A Model for John Titor's 'Parallel Universes."

Packerbacker

Quantum Scribe
A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

Everyone as a child, hopefully, has had the opportunity to toss pebbles into a still pool of water to watch the magic of waves. If the right sort of object is dropped it will oscillate up-and-down at the point of impact, creating not just one but a wave train of ripples. As the pond wave passes through a given location of the surface, it may temporarily displace floating objects--a leaf or a coating of tree pollen.

When we talk of time we may fail to distinguish between time as a field in which past, present, and future are laid out (like the surface of the pond), and the actual motion of time--the everchanging "now,"(the wave crest). The Hindus have symbolized time as a silent pool.

May we suggest that all physical materiality is the result of wave motion in a medium. There have been many names for this medium--ever-running,the parent space, the Great Void, the Great Space, the fabric of space and time, akasa, psi, and the name we have borrowed from science fiction to describe it --Subspace. Whatever it is, there is agreement about what it is not. It is not relative space-time or world containing space.

A 180 degree shift in perspective is required. Rather than substantial matter in empty relative space, one has patterns of relative insubstantiality in an enduring transcendent medium. To use a partial analogy,, it is as if what we know as reality is composed of chalk doodlings on a chalkboard. To a chalk being, chalk forms all of existence and relative space is no more than the metrical distance between chalkmarks. To an independent observer, there would be no chalk marks or chalk distances were it not for the chalkboard itself.But this takes us away from the wave model.

Let's think of the point of impact of the pebble dropped into the pool as the 'big bang.' The wave, in spreading outward, temporarily activates a patterning in the medium to create the illusion of materiality. Now, rather than a single wav crest, let's imagine a train of waves, and endless sequence of independent 'nows,' each of which is a universe in itself, and each of which has its own history of cause and effect. We--our bodies-- are confined to a single moving wave crest, but there are nows before and after us, indeed at every point of our lives.

Titor spoke of parallel universes. What we have described are not parallel in the sense that we make think of parallel, but are more aptly described as sequential or serial universes. Yet, in the broad general sense this may be what Titor had in mind. So a John Titor of the future could theoretically leave his 'now' and reappear at a 'now' of a succeeding wave (the reader is asked to suspend judgement regarding a future which has the capability of manipulating black holes and traveling in time, but which lacks the ability to either reproduce a 5100 model computer,or find one which might well be stuck in the back of a warehouse in 2036).
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

we do not have any evidence that there are parallel universes or worldlines. it is just a theoretical possibility. for me, worldline theory makes even less sense than time travel.
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

Packerbacker,

So a John Titor of the future could theoretically leave his 'now' and reappear at a 'now' of a succeeding wave (the reader is asked to suspend judgement regarding a future which has the capability of manipulating black holes and traveling in time, but which lacks the ability to either reproduce a 5100 model computer,or find one which might well be stuck in the back of a warehouse in 2036).

Its good that you added the scare quotes to "now". In that sense we also have to suspend the theorum of Special Relativity regarding the fall of absolute simultaneity.

The idea of "now" even in classical physics is nebulous enough. In the sense of Special Relativity it is almost meaningless. To consider two or more "nows" seperated by some arbitrary spacetime interval is meaningless.
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

Time Traveller,

for me, worldline theory makes even less sense than time travel.

I don't blame you for the problem with "worldlines" as it is used, generally, on the Internet.

The term "worldline" actually does have a legitimate application to particle physics. In terms of a Minkowski diagram, a "worldline" is the path that a particle takes through spacetime. It has nothing to do with "alternate realities", "parallel universes" or any other like concept.
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

Thanks Darby,
The term "worldline" actually does have a legitimate application to particle physics. In terms of a Minkowski diagram, a "worldline" is the path that a particle takes through spacetime. It has nothing to do with "alternate realities", "parallel universes" or any other like concept.
This factual message brought to you by good science, clean living, eating all your vegetables, and the California State University education system!
In other words, AMEN!

(Or did you go to a UC school, Darb?) /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

Rainman,

(Or did you go to a UC school, Darb?)

Both, actually. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I started at CSU Long Beach (Criminalistics and Poly Sci) and finished (Experimental Psych, Minor in Spanish) at UCSB.

I switched majors after a four year lay-off. Switching from Criminalistics to Experimental Psych wasn't really that much of a change. Criminalistics was mostly physical science (bio, chem and experimental design) and Experimental Psych had a lot less to do with psych that bio-chem, pharmacology, statistical metrics and experimental design...just a bit of a change in specific emphasis. The biggest challenge at UCSB was getting into upper division inter-disciplinary courses. We competed with the pre-med majors for a lot of those classes. Wanna guess who got first crack?

A. Psych majors
B. Pre-med majors
C. Who's kidding whom - of course it was pre-med.

(Hint: Two correct answers are possible)
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

Darby,RMT, et al:

You are not reading the material. It is stated that subspace is not relative space-time. I seem to be having a problem staying online today, so will sign off for now. Packerbacker.
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

Packerbacker,

You are not reading the material. It is stated that subspace is not relative space-time.

I did, in fact, read the material. And you're correct - it requires a 180 degree change in perspective. However, that perspective leads us back to 1665 and the beginnings of classical Newtonian physics. Your thoughts imply an absolute plane of simultaneity - an idea that has empirically been shown, without exception, not to be the case.

The example of a pebble in the pond relative to the Big Bang event assumes that there is a "pond" consisting of some sort of medium into which the spreading wave form expands and which preceeds the event itself. The solutions to General Relativity neither require nor assume that a field (medium) pre-existed the event. They aren't required and any assumption of them precludes the theoretical solutions that lead to the event. If we assume that General Relativity is wrong we throw the baby out with the bath water. It is only through the solutions to General Relativity that the idea of time travel itself flows. Classical relativity allows but one direction for the arrow of time (forward), one universal clock for all observers, the same arrow for all observers and, without exception, is independent on the state of the observer. I don't believe that we want to toss out GTR - especially considering that for 101 years, starting in 1905 with the publication of the Special Theory of Relativity, not one case has been observed where it is wrong (even though we know that it is an incomplete theory).

I don't know what you mean by "sub-space". Any definition that I've seen, and they are admittedly taken from sci-fi, are taken to mean at least one spatial dimension in addition to our "normal" 3D space, i.e. hyperspace or from the Arts - Cubism.. I generally accept the definition but even hyperspace can't pre-exist the Big Bang event. That event is the beginning of spacetime (by definition).
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

Darby:

Mass, length and time are fundamental quantities of physics, of course, and as such they represent boundaries. They can be measured but what are they? My position is that you can't determine this from an 'inside' or relative view, and that a lack of ability to address their significance is one of the, if not the major, problems that is blocking further development.

My approach is to develop an 'outside view' and then use that view, or perspective, to change the inside view.

I've written a 50 page (or so) exposition of the idea that is being presented in dibs and dabs. Unfortunately, this manuscript (Subspace: the Great Void Which is Unconditioned Fullness) has not been published, and is temporarily unavailable.I suspect you can surmise from the title where this is going. To deal properly wiith the questions raised, I expect to post another article on the subject of Franklin Merrell-Wolff (Google) and nirvanic consciousness. Packerbacker
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

PB & Darby:
Mass, length and time are fundamental quantities of physics, of course, and as such they represent boundaries. They can be measured but what are they? My position is that you can't determine this from an 'inside' or relative view, and that a lack of ability to address their significance is one of the, if not the major, problems that is blocking further development.
I tend to agree with this. However, I also understand what Darby is saying in that it would be short-sighted to simply "throw out" GTR and STR. The "better" avenue (which has worked for science in the past) is to show where GTR and/or STR are incomplete. IOW, you need to show where they need to be extended and how the extensions correct their inaccuracies.

The way I explain this is that STR was the initial, successful first-attempt to unite Space (length) with Time, into what we now know of as space-time. Where GTR (and STR) remain incomplete is that they still treat mass as isolated from space-time. Where we need to move is to a unification of mass with space-time, and justify this unification by showing where treating them as separate is incomplete, and therefore leads to incorrect answers.

My approach is to develop an 'outside view' and then use that view, or perspective, to change the inside view.
I call this "outside view" the Integrated Matrix of Massive SpaceTime. But where I believe it may differ from your approach, PB, is that I "start out" with existing physics (including the results of GTR). Furthermore, I can relate this integrated matrix approach to existing knowledge and understanding that we have about Momentum, Energy, and Information which are integrated metrics upon Massive SpaceTime. In doing so I also adopt a time-honored (pardon the pun) approach of using a mathematical foundation (generalized tensor approach).

To me, the most glaring evidence of incompleteness of our existing physics can be seen in how we treat "Mass" differently from one of its characteristics which we call "Moments and Products of Inertia". Inertia is a TENSOR (a 3x3 tensor to be precise), and we treat it as such mathematically even in Newtonian rotational mechanics. However, when we now look at Newtonian translational mechanics, we simply have this scalar called Mass. And while Einstein has successfully described gravity as curvature of SpaceTime, I do not think he has adequately described what Mass really is nor its integration with SpaceTime beyond gravity. Quantum theory is science's attempt to quantify Mass, and we are well aware of the disconnects between GTR and QT.

Question: Why do we believe it correct to treat Mass as a scalar quantity and Inertia as a tensor quanitity, when they both are necessary to show how Mass relates to Space-Time?

To me, this is the fundamental "problem" (incompleteness) of existing theory. Mass *is* a tensor, and when we start treating it as such (as we do Moments/Products of Inertia) we will get a better grasp on things like gravity, equivalence, and why planar rotation causes an out-of-plane precessional torque (the gyroscopic effect).

RMT
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

RainmanTime:

Very well expressed. I have something to say about mass and gravity that might be the weirdest explanation you have ever heard. As soon as I get it assembled I will post it. P.S. I have just been Googling Charles Howard Hinton (he married George Boole's daughter) who was a professor at Princeton in 1904, when he wrote "The Fourth Dimension." Hinton apparently originated the term Four Space. PB
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

Are you able to reject the concept of mwi of quantum physics? If so, I'd like to hear your reasoning behind it. tia.
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

What you are doing math with is intregal and differential equations of Calculus. It is the wrong math. You need the math of complexities, and build it towards one. Time is the only dimension.

Also the Iranian President is The Lord who has come back and expects to pester Israel so being crazy because he blames the Jews for the Cruxcification although due to the Romans, that he intends to get blown off the Planet because Isalm is nuts, like him now.

You had to crucify me so now blow me off the planet.
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

TimeNot_0:
What you are doing math with is intregal and differential equations of Calculus. It is the wrong math. You need the math of complexities, and build it towards one. Time is the only dimension.
Could you share your math by which you arrived at these conclusions? Time is not the only dimension. In fact, it is but one of 3 "artificial" dimensions that comprise a single whole.

Also, calculus is not "wrong math". It is quite foundational, and capable of explaining everything we currently know about our universe. What one requires is an appropriate physical context within which to apply calculus. I submit that this context is the "closed-loop" (recursive) context described in fractals and chaos theory. When you use tensor calculus in this context, one can achieve exceedingly accurate models of Massive SpaceTime.

RMT
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

The math, I have no idea, it takes someone to come up with it, I just gave it a name, and that is all.

I fail to see why you assume that you have the answers by assuming. That is only knowledge that is currently known as of now.

Of course, the religious leaders of Iran are nuts, but still the Holy Books are not.

It is something like that, I guess.

As to Time being the only dimension --- simplicity --- that is why.

Nothing more is needed, than "Time" to make everything else.

It is the reducing down of the math, that comes up with the answer, much like Einstein came up with his theories and formulas.

Of course, that is just an assumption on my part, that "Time" is the only dimension in the end, but to me it stands as being a valid opinion. I do not have "time" to come up with the math, just realizing to make things more complicated than what existence needs to be -- just gives one the opportunity to think another way.

Of course, not in the manner of saying that time existed when there was nothing, for that is meaningless. Time can only exist when something else started existing or slightly before -- to make existence possible. I fail to see why people think that energy comes from nowhere to make existence, when there can be no proof of that either. Yes, as far as is known, there was the beginning but just like now when they can decide they can look back so far in "Time" there still is that possibility that "Time" existed just prior to all the rest. How long? Very very very small perhaps, but to me, it was not instanteous, and makes the 'cause' and 'effect' so to say. Energy to me would have nothing to make the cause and effect -- energy is energy, it is just there always in some form or another. It is to me like a constant. E = MC^2 relies on the fact that C^2 is the governing factor, and though mass and energy may vary, does it really vary in the end or the beginning or inbetween? Perhaps it does not, it just takes a different form or is a form of the same type of manner between the two. It looks as if it would vary, but really does not. The appearance is deceiving, because you have to not look with the eyes, but think that it is all related and all relative and that appearances can be deceiving and not actually represent what is really going on. Optical illusions and all of that also.

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

Now, after a brief journey across the Internet, lets take C^2. Light is massless, or so small as to not be measured, but lets just say that the mass is so small that one can think of E = C^2 or be so close as to be unmeasurable. You say light is the fastest thing in the Universe, however, if it is, than what and where is the energy of the C^2. Now, is there parallel universes that are the same? Perhaps a possible answer. If not, then how do you explain the energy that can not be measured, or can not be assumed to be faster than light, because then it would be the fastest thing in the Universe and light is not, or where is the energy?
It is not dark matter, that can be measured now.

Well, all I can say is "Time", and that is all.

So, after another brief pause, someone will say that there are conditions on that formula of Einstein or else it does not work.

So, there are conditions on a formula and that is the way that it is, but it describes relativity.
Take all the light in the universe, it still adds up to - zero.

So, have to go, and check out my computer, it is acting weird when I am on the Internet.
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

To say that all you need is Time without understanding (at least) its partner Frequency seems to me to be an error. But that's just my opinion, I guess. But it seems when you try to describe the relationship (sameness and differentness) between Time and Frequency, is precisely where you Create the "need" (Void) for which Mass and Space rush to fill. You can't help it. By defining One you necessarily define Another as One's exclusion. This very division of One into Two is a fundamental property of the Act of Creation and the Universe it Creates.

RMT
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

Okay, where was I at. Oh, the computer is running normally after all of that.

You are the one again saying that one time has one certain frequency. All time has many frequencies all together all at once. It is the parent of all the sub-classes. Again, subdividing down is just what is done, but if you think that each time you subdivide you are not looking at the totalness of it all, then perhaps that should be thought.

Anyway, after taking intregal and differential Calculus and theoritical physics one loses his mind.
But, the mind was not lost, it was there all the time, but in the background, and phychology books were read instead, and other science books. That does not mean that it had escaped the mind, it just means that it was not conscious thought. After years of that, and doing something different, the brain and mind were actually working although not seemingly all the time -- and it took all that time to find the mind and brain again:

Therefore the answer should be time. It is some kind of quantum bizarre and weird behavior.

But one has to return to it someday, and not get caught up with current theories which are theories from other thought processes that commonly are referred to as -- But we are working on this, not that.

Anyway, I have computer programming to do, and that is more important to me now, so again, there goes the mind and brain away on this subject -- but it is still there anyway, just not in the foreground.

And the clock keeps on ticking, but that is only a partial measurement and only one measurement. All the measurements have to be studied all at once.

If one moves at the speed of light, then time passes quickly except if one slows down again.

The measurement changes, but still it at the speed of light was more total in all the measurements. The partial measurements were not seen (I suppose) just the general over-all measurement. But it did contain all the other measurements because when the person slowed down again, those measurements were still all there, and always will be.
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

I swear that this computer is still not working correctly, or else it is Microsoft's update. Have to check for malicious software also.


Okay, light does not satisfy the condition of using Einstein's equation because it has no mass.

Therefore, even at the Big Bang, light should not be moving since there is no energy that can be imparted to it (or so it seems right now to me.) So, if that is true, and light can not be using energy, and it can not be because Space is a Vacuum, because it does not satisfy any of the thinking of Past formula's even Newton's, then to me "Time" is the only thing left to "where is light going and why is it even moving?" type question.

And will light move forever, since it is moving now? It should not, because the universe may run down, but all that Dark Matter stuff has to enter into any of it now, but still...............

Energy on light can not be used (or at least to my thinking) and neither can a vacuum provide any answer either, as to cause and effect.

Well, got to go, and get something else done.
 
Re: A Model for John Titor\'s \'Parallel Universes.\"

Lotsa thoughts. Too many to try and dissect at one TIME. But look here:
Energy on light can not be used (or at least to my thinking)
Oh come now! It is not totally useless (as you imply with your words). I think the fact that the vast majority of the Energy that runs our bodies originates in the light given off by our sun is enough evidence to refute your claim here.

I think you might be overthinking here, TimeNot_0. Because I've got these nifty panels sitting on my roof that capture and convert light's energy every single day. And it actually converts this sunlight into REAL volts and amps. Honestly! Cross my heart and hope to die! I can even show you my negative energy statements for my home! And when you "turn off the light" (at night) I don't produce energy. That seems pretty convincing to me...what do you say?

RMT
 
Back
Top