NationStates Jolt Archive

(Note: This is all theory, so far)

To explain the premise of the theory of time-travel, in this theory, one would have to start by explaining the theory from the way we look at time.

Humans view time as a line, moving from a beginning to an end. Looking at it that way, it is impossible to go back in time, because we cannot move any place out of the movement of the stream of time, which we do not control.

However, the theory states, what if we could bend the line of time, in order to attach the beginning and end, so that we would be traveling more or less in a circle? It would be possible, without going backwards, to travel to various points in time, even those behind us. In theory.

Imagine, humanity is the red dot, and time, which used to be a plane, is folded into a Möbius strip. We could then travel both sides of the plane of time, and touch all points, without actually moving off of our former 'direction' of time. Thus, we cross the dimension of time, not by actually moving ourselves, but by bending the line of space-time events. We go 'backwards' while moving 'fowards'.

The theory is described here at the stage for the 5th dimension:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

Up to the tenth dimension: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o&NR=1

Discuss. (Discussion would be best AFTER having watched that link...and if one has time, the second link)

** Warning ** Do not smoke pot while, or right after, having watched that.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Moebiusband_wikipedia_animation.ogg/mid-Moebiusband_wikipedia_animation.ogg.jpg

??? So we bend time then or what?

??? So we bend time then or what?

Well, in theory, we could move 'backwards' in time while still feeling like we are moving 'foward'. Time travel . . .

This is utter trash, scientifically speaking. Please don't make the mistake of confusing anything beyond about stage 3 with reality, and then you'll be fine.

This is utter trash, scientifically speaking. Please don't make the mistake of confusing anything beyond about stage 3 with reality, and then you'll be fine.
I've written, multiple times, that is is theory. Whether or not it is reality is irrelevant, at this stage, because current technology wouldn't allow anything being theorized about.

It's not trash, it's theoretical.

Load of bollocks.

inb4 string theory


I tried to explain this kind of stuff to a friend the other day.. there was some serious mind blowing going on.. ears were bleeding.

inb4 string theory

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/string_theory.png

bullshit I want proof of dimensions existing :p *gives TAI a headache*

I've written, multiple times, that is is theory. Whether or not it is reality is irrelevant, at this stage, because current technology wouldn't allow anything being theorized about.

It's not trash, it's theoretical.

Given the scientific nature of the topic I think it'd be better to say hypothetical.

That said, I've seen the "Imagining the 10th Dimension" animation before. It does make sense, but then I get to the stumbling block of 'Well, fair enough, but just because it makes sense to me doesn't mean reality is anything like that".

I've written, multiple times, that is is theory. Whether or not it is reality is irrelevant, at this stage, because current technology wouldn't allow anything being theorized about.

It's not trash, it's theoretical.

Nope, it's nothing to do with "theory". It is, at best, hypothesis, but one which lacks predictive power.

Due to this, you can't then say "so maybe this means we could do time travel", because there isn't the slightest bit of evidence suggesting that this relatively boring piece of mental masturbation on the part of Rob Bryanton is connected with reality in any useful way. It is trash.

Given the scientific nature of the topic I think it'd be better to say hypothetical.

That said, I've seen the "Imagining the 10th Dimension" animation before. It does make sense, but then I get to the stumbling block of 'Well, fair enough, but just because it makes sense to me doesn't mean reality is anything like that".

Indeed. It's a logical fallacy.

The rules of Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 edition make sense to me. Does that mean we all have hit points and roll dice to accomplish all our activities?

please tell me that the OP picture hasn't flipped round and its just my eyes playing tricks on me :eek:

haunted thread!

bullshit I want proof of dimensions existing :p *gives TAI a headache*
Ok.

1st dimension exists because a point has no real width, volume or height, it is just the marking of a location. 2nd dimension exists because it is the connection of two points, a beginning and an end, for example. 3rd dimension exists because when we add volume, we move away from the 2nd dimension in a way that cannot be measured without moving into the 3rd dimension. 4th dimension exists because of how everything, is not stationary, but moving through time. From there is gets more difficult to give 'proof'. :p

Indeed. It's a logical fallacy.

The rules of Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 edition make sense to me. Does that mean we all have hit points and roll dice to accomplish all our activities?
It's not a logical fallacy, because it doesn't claim to be a logical fact. It proposes an idea.
please tell me that the OP picture hasn't flipped round and its just my eyes playing tricks on me :eek:

haunted thread!
mwahahahhaha! That must be the reaction of my OP interacting with the 69th dimension, a realm inhabited only by an infinite amount of multiples of Glen Quagmire . . . callled 'The Gigidyverse'.

Load of bollocks.

Nope, it's nothing to do with "theory". It is, at best, hypothesis, but one which lacks predictive power.

Due to this, you can't then say "so maybe this means we could do time travel", because there isn't the slightest bit of evidence suggesting that this relatively boring piece of mental masturbation on the part of Rob Bryanton is connected with reality in any useful way. It is trash.


I'd say you two;

1. Take yourselves far too seriously.

And

2. Would make lousy dinner guests.

I'd say you two;

1. Take yourselves far too seriously.

Maybe so. I just dislike pseudoscience in all its many incarnations. If it isn't being presented as science, I don't have much of a problem with it, but when it is, it pisses me off. Other posters have discovered this before.

On a more accurate note, space-time is four*-dimensional, that much seems likely true. What is wrong is to move from this to assume you can move through all dimensions in the same way. The mathematics involved imbue the time dimension with several special properties, which make motion through time unidirectional - you can only go forwards.

*On a large scale - string theory predicts 10-11 dimensions, but the properties of most of these leave them irrelevant on any scale larger than that of subatomic particles.


2. Would make lousy dinner guests.

Actually, I'm generally considered to be excellent at making conversation.

2. Would make lousy dinner guests.

I much prefer dinner guests who know what they're talking about, rather than just saying multiple dimensions = time travel because of geometry!

Why not talk about Kerr ring singularities of sufficient size that tidal forces are not an issue, expanding the Cauchy horizon to cancel out the event horizon by adding momentum to its spin, enabling you to escape it after flying sufficiently close to the singularity to orbit it in a closed timelike loop and so possibly emerge through it in the past.

It's also mostly bollocks, but it sounds a lot more scientific!

I've written, multiple times, that is is theory. Whether or not it is reality is irrelevant, at this stage, because current technology wouldn't allow anything being theorized about.

It's not trash, it's theoretical.

It's not a theory.

It's not based on an observational model, it doesn't have a falsifiable model, it doesn't have any mechanism for testing.

At best, you could say that time APPEARS to be linear. That doesn't mean it IS a line, much less a line following a strip that can be altered, deformed and reformed.

It fails to qualify as a 'theory' in any but the most lay understanding of the phrasing.

On top of that, there's no consideration for how one makes a loop out of the imagined strip, and without that - it's useless conjecture.

please tell me that the OP picture hasn't flipped round and its just my eyes playing tricks on me :eek:

haunted thread!

Holy shit! You're right!

I'd say you two;

1. Take yourselves far too seriously.


WTF? When have I ever done that?

It's not a theory.

It's not based on an observational model, it doesn't have a falsifiable model, it doesn't have any mechanism for testing.

At best, you could say that time APPEARS to be linear. That doesn't mean it IS a line, much less a line following a strip that can be altered, deformed and reformed.

It fails to qualify as a 'theory' in any but the most lay understanding of the phrasing.

On top of that, there's no consideration for how one makes a loop out of the imagined strip, and without that - it's useless conjecture.

Many ideas are thought up before the technology comes into existince that allows said ideas to be realized. That doesn't mean those ideas are useless, at all. They may provide foundation, inspire other ideas that branch off, inspire the mind who invents the technology ....etc....

WTF? When have I ever done that?
You know, that hammer and sickle is offensive. It offends the memory of the millions and millions of people killed under the guise of that symbol.

You know, that hammer and sickle is offensive. It offends the memory of the millions and millions of people killed under the guise of that symbol.

You're joking, right?

I'd say you two;

1. Take yourselves far too seriously.


WTF? When have I ever done that?

Psssst - *right now*

/irony

Many ideas are thought up before the technology comes into existince that allows said ideas to be realized. That doesn't mean those ideas are useless, at all. They may provide foundation, inspire other ideas that branch off, inspire the mind who invents the technology ....etc....

This has no bearing on whether it is a theory.

It is not based on observations of the universe, and it does not make falsifiable predictions about the nature of the universe. Thus it is not a theory, nor even a hypothesis. It is, as I already said, merely mental masturbation on the part of its originator.

Many ideas are thought up before the technology comes into existince that allows said ideas to be realized. That doesn't mean those ideas are useless, at all. They may provide foundation, inspire other ideas that branch off, inspire the mind who invents the technology ....etc....

What a lot of words to say "Oh, yeah, that."

"I'd say you... Take yourselves far too seriously. "

...

"You know, that hammer and sickle is offensive."



Irony. It doesn't just mean 'tastes like metal'.

You're joking, right?

What kind of sick person would I beat to joke about the millions and millions of souls who perished by that symbol you flaunt . . . ?

This has no bearing on whether it is a theory.

It is not based on observations of the universe, and it does not make falsifiable predictions about the nature of the universe. Thus it is not a theory, nor even a hypothesis. It is, as I already said, merely mental masturbation on the part of its originator.

It has bearing on whether it is useless or not. It is, at the very least, constructive thought being applied towards a good cause. I don't know what is bad about this that you seem so eager to put it down.

It has bearing on whether it is useless or not. It is, at the very least, constructive thought being applied towards a good cause. I don't know what is bad about this that you seem so eager to put it down.

It's not 'constructive' thought unless something 'constructive' comes of it. There isn't even any pretence that this could lead to something 'constructive'.

More importantly, perhaps - you've shown no evidence that a 'good cause' is involved. At all.

What kind of sick person would I beat to joke about the millions and millions of souls who perished by that symbol you flaunt . . . ?

ffs_ It's got nothing to do with the symbol or me.

It has bearing on whether it is useless or not. It is, at the very least, constructive thought being applied towards a good cause. I don't know what is bad about this that you seem so eager to put it down.

If I'm going to read pseudoscience, I want to read well-written pseudoscience. That's what.

I would like to hear why this is a) constructive thought, and b) applied to a good cause, however. I can't see how it fits either part.

It's not 'constructive' thought unless something 'constructive' comes of it. There isn't even any pretence that this could lead to something 'constructive'.
A fortune teller huh? Do me next! Tell me my future!

A fortune teller huh? Do me next! Tell me my future!

You're going to say something pointless.

ffs_ It's got nothing to do with the symbol or me.
If someone were walking down the street with a Third Reich t-shirt with a Swastika on it, wouldn't you assume that the atrocities of the Third Reich have something to do with the symbol or that person wearing it? After all, the purpose of a symbol is to represent something. Your symbol represents, among other things, the history of millions and millions who suffered and died.

If someone were walking down the street with a Third Reich t-shirt with a Swastika on it, wouldn't you assume that the atrocities of the Third Reich have something to do with the symbol or that person wearing it? After all, the purpose of a symbol is to represent something. Your symbol represents, among other things, the history of millions and millions who suffered and died.

Jesus Christ. This is ridiculus. It doesn't just represent those deaths, infact I've never heard anyone link the 2 before. You can't seriously associate me with Nazis just for having this as my avatar.

Jesus Christ. This is ridiculus. It doesn't just represent those deaths, infact I've never heard anyone link the 2 before. You can't seriously associate me with Nazis just for having this as my avatar.

You're being trolled...

It has bearing on whether it is useless or not. It is, at the very least, constructive thought being applied towards a good cause. I don't know what is bad about this that you seem so eager to put it down.

What good cause is it being applied towards exactly?

What kind of sick person would I beat to joke about the millions and millions of souls who perished by that symbol you flaunt . . . ?

I have to admit, TAI, that was well played.

Jesus Christ. This is ridiculus. It doesn't just represent those deaths, infact I've never heard anyone link the 2 before. You can't seriously associate me with Nazis just for having this as my avatar.

He's not comparing you to the Nazis. He's comparing you to the Stalinists, and somewhat justly so, who murdered millions upon millions of innocents.

He's not comparing you to the Nazis. He's comparing you to the Stalinists, and somewhat justly so, who murdered millions upon millions of innocents.

Do you help TAI hijack all of his own threads, or is there a special deal for certain ones?

Do you help TAI hijack all of his own threads, or is there a special deal for certain ones?
I get 50% of the revenue from hijacked threads. *nod*

But yeah, you're right, shouldn't have continued this. I'll gladly continue this somewhere else if you're willing to create a thread monsieur.:wink:

If someone were walking down the street with a Third Reich t-shirt with a Swastika on it, wouldn't you assume that the atrocities of the Third Reich have something to do with the symbol or that person wearing it? After all, the purpose of a symbol is to represent something. Your symbol represents, among other things, the history of millions and millions who suffered and died.

Lol, I am getting a good chuckle.;)

(Up to the tenth dimension: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o&NR=1

Part eleven coming soon: :D

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,577219,00.html
String theory is a mathematical construct that many believe might explain away inconsistencies between Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics -- a major focus in theoretical physics for much of the last century. The highly complex models used in string theory point to the possible existence of up to 11 dimensions and also make predictions about the existence of some as-yet unobserved sub-atomic particles. Should the LHC be able to find some of those particles, a much touted theory of physics would have its first kernel of proof.

You know, that hammer and sickle is offensive. It offends the memory of the millions and millions of people killed under the guise of that symbol.

reminds me of childhood.


>.>

EDIT: people have died under all symbols, so it's a moot point

Klein Bottles > Mobius Strips:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/kleinbottle.jpg

Klein Bottles > Mobius Strips:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/kleinbottle.jpg

I'm forced to agree.

Imagining the Tenth Dimension is a book/video that grossly misunderstands basic physics on many levels. The author, Rob Bryanton, is a musician, not a physicist. It's pulp-science at best, outright pseudoscience at worst.

If you cut a mobius strip in half, it gets twice as long.

If you cut a mobius strip in half, it gets twice as long.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_HgRWjkJr2eM/SWhyHveXI2I/AAAAAAAAAnQ/xUQGpJwJPy4/s640/motivator3002901.jpg

Angor Wat, hahahahhahahah

If you cut a mobius strip in half, it gets twice as long.

What happens if you cut one into thirds? Try and guess, then go do it.

Imagining the Tenth Dimension is a book/video that grossly misunderstands basic physics on many levels. The author, Rob Bryanton, is a musician, not a physicist. It's pulp-science at best, outright pseudoscience at worst.

I've already been saying that. Apparently, however

It has bearing on whether it is useless or not. It is, at the very least, constructive thought being applied towards a good cause. I don't know what is bad about this that you seem so eager to put it down.

It's "constructive thought applied towards a good cause". Quite how, I can't see.

*mind blown*

What good cause is it being applied towards exactly?
Using our brains to discuss and explore the possibility of time travel.
Jesus Christ. This is ridiculus. It doesn't just represent those deaths, infact I've never heard anyone link the 2 before. You can't seriously associate me with Nazis just for having this as my avatar.
You wear a hammer and sicle around and you better be prepared to have people lump you in with those that murdered millions and millions of innocents under the exact same ideology and symbol.

How would you view someone with a swastika as their avatar? A Nazi one too, not a buddhist-different-direction one.

*mind blown*
From what exactly?

All of this is moot anyway. Time travel can be explained after the fact. We don't need to worry about the possibility of time travel until the first time traveller arrives, and once they have, not only is it inevitable that we will one day achieve it, but they can bring with them the knowledge we need to do it.

All of this is moot anyway. Time travel can be explained after the fact. We don't need to worry about the possibility of time travel until the first time traveller arrives, and once they have, not only is it inevitable that we will one day achieve it, but they can bring with them the knowledge we need to do it.
Except, if everyone thought that way, that nobody would put in the effort to create the ability to time travel . . . and that hypothetical time travler would never arrive!

Except, if everyone thought that way, that nobody would put in the effort to create the ability to time travel . . . and that hypothetical time travler would never arrive!
The hypothetical time traveller hasn't arrived. That tells you something about the success of time travel - nobody will ever travel to our known history, because nobody did. The question is merely one of travel across our future, and that being the case, the value of being able to travel in time becomes relatively minimal - kinda like the way globalization reduces the importance of national borders.

Using our brains to discuss and explore the possibility of time travel.Time Travel is nonsense.

I can't help but blame Hawkings as well, he is a totally crackpot when it comes to this area. Sometimes I wonder what it goes through his head. And please don't tell me to have some respect for the guy because of his handicap, this is precisely the reason he is so 'famous' when a lot more capable scientists are out there but don't receive much recognition.

Let me put it like this: time doesn't change. Time as the fourth dimension would not be time, it would be a spatial dimension.

Time is a measure of change. It is abstract, it doesn't exist, it is only the change that we perceive as time.

Quantum Mechanically speaking it makes perfect sense, and is the best theory IMO since it works on the quantum level -- whatever works at nano scales must work at higher macro scales as well, or there is a flaw in the theory.

Since I'm a nice guy I'll give a link for those who want it:

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

Time Travel is nonsense.

I can't help but blame Hawkings as well, he is a totally crackpot when it comes to this area. Sometimes I wonder what it goes through his head. And please don't tell me to have some respect for the guy because of his handicap, this is precisely the reason he is so 'famous' when a lot more capable scientists are out there but don't receive much recognition.

Let me put it like this: time doesn't change. Time as the fourth dimension would not be time, it would be a spatial dimension.

Time is a measure of change. It is abstract, it doesn't exist, it is only the change that we perceive as time.

Quantum Mechanically speaking it makes perfect sense, and is the best theory IMO since it works on the quantum level -- whatever works at nano scales must work at higher macro scales as well, or there is a flaw in the theory.

Since I'm a nice guy I'll give a link for those who want it:

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

We should know one way or the other by the end of 2010. (after LHC data is analyzed)

Except, if everyone thought that way, that nobody would put in the effort to create the ability to time travel . . . and that hypothetical time travler would never arrive!

Evidently not everyone does think that way. See: Mirror :tongue:

Time Travel is nonsense.

I can't help but blame Hawkings as well, he is a totally crackpot when it comes to this area. Sometimes I wonder what it goes through his head. And please don't tell me to have some respect for the guy because of his handicap, this is precisely the reason he is so 'famous' when a lot more capable scientists are out there but don't receive much recognition.

Let me put it like this: time doesn't change. Time as the fourth dimension would not be time, it would be a spatial dimension.

Time is a measure of change. It is abstract, it doesn't exist, it is only the change that we perceive as time.

Quantum Mechanically speaking it makes perfect sense, and is the best theory IMO since it works on the quantum level -- whatever works at nano scales must work at higher macro scales as well, or there is a flaw in the theory.

Since I'm a nice guy I'll give a link for those who want it:

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time
That article rocked my world. Thank you for linking it!

As Rovelli explains it, in quantum mechanics all particles of matter and energy can also be described as waves. And waves have an unusual property: An infinite number of them can exist in the same location. If time and space are one day shown to consist of quanta, the quanta could all exist piled together in a single dimensionless point. “Space and time in some sense melt in this picture,” says Rovelli. “There is no space anymore. There are just quanta kind of living on top of one another without being immersed in a space.”

Rovelli has been working with one of the world’s leading mathematicians, Alain Connes of the College of France in Paris, on this notion. Together they have developed a framework to show how the thing we experience as time might emerge from a more fundamental, timeless reality. As Rovelli describes it, “Time may be an approximate concept that emerges at large scales—a bit like the concept of ‘surface of the water,’ which makes sense macroscopically but which loses a precise sense at the level of the atoms.”
I pity the fool who'd read that article while smoking pot. One's sense of self and perception would shatter.

Time Travel is nonsense.

I can't help but blame Hawkings as well, he is a totally crackpot when it comes to this area. Sometimes I wonder what it goes through his head. And please don't tell me to have some respect for the guy because of his handicap, this is precisely the reason he is so 'famous' when a lot more capable scientists are out there but don't receive much recognition.

Yay, ad hominem. Discarding this irrelevancy.


Let me put it like this: time doesn't change. Time as the fourth dimension would not be time, it would be a spatial dimension.

You don't know your higher-dimensional geometry, it seems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space


Time is a measure of change. It is abstract, it doesn't exist, it is only the change that we perceive as time.

Of course it exists. It's what all objects are moving through, at a velocity based on their spatial velocity and the speed of light.


Quantum Mechanically speaking it makes perfect sense, and is the best theory IMO since it works on the quantum level -- whatever works at nano scales must work at higher macro scales as well, or there is a flaw in the theory.

Well, why can't there be a flaw in the theory? As it happens, we know there are flaws in quantum mechanics, including some rather important ones (hence this whole LHC thingamajig). Your logic is very flawed right about here.


Since I'm a nice guy I'll give a link for those who want it:

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

I'd like to note that the views advocated in this article are very definitely in a minority among physicists. While they are intriuging (and are somewhat more worthwhile than our OP's source, being actual scientists), they shouldn't be taken for scientific consensus on the subject.

Furthermore, every scientist talked to is on the particle-physics end of the spectrum, and quantum mechanics did for normal views of time over there quite a while back. The cosmologists and relativists tend to have very different opinions about the whole question; they tend to see a time dimension as an integral part of the universe.

UvV, Skama....it's about to be a - what?! what!? - NERD OFF! :p

whatever works at nano scales must work at higher macro scales as well, or there is a flaw in the theory.


That's nonsensical.

If micro and macro environments DO act differently, then any unifying theory that applies on both scales MUST be inherently fatally flawed.

Jesus Christ. This is ridiculus. It doesn't just represent those deaths, infact I've never heard anyone link the 2 before. You can't seriously associate me with Nazis just for having this as my avatar.

Someone clearly can't read.

Someone clearly can't read.

What?

Humans view time as a line, moving from a beginning to an end. Looking at it that way, it is impossible to go back in time, because we cannot move any place out of the movement of the stream of time, which we do not control.
Actually general relativity says somewhat different things.


However, the theory states, what if we could bend the line of time, in order to attach the beginning and end, so that we would be traveling more or less in a circle? It would be possible, without going backwards, to travel to various points in time, even those behind us. In theory.
Problem: to "bend" a line, you got to have a "space" where the line exists, and in which you fold it. What is this space?


Imagine, humanity is the red dot, and time, which used to be a plane, is folded into a Möbius strip. We could then travel both sides of the plane of time, and touch all points, without actually moving off of our former 'direction' of time. Thus, we cross the dimension of time, not by actually moving ourselves, but by bending the line of space-time events. We go 'backwards' while moving 'fowards'.

Actually the example looks quite nonsensical to me.

1.A line is a monodimensional linear variety: a plane is a bidimensional linear variety: a Moebius strip is a three-dimensional object whose surface is a bi-dimensional differential variety.
2.If time is a plane, we can already touch any point because a plane, just like a Moebius strip has only ONE side (and not two separated sides as a "regular" strip).
3.The measure of a Moebius strip's surface is necessarily finite, whereas the measure of a plane's surface is infinite. Hence you cannot bend a plane into a Moebius strip without breaking the plane.

If you're interested in time travel, I advise you to wiki about the Minkowsky space-time and Einstein's relativity. Differential geometry isn't that helpful anyway - because it is mostly about infinitely-continuous maps and transformations.

bullshit I want proof of dimensions existing :p *gives TAI a headache*

Dimensions do not "exist", of course. They're just an a posteriori category of our mind.

Dimensions do not "exist", of course. They're just an a posteriori category of our mind.

*head explodes*

Dimensions do not "exist", of course. They're just an a posteriori category of our mind.

Yeah, the mind strives to explain a phenomenae. Just that.

I've written, multiple times, that is is theory.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. The word you want is, at best, it's a "hypothesis". Which makes it "hypothetical".

Which is fine. But the fact that the world is a giant cantaloupe is "hypothetical" too, doesn't mean we need to give it any serious thought.

Yeah, the mind strives to explain a phenomenae. Just that.

Phenomenon. You can't have a phenomenae, because phenomenae is plural, and in any case, you can't put a Latin end to a Greek word.