Will CERN tear apart fabric of universe to find Higgs Bosun?

[Tamborine man]

A note is a note is a note and not dependent on anything, least of all upon
relative 'time'.
Nothing is time dependent.
Speed has never been and never will be a function of 'time'.

THis is plainly wrong.

Please define a note without referring to the time function.

Please define speed without the time function.

There are no doubt many thousands of precise scientific formulae that depend on the function t .

A note must at all times be free and independent, and be available to
whoever or wherever there's a need for its presence. Time is never
involved.

Please tell me from this video clip where you think "time" is of the
essence. You'll see that a note make the pattern chance in the instant.
This will obviously work both ways.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkox6niJ1Wc

You cannot have a 'time-dependent' "restrained" note!

The highest speed possible is zero. That means that One can travel from
point a to b in the instant no matter the distance.
Speed is alone determined by the size of particles. The larger the particle
the slower the speed. The smaller the particle the higher the speed.
Relative 'time' is not involved.

Spiritual people have no problem understanding this.

Non-spiritual people who believe that the highest speed possible is
300 000 km. per second (because they have been told that this is the
case), will have great problems accepting the above as facts; in much the
same way as an ardent bible-believer find it impossible to believe that
Jesus didn't walk on water. (He so much want to believe this, that facts matter little to him).

Scientific formulae are never precise where the function of 'time' is
involved. How could they be!!

Check out the Millennium prize problems by the Clay Mathematics
Institute and you'll know what I refer to!

Cheers

[TonyGosling]

Here's what sounds like a Yorkshire, or is it Lancashire version of what they're up to.

I don't reckon they're discovering the secrets of the universe but doing a PR job for clandestine nuclear and emp weapon testing instead??????

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1555240

[Tamborine man]

Here's what sounds like a Yorkshire, or is it Lancashire version of what they're up to.

I don't reckon they're discovering the secrets of the universe but doing a PR job for clandestine nuclear and emp weapon testing instead??????

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1555240

Tend to agree with the Yorkshire or Lancashire version!

"How the universe work"!


Love is the answer - of course.


"The truth will be revealed"!


It can be revealed here:


THE INTERSECTION OF TWO ARCHES CAN NEVER CREATE A POINT.
ONLY WHEN TWO STRAIGHT LINES INTERSECT WILL A POINT OCCUR.
(copyright/Tamborine man)


At least it gave work to a lot of people!


Cheers

[sam]

THis is plainly wrong.

Please define a note without referring to the time function.

Please define speed without the time function.

There are no doubt many thousands of precise scientific formulae that depend on the function t .

A note must at all times be free and independent, and be available to
whoever or wherever there's a need for its presence. Time is never
involved.

I see you have avoided the question.

Do you want to try again?

Please define "a note" - in musical terms that is. Take middle C, for example, using current concert pitch as your reference point.

[Tamborine man]

THis is plainly wrong.

Please define a note without referring to the time function.

Please define speed without the time function.

There are no doubt many thousands of precise scientific formulae that depend on the function t .

A note must at all times be free and independent, and be available to
whoever or wherever there's a need for its presence. Time is never
involved.

I see you have avoided the question.

Do you want to try again?

Please define "a note" - in musical terms that is. Take middle C, for example, using current concert pitch as your reference point.

I see you have avoided the answers!

Can't see where I avoided your singular question, but as I'm not a
musician perhaps am just not quite getting your drift!!

Do you mean a note from the piano, or a string instrument, from the flute
or the brass section?

Please try with other words to explain what you're getting at?

Peace and cheers

[sam]

I see you have avoided the question.

Do you want to try again?

Please define "a note" - in musical terms that is. Take middle C, for example, using current concert pitch as your reference point.

I see you have avoided the answers!

Can't see where I avoided your singular question, but as I'm not a
musician perhaps am just not quite getting your drift!!

Do you mean a note from the piano, or a string instrument, from the flute
or the brass section?

Please try with other words to explain what you're getting at?

Peace and cheers

I asked you to define "a note" in scientific terms, and you have not answered. All those instruments produce notes, so the particular instrument is not important here.

[Tamborine man]

I asked you to define "a note" in scientific terms, and you have not answered. All those instruments produce notes, so the particular instrument is not important here.

You asked me to define a note in musical terms!

You're not being very helpful!

A note and music in general belong exclusively to the world of the Arts.

Why would you want to define music in scientific terms?

Why would you want to define a painting of Rembrandt in scientific terms?

A note is a sound caused by vibrations of particles of a particular size and
particular speed; whether the particular sound comes from instruments,
humans or animals, the ocean, rivers, forests, the wind, melting ice,
cars, trains, motorbikes, the cosmos, farts or heartbeats! Etc. etc.

Shouldn't this be enough! What more would you like!

Cheers

[sam]

I asked you to define "a note" in scientific terms, and you have not answered. All those instruments produce notes, so the particular instrument is not important here.

You asked me to define a note in musical terms!

You're not being very helpful!

A note and music in general belong exclusively to the world of the Arts.

Why would you want to define music in scientific terms?

Why would you want to define a painting of Rembrandt in scientific terms?

A note is a sound caused by vibrations of particles of a particular size and
particular speed; whether the particular sound comes from instruments,
humans or animals, the ocean, rivers, forests, the wind, melting ice,
cars, trains, motorbikes, the cosmos, farts or heartbeats! Etc. etc.

Shouldn't this be enough! What more would you like!

Cheers

You're still avoiding the question, but getting a little closer to an answer with "A note is a sound caused by vibrations of particles of a particular size and particular speed"

So I'll help you along - what makes one note different from another?

[Tamborine man]

You're still avoiding the question, but getting a little closer to an answer with "A note is a sound caused by vibrations of particles of a particular size and particular speed"

So I'll help you along - what makes one note different from another?

A change in vibrational speed....... perhaps???

Cheers

[TonyGosling]

Sam and Tambourine man - will you please stop tearing apart the fabric of this thread?
Is it within your technological compass?

[Tamborine man]

Sam and Tambourine man - will you please stop tearing apart the fabric of this thread?
Is it within your technological compass?

Was just trying to be kind and accommodating as usual, but of course am
fully aware of the futility of this exchange, that was going nowhere fast!

Would dearly welcome some intelligent comments from Tony or others
that could bring this thread back on track, but if nothing of the sort is
forthcoming then by all means close this thread with the brutality it
'presumably' deserves!!!

Cheers

[marky 54]

Here's what sounds like a Yorkshire, or is it Lancashire version of what they're up to.

I don't reckon they're discovering the secrets of the universe but doing a PR job for clandestine nuclear and emp weapon testing instead??????

http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1555240

i don't understand. i watched the video and i did'nt get the impression of weapon testing. is it just a hunch you have? or is there anything that points to what your saying?

[marky 54]

You're still avoiding the question, but getting a little closer to an answer with "A note is a sound caused by vibrations of particles of a particular size and particular speed"

So I'll help you along - what makes one note different from another?

A change in vibrational speed....... perhaps???

Cheers

speed. you are aware that is what does exsist for real in the universe?
and that time is artifical, time is mans invention to measure speed and distance. so time exsists, but it is only called time, because thats what we named it, whatever it is that constitutes time. so surely time travel is about whatever it is that exsists that we call time. it dos'nt mean time dos'nt exsist just because we named it so. what ever it is, is measurable in many ways.

so speed is time so to speak. the speed of the earth around the sun, the speed of the 100 metre winner etc.

if time is'nt a function, then neither is speed. as that is what time is timing so man can measure it.

it will take 1 hour to get to work if i walk, if i go by car it will take 15 minutes if i avoid the traffic. both are approxiate times based on average speed over the whole journey.

time travel is no different.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... &plindex=0

A note must at all times be free and independent, and be available to
whoever or wherever there's a need for its presence. Time is never
involved.

a note on it own is free and independent but it lasts for more than one moment and travels over a distance at a certain speed, but to create music their outcome or sound depend on the speed at which each note is played, or timing.

if we can agree speed exsists, then you have to accept time is just a measure of speed, and time travel, must be mainly based around speed and other things in the universe as oppose to 'earth' time as we humans define it.

[sam]

You're still avoiding the question, but getting a little closer to an answer with "A note is a sound caused by vibrations of particles of a particular size and particular speed"

So I'll help you along - what makes one note different from another?

A change in vibrational speed....... perhaps???

Cheers

Exactly. A difference in "vibrational speed".
In other words, different frequencies.
'Frequency' is measured in Hertz.
Hertz is defined as "cycles per second".

Therefore a musical note (or any other cyclical phenomenon such as light, the alternating of the mains electrical supply etc) is totally dependant on time. It's part of the equation. Without reference to time you cannot define a note or the colour of light or work out whether your radio will work properly in another country.

I don't know why you had to be so evasive. Perhaps you knew you were being led towards an undeniable answer you had previously denied?

[Tamborine man]

speed. you are aware that is what does exsist for real in the universe?

Please read previous posts on the subject!

and that time is artifical, time is mans invention to measure speed and distance.

It seems to me that you're straying completely away from the subject.
We are not discussing the clock. Forget about the clock. We are talking
about the 'concept of time', or the perception of 'time'.
It would not be very exciting to argue the merits of you running 100 mtrs
in 20 seconds while I do it in 30, would it!

We have been told that radiations from the sun takes about 8 minutes
to reach the earth.
If you take a stop-watch and follow the seconds ticking away, or you
count to 480, you'll soon be extremely bored (or at least I would), And
the counting would seem to go on forever.
On the other hand while I'm sitting here concentrating typing this, 8
minutes seems a very short time especially since I'm not thinking about
'time' at all, but more about wordings. The 8 minutes goes like the 'wind'.
It is this "difference" in perception of the same 'time-span' that is the
alpha and omega in understanding how the concept of time really should
be viewed. 8 minutes is not 8 minutes in "reality".

And it is this difference in perception that causes "time" to appear
totally relative, in as much as the "difference" can be stretched in both
directions indefinitely. "Time" looses its relevance.

The "future" cannot exist, but is merely a description for a period that
has not yet come into existence, that has not yet become concrete.

On an abstract level you can say that the future cannot exist without the
present and the past. I.e. the future cannot exist by itself, but at all times
must be preceded by a present and a past. (If you disagree then you'll
have some serious explaining to do)!

In other words, if you travel to the future, it is more likely that you are
traveling to a 'futures' past, for how would you know it was the 'future'
you had reached (which can only exist in the instant present before it
becomes the past), and not this 'future's' past, which of course would
consist of a much longer period!
Or to say it straight and in an abstract sort of way: If you travel to an
abstract future, you're more likely to travel to an abstract future's past
instead! Or at best, to a future's present. Then you would travel from the
present to the present!

Hope you can hear how insane this all sounds, and how stupid. If not,
then please take time out for a little period and think it properly
through.... please!

if time is'nt a function, then neither is speed. as that is what time is timing so man can measure it.

You're right. Relative time can never be a function. And speed exist
independently of relative 'time'.
Of course you can measure speed in 'time-periods' determined by the
units called hours, minutes and seconds. Its done every day, but has
nothing to do with 'time' as we perceive it. Human beings do not exist nor
live by the clock alone.

Cheers

[Tamborine man]

Exactly. A difference in "vibrational speed".
In other words, different frequencies.
'Frequency' is measured in Hertz.
Hertz is defined as "cycles per second".

Therefore a musical note (or any other cyclical phenomenon such as light, the alternating of the mains electrical supply etc) is totally dependant on time. It's part of the equation. Without reference to time you cannot define a note or the colour of light or work out whether your radio will work properly in another country.

I don't know why you had to be so evasive. Perhaps you knew you were being led towards an undeniable answer you had previously denied?

Sam - we are not talking about units of measure, being it hertz, ohms,
hours minutes seconds nanoseconds, kilometers meters millimeters and
smaller, miles yards inches, degrees of celsius fahrenheit, and so on.
These units are but "tools".

We are talking about the concept of time, or the perception of time.

Please read back in previous posts so you can get a better idea of what
is proposed and suggested here. Please be so kind...... and thank you!

Cheers

[sam]

We are talking about the concept of time, or the perception of time.

Please read back in previous posts so you can get a better idea of what
is proposed and suggested here. Please be so kind...... and thank you!

Cheers

Always willing to oblige, I found these clips of yours from this very thread :

The concept of 'time' should therefore never be used in any calculations or equations where an absolutely true and correct result is required."

Nothing is time dependent.
Speed has never been and never will be a function of 'time'.

Scientific formulae are never precise where the function of 'time' is involved.

A note is a sound caused by vibrations of particles of a particular size and particular speed

Methinks you suffer from the "Queen of Hearts syndrome".

Thanks for your monumental patronage. And as a "spiritual person" (fully-paid up member of the Mediumship Development Circle, Bournemouth Spiritualist Church, 1977-78 ) I know of what I speak. Bye now.

[Tamborine man]

Always willing to oblige, I found these clips of yours from this very thread :

The concept of 'time' should therefore never be used in any calculations or equations where an absolutely true and correct result is required."

Nothing is time dependent.
Speed has never been and never will be a function of 'time'.

Scientific formulae are never precise where the function of 'time' is involved.

A note is a sound caused by vibrations of particles of a particular size and particular speed

Methinks you suffer from the "Queen of Hearts syndrome".

Thanks for your monumental patronage. And as a "spiritual person" (fully-paid up member of the Mediumship Development Circle, Bournemouth Spiritualist Church, 1977-78 ) I know of what I speak. Bye now.

Its obvious you're not a "spiritual person" Sam, as you're not, as one
would then expect, honest and open. Instead you're trying hard to
conceal the fact that you don't understand a word of what has been said
in my posts. And never once have you asked for clarification.
Not once have you given the impression that you're able to
distinguish between 'time-periods', a la the clock, and totally relative
'time-perceptions'!
Or been able to see the absolute relevance to this extremely important
difference!

Had you been "spiritual" then you would intuitively have understood
that my plea to you to be 'kind' was sincerely meant, especially
taking into account the hostile tone in your posts, a tone that is sadly
reinforced quite considerably in your last one.

Had you been "spiritual", you would have had no problems understanding
that the highest speed possible is zero. A speed where no "time" is
involved! But you're not honest enough to admit this. Or at least try to
give a counter argument, showing that you did understand it, but for your
good reasons could not agree with the proposition!

Had you been "spiritual", you would have no problems understanding
that as far as "time" is concerned, the only reality we can count on is
"the sequence of events", and nothing else.

You would have understood that The term 'space/time continuum' is a
mere human invention, and has nothing to do with the fourth dimension.
You would have known that 'dimensions' are solely determined by the
size and speed of particles. That as soon as particles become so small
that they escape physical observation they enter the astral world, and
from there they would be observable from the fourth dimension.
You would have known that the fourth dimension do not have any
space-filling properties in the third dimension.
You would have known this, had you been "spiritual"!

Had you been a "spiritual" person, you would never 'mockingly' have
quoted a statement you in a previous post actually had agreed with!
And you would never conveniently willfully ignore things that was asked
of you to specifically have a look at!

That is only what non-spiritual people, mean-spirited are able to do.

A visit to your old church again might not be such a bad idea!

Bye now, and

cheers

[TonyGosling]

Excerpt from the film "Dark Star"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjGRySVyTDk[/youtube]

[Tamborine man]

Excerpt from the film "Dark Star"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjGRySVyTDk[/youtube]

"Doubt" Is the bane to human understanding and development.


What what what to believe in??? Or, can the truth be taught???

Indeed - the eternal questions!

Descartes and Hegel told everybody that all philosophy should start with
'doubt'. (Or as R.D. puts it: 'De omnibus dubitandum est').

Neither Socrates nor Kierkegaard could ever agree to this, as both of
these great individuals clearly saw that all philosophy could never start
with anything else but "wonder".
Kierkegaard even managed to slip in a little 'add-on' by also declaring that
the only thing that could never have been created or could never have
had a beginning, was the "necessary". 'The necessary' must always have
existed throughout infinity!

So that became the choice! Who to listen to! Who made more sense!
Who was right! Should we 'doubt' everything, or should we view
everything with 'wonder'?
Should we have 'doubt' about the significance of 'wonder', or should we
'wonder' about the significance of 'doubt'!

"Doubt' can have very negative connotations attached to itself.
There's a certain 'finality' associated with 'doubt'.
("I 'doubt' we survive death, so lets bring out the booze and have some
fun, and enough of this nonsensical talk - right")!

"Wonder" is different. 'Wonder' can be a feeling of surprise mingled with
curiosity and bewilderment. 'Wonder' is like a desire to know; like a
marvel; like something to form opinions about.

"Do wonders", is like producing remarkable results.

There's no doubt that 'wonder' is caused by the 'Willpower' applying much
higher speed of vibrations to the 'Thought-process', than what the
'Will-power' would need to produce of vibrational speed to cause 'doubt' in
the 'Thought-process'!

"Doubt", and you'll stand still and getting nowhere.
'Doubt' can easily lead to the negative, the depressive and to Darkness.

"Wonder", and you'll open yourself up to endless growth and unfoldment.
'Wonder' can easily lead you to the positive, the Dream and to Light.

All existence is basically just a matter of choice - really!
You can choose to exist, or you can choose not to!


Or as Piet Hein so cleverly and eloquently put it:

Life makes sense
and who could doubt it,
if we have
no doubt about it.


And -


Living is
a thing you do
now or never -
which do you?



Cheers

[StopThe9/11CoverUp]

Hi Guys,

Havent read all the posts (will do tomorrow) its quite late and was just about to go to bes when I saw this.

This is old news to me, very old news in fact. Has anyone here ever heard of John Titor?

John Titor claimed to be a Time Traveller began posting on an internet forum, an art bell associated forum if I'm correct.

Now I'd say this all happened about 5 years ago, and he himself said that in "our time" the people who created the 1st time machine were CERN.

CERN were even contacted about this story back then if I am correct.

Google John Titor, you will soon find the original site (anomalies and summat else im not sure what) lots of crazy things went on with this guy and I spent over a year researching it all.

Apologies if you have already seen this, if not check out these links:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6345407

http://www.johntitor.strategicbrains.co ... achine.cfm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread124980/pg1

wikipedia - John Titor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor

Ade.

[marky 54]

intresting StopThe9/11CoverUp.

thanks for sharing that.

the problem with people is this.

they say time travel is impossible because we have not been visited by anyone from the future, which sounds logical at first.

untill you realise anybody claiming to be from the future will be labelled as a loon who needs locking up in a metal health prison and proberbly are.
another problem is there are proberbly mentally ill people claiming to be from the future when their past can be tracked via records from birth to the present day.

so you cannot win either way even if his past cannot be tracked, he'll just be labelled a loon by most. and i bet people who use the "time travel is impossible because we have not been visited by the anyone from the future" line, will be some of the first to call him a loon.

ive gotta read your links first before i decide if its credible or not. but i just thought i'd point out the fruitloop arguement that occurs.

its just one of those things people will not believe or even think possible untill they see it with their own eyes, even if they just heard about it they'd think it was a hoax. its the same with many subjects, u.f.o's and i presume ghosts etc etc. it just sits in the "you've gotta see it to believe it" catergory.

and no i don't believe in ghosts, ive never seen one.

[marky 54]

Apologies if you have already seen this, if not check out these links:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6345407

http://www.johntitor.strategicbrains.co ... achine.cfm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread124980/pg1

wikipedia - John Titor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor

there are obviously lots of possible explainations about how 'john titor' could of known some of the things he knew. was he somebody who was in the know about world events(or what was in the pipeline technology wise and what was being planned for the world stage?) and he invented the time travel story to somehow get the information out?

but then why has'nt all of his predictions come true? people change their mind or policys change or are held back for whatever reason.

was he a physic?

i don't have a clue and its hard to know for sure, but it is an intresting story.

i would say it was a hoax if he had not been right about certain things, so i believe he was trying to get information out for whatever reason or knew he was pyshic and was trying to tell people what he had seen or knew whilst having a laugh.

either the time travel story was a cover for sharing information or he was a time traveller. its hard to say he was a fake or a loon when you see some of the predictions he made in early 2000, before 9/11 came along. before 9/11 nobody would of thought things would like they are now, well the vast majority who were oblivious would'nt anyway.

he could be a fake on the time travel part and is just relaying what is known behind close doors only about future policy and technology, but not known about in the public arena, untill it happens or is annouced.

is this fake? im no video expert. but guessing the vast majority would say yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcPIxsyqeKM

im unsure for the simple fact that if somebody did travel back in time and annouced it to people, people just would'nt believe it untill they saw it, and even im like "wait a minute this could be a hoax" and i think time travel is a possibility in the future barring world wars occuring.

but i cannot prove he is'nt a time traveller, but then how could i?

how could anybody on here prove im not a time traveller from the future?

but do we pass everyone of as a hoax who claims it? it kind of calls into question the evidence that time travel is'nt possible because nobody from the future has showed up. because if somebody from the future did show up, nobody would believe it, even if it was true!, so we would always be saying "theres no evidence of anybody from the future coming into our time" and as soon as somebody does say it, its dismissed as a hoax. unless time travel became a reality in our time.

the one major thing that goes against this case though imo, is that if it were true, do you really think the PTB would not be drawn to the story and do all they could to track down this so called time traveller to get the technology? it would'nt be hard for authoritys to track him down if he was posting on internet forums would it?

[marky 54]

heres some of what he said or predicted, i have no way of knowing if everything is true, but there are links there i have not checked out, so its up to others to look and decide how he could of known if it is indeed true.

http://www.johntitor.com/

edit: actually ive just been looking and there appears to be a common theme.

titor links = under construction.

story link = totally fine.

can anyone find the original content? for all i know anyone could be making these websites and claiming all these things, and there really was'nt even a john titor posting on the internet.

where is the original posts or original website with the posts on it?

http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi-bi ... 9&t=000024

page not found.

anytime you try to get to the original content or the source of where it came from, nothing. page missing or links are broken or whatever.

is this a campaign to sell a movie and merchandise by reeling people in to a so called mystery? that only has second hand sources rather than original content as it was posted on the original websites?

how do we know there was a john titor who posted this stuff period?

this is an example of what is given as evidence, on this link.

http://www.johntitor.strategicbrains.co ... achine.cfm


Mickey Mouse
Member
Registered: Jun 2003
Posts: 29
Greetings. I am Mickey Mouse from the future, from the year 2071, i have dropped by to tell you all that in 2004 there will be a war in iraq to find WMD. However they will not find them. There will be an attack on London in 2005 also. The U.S will shoot down a spy satilite in Feb 2008.
I am the prohet mickey from the future, everyone is amazed and they are even making a film about it. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Original Source:
http://www.mickeymouse.theprohet.com/TimeTraveller.cfm

re edit:

http://www.johntitor.strategicbrains.com/Links.cfm

posting as timetravel 0
http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttif ... art=2&vc=1

ive found some original links. at least we can now see what he said and when he said it.

[marky 54]

from looking ferther at the original sources i found, theres is nothing compelling in the original sources that work, other than the pyshics and theorys in how time travel could be acheived.

the really compelling stuff like this.........:(cannot copy and paste so i typed it from this page): http://www.johntitor.strategicbrains.com/Analysis.cfm

02-25-2001 by John Titor.

well before any serious public consideration of war in iraq(title?)

Are you really surprised to find out that iraq has nukes now or is that just BS to whip everyone up into accepting the next war?

................is not associated with working links that confirm he even said it and when he posted it. so it could be made up like my mikey mouse example above.

however there was this and i dont know how true it is, but if true then it is creepy.

http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttif ... art=2&vc=1

on 12/30/00 he posts as timetravel_0.

12/30/00 01:47 PM (000.000.000.000) Edit Reply



Greetings and happy holidays everyone. I am very surprised and delighted to see the conversation going in the direction it has on this thread. Unknowingly, you all have stepped into the real mystery of time travel that remains speculative in 2036. Based on a couple of questions I see here, I will try my hardest to describe what we in 2036 think space-time looks like and how it behaves. Please keep in mind that I realize how easy it is to dismiss what I say. First, I’m trying to do this from memory. Imagine you are back in 1911 trying to explain a jet engine to the Wright brothers. However, there are some very basic properties of quantum theory that support this model today. I appreciate the fact that you are reading this with an open mind.
(If parallel universes do exist, did they all start simultaneously? I mean, let's assume that the universe originated from a singularity. Were there any parallel universes at that point? That would not be very logical and it would also imply that there is a parallel universe in which our universe never existed.)

It is thought that the event called the “Big Bang” was the start of not only this worldline or universe but all worldlines and all universes that make up the superuniverse. It is also thought that the superuniverse can be imagined as an expanding sphere with the big bang in the center.
Individual worldliness (or timelines as you call them) can be imagined as lines originating at the center and “trending” toward spiraling around the sphere until they reach the edge. The individual worldlines expand in length and widen as you follow them from the center. Each individual “moment” or “event” on a world line has infinite possibilities or outcomes. Imagine this as a single point with infinite lines shooting away from it, which in turn are made up of points with their own possibilities and outcomes. Now, remember, these individual worldliness with all these points and possibilities are defined by their ability to hold there inhabitants to timelike trips only (no faster than light travel).

Now consider the reality of a spinning or electrified black hole (Kerr). Penrose diagrams of these oddities show mathematically that you can make simulated spacelike trips (faster than light) through the singularity without being destroyed. In order to do this without wiping out most modern physical laws, you must travel to an alternate worldline or universe. Therefore, if multiple worldlines exist, infinite worldlines exist.

In trying to imagine a superuniverse with infinite possibilities and worldlines, I think of a room with mirrors on all the walls. You are aware of your captivity but as you look in the distance, you see an infinite number of “yours” in an infinite number of mirrored rooms. The gravity distortion machine allows you to “step” out of your room and into another next to you. The closer you are to your original room, the closer it looks like yours, the farther away, the stranger it looks to you.

(…If I go forward on this world line, the future will not be my future. I get home by going back to 1975 before I arrived and then going forward to 2036.")

A few people have asked me about this statement so I will try to clarify it.

On my worldline (A) in 2036, I was given a mission in 1975.

I turn my machine on and jump to another worldline (B) in 1975 with about a 2% divergence from (A).

From the very point I turn my machine off on (B), I create a new worldline just because I’m there. This line can be described as (C) and started when I got to (B).

I am now doing my mission on line (C) in 1975 when I discover a very a good reason to go forward on (C) and see what happened. I turn my machine on and go forward on (C) to the year 2000.

When I turn it off, I start another line called (D). So from my perspective, here we are on line (D) in the year 2000. In order to go home to line (A) I must turn my machine on and go back on (D) until I reach (C) which in turn would take me back to (B) which in turn takes me to a point before I arrived on (B) then I go forward from the point I arrived on (B) back to (A).

If all this isn’t enough to get your head spinning…here are some issues we’re dealing with in 2036.

1. Did your worldline (D) exist at all before I got here from (C)? (personally I don’t see how it couldn’t)

2. What happens at the end of a worldine at the edge of the superuniverse?

3. If there are infinite worldlines and infinite possibilities and an edge to the superuniverse, doesn’t that mean occurring events on worldliness are staggered as they reach the edge? (time could end at any moment without warning).

Happy new year everyone!

http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttif ... art=3&vc=1

on the last page stranger posts in 5/10/04:

05/10/04 03:28 PM (65.71.116.137) Edit Reply

Profile for TimeTravel_0

Email
Name: TimeTravel_0
Title stranger
Total Posts 1

Registered on 03/21/04 10:40 PM


Hmm....how can a post made from 2000 be made on a member who joined 2 months ago?

other than this, which could be made up. there is nothing compelling that can be checked out.

[chek]

As you say, it's nothing conclusive Marky but a strangely compelling tale nevertheless.
But then my favourite sci-fi stories always have been the time travel ones.

Btw - have you tried highlighting text, then hit Ctrl and 'C' to copy then Ctrl and 'V' to paste? That usually works even when right clicking is disabled on a page.

[marky 54]

Btw - have you tried highlighting text, then hit Ctrl and 'C' to copy then Ctrl and 'V' to paste? That usually works even when right clicking is disabled on a page.

im useless with pc commands. thanks for the knowledge, ive added it to my list of other commands ive been collecting as i go along, thanks.

[chek]

Btw - have you tried highlighting text, then hit Ctrl and 'C' to copy then Ctrl and 'V' to paste? That usually works even when right clicking is disabled on a page.

im useless with pc commands. thanks for the knowledge, ive added it to my list of other commands ive been collecting as i go along, thanks.

We're all of us useless until we've been enlightened, my friend

[sam]

Just a sideline ....

What happens when the time-traveller pitches up in the past or future? The spot where they arrive had an instant beforehand been occupied by air (at least. Maybe a slab of concrete. Who knows? Maybe an ocean that exists in the future but not in the present) Does the traveller's body end up with a body's volume of air/concrete/water embedded in it? This would kill him/her instantly. Does the time-traveller arrive bit by bit and from the centre outwards, displacing the air and causing a) a loud explosion if they arrive really quickly b) a gentle breeze if they arrive slowly c) something in-between d) a horrendous cracking when the concrete has to give way to a physical anomaly.

What if, through some horrific coincidence, their Great-Grandad is standing exactly where their time-machine sets down. *Poof* to Great-Grandad, I reckon.

Such fun.

[chek]

Just a sideline ....

What happens when the time-traveller pitches up in the past or future? The spot where they arrive had an instant beforehand been occupied by air (at least. Maybe a slab of concrete. Who knows? Maybe an ocean that exists in the future but not in the present) Does the traveller's body end up with a body's volume of air/concrete/water embedded in it? This would kill him/her instantly. Does the time-traveller arrive bit by bit and from the centre outwards, displacing the air and causing a) a loud explosion if they arrive really quickly b) a gentle breeze if they arrive slowly c) something in-between d) a horrendous cracking when the concrete has to give way to a physical anomaly.

What if, through some horrific coincidence, their Great-Grandad is standing exactly where their time-machine sets down. *Poof* to Great-Grandad, I reckon.

Such fun.

Not to mention the allegedly fixed balance between matter and energy in the universe at any one time I've read about somewhere ...