be killing your grandfather, you'd be killing the grandfather of your copy in a different sub-universe. if this multiverse theory is correct and in some sub-universes there are machines that enable their users to cross into other sub-universes, and if there are infinitely many sub-universes, then the probability of one of them appearing in this universe is 0 (or is it?). on the other hand, some people think that other sub-universes are sometimes accessed through consciousness states rather than machines.
if atoms from sub-universe A enter sub-universe B (which is the same as universe A except thigns appear to be 10 years in the past), then it is not the case that there are two of the same atoms in sub-universe B.

even without the multiverse theory, why is it a big deal for an atom to be in two places at once? how do we know that there isn't really one electron in many places?

[Jug]

Phoenix,

Sounds like a strap-on is required here....time being nothing more than a term for describing a specific relationship between mass, distance and velocity....no substance-no place.

[phoenixthoth]

a hologram in which subuniverses and time are all stacked on one "location?" maybe there will be a way to skip to different aspects of it.

[chip5541]

I have a question. I read that gravity was measured to move at or close to the speed of light. If this is correct is it not possable that time travel may be a naturaly occuring phenomena if certain condition in environment are met? There seems to be many antidotal reports that would bear this out. Sorry if this had already been discused. I did not see it.

In referance to John Titon, by him coming back in time and telling us, has he not just changed the past? For all that was said by JT I find it amusing but nothing more. I believe the reason he gave for coming back was a Linix fix for computers from his time. Why did he choose that date when just a couple of weeks ago a patch was released to fix a bug. Another was the drawing of his time machine. From what I have read (memory little fuzzy on this) that is was a drawing of a 1960s military bomb shelter radiation detector.

[Edwin]

http://www.asc-alchemy.com/hudson.html

David Hudsons Lectures: Intro



...My name is David Hudson. I'm a third generation native Phoenician
from
an old family in the Phoenix area. We are an old family. We are very
conservative. I come from an ultra-conservative right wing
background.
For those of you who have heard of the John Birch Society, Barry
Goldwater, these ultra right- wing Rush Limbaugh conservatives;
that's
the area that I come from. I'm not saying whether it is right or
wrong
but that is my background.

I had no concept that I would ever be doing what I'm doing right now
when I began this work...For more of David Hudsons Lectures,
click on link above.


I am not completely sure about Mr. Hudson's claims. I would have to see the
stuff for myself to believe it is legitimate, but in case it is, I
worked out a preliminary Lorentz contraction for 5th dimensional
coordinate transfer of gravitational mass based on the lectures
written above. Preliminarily, I would have to say that the stuff
would have to operate in a fifth dimension.


Anyways, I suppose that the gravitational mass of the ORME is
partially occupying a fifth dimension w, as the temperature
approaches some critical threshold, that the w approaches 1, as the
other four dimensions approach zero.



Pythagerean Theorum for point coordinate on a five dimensional unit
hypersphere.

a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2+e^2=1

In this case, let the fourth dimension be time, and the fifth
dimension be w.

According to the writings, the material appears to decrease it's
weight by increasing temperature. At some critically high
temperature, the material completely vanishes. When the high
temperature is lowered, the material re-materializes. I am not sure
exactly how this is done, because it is not fully described in
detail. It is my presumption, that if what they are saying is true,
that some of the material vanished not to be recovered, and some
method was constructed whereby they could re-acquire the material
after it had vanished using the specialized computer controlled
equipment.

Anyhow, here is the equation I worked out. Let me know what you
think.

(x^2+y^2+z^2+t^2+w^2)/g=1, where g is the total gravitational mass of
the material in arbitrary units.

Applying the lorentz transformations.

c^2(x-v(subx)t)+c^2(y-v(suby)t)+c^2(z-v(subz)t)+g^2(c^2t-v
(subx,suby,subz))+c^2(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2(C^2-T^2)^1/2
__________________________________________________ ________=1abu
c^2g(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2


Where v(subx) is the velocity component in the x direction, v(suby)
is the velocity in the y direction...and so forth.

c is the speed of light constant in the vacuum.


I define the dimension w, in terms of w/g, in units of dimension per
weight.


In the graph below, I use the y axis to represent units of w/g, and
the x axis to represent temperature. This I represent w/g, as being a
function of temperature T


Using arbitrary units, I allow a temperature of one arbitrary unit to
represent the temperature at which the weight of the mass of the
material involved is one hundred percent occupying the w dimension
equal to one arbitrary unit in length, and zero percent occupying the
dimensions x,y,z,and t.

Since the temperature axis, and the w/g axis are at right angles to
each other, I am able to use the pythagerean theorum to deduce that
the square of one arbitrary unit temperature T^2 plus the square of
one arbitrary unit of firth dimension divided by one arbirary unit of
weight, (w/g)^2 is equal to the square of some diagonal formed by
these two orthogonal measures C^2

Thus,

(w/g)^2+T^2=C^2

To solve for the dimension w/g, I simply perform some algebra...

w/g=(C^2-T^2)^1/2=1 arbitrary unit. I replaced the w/g dimension with
(C^2-T^2)^1/2 in the five dimensional lorentz equation written above.
I am not sure how accurate any of this is, but feel free to let me
know. :)



(Continued in next Post)

[Edwin]

Perhaps, one of the best uses for ORME's, Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements, is experimentation on spatial distortion and creating 5 dimensional circuits. In the theory represented, this substance exists in 5 dimensions, not four dimensions. Apparently, the degree to which this substance occupies each dimension is a function of temperature. At some temperature, the material completely vanishes into the fifth dimension entirely. It is possible, also, that the mass occupies the region of space that is depicted by information contained on the, manifold S^2, surface of a light field. There are multiple compact decomposable spaces, both right, and left-handed, that are depicted by the information contained about them as the image contained on the surface of a light field. Unions formed via orthorotation forms indecomposable continua, more specifically, Knaster continua. What one might not recognize up front, when analyzing a light field, is that there are two sides to our two dimensional light field: the back side of the light field, and the forward edge of the light field. Thus there is a right-handed image, and a left-handed image, which is information about a right-handed space, and a left-handed space. Mathematically speaking, this space may be imaginary in nature. The pythagerean theorum is such that if one has a third imaginary spatial dimension orthogonal to two real spatial dimensions, the diagonal lengths between the imaginary dimension and the two real number dimensions may be any number less then one.

Diagonal length<1

This forms the double open interval (-infinity,1).

I may have worked out a rough draft of the equation that defines the dimensional transfer using the Lorentz light cone.

If one uses the pythagerean theorum to define the other dimensions, then it is easy to convert the algebraic expression over to the Lorentz light cone model to define orthorotation of this particular substance as a function of both temperature, and velocity with respect to the speed of light. It is a little more complicated, in that, as the substance's gravitational mass orthorotates into the fifth dimension, the ORME's gravitational mass orthorotates out of all the other 4 dimensions x, y, z, t. In the case of Relativity, a given inertial mass orthorotates, between the three spatial dimensions, and a fourth temperal dimension, depending on the masses velocity with respect to the speed of light in a vaccuum. In this case, our substance's gravitational mass, which is equal to our substance's intertial mass, orthorotates out of 4 dimensions, into a fifth dimension based on temperature. It is assumed by myself, that, given the concept is legitimate, an increase in the substance's velocity would result in orthorotation of the substance into a fourth temperal dimension. The substance would rotate on on all five dimensional axes. If the substance's velocity remains the same, the object will rotate out of four dimensions x,y,z,t, and into the fifth dimension. In case the object is accelerating toward the speed of light, the object's gravitional, and inertial masses, will orthorotate out of three dimensions, and may continue to rotate into the fourth temperal dimension and fifth dimension. It may be that the mass continues to rotate on two axes: the fourth dimensional temperal axis, and the fifth dimensional axis while the velocity is less then the speed of light.
In this case, if the steady increase in the velocity of the object is carefully calibrated to the orthorotation of the objects gravitational mass, then the overall intertial mass of the object, as it approaches the speed of light, may remain unchanged as it's increased intertial mass, due to increased velocity, is orthorotated into a fifth dimension. In other words, the intertial mass gained in the lower dimensions x,y,z,t, is decreased in those lower dimensions by an equal amount by orthorotating the gained intertial mass into a fifth dimension by appropriately synchronizing the increase in temperature of the ORME with the ORME's increased velocity with respect to the speed of light, thus causing the intertial mass of the ORME to remain the same in the lower four dimensions for as long as the velocity is less then the speed of light, and the temperature of the ORME is below the critical transition threshold. The only thing is, at the speed of light, the temperature would have to overcome the temperal rotation, and allow the object to orthorotate completely out of the other four dimensions, into the fifth dimension, to prevent the gravitational mass, and intertial mass, from approaching infinity in the lower dimensions x,y,z,t. I assume that the rate of flow of electromagnetic energy would be greatest at the point of complete transition, orthorotation, between the four lowest dimensions x,y,z,t, and the higher dimension w, afterwhich, I believe the term radiant energy would no longer sufficiently describe the substance as the integration of radiant power with respect to time is a little hard when the object no longer resides within the dimension time.


Interesting indeed.

I am further researching to find out exactly how hot the monatomic elements have to get before their entire hamiltonian is transfered completely into the fifth dimension. There is a simple circuit formed by the junction of two dissimilar metals at right angles. When a current is applied to the circuit, the corner at one junction gets extremely cold, while the corner of the other junction gets extremely hot. Suppose that one adds to the circuit two small containers that contain ORME's on to both ends of the circuits. When a current is applied, the end that gets extremely cold will cause an increase in the curvature of space time, while the end that gets hot will cause a decrease in curvature in space time. Suppose that circuit has alternating current applied to it. One forms alternating hot, cold, hot, cold, to either end resulting in altnernating curvature of space. Infact, the motion is truly defined by two gravitational masses bobbing in and out of a fifth dimension near each other. Thus we have five dimensional affects propogating out from these transmitters as a five dimensional wave. Now if one can increase the temperature enough to completely transfer the masses to another dimension, without destroying the circuit, and then pull them back entirely into this dimension, one might form a five dimensional square wave: an infinite number of five dimensional harmonics. One may be able to create a five dimensional transciever that is resonate to one of the higher harmonics, similar to the way that a tesla coil antenna is set to be resonate at one of the higher harmonics produced by the spark-gap in the RC circuit. Then one will be able to create a high frequency five dimensional resonate circuit, RC circuit.

Recently, experimental evidence was uncovered that showed that gravity is anisotropic in nature. It is possible, that if the configuration of ORME's particles defines what dimension the intertial and gravitational masses of the object occupies may imply a local anisotropic gravitational affects with a self-similar five dimensional global transform, thus yielding a five-dimensional manifold. Applying the Aharonov-Bohm affect, and including spider wave phenomonon: infinite torus model of genus one, we can include the point at,+/-infinity=infinity, for the set of all possible velocities, thus forming a compact closed decomposable continuum: a differentiable compactified partial manifold for the set of all numerical velocities ranging from -infinity to positive infinity as a subset of the five-dimensional manifold. What do you think?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen

[Why]

Observable knowledge - why time travel is an illusion.
( I am in no way trying to be 'spiritual' or 'metaphysical' here. These observations are based on my experience of reality and I'll try to express them in as clear and simplistic terms as I can - thanks)

What we call the 'moment' is existence.
Everything happens 'here'.
There is no existence outside of the moment.
The moment has no beginning or ending, it is eternity.
The whole, our collective essence/substance, cannot be outside of itself - it is all there is).

Our primal essence or 'stuff 'is active.
It is always moving and always changing.....parts of 'us' move in repetitive patterns and appear as form/matter.
In totality, each movement or expression of energy(us) is different as all of us are always active and moving in slightly different ways. The more complex our movements get the more impossible it becomes for an 'exact' duplication.

Their is no existence outside of our whole, collective field.
What we call the past is no longer in existence or real it is just our memory or image of part of the movements of the whole(only our memory is in eternity...the 'now'). it is not 'stored' anywhere as there is no other place 'to be' besides existence.
The future is not real either but is our image of part of the movement of everything to happen in the only place that is real - existence - the moment.

In summation, all there is is our total expression right NOW.
Former expressions of all the 'stuff' in the universe/multiverses are not stored anywhere...there's nowhere else but 'now'.
In fact we can simplify more by stating in reality the moment is our body and is always moving within itself.
Our experience and focus as humans and a mind experiencing a subject-object experience fools us into believing there can be something outside of ourself.

As far as multiple universes, dimensions, etc. I see no problem with that as it does not violate the reality of existence but is/can be another division of what is existing right now.