2009

Kronos,

This seems substantially different from the workings of time you mentioned before when you first came here. Back then you said it was impossible to change time at all

Yup - he was emphatic, highlighting it with the almost command that we get this fact understood that you cannot change the future by time traveling.

Now you refered to it as "back then when you said..." But it wasn't "back then" if you believe his story. It was just five days ago...if you believe his story.

Hoax? Not my call to make but I have an opinion.

Yet another example of bureaucracy gone bat fracked by choosing a borderline personality who can't remember what he posted five days ago as "fact" relative to the core issues of time travel and spacetime mechanics itself as their time traveler? You make the call.
 
If you can't vouch for the facts why, pray tell, are you posting them?

The context of that statement, dear sir, was I can't vouch for specific things such as was it a man or woman, or was it Boston or Lowell. I post them because it comes from you guys' future. just wait and see if all those things come true or don't. but goodbye until then, no use trying to convince anyone here.

See Lowell? If you're accepting Lowell as "around Boston" then you've cut a rather wide path thus assuring success. Taking Boston-Lowell as the radius if you strike an arc of that radius with Boston as the center then you cut near Worcester and all the way down to just north of Providence. Give yourself 4000 square miles of the New York-Boston metro area and you can't miss. It ain't the middle of Montana.

I wasn't accepting Lowell as a radius for Boston. My encyclopedia here does apparently. My encyclopedia is the thing with the rather wide path to assure success. 4000 square miles may sound like a lot, but we're not talking about area here, if you cube that it would be even more! way to try and explode the divergences here buddy. Why would I strike that as a radius? The radius is just 35 miles taking your 4000 mile (im assuming you know math: a circle with that area has a 35 mile radius). If we cube it to make a sphere, we get a 180,000 cubic mile volume. Now pray tell sir, why would you make Boston the center of a circle with Boston-Lowell as its radius except to make it look like it's a big divergence other than 35 miles? It ain't the middle of montana? Well Boston isn't the center of a landmass dear friend. you only have about 1/3 of that 4000 square mile radius.. which is not a lot, maybe seemingly to you
 
I post them because it comes from you guys' future.

You said that you can't vouch for the accuracy of the information thus you don't know if it concerns our future. And based on your track record the evidence indicates that it isn't about our future.
 
wasn't accepting Lowell as a radius for Boston. My encyclopedia here does apparently. My encyclopedia is the thing with the rather wide path to assure success. 4000 square miles may sound like a lot, but we're not talking about area here, if you cube that it would be even more! way to try and explode the divergences here buddy.

Let's see...

Your encyclopedia said Boston, but it happened in Lowell, so you suppose without any supporting evidence that they must have meant "around Boston".

My point is that your assertion of Lowell is arbitrary (not to mention a self serving post facto conjecture), is not at all what you originally posted as what the encyclopedia said and had it been Worcester or Providence or anywhere in between in the land area of about 4,000 sq/miles it appears that you would have likewise named that as a "hit"as well.

It's the metro corridor and millions of people live in the area that you seem to consider as "around Boston". Yur shootin' fish in a rain barrel.

The Land Mass

I didn't suggest that Boston was the center of some particular land mass. You first said that it was in Boston and later around Boston by defining your "hit" (Lowell) relative to "around Boston". That makes Boston the center of the described land mass.

So we extend a line from Boston all the way to Lowell, ~60 miles. Now because Lowell being named as "around Boston" is arbitrary we have to make a correct statement. That correct statement is that all of the land mass within a 60 mile radius of Boston is "around Boston". That's true by precise definition of "a-round" though we aren't drawing a complete circle as a goodly portion of it would be in the Atlantic Ocean which isn't land mass and has virtually zero population. That's a land mass of about 4,000 square miles if we only take the arc to Providence. If we take in all of the land mass covered by the arc it's closer to 8,000 sq. mi as measured from the north beach to the south beach where the two radii cut across the beach. *

As to "exploding the divergence" - WTF??? Back to the short term memory loss here. You said that the future was fixed and cannot be altered and there are no multiple worlds (universes). What divergence?

But I'll make some allowances for you because you can't remember what you posted a week ago.


*

We're covering an arc from about Gloucester to Weymouth in the south. It excludes Mass Bay and is about 270 degrees.

r = 60 mi
arc = 270 degrees
A = pi * r^2
A' = area swept out under the radius

A' = (PI * 60^2) * ((360-90)/360) = (3.14* 3600) * 3/4 ~8400 mi

Excuse the impreciseness of this because I should have used radians rather than degrees to get the units right (miles). Radians are unitless. However the math is straight forward and not everyone here has used trig functions.
 

That should be square miles (we squared 60 miles in the equation) , BTW: I could have "cheated" by not showing all the math and simply used

270 degrees/360 degrees = 3/4

"Degrees" cancel and leave it unitless. But that would be skipping a step and leaving people wondering how I derived "3/4". Better to disclose than to get caught up in trivial matters like unit mismatches.


I showed it as 360-90 because 90 degrees represents Mass Bay, which we excluded from the circle.
 

That should be square miles (we squared 60 miles in the equation) , BTW: I could have "cheated" by not showing all the math and simply used

270 degrees/360 degrees = 3/4

"Degrees" cancel and leave it unitless. But that would be skipping a step and leaving people wondering how I derived "3/4". Better to disclose than to get caught up in trivial matters like unit mismatches.

I showed it as 360-90 because 90 degrees represents Mass Bay, which we excluded from the circle.

Thank you for elucidating that degrees are unitless... like it makes a difference or supports your little exaggeration. By "divergence" I did not mean something like a "time divergence" as you seem to think, but a divergence of the distance between Boston and Lowell which you seem to conveniently try to achieve at all costs for whatever reason. I never said that I was interpreting my encyclopedia as "around Boston" when it said "in", but that they either made an error, or they counted the adjacent areas around Boston which are technically other towns as part of their jurisdiction and thus part of the "Boston area" kind of like LA and other organizations such as LAUSD apparently have jurisdiction over towns that are not LA (e.g. San Fernandy Valley: North Hollywood, Van Nuys, etc), such as the LAPD and so on. Hence why I prefer Fontana, though I post from computers in public libraries in "LA" (North Hollywood and my former/future university of csun), since I sold my internet and computer equipment here, and i seem to have a malfunction with my time unit.. i can't get any funding from superiors now (ill probably be pretty run over for that when/if i return), im sure they'll blame me despite whatever explanation i give them reasonable or not.

In any case, I have no clue what you were rambling about in that second post of yours. 3/4 of the area of a circle with a 60 mile radius is 3/4*Pi*r*r = 3/4 * 3.141592*3600 which is 4800 square miles. 1/4 of it is 2800 sq. miles. Either way, I have no clue how this has anything to do with what was stated.
 
Thank you for elucidating that degrees are unitless

Degrees aren't unitless, radians are unitless.

Either way, I have no clue how this has anything to do with what was stated.

Sadly, that's the most valid statement made in any of your posts so far. Honestly sad.
 
Degrees aren't unitless, radians are unitless.

Smart guy, degrees as well as radians are unitless. Degrees are measured by the length of the arc of a circle divided by the radius, thus making it distance/distance, i.e. meter/meter or cm/cm which makes it unitless. Radians are degrees times pi/180 which ratio itself is untiless making it unitless as well. Look it up anywhere. What do you think radians are? They are degrees rewritten in a format to be easily used with respect to the unit circle. That's why instead of dealing with specific degrees in trigonometry, you say a circle has 2pi radians. Or 90 degrees is 1/2 pi radians, or 96 degrees is 96/180 pi radians, which is way easier than dealing with the degree when mapping trig functions such as sine/cosine/tangent and their inverses.

Sadly, that's the most valid statement made in any of your posts so far. Honestly sad.

You're a clever guy, aren't you. Too bad, nothing you have said is supported by anything, whereas mine is. But whatever, i don't need to justify myself with you anyway. I mostly like to talk with the other people of this time about current politics and discoveries in science and mathematics, mostly on other boards. believe what you will, but you have debunked nothing.

By the way, I have already completed my mission. I got all the evidence I needed in Abba Khel, and now back to my time :-)))
 
Wandering around the net the other day and came across this 2003 thread that hauntingly reminds me of elements within this thread -- for some reason.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=10443

That thread does not have the same idea about time travel that we have in 2020-2032 (time travel's practical existence; very neat date to remember though, 2020 as the first rudimentary time machine, that is, which transported light). There are no parallel universes. The Grandfather paradox is not solved by going to an alternate universe because you might end up on your own. You might say that there is a 1/infinity chance of that happening, which in mathematical terms strictly speaking is 0 (you can easily prove this by saying 1/9=0.111... then times 9, 9/9=0.9999.. which makes 1 equal exactly 0.999... making 0.00...1 = 0), but so is that same chance for going to any other specific universe, whether it's one where you had a dog named Roger, or Trigger. In any case, in the 19th century, Cantor's work on infinity discarded that objection (prematurely), while solving Zeno's paradox.

When you time travel to the past you rewrite "history". But not your history, because your history is a metaphysical remnant that your memory recorded. It's like taking a photograph of a building which is destroyed by a bomb. The building in the photograph does not also collapse. And so, when you time travel in the past and kill your grandfather the "second" you is simply never born.

This is because time is not a metaphysical "remnant" of past-being. Time was discovered by Einstein himself to be dependent upon velocity, mathematically. This can easily be shown by taking a picture of a moving car. In the picture the car is moving 0/0 meters per second. But the car itself was obviously moving, so if you were to ask the position of the car in the picture 1 second later (movement m/s), your answer would be undefined because it could have been 1 m/s or 2 m/s or 15 (if it was not a Volvo :-p ). And so when you time travel back, you have effectively rearranged the structure of the universe (time) which you are free to arrange as you see fit (or not :d ).

The Conservation Principle elucidated by Hawking in 1992 and confirmed later on, showed not that time travel was impossible, but that opening a wormhole back through time (permitted by relativity) would not be stable enough and would vaporize a time machine going through it immediately. The question was whether this was a law of the universe (kind of like, hydrogen and other Alkali metals' violent reactions due to 1 electron in their valence shells) or simply coincidences that could or could not be overcome for whatever reasons.

In 2014, a mathematician/physicist named Amirian (in his 50's, working near Los Angeles apparently), discovered that this was not a law of nature (as intuitively it seemed), but that this was due to the unstable forces of gravity surrounding the passenger and his machine inside the wormhole, ultimately due to the black hole. The same unstable force similar to trying to keep a pencil upright on its tip. You can theoretically do it, but it is an unstable equilibrium if you do.. without any external help that is.

That's where the idea came for "external help". What was needed was to find a way to keep the gravitational forces in check, so to say, without them crushing and biforcating the theoretical time machine. It was realized that this would not happen until the problem of quantum gravity was solved, that is, I don't know how far you guys are into the problem of superstring theory, but it was needed to reconcile as you know, quantum mechanics with General Relativity, since as you must know, quantum mechanics and GR are in practicality on the same level inside a black hole (a lot of gravity, microscopic effects), and that's where everything falls apart. The solution was, coincidentally, achieved by 2018, by pretty much the same scientists, as well as a few new ones, who have been working right now on the problem since time immemorial. Then it was discovered what kind of singularities and black holes did not biforcate a specific object. I.e. some biforcated spheres due to their shape and rotation, others did not. In essence, there was a specific shape the time machine had to be. Then black holes were created. And after they were easily made, they were tested with light, and then with the research on shape on animals inside specific objects, and finally people. We quickly figured out that the appearing dogs were from the future, and it did not matter whether we sent them or not. They appeared nonetheless.
 
I do enjoy reading these posts and I don’t often respond but even though I know better, sometimes I can’t help myself.
It’s interesting how some can say so little with so many words. 766 words… nothing said.
Perhaps if we “bifurcate” this into ‘its two branches’, the metaphysical and the physical, we could decipher what was intended, or probably not.
Lets see, blowing up a building after you take a picture of it and determining that since it didn’t also collapse in the picture that that somehow correlates to the Grandfather paradox and provides that if you travel back and kill your Grandfather that the “second” you is the one that wont be born and the other you will simply go on his merry way but at the same time you contend that there are no parallel universes or alternate time lines.
The second you, never being born, causes the surviving you to become a metaphysical anomaly because ‘you’ were never born and therefore you could not interact with the physical universe if there are no alternate universes or time lines. Blah blah blah… No, this isn’t going to work. I can’t make any sense of those 766 words. They must be metaphysical.
Metaphysical; a statement or theory having the form of an empirical hypothesis, but in fact immune from empirical testing and therefore (in the view of the logical positivists) literally meaningless.
234 words…
I hope everyone has a great New Year.
 
I do enjoy reading these posts and I don’t often respond but even though I know better, sometimes I can’t help myself.
It’s interesting how some can say so little with so many words. 766 words… nothing said.
Perhaps if we “bifurcate” this into ‘its two branches’, the metaphysical and the physical, we could decipher what was intended, or probably not.
Lets see, blowing up a building after you take a picture of it and determining that since it didn’t also collapse in the picture that that somehow correlates to the Grandfather paradox and provides that if you travel back and kill your Grandfather that the “second” you is the one that wont be born and the other you will simply go on his merry way but at the same time you contend that there are no parallel universes or alternate time lines.
The second you, never being born, causes the surviving you to become a metaphysical anomaly because ‘you’ were never born and therefore you could not interact with the physical universe if there are no alternate universes or time lines. Blah blah blah… No, this isn’t going to work. I can’t make any sense of those 766 words. They must be metaphysical.
Metaphysical; a statement or theory having the form of an empirical hypothesis, but in fact immune from empirical testing and therefore (in the view of the logical positivists) literally meaningless.
234 words…
I hope everyone has a great New Year.

Dear sir,

Judging from this, it is not totally unimaginable to me as to why you rarely speak. You neither understood what I was talking about, nor explained anything that could contradict me, other than your misperception of what I stated about how we (in 2032) understand time travel to work. The "second" me is not from a parallel universe. He is from the same universe, except this "second" me is history being rewritten. Similarly to a video tape being recorded over again, that is what I meant by the "second" me. Think of the history of the world as a video tape: You go back to some point prior to where it ends (the present) and start recording other material. You obviously don't won't have the same material after that point. If that does not elucidate it any further for you, please feel free to ask /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Your counter-analogy with the building is completely erroneous. I was making an ANALOGY with the picture of a car.. I was not implying that a picture of a car is the same as the car itself. Not knowing how fast a car moves in the picture proves Einstein's well known discovery that time is dependent upon velocity; viz. that without velocity, time cannot exist. You can verify that yourself through a quick search through Google. This also proves the Uncertainty Principle and that no subatomic or otherwise particle can stay motionless, that is at absolute 0. I repeat again, the car was an analogy; it was not a direct example of the non-parallel universe theory of time travel i was explaining.

I think that perhaps next time you should devote about half of those words (I didn't insist on taking the time to determine how many there were, as you apparently seemed to, for no reason other than to look pompous) to constructive criticism or honest questions, instead of ridiculous attacks.
 
My Dear Sir;
I am aghast at your imputation that I was pompous in my remarks. After all, how could you have known I was attired in my best 18th century clothing complete with ruffs at the breast and wrists and a powdered wig as I sat before my computer to respond to your post. How could you have seen as I finished my retort and sat back in my chair and oh so smugly raised my arm and waved my hand side to side in saying goodbye to the one whom I had just so eloquently dispatched with my cleverness? Perchance it was your infernal time machine and you discovered where I lived and went back and stood unseen in my room and watched as I wrote it. Confound you sir. I throw my gauntlet at your feet. Have your second contact my second and we shall settle this at dawn on the Field of Honor.
Actually I was trying to be sarcastic in my post. You are the one who claims to BE a time traveler and as such you would be an “expert” on how time travel is understood in 2032. Your post while wordy failed (for me at least) to explain just HOW time travel “works” in 2032. You alluded to Zeno’s paradox, Cantor’s work on infinity, 1/infinity, the conservation principle, Hawking, Einstein, some fuzzy math 1/9=0.111…then times 9 9/9=0.9999 carry the 4 ( I think that was in there) 1=0.999 and 0.0…1 = 0 and other such “metaphysical” non-sense but none of that provided a nat’s butt worth of evidence that you had any idea how time travel was “understood” in 2032 or any other time.
You imply “my” counter analogy of the building was erroneous. The blown up building was “your” analogy I simply referred to it because I had no idea how that related to the Grandfather paradox unless you’re telling me that if I take a picture of my grandfather before I kill him then my existence is secured but still bad news for the second me.
Anyway, I didn’t think I needed to apply constructive criticism and how could I ask honest questions of an apparent dishonest discourse but if it pleases you I will try.
Here are a couple softball questions. If you are from the future, and I humbly believe there is a 1/infinity probability of that being true, I’m sure the recent shooting in Arizona did not go unrecorded so the results should be readily available to you so please tell me what the outcome is? Second question: Who runs and who wins the presidency in 2012?
As for constructive criticism all I can offer is; use a thesaurus and or at the very least a dictionary. Otherwise I will be forced to begin proceedings to have you expelled from the word of the month club.
 
I never said that I was interpreting my encyclopedia as "around Boston" when it said "in", but that they either made an error, or they counted the adjacent areas around Boston which are technically other towns as part of their jurisdiction
...

or they stated what they stated precisely as they stated it without any interpretation being necessary and; your a priori prediction was wrong but you offered a post hoc self-serving "explanation" of their statement in a way that significantly altered the original and very specific locale to make an incorrect prediction appear to be correct.

That is, after all, another plausible explanation that is not contradicted in any way by the evidence that you presented.
 
Perhaps you had forgotten to reply, but I would still like those predictions you said you would give out as requests.
I'll just reiterate my request now;
Alrighty then, how about giving us something clear with precise date, location, event details for something for tomorrow, just to prove you can atleast get the format of your predictions up to par to time traveler standards, and then make another prediction for something that happens on the 19th of January, or if you can't find anything then the nearest day after that, sound fair?
Again, those seem like fair enough conditions, and I'm sure there is a good reason you forgot to reply last time.
 
i would just say that to believe we need more evidence,and by that i mean pictures,gadgets,video,something phisical you brought with you supossedly from the future,that's all i have to tell you man,i only dare you to post a picture from something from the future,therefore you will have all my trust in you:).take care and thanks! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Back
Top