NationStates Jolt Archive

So the other night I was listening to an MP3 recording of Coast to Coast AM on my MP3 Player (No it's not an Ipod) and the show was about John Titor the famous Time Traveler. Now beside talking about stuff that I've heard a thousand time, the guest who runs www.johntitor.com also started talking about Multiple Universes. Stating that's how people travel through time, that they travel back or forward in time from their Universe into another one.

Now I discussed this with a friend who I considered very smart, and she studies stuff like this. Apparently Multiple Universes is an established fact because scientist (from what she tells me) sent something forward in time and I guess the clock on this object went forward in time in a substantial amount.

I don't know, maybe I'm just ignorant on the subject, but I can't really wrap my head around the idea that there are more than one Universe, and that every possible Universe may contain their own Wilgrove etc. What do you guys think and can anyone help me understand this? lol.

Well, first off I'd like too point out that I am no scientist, I'm just stating my opinions. I don't know about time travel, but I can definittely see there being more than one universe. Supposedly the universe has no end, but I say everything has an end, but once you get to the end, there has to be something beyond it. Unless theres just a long field of white. Or, its possible that what we consider one universe, is actually multiple. Maybe in our ignorance, we think of a universe as a glaxy. I doubt the last bit, but its a possibility.

So the other night I was listening to an MP3 recording of Coast to Coast AM on my MP3 Player (No it's not an Ipod) and the show was about John Titor the famous Time Traveler. Now beside talking about stuff that I've heard a thousand time, the guest who runs www.johntitor.com also started talking about Multiple Universes. Stating that's how people travel through time, that they travel back or forward in time from their Universe into another one.

Now I discussed this with a friend who I considered very smart, and she studies stuff like this. Apparently Multiple Universes is an established fact because scientist (from what she tells me) sent something forward in time and I guess the clock on this object went forward in time in a substantial amount.

I don't know, maybe I'm just ignorant on the subject, but I can't really wrap my head around the idea that there are more than one Universe, and that every possible Universe may contain their own Wilgrove etc. What do you guys think and can anyone help me understand this? lol.

You may be merging different theories here - there's certainly a theory of multiple universes but I'm quite certain it's not an established fact. I'm not sure whether String Theory can count as multiple universes, not that it's established fact either.

In terms of time and clocks, there's something to do with gravity bending time - you can put a clock on Mount Everest and it will run faster than a clock at sea level - is the theory at least, I don't know if it's been proven.

So I'm guessing it's a miasma of various thoughts on time, space and universes here.

In terms of time and clocks, there's something to do with gravity bending time - you can put a clock on Mount Everest and it will run faster than a clock at sea level - is the theory at least, I don't know if it's been proven.

I don't think the difference in gravity between Mt Everest and sea level would be enough to cause more than a minute, undetectable change, but in more extreme differences in gravity it is a common theory.

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Outreach/Explore_Our_Universe/Why_Does_Gravity_Slow_Time?/

I can't say I completely understand the proof.

The more you read about multiple universes, the more pointless the whole idea will seem. I think reading about multiverses killed it for me. Multiverses are supposed to be big bubbles of universes.

Apparently Multiple Universes is an established fact because scientist (from what she tells me) sent something forward in time and I guess the clock on this object went forward in time in a substantial amount.What? Smart people can be psychopaths too you know. You can't prove or disprove the existence of another universe. The word universe is supposed to encompass everything anyway.

I know that relativity experiments have been done on clocks, but that has nothing to do with multiple universes or going forward in time.

I don't think the difference in gravity between Mt Everest and sea level would be enough to cause more than a minute, undetectable change, but in more extreme differences in gravity it is a common theory.

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/Outreach/Explore_Our_Universe/Why_Does_Gravity_Slow_Time?/

I can't say I completely understand the proof.

In the sense of evolutionary theory rather than a fancy idea of course...

Nevertheless, the effect has been measured using very accurate atomic clocks and the results are in excellent agreement with our formula. Indeed, the Global Positioning System (GPS), which relies on very accurate atomic clocks both on the Earth and carried by satellites high above the Earth, must account for this effect in order to work with the accuracy it does. It should be emphasized, however, that this warping of time, while small anywhere in our solar system, is huge in other more interesting places in our universe. A black hole is an extreme example, where gravity is so strong at the event horizon that time is slowed to a stop relative to anyone outside the horizon! But this is another story…

From the article you linked and yes, mathematics with letters is also incomprehensible to me.

Going forward in time is simple. Just go really fast or get close to a giant gravity well. It's only going back that would mean going to an alternate universe and even then things get tricky in theory. All that really matters is that you get up to 88.

Still it's all meaningless because that was a hoax. A bit of an ongoing hoax in fact.

History Channel had Kaku and a few others talking about stuff like that the other day.
I don't have the time to belabour it, so i'll just say that i've got a theory i've literally been working on, lesser & greater, for the majority of my years.

so much for temporal presentism?

History Channel had Kaku and a few others talking about stuff like that the other day.
I don't have the time to belabour it, so i'll just say that i've got a theory i've literally been working on, lesser & greater, for the majority of my years.

Is your theory anything to do with your habit of putting links to other threads, either your own quotes or others, into most of your posts.

You're subconsciously creating a real-life version of your theory in creating 'wormholes' that connect in and out of 'multiple threads' to form an enormous interconnected whole. Each seemingly separate on the surface but, in fact, not at all?

Will you posit the 'Straughn', a random wave particle that creates these connections?

Now I discussed this with a friend who I considered very smart, and she studies stuff like this. Apparently Multiple Universes is an established fact because scientist (from what she tells me) sent something forward in time and I guess the clock on this object went forward in time in a substantial amount.

Which would prove alternate universes how ;) ?

What has been established as fact is that time is flexible. If you move faster, time moves slower for you as per Einsteins time dilation formulas. This has been tested with atomic clocks in jets, resulting in tiny but well measurable deviations.
This however does not really move us to alternate universes. And does not allow travelling to the past.
It does have interesting sideeffects like the twinparadox though (wiki it ;))

Alternative universes is a mathematical tool. It was not supposed to be considered real, but since it makes a pretty good scifi theme (and does in fact solve the grandfather paradox problem of timetravel quite nicely) the "it is all real" interpretation has been popularised in many novels and tvseries. Like Sliders, the "back to the future" movies, some episodes of Star Trek and Star Gate and so on.

In terms of time and clocks, there's something to do with gravity bending time - you can put a clock on Mount Everest and it will run faster than a clock at sea level - is the theory at least, I don't know if it's been proven
It's been proven. If I recall correctly, they used clocks on aircraft and they ran minutely (but measurably) faster.

It's been proven. If I recall correctly, they used clocks on aircraft and they ran minutely (but measurably) faster.

Indeed. Ironically enough, William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy apparently attempted this experiment themselves. Here's an excerpt from Shatner's "I'm Working On That", in a chapter explaining how warp travel in Star Trek terms is unfeasible.

The light-speed speed limit is one problem, but there are plenty of others. One of them is called time dilation. As a star cruiser approaches light speed, a speed so much faster than the other objects around it, time actually slows down for those on the ship. Why? Well, a few thousand people in the world might truly understand why. I'm not one of them. So I asked Millis for an answer.

He explained it like this. When one person is moving much faster than another, the whole idea of events happening simultaneously goes out the window. For example, let's say you are standing still, watching Leonard Nimoy take a bow onstage following a great performance. If I am moving at the speed of light, I will not see Leonard take his bow at the same time that you do because I am traveling at somewhere around 186,000 miles a second. Our perception of reality is, relatively speaking, out of sync because our speeds, relative to one another, are extremely different.

This means that our perception of time is different based on how fast we are moving. In fact it means that if I am traveling faster than you are, time actually stretches out, slows down for me as compared to you. It dilates.

As ridiculous as this sounds, time dilation has actually been proven. Here's how. Let's say I have two atomic clocks (doesn't everyone?). To perform a time dilation experiment, I keep one in Los Angeles and send the other to Leonard Nimoy who happens to be in New York meeting with some high-powered publishing executives. (He's always got some deal going.) I pocket my clock and hop on a New York-bound jet. As I'm taxiing down the runway I sneak a call to Leonard and tell him to start his clock. I start mine at exactly the same time. When the jet lands in New York, Leonard greets me at the airport. After hugs and hellos and some Vulcan dancing, we compare the elapsed time on the two clocks. Low and behold, my clock, the one that has been airborne for the past five hours, has ticked off twenty-two nanoseconds less than Leonard's -- exactly what Einstein himself would have predicted.

So never let anyone tell you that you can't save time by moving fast. It's a fact.

What has been established as fact is that time is flexible. If you move faster, time moves slower for you as per Einsteins time dilation formulas. This has been tested with atomic clocks in jets, resulting in tiny but well measurable deviations.
Time slows down if you move faster relative to what? Does time slow down in relation to the jet's airspeed, groundspeed or the speed relative to another jet, the sun, the centre of the galaxy or some other point of reference?

Multiple universes is more logical than a single universe. If there are an infinite number of universes then it's not so odd that our universe exists too but if no other universes exist then why does ours exist?

Time slows down if you move faster relative to what?The rest of the universe.

Multiple universes is more logical than a single universe.Except that 'universe' means 'everything there is'. If you have two 'universes', then neither is actually a universe, but their union is.

If there are an infinite number of universes then it's not so odd that our universe exists too but if no other universes exist then why does ours exist?It seems to me it would be at least as odd as more than one universe existed rather than one (even aside from linguistic arguments). Why should any exist? Would you really be less surprised to find an infinite number of pink elephants in your fridge than one?

The problem is trying to use our limited ability to understand something which could have no limits.

I have a universe in my pants. *nod*

As long as it isn't anything at all like The One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_%28film%29), then we're cool.

Of course there are multiple universes. If there weren't, then how would DC Comics and Marvel Comics know about the diffierent incarnations of their characters, as well as making up cool storylines when the creativity starts to stagnate?

The multiverse exists, in peril though it may be thanks to the actions of the villain Superman-Prime and Monarch.

The rest of the universe.
So you add up the velocity of every particle in the universe and the more your velocity differs from that average the slower time moves for you?

Except that 'universe' means 'everything there is'. If you have two 'universes', then neither is actually a universe, but their union is.
Okay if you define universe that way then the words universes and multiverse are contradictions.
It seems to me it would be at least as odd as more than one universe existed rather than one (even aside from linguistic arguments). Why should any exist? Would you really be less surprised to find an infinite number of pink elephants in your fridge than one?
I was more thinking if there is a pink elephant in every fridge then I would not be as surprised to find one in my fridge too. The more common pink elephants are the less surprising it is to encounter one. Your way of looking at it is more correct though, how surprising it is that pink elephants exist at all has nothing to do with how many of them there are.

Supposedly the universe has no end, but I say everything has an end, but once you get to the end, there has to be something beyond it. Unless theres just a long field of white.

No, if there's nothing it would be black, and if it's just empty space why would it end?

Is your theory anything to do with your habit of putting links to other threads, either your own quotes or others, into most of your posts.

You're subconsciously creating a real-life version of your theory in creating 'wormholes' that connect in and out of 'multiple threads' to form an enormous interconnected whole. Each seemingly separate on the surface but, in fact, not at all?

Will you posit the 'Straughn', a random wave particle that creates these connections?

I knew you were going to say that.
>.>
<.<

I have a universe in my pants. *nod*

It's freezing and the mean distance between atoms can be measure in meters?

Your wife must be a very understanding woman ;)