View Full Version : Time Travel = Alternate Dimension
Howard Radford
2008-06-22, 00:35
Here is how I think time travel really works, you can't time travel in your current dimension, but you can create another dimension set in a different point in time of the current one, and each time after that you can only make an alternate dimension to the one you are currently in unless you back track to a dimension you were already in, but it would then be a future time of when you left that dimension, and you can not go to a time before the time that dimension was set in when it was created.
Lou Reed
2008-06-22, 19:02
Like in Stargate SG-1
Lou Reed
2008-06-22, 19:45
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel
Lou Reed
2008-06-22, 19:50
Like in Stargate SG-1
Plot
Stargate SG-1 follows and expands upon the Egyptian mythologies presented in Stargate. In the Stargate universe, the human race on Earth, known to the rest of the galaxy as the Tau'ri, were descendants of the Ancients, a race of highly evolved beings. Earth was believed to be the first planet where humans existed in this galaxy. Humans were enslaved and transported to other habitable planets by the Goa'uld such as Ra and Apophis. For millennia, the Goa'uld harvested humanity, heavily influencing and spreading human cultures. As a result, Earth cultures such as those of the Aztecs, Mayans, Britons, the Norse, Mongols, Greeks and Romans are found throughout the known habitable planets of the galaxy. Many well-known mythical locations such as Avalon, Camelot and Atlantis are found, or have at one time existed.
The series explores both long story arcs (discussed below) as well as more contained one-episode stories. Often these shorter stories will detail SG-1's exploits on a previously unexplored planet.
Presently, the Earth Stargate (found at a dig site near Giza in 1928) is housed in a top-secret U.S. military base known as the SGC (Stargate Command) underneath Cheyenne Mountain. Col. Jack O'Neill (Richard Dean Anderson), Dr. Daniel Jackson (Michael Shanks), Cpt. Samantha Carter (Amanda Tapping) and Teal'c (Christopher Judge) compose the original SG-1 team. Along with 24 other SG teams, they venture to distant planets exploring the galaxy and searching for defenses from the Goa'uld, in the forms of technology and alliances with friendly advanced races. Later in the series, some members of SG-1 leave such as Dr. Janet Frasier (Teryl Rothery), Major General George Hammond (Don S. Davis) and new members join, such as Jonas Quinn (Corin Nemec), Major General Hank Landry (Beau Bridges), Lt. Col. Cameron Mitchell (Ben Browder) and Vala Mal Doran (Claudia Black).
The parasitic Goa'uld use advanced technology to cast themselves as gods and are bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. Throughout the first eight seasons, the Goa'uld are the primary antagonists. They are a race of highly intelligent, ruthless snake-like alien parasites capable of invading and controlling the bodies of other species, including humans. The original arch-enemy from this race is the System Lord Apophis (Peter Williams). Other System Lords, such as Ba'al and Anubis, play pivotal roles in the later seasons. In the third season, the Replicators are also introduced. The Replicators are mechanical bugs that feed on metals to "replicate" and create more bugs. Enemy of the Asgard, they are the main reason why the Asgard cannot eliminate the Goa'uld threat. In the ninth season a new villain emerges, the Ori. The Ori are advanced beings with unfathomable technology from another galaxy, also bent on galactic conquest and eternal worship. The introduction of the Ori accompanies a departure from the primary focus on Egyptian mythology into an exploration of the Arthurian mythology surrounding the Ori, their followers, and their enemies — the Ancients. Both Ancients and Ori are Ascended Beings, meaning that they have 'ascended' to a higher plane of existence, giving them extraordinary powers.
Howard Radford
2008-06-22, 20:32
Like in Stargate SG-1
Never saw Stargate SG-1, I was told it was a good movie though.
Lou Reed
2008-06-23, 10:01
The TV series is way better
ArmsMerchant
2008-06-23, 19:02
Maybe this should be in Moving Pictures. . . . .
I like how this video (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php) explains it.
I'm reading a book called Time Line
witch is similar to you idea
Except they said it was not time travel
since the idea of time travel does not make any sense
because time is not a place at all there for you can not physically travel there.
There are quantum physicist who build a quantum computer(more powerful than normal)
to collect human information
and transfer them to another part of the "multiverse"(the idea that the universe has an infinite number of dimension at any time.)
through quantum foam
you should read
Rizzo in a box
2008-06-24, 01:11
time is thought
no thought, no time
time is thought
no thought, no time
and who are you to make any such claims?
Lou Reed
2008-06-24, 15:49
I like how this video (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php) explains it.
I hate that vid
time is thought
no thought, no time
It's odd that you say that, because I had a salvia trip once where I basically got the same revelation. I "forgot" who I was and how to think, and I was under the impression that I had existed in a single slice of time "forever" and there was no way to get out. Once I remembered that I existed, I remembered that there was a flow to the room and that thought controlled the speed in which I moved through it. As I remembered this and focused on thinking again, time began to speed up. To me, this entire event felt like eternity at first (literally, which is an odd feeling to feel like you've been somewhere forever and that's all there is), and then afterwards I thought the whole duration was about 45 minutes. My friends, however, said the whole thing lasted about 5 minutes.
This salvia trip marked the beginning of my spiritual life, as I was then able to perceive the flow of the universe while under the influence of marijuana only, and then while completely sober when focusing on retaining the clear mind (or should I say, defocusing?).
Rizzo in a box
2008-06-24, 21:14
It's odd that you say that, because I had a salvia trip once where I basically got the same revelation. I "forgot" who I was and how to think, and I was under the impression that I had existed in a single slice of time "forever" and there was no way to get out. Once I remembered that I existed, I remembered that there was a flow to the room and that thought controlled the speed in which I moved through it. As I remembered this and focused on thinking again, time began to speed up. To me, this entire event felt like eternity at first (literally, which is an odd feeling to feel like you've been somewhere forever and that's all there is), and then afterwards I thought the whole duration was about 45 minutes. My friends, however, said the whole thing lasted about 5 minutes.
This salvia trip marked the beginning of my spiritual life, as I was then able to perceive the flow of the universe while under the influence of marijuana only, and then while completely sober when focusing on retaining the clear mind (or should I say, defocusing?).
As one pure perceiver to another, I salute you.
Lou Reed
2008-06-27, 18:32
Here is how I think time travel really works, you can't time travel in your current dimension, but you can create another dimension set in a different point in time of the current one, and each time after that you can only make an alternate dimension to the one you are currently in unless you back track to a dimension you were already in, but it would then be a future time of when you left that dimension, and you can not go to a time before the time that dimension was set in when it was created.
Suppose a God exists. Can that God create a rock so heavy that even he himself can not lift it?
If there is God, and if he were to attempt such a thing, it would require its placement in physical form. The answer is yes, because he could. In theory an object may be created as such, however under the presumption that God can do so a whole new structure would need to be created outside of time.
"The earth takes three hundred and sixty five days to circle the sun”
Is an object stationary?
Is it alive?
Time itself is used as a calculative. It is a measurement; a tool. If you are to calculate the measurement of form or if you are to suggest a fourth dimension in reality one can suggest that as there is movement, there is a calculable figure or shape to which is also a seminal shape, parallel to this shape and can be inverted if you take into account direction of one point ('O'-dimension) or of four points like a square.
It is suggested that as there is a point O, in order to for this to initiate. Because it can repeat itself it would require time measurement to achieve a required invariant.
In the occurrence of
time A - the invention of such structure
time B - in the event of such mass that B time(a stone of mass and structure that it is the whole form in place occurring between A and C in time)
time C – it has repeated
This alternate structure is not physical or elemental but particle and in theory requires a time trigger because there can be multiple structures.
In theory time travel is possible
1
Mass does not affect gravity. Gravity is the force caused by mass. A mass left to itself will not affect anything. It just exists, as does its gravitational force. Increasing a mass causes gravity to become stronger, but that does not imply that mass left to itself will have some anomalous effect on its own gravity.
General relativity was developed by Einstein in the years 1907 - 1915. General relativity replaces the global Lorentz symmetry of special relativity with a local Lorentz symmetry in the presence of matter. The presence of matter "curves" space-time, and this curvature affects the path of free particles (and even the path of light). General relativity uses the mathematics of differential geometry and tensors in order to describe gravitation as an effect of the geometry of space-time. This theory is based on the general principle of relativity, which requires all observers to experience the same laws of physics, not just those moving with uniform speed, hence its name.
General relativity (as well as most other metric theories of gravity) not only says that black holes can exist, but in fact predicts that they will be formed in nature whenever a sufficient amount of mass gets packed in a given region of space, through a process called gravitational collapse. Anything of infinite mass would collapse upon it's self. It would also pass through an event horizon, and become unrecoverable, in any universe governed by physics.
2
The metric tensor is a central object in general relativity that describes the local geometry of space-time (as a result of solving the Einstein field equation). Using approximation, the metric can also be thought of as representing the 'gravitational potential'. The metric is a symmetric tensor and is an important mathematical tool. As well as being used to raise and lower tensor indices, it also generates the connections which are used to construct the geodesic equations of a motion although that is theoretical as it would require time measurement to achieve a required invariant.
Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity (and, by extension, the general theory) very explicitly permits a kind of time dilation that would ordinarily be called time travel. The theory holds that, relative to a stationary observer, time appears to pass more slowly for faster-moving bodies: for example, a moving clock will appear to run slow; as a clock approaches the speed of light its hands will appear to nearly stop moving. The effects of this sort of time dilation are discussed further in the twin paradox.
Imagine if there was no longer anything. That would be Point B.
Two events taking place at the points A and B of a system K are simultaneous if they appear at the same instant when observed from the middle point, M, of the interval AB. Time is then defined as the ensemble of the indications of similar clocks, at rest relatively to K, which register the same simultaneously.
We may well become someone or something else in time. It all depends on whether we exist in/within the interval point AB in this universe and when K occurs are simultaneously appearing at the same instant when observed from the middle point, M and so time is passing itself due to K having K,
K being structure of the thus understanding of physics;
That there has to be a point in which time must stop but that which is belonging to the physical structure of the universe continues:
K may be people sent apart, point A
3
Being at the same point in time but as a consequence of the experimentally verified phenomenon of time dilation, in which a moving clock is found to experience a reduced amount of proper time as determined by clocks synchronized with a stationary clock,
They may arrive at a point, in which they arrived previously during,
The idea that at Point B there is no structure
As we are belonging to the physical,
K may be people sent apart
4
Time dilation at constant acceleration
In Special Relativity, time dilation is most simply described in circumstances where relative velocity is unchanging. Nevertheless, the Lorentz equations allow one to calculate proper time and movement in space for the simple case of a spaceship whose acceleration, relative to some referent object in uniform (i.e., non-accelerating) motion, equals for example, H, throughout the period of measurement.
Let T be the time in an inertial frame subsequently called the rest frame. Let X be a spatial coordinate, and let the direction of the constant acceleration as well as the spaceship's velocity (relative to the rest frame) be parallel to the x-axis, which is a human time. Assuming the spaceship's position at time t = 0 being x = 0 and the velocity being v0, the following formulas hold:
Position:
v being any velocity
Proper time:
Time in the rest frame as a function of time (X) :
Observer at rest sees time 2L/c
Observer moving right, sees longer path, time > 2L/c at the same speed, C
Time dilation can be inferred from the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames as follows:
Consider a simple clock consisting of two mirrors A and B, between which a photon is bouncing. The separation of the mirrors is L, and the clock ticks once each time it hits a given mirror. In the frame where the clock is at rest, the photon traces out a path of length 2L and the period of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light.
From the frame of reference of a moving observer, the photon traces out a longer, angled, path. The second postulate of special relativity states that the speed of light is constant in all frames, which implies a lengthening of the period of this clock from the moving observer's perspective. That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the clock, the clock appears to be running slower. Straightforward application of the Pythagorean theorem leads to the well-known prediction of special relativity.
Lou Reed
2008-06-27, 18:32
5
The relativistic energy-momentum equation
The relativistic expressions for E and p above can be manipulated into the fundamental relativistic energy-momentum equation:
Note that there is no relativistic mass in this equation; the m stands for the rest mass. This equation is a more general version of Einstein's famous equation "E=mc2", and can be regarded as the defining equation for invariant mass. The equation is also valid for photons, which are mass less (have no rest mass):
Therefore a photon's momentum is a function of its energy; it is not analogous to the momentum in Newtonian mechanics. Considering an object at rest, the momentum p, in the first equation above, is zero, and we obtain which reduces to suggesting that this last well-known relation is only valid when the object is at rest, giving what is known as the rest energy. If the object is in motion, we have V, V being any Velocity.
From this we see that the total energy of the object E depends on its rest energy and momentum; as the momentum increases with the increase of the velocity v, so does the total energy.
This E is in fact equivalent to that of the relativistic energy equation in the previous section, and that energy equation differs from the relativistic mass equation by a factor of c2. Therefore the relativistic mass is essentially the same as the total energy — but scaled and with different units. Since the energy-momentum equation is more convenient to use (especially with four-vector notation), the relativistic mass is hardly ever used in practice.
When working in units where c = 1, known as the natural unit system, the energy-momentum equation reduces to the equation is often written in this form to show the invariance of mass (rest mass), as the energy and moments of single particles changes, when seen from different inertial frames. The equation above reduces to m² = E² or m = E, when v = 0, showing that proper choice of inertial frame gives the rest mass of a particle as the rest energy. The same reduction happens for systems of particles (where E and p are sums), when the inertial frame is chosen as the center-of-mass frame (COM frame, sometimes called the system rest frame) where total p = 0. Such a frame can always be identified for any system. In this case, again m = E, showing the useful property that in the COM frame of a system, the system mass (invariant mass) is given by the system total energy. Unlike the case of single particles, the system total energy, as a sum, may include kinetic and photon energies. These energies by themselves have no "rest mass," but which in the case of systems, they still contribute to system "rest" mass.
If time is based on duration how do you stop time and if time is also a quantity maybe the structure of the thus understanding of physics, that there has to be a point in which time stops, but how Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity (and, by extension, the general theory) permits a kind of time dilation that would ordinarily be called time travel.
A photon's momentum is a function of its energy. Considering an object at rest, the momentum in the first, is zero, and we obtain which reduces to suggesting that this last well-known relation is only valid when the object is at rest, giving what is known as the rest energy.
If the object is in motion, we have V, V being any Velocity. From this we see that the total energy of the object E depends on its rest energy and momentum; as the momentum increases with the increase of the velocity V, so does the total energy.
When working in units where Object C = 1, the energy-momentum often written in this form to show the invariance of mass (rest mass), as the energy and moments of single particles changes, when seen from different inertial frames. The equation above reduces to m² = E² or m = E, when V = 0, showing that proper choice of inertial frame gives the rest mass of a particle as the rest energy. The same reduction happens for systems of particles (where E and p are sums), when the inertial frame is chosen as the centre-of-mass frame where total p = 0. Such a frame can always be identified for any system. In this case, again m = E, the system mass (invariant mass) is given by the system total energy.
THE TWIN PARADOX
It is pointed out that a complete resolution of the twin paradox demands that the travelling twin takes into account the gravitational effect upon the rate of time when he predicts the ageing of his brother. Two ways of making this prediction are presented. The first one is formally very simple. However, it involves an assumption that is not obvious when the travelling twin stipulates the distance of his brother. The second method makes use of Lagrangian dynamics in a uniformly accelerated reference frame. Then no such assumption is necessary.
Suppose God exists,
Originally posted by Merlinman 2005
Time isn't, IMO, the FOURTH dimension, it's the EXTRA dimension.
The whole scenario with a 2d land, and a sphere moving through it seems wrong to me. Something about it. I dunno what changes a circle would undergo in it's "life," as in, in relation to humans changing from babes to elderlies.
If we were 2d, then we'd say the third dimension was time. We wouldn't be able to envision a sphere because there is no up and down in a land like that. A circle's 3d equivalent would look like an elongated oval, right? Or like a windsock thing, with a small curved side, and a long curved side.
gosh did that make sense?
Time may be used as a measurement:
"It took ten minutes to walk from Mac Donald’s to Burger King"
A structure built on form in the reality around us. More exact calculation is required for a fourth and fifth dimension, the suggested creation of that which is physically improbable.
Can God create a rock so heavy that even he himself can not lift it?
I remember the last time this was posted. One user posted something about segmenting the questions into two parts.
Originally posted by Twisted ferret
Oh and did I only use nouns there? I didn't notice. I could've gone with "honest a help," or "Grow a yellow." Nonsensical things that He should still be able to do if he's expected to do this rock thing.
You consistently seem to think that if you can fulfil the details of an argument, you are correct. You're just splitting hairs again. After Image's main point is not that you can't use nouns as verbs; it's that your supposed refutations are using the English language wrong. "Grow a help" uses a verb (help) as a noun; it's equally as wrong as using a noun as a verb. Your "answer" here doesn't change anything.
The rock paradox is perfectly understandable, and not nonsensical at all. It's asking: Can an omnipotent being defy its own omnipotence? Can an omnipotent being do the illogical? Yes or no. It is far from meaningless, and is easily answerable. "Can God grow a help", however, is without meaning. It is not a contradiction of logic. It is not dealing with an error in logic, as the rock question is; it is dealing with an error in the English language. They are completely different subjects, completely different forms. The rock question is about a contradiction in logic; please tell me where the contradiction in logic is in growing a help. There is none, because growing a help isn't illogical - it's nonsensical.
If God could do the illogical, it doesn't mean that he could grow a help - growing a help has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with language.
Time travel would be prerequisite if the rock thing ever happed
Fucking hell dude, no one's gonna read all that copy&pasted shit.
Lou Reed
2008-06-28, 10:52
Does any of it make sense?
Rizzo in a box
2008-06-29, 06:09
god IS the rock you fool
I wouldn't mind traveling back in time.
Anyone know how?
Lou Reed
2008-06-29, 18:23
It's not possible....
yet
Vanhalla
2008-06-29, 22:15
I wouldn't mind traveling back in time.
Anyone know how?
Flip space/time (3DS 1DT) into time/space (3DT 1DS)
Lou Reed
2008-06-30, 13:15
But can it occur physically. Actual physical time travel?
Vanhalla
2008-07-02, 00:39
But can it occur physically. Actual physical time travel?
?physical is part of the soul, so yes sort of.
Lou Reed
2008-07-02, 13:23
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUZYq5wGvP4&feature=related
Lou Reed
2008-07-03, 21:01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUZYq5wGvP4&feature=related
Do you have any interest in Plato Vanhalla?
I wouldn't mind traveling back in time.
Anyone know how?
It's so obvious, the answer is hidden right in your quote.
Vanhalla
2008-07-04, 18:11
Do you have any interest in Plato Vanhalla?
Yes, but at the moment I have a deeper interest in the Stargate Mythos.
DVR is incredible
The Methematician
2008-07-05, 15:58
We are all time traveler here. We all travel through time at the speed of 1second/second. Even when you choose to just sit there idle doing nothing, you are traveling forward through time as well.
So are you implying that we all are experiencing alternate dimension at the speed of 1 second per second ? where every second that past brings us into the other alternate dimension ?
I have been told that time travel is possible. But first you must understand that the speed of light is not a constant and to this apply the golden ratio.
I have been told that time travel is possible. But first you must understand that the speed of light is not a constant and to this apply the golden ratio.
Not at all! I'm time traveling right now.
Tick, tock, tick, tock! As the seconds go by I go by with them.
:D
Lou Reed
2008-07-07, 15:53
In the future it will be possible because.....
Time dilation at constant acceleration
In Special Relativity, time dilation is most simply described in circumstances where relative velocity is unchanging. Nevertheless, the Lorentz equations allow one to calculate proper time and movement in space for the simple case of a spaceship whose acceleration, relative to some referent object in uniform (i.e., non-accelerating) motion, equals for example, H, throughout the period of measurement.
Let T be the time in an inertial frame subsequently called the rest frame. Let X be a spatial coordinate, and let the direction of the constant acceleration as well as the spaceship's velocity (relative to the rest frame) be parallel to the x-axis, which is a human time. Assuming the spaceship's position at time t = 0 being x = 0 and the velocity being v0, the following formulas hold:
Position:
v being any velocity
Proper time:
Time in the rest frame as a function of time (X) :
Observer at rest sees time 2L/c
Observer moving right, sees longer path, time > 2L/c at the same speed, C
Time dilation can be inferred from the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames as follows:
Consider a simple clock consisting of two mirrors A and B, between which a photon is bouncing. The separation of the mirrors is L, and the clock ticks once each time it hits a given mirror. In the frame where the clock is at rest, the photon traces out a path of length 2L and the period of the clock is 2L divided by the speed of light.
From the frame of reference of a moving observer, the photon traces out a longer, angled, path. The second postulate of special relativity states that the speed of light is constant in all frames, which implies a lengthening of the period of this clock from the moving observer's perspective. That is to say, in a frame moving relative to the clock, the clock appears to be running slower. Straightforward application of the Pythagorean theorem leads to the well-known prediction of special relativity.
Lou Reed
2008-07-07, 15:59
For anyone who understood those long posts
Special Relativity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
ventrman
2008-07-10, 04:00
If it was possible to travel back in time, I would want a way to do it where I would materialize above the surface of the earth instead of on the surface. Nobody has any idea where all of the trees were located in the past. I would not want to materialize in the middle of a tree.
The Methematician
2008-07-10, 07:51
If it was possible to travel back in time, I would want a way to do it where I would materialize above the surface of the earth instead of on the surface. Nobody has any idea where all of the trees were located in the past. I would not want to materialize in the middle of a tree.
That could expose you to the risk of having a birds fused into your dick/ass, you kno ?
Lou Reed
2008-07-10, 11:49
If it was possible to travel back in time, I would want a way to do it where I would materialize above the surface of the earth instead of on the surface. Nobody has any idea where all of the trees were located in the past. I would not want to materialize in the middle of a tree.
Here is how I think time travel really works, you can't time travel in your current dimension, but you can create another dimension set in a different point in time of the current one, and each time after that you can only make an alternate dimension to the one you are currently in unless you back track to a dimension you were already in, but it would then be a future time of when you left that dimension, and you can not go to a time before the time that dimension was set in when it was created.
Imagine a portal or space ship! Cool idea about the materialization of an object. Rather like this guy:
WIKIPEDIA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Lou Reed
2008-07-10, 15:02
That could expose you to the risk of having a birds fused into your dick/ass, you kno ?
http://www.technoccult.com/archives/2008/06/11/baby-born-with-penis-on-back/
The Methematician
2008-07-10, 15:48
http://www.technoccult.com/archives/2008/06/11/baby-born-with-penis-on-back/
Did you laughed at that ?
Lou Reed
2008-07-10, 16:13
Did i laugh at it?
No...
Vanhalla
2008-07-10, 21:10
http://www.technoccult.com/archives/2008/06/11/baby-born-with-penis-on-back/
Damn they removed it.
The Methematician
2008-07-10, 21:34
Did i laugh at it?
No...
Neither did I.
unfrgvncure
2008-07-11, 06:02
time is thought
no thought, no time
so then what is space? modern physics point to time and space being the same, therefore you have space time.
I dont think time travel is at all posible, just makes no sense, too many paradoxs.
The only way i see it working is this...
You travel beyond the speed of light (impossible by laws of physics)
and simply go back to see the light that has been given off, since time is space you might end up in the past (most likley not). You will probibly be somewhere, but see something different than what someone from a place who didnt time travel.
My explanation is sketchy and hard to explain
then again you never know, it is widley believed that there are other dimensions where laws of physics do not follow our set ones.
ventrman
2008-07-14, 06:20
That could expose you to the risk of having a birds fused into your dick/ass, you kno ?
That could be a possibility. I think it would be more likely that you would wind up part of a tree.