^That is one theory.

And again were all just assuming here seeing as how the only way to know for sure is to travel time itself.

It could be linear it may not who knows?


____________________________________________________________________

Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.

it could be, but i see time being linear as unlikely. After all, going from 0 dimensions, to 1 dimension, to 2 dimensions, to 3; there's less "constraints". To assume time is linear would be putting a 1-dimensional constraint on a 4-dimensional concept.

Many people may need to do this because they can't think 3 dimensionally--much less 4. Most likely, the shape of tiem would be a 4th dimensional object curved within the 5th (hyper-hypersphere).


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

[quote=Keeper of the Light™]it could be, but i see time being linear as unlikely. After all, going from 0 dimensions, to 1 dimension, to 2 dimensions, to 3; there's less "constraints". To assume time is linear would be putting a 1-dimensional constraint on a 4-dimensional concept.

I don't see it that way. You'd be putting a 1 dimensional constraint on a single dimension. There just happens to be 4 individual dimensions that we know of. The other three dimensions are 1 dimensional also. Only when the 3 (or 4) dimensions are combined do we get anything greater than a single dimension.

has anyone heard of the notion that time does not exist? its just something we created to document events. Ive got more information if anyone is interested.

As I see it, all the other dimensions are combined by proxy, labotomi. A line can't exist without a point, a plane cannot exist without a line and a point, a space can't exist without line, point, and planes, and time can't exist without all of those.

As such, i find that if you look at time as linear--sequential, it's limiting the very nature of having something beyond space. i look at time more as simultaneous--everythingthat can happen does haoppen, and when constrained within the 5 dimension, does so simultaneously--we just perceive it as sequentially 'cause that's thwe way we are wired.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

It's that time is interconnected with the other dimensions that makes it appear to be non-linear. A plane is a combonation of 2 linear dimensions. Space is the combonation of 3 linear dimensions. Space-time is the combonation of those 3 plus time. Each addition of another dimension expands the possibilities, but as much as it adds possibilities, I believe it's still the addition of a single linear dimension.

It's like working with arrays in programming. For example:

if you limit the array to 10 units per dimension (for simplicity)
A 2 sided array (height and width) can have 100 possibilities 10 x 10
Adding 1 more dimension (depth) gives a possibility of 1000 combonations 10 x 10 x 10
Adding a 4th (lets say color) dimension gives 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 or a possible 10000.
You can continue this as far as your software will allow.

My point is that even though you're adding a single linear dimension to the others, the additional possibilities are multiplied many times over. If we find another dimension (if it exists), the possibilities will probably be beyond our comprehension and if there are as many as some theorize (I've heard upwards of 50) then it's truly mind boggling.

My opinion is that there are multiple timelines all Linear each with there own dimensions intertwined with one another. Which would in turn have many many dimensions if looked at as a whole. Instead of just 4, perhaps 5. Say for example there are 4 timelines and within those timelines are 4 dimensions. That would make 16 dimensions as a whole. Not just 4.


____________________________________________________________________

Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.

Until you have a way to controvert or invert time, time is pretty much linear as far as we know. ie. it's a one-way journey.

The only way to decelerate your perspective of time, is to travel faster in relation to one point.

Basically, if you accelerate to the speed of light, and happen to pass an area that could capture your image, you'd be seen as holding still, while the others on earth would have had several generations live and die.

Accelerating to the speed of light is a fine idea, but you'd also become a thin salsa during the initial energy expulsion.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Thats the part that I have a hard time understanding. "Oh if you accelerate at the speed of light you can transverse time" Can you imagine the force put of your body to go that fast? There wouldnt be anything left of you.

We cannot time-travel, and never will be able to , as going back in time would require reversing the velocity and energy level of all matter in the universe... stopping time is simple..it's called absolute zero, as time is merely a measure of change(distance, and energy levels ) of, at the very least, two atoms....

all of that "speed of light" vs time is b.S. too, as the speed of light, even in a vacuum, is a variable.

ECB: as I said, we are all time travelling... it's just that right now, it's one way only

You COULD theoretically go back in time, but the energy expenditure would be enormous.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Technically, it is adding 1 dimension (linear) onto the existing set of dimension, however, when talking 2 dimensions, while there are 2 set of axes, there are an infinite amount of lines that can be defined within the plane. Just like there are an infinite amount of planes that can be defined within a space, and there are infinite amounts of space theat can be defined withing time.

however, the lines that define the plane, along with the planes and space, and spaces within time, are not necesarrily parallel. As such the infin9te lines of time defined within the 5th dimension are not parallel, and can thuus intersect, tangentoff of, curve, and asically look like a jumble of yarn.

Hence is why time isn't linear (to me). REver thread of time, so to speak, is an individual perception that runs your life, and within those threads are every point in space of your perception. As such, it's possible for the thread of your life to move to any adjacent point within the 4 dimensions that it's contrained to--which, if i'm not mistaken, per every moment in time (which is a measure of time infinitessimally small), equates out to 30 different directions for each point in time. while this may not sound like much, this is in the measure of the fractions of the yocktoseconds...the true meaning of "snaphot" in time.

As such, there is no "linear" about it from the higher perspectives--it is percieved linear because like the highway at night analogy, you can only perceive things from where you've been, and immediatly around you--you can't know, or percieve, anything doen the crossroads you take, and sometimes are only vaguely aware of it's existance; mainly in the "what could have happened if i did xxx?"

This doesn't mean that the "roads not taken" are never taken--it just means that your consciousness and perception never took them, but it is not beyond the plausibility of the universe that a parallel consciouness didn't take them, and that your reality would be as foreign as their reality is to you. Moreover, this in the means of time travel means that in ways, it wouldn't mean squat if you changed the timeline, because that reality already does exist.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

GAM wrote:You COULD theoretically go back in time, but the energy expenditure would be enormous.

Of course. On paper its possible but like I said we are many many ages from developing any technology to harness the energy required which the only source would be a black hole.


____________________________________________________________________

Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.

[quote=Keeper of the Light™]a space, and there are infinite amounts of space theat can be defined withing time. however, the lines that define the plane, along with the planes and space, and spaces within time, are not necesarrily parallel. As such the infin9te lines of time defined within the 5th dimension are not parallel, and can thuus intersect, tangentoff of, curve, and asically look like a jumble of yarn.
A single line defines a single axis (dimension). Whenever you talk about another line that is parallel, perpendicular, tangent or any other difference other than length you have to take into account another axis (dimension). The absolute difference in position is the vector sum of the difference in the 2 individual coordinates (or 3 or 4 or however many you're talking about). For example, if you look at a simple 2 dimensional XY coordinate chart and starting at 0 you move 10 units at a 45 degree angle. In absolute terms you've moved 7.07 units in the X direction and 7.07 units in the Y direction. Just because time is a variable that we can't "see" then we tend to think it is somehow different. I don't think it is at all differen't and that was the point of my original post.

If you're trying to account for multiple timelines or parallel universes then that opens up an entirely differen't discussion. I was trying to limit the topic to a single timeline or a single universe. As soon as you allow infinite universes then of course the possibilities are infinite and everyone's opinion is correct (at least in one universe). It is possible to talk about time as it applies to a single timeline/universe.

ECB, wow so Eiensteins theroies on this subect are BS as well? Because HES the one that came up the the one that as you approach the speed of light time will slow down and once light speed is reached time would stop. I may not be the brightest
bulb on the tree but I'm far from being the dimest and I would never claim to understand Eiensteins work or his theroies enough to call them B.S.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Quote:

If you're trying to account for multiple timelines or parallel universes then that opens up an entirely differen't discussion.

It's because you need to take into consideration that my timeline and your timeline are not the same time line. Right now, your timeline and my timeline are within a proximity that makes us aware of each other. Before 2003--your timeline had little or no proof that I even existed. It's like, say one of your best freinds from first grade that you lost contact with over the years--to you, they don't exist--ior exist in memory but who's to say what's become of them? Moreso, who's to say that in a "parallel universe" you're not still freinds with them?

While you're correct on the terms of defining a dimension, i'm relating to what can exist within one. a plane can support an infinite amoung of lines--many being parallel, perpendicular, and heading in every which direction--the only thing that constrains the fector is that it can't move in the z direction--only x and y. lines may never intersect, and there's nothing that says they can't curve.

Ditto on planes in space.

Ditto on space wihin time

Ditto on timelines within the 5th dimension.

What i'm basically saying that the new can of worms i've opened needs to eb opened--because when it comes to the theory of time travel, it's really just hopping back or forward along your timeline, or cross-hopping to a different one. In other words, everything that can happen, does happen--we only percieve a small part of it based upon the direction we steer our timeline.




Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Alexander Andrade wrote:Wow.....my I.Q. just dropped many points. I enjoy reading this knowledge from you guys....very interesting!

lol i sucked my water through my nose.


---

jackalope wrote:ECB, wow so Eiensteins theroies on this subect are BS as well? Because HES the one that came up the the one that as you approach the speed of light time will slow down and once light speed is reached time would stop. I may not be the brightest
bulb on the tree but I'm far from being the dimest and I would never claim to understand Eiensteins work or his theroies enough to call them B.S.

Einstein himself stated that he was wrong about some of his theories. One case is his argument for a cosmological constant in regards to the expansion of the universe. I don't believe the time slowing at the speed of light was one that he recanted, but just because he was truly gifted doesn't mean he was infallable.

ECB wrote:stopping time is simple..it's called absolute zero, as time is merely a measure of change(distance, and energy levels ) of, at the very least, two atoms....

It doesn't take absolute zero to stop molecular motion. If every point in the universe were at the same energy level (temperature) then motion would stop and like you said, time doesn't exist without change. This is one theory of the fate of the universe called the heat death. Some take it to mean that all the energy in the universe is depleted, but it actually means all the energy is equally distributed (homogenous).

Here's another question. Since the energy level in the universe is being distributed more equally all the time causing the overall molecular energy levels to become equalized. Would this mean that time is slowing all the time?

Possibly...

However, sicne gravity can be equated as a warp in space-time, and there would be matter within the universe even when all motion and energy stops, there would still be gravity, and without any friction holding everything back, everything would reverse and start collapsing in.

I believe a long time ago in a thread far, far away, i explained this--the changestate point would be infinity, since infinity and infinitessimal are the same things--you just take a different direction to get there.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

^^^I believe something like your describing is the rubberband theory or something like that. It said that the universe will keep expanding until all the energy is used up and when that happens gravity will make it crash back in on itself. or something like that.


____________________________________________________________________

Madjack wrote:Like I said before, building an engine like ours (2.2 or 2200) is a painstaking chore , since there is so few custom made parts. It's frustrating to me too, but that's what I like about doing this engine, it's the challenge.

Yep. that's the ins-and-outs of it.

Simply put, when the universe is infinite in size and infinitessimal in density, and infinitessimal in size and infinite in density are the changestate points that start another cycle.

Thus, all there is was and will be, and will cycle back on us--just not always in the form we know them as.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

With the current data indicating that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, it appears that the universe will continue expanding forever resulting in the big chill as opposed to the big crunch. It seems as if dark matter isn't enough to slow and eventually stop the expansion. Some postulate the existence of "dark energy" that causes the increasing expansion, but we still have no proof of dark matter or dark energy and it seems as if the only explanations use circular logic to explain the existence of the two.

Keeper, so you think that each individual person has their own time line? When I think of divergent time lines, I think of an entire universe on a single time line. I'll have to think about the single person version for awhile, but one question comes up...why does the time line follow a whole person? I mean could a time line follow a persons leg or each individual atom/subatomic particle? Could you go the other way and say that each city has their own time line or planet, or solar system. Does it have anything to do with your concept of perception?


There's some good stuff in these recent threads, especially since no one has taken offence to differing opinions and resulted to flaming.

Let's star with the "accellerating" for a moment.

The amount of time we can see, and have recorded of the universe to actually be able to record the speed and acceleration or decelleration of the universe would be like timeing the acceleration of a cross-country roadtrip for a mere second. There's too much unknown tro say definitvely, plus the further back in time we look, the further an object is from us, and the slower it appears to move (ever notice a 747 flying at altitude, at near 600mph apaes slower than being next to the highway with cars travelling about 1/10th the speed?). As such, no one could for certain say that the universe is accellerating because we've had maybe 100 years to see about 10,000,000 years of progress? The only way we could sayfor certain would be to track the speed of a give galaxy over the course of a few millenia--and even then it would be a snapshot.

But even so, you don't need to see dark matter to see there will bve a big crunch--once all of the energy is expanded for the "big chill" (my apologies to anyone that remebers that piece of 80's schlock), you'll have matter left over, with no driving force moving it, only inertia and gravity. Gravity is what will cause the big crunch because, in theory, since gravity is a warp in space-time, that means the effects are similar to a logarithmic curve--it will flatten, but never approach zero. Thus, we are effected by the gravitational pull of space dust across the universe--as much as we are effecting spacedust across the universe. Further, with no friction in the near vacuum, what's to stop gravity from attracting gluon-sized particles together?

Back to the Realities:

Yes, i do. Consider this--i've known my g/f for about 4 years. Before that--to her, I didn't exist--and to me, she didn't. In a way, my timeline and her timeline couldn't percieve each other. And, taking my 1st g/f into consideration, to me she doesn't exist anymore--she "fell offf the face of the earth" a long time ago, and really, there's no way i can know whether she's alive, dead, or whatever.

Further, and going off of your question, it's not just perception as a complete human entity--it's perception of all matter. As much as I know the keyboard is here and I'm able to type on it, the keyboard is knows i'm here, and as such, allows my fingers to type on it. The mass web of "timelines" is pretty crosslinked, but we, as humans, can only perceive a small section of it--and further, we only perceive the descsions our cognative perceptions make--and not any of the other branches out that can/do happen.

Further, we can't limit perception to life as we know it--because we really don't know if other things can perceieve.

But, in an attempt to simply answer your question--only your "soul" if you will, is your perception--independent of your physical body. While i have no definitive proof for my theory, OBE's and dreams partially explain this, but not prove it. Yuor body has it's own perception as it were--your soul merely taps into them.

Hope that helped...


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Keeper, now it's getting a little too phylosophical. I will not accept that just because I'm not aware of someone that they don't exist, even if it only on my timeline. It's just a little too egocentric for my tastes. You could take it back to the classical "I think therefore I am" debate in which you can only be sure of your own existence and everything around you is just a construct of your imagination. Anyway, I can't even come to common grounds with your beliefs on this as it's just too far from mine.

And the prevailing theory today is that the universe is expanding, even if it's just for this instance. And while I'll accept your argument about the validity of the data sample (even though we have some pretty accurate instruments) I'll not just throw it out either. You're analogy of the cross country trip doesn't work because of external forces acting on the traveler, unless you think that the forces working on the universe are changing. Gravity may not be a constant. It doesn't act the same on the quantum level and I believe that it was differen't during the first few nanoseconds of the universe after the big bang. Gravity may have a distance limit like the nuclear force (very strong up to 1.8 x 10^-15 but non existant after that. It's what keeps atoms together until they get too large and the relatively weak electromagnic repulsion force overcomes it (the heavier elements like uranium and plutonium).

What is gravity anyway? No one knows. It may have to do with the spin of subatomic particles like charge does. If this is the case then when the energy of the universe is expended then the spin has ceased and there would be no gravity. Maybe it's something entirely different. Point is, no one knows what causes it or could cause it to cease, so to say that the universe will definitely end in a big crunch would be discounting some thories by the greatest minds. Stephen Hawking weighed in on the issue and stated that until we understand things like gravity, dark energy and even the shape of the universe, we cannot know what will happen.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Until you have a way to controvert or invert time, time is pretty much linear as far as we know. ie. it's a one-way journey.

The only way to decelerate your perspective of time, is to travel faster in relation to one point.

Basically, if you accelerate to the speed of light, and happen to pass an area that could capture your image, you'd be seen as holding still, while the others on earth would have had several generations live and die.

Accelerating to the speed of light is a fine idea, but you'd also become a thin salsa during the initial energy expulsion.

hehe thats what inertial dampners are for

while i do agree that time travel in sense of going back or forth in time in any speed other than that of which we are already traveling.. is improbable, if not impossible.

but who knows, maybe we are reliving an existance over and over and over and jsut dont know it god would get bored after we kill ourselves... so he would remake us all over again.



http://www.cardomain.com/memberpage/618295