Infinite world Lines Question

wa1ex

wa1ex

Temporal Navigator
Im fairly new to this infinite world line theory if I understand correctly there was one original worldline (origin) and from here multiple worldlines were and still are created.

One question i have is if it is physically possible to go back in time and you go so far back that
you reach that worldline's origin then what happens? will you become the new point of origin or reach a dead end?

Is there anything that talks about this?

thanks for any replies
 
This also gets the point across.

JT stated:

"02 November 2000 01:16 "

"Grandfather paradox Suppose you could go back in time, lets say several decades and found your grandfather when he was two years old. In his house you could grab a knife and stab him to death. He doesn't get the chance to have children with your grandmother. Therefore either your mother or father doesn't get born. Your parents can't give birth to you because one of them don't exist. You could never have been born and don't even exist. But could your grandfather have been killed by someone who doesn't exist? He must have lived through his childhood. This would allow you to exist if this is the case. Seemingly you can go back in time to commit the murder if you are born but then you would never have been born. And so on and so on. This situation is not consistent with itself. It doesn't make sense and can't possibly happen.
Solutions: [...]
2, A parallel universe might be created when you seem to change the past. Imagine if time itself was just like a tree. The different branches show different ways events could have happened. Every time we decide to do or not to do something time splits. Even if we are not aware we decided something it have affects. Quantum physics reveals a many worlds theory like this. Conclusion Since this parallel universe is not really your past (despite it's first appearance) anything you do there does not affect you. You can prevent a version of yourself from being born because you are not really related to anyone there. They just look very like your family and friends. You are not home! You may be somewhere that looks like the place you live but a different universe in quantum physics is a completely different reality.)) "

And I am sure everyone else will be able to tell you the scientific side of this but I no scientist and you will only get logic from me. So here is some logic, and probably bad logic but I'll give it a try...

JT was saying about time branching off more or less like a tree, hence the branches. The trunk of the tree would most likely be the original worldline before any choices were made. So if you can travel from these branches (present) to the base/trunk of the tree (past)...you would then find yourself on that first worldline, if it is even possible to do so. Therefore, since you went back in time, our original worldline doesn't exist with you being there. This would then make another worldine because you are there. So, you would then have our worldline plus another worldline (another tree). This would enable another entire worldine to be created that is almost the same as ours except you are there. Basically the same things will most likely happen on that worldline compared to ours once you leave and return home. And now you have just created an entire separate tree trunk because that was the first worldline and you changed that.

So, you can say that there are two trees growing side by side almost exactly alike besides how the worldline started. Meaning, the branches will be the same, time won't change except for way the worldline started, IF it's a small enough impact. Now if you made a large enough impact that would then change the entire worldline, this would be a dicussion for another day. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Hope that helps and I didn't confuse you too much!
 
Infinite Universes: all the universes in existence should be visualized as grains of sand forming a sphere of infinite radius, hence a plane of universes. If you go to the universe next door you may never notice any diffence between it and your own universe, however if you travel to the other side of this infinitely large sphere, you will hardly recognise the universe compared to our own.

A fairly good model for anyone wanting to understand this better.

How did all these universes form; well quantum mechanics teaches us that for every decision ever made, there exists another universe created to play out the other choice not taken in this universe (or any other universe). This could theoretically apply to the minute scale of particles (as well as the conscious decisions of humans) e.g the diffraction or scattering of electrons, in which case there are infinite parallel universes.


Good Scientist
 
In response to your second question, I think it would be impossible to travel back to the big bang if that's what you mean. It would be impossible, you would just cease to exist when you got there or if you managed it, you would be destroyed by the explosion itself.

Good Scientist
 
Thanks for the replies..i'll follow te sites you guys pointed out...

Is the Big bang the birth of all universes because no other universes ever existed?
or is the big bang the end off all previous universes and the start of a whole new era of universes?

and how can the Big bang theory explain Bush /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
The Big Bang Theory is basically the model for the formation of our universe. What happened was, about 10-20 billion years ago, our universe was only a finger nail wide (all matter and energy was contained in this one small area) and thus a gigantic explosion happened that created the universe we know today. When scientists discovered that the universe was ever expanding, it could no longer be considered infinite. So that means that there must have been a beginning and an ending.

And today, we believe that the universe is still expanding and some even say that it will collapse in the future. But that is all speculation and everyone thinks differently about that.
 
Looking to the skies, we see everything moving away from us at ever-increasing speeds, as well as away from each other. This is the "raisin in the bread" people talk about, I see it differently.

I see it as raindrops on a car's hood. After a heavy rain, the hood is full of drops. The "water-part" of the drop represents the gravity of the mass (dust particle) inside the drop; the thing that makes a drop a drop in the first place.

As the sun comes out, the drops start to evaporate. If a drop of rain were a galaxy and the dust in that drop physical mass, then I look outward and see the other drops all apparently moving away from both me and each other. Yet the hood is not getting bigger, the drops are all getting smaller everywhere.
 
>Except that they are moving away not losing mass, Red shifted radiation proves this.<

Sorry I wasn't clear enough. Imagine a drop of rain- it's a drop's-worth of water with a speck of dust; every drop of rain has dust in it, that's what the H2O adheres to. The speck of dust in the drop is us or the planets or whatever and the water is the gravity (cohesion) of this drop of water. The car's hood is COBE. With this scenario, it's easy to deduce the car's hood is expanding. Looking out, we see all other specks of dust moving away from us and each other. Ironically, Raimnan's analogy of the universe as doughnut shaped is absolutely correct, think of it this way:

Imagine a slinky. Tie both of its ends together into a doughnut shape then send an electrical charge through it. Then watch was the charge spins around and around as it goes around the doughnut shape. The doughnut is the cosmos, the charge is our tangable present; we are a spark of reality zooming en masse through space, which is doughnut shaped. This explains why everything is moving away from everything else everywhere- as we (the spark) approach the outer surface area there is clearly more room; everything is flying apart. Then we whip back and start contracting en masse towards the next Big Crunch, which is in the innermost part of the Slinky-doughnut, then the Big Bang and expansion and we do it all over again.

As far as red shifting, I have been thinking about that one for about two years and I am no closer to an answer. I truly do not believe galaxies can be 10 billion light years away from us- spatially it's impossible too- that galaxy, whose light left 10 billion light years ago did not traverse 10 billion light years-worth of space to reach out point, a lot of it was natural expansion of the dougnnut-shaped universe (or aether. Personally I call it "neutral energymass", scientists also call "that stuff" dark matter... it's the unknown part of the universe that accounts for nearly all of the universe).

If we had a spaceship that allowed us to instantly travel to any point in the universe and we zipped 10 billion light years away to where that star's light is coming from, we would not see that star because it's not in that spot right now, in fact it does not exist anymore.

More importantly, if everything is truly moving away from everything else at increasing relativistic speeds, it could also mean that the Big Bang is still happening more now than ever before- how else do you explain why everything is speeding up and not slowing down? But where is it? Everywhere? Maybe. I think that if we had a telescope and looked at "everything in the universe" for a long enough period of time we may end up seeing God's eye through a telescope looking at us (car hood)!

And part of it is theology too- if this is true, then it's impossible to realistically circumnavigate the universe and return and I don't think God wanted it that way. I am just trying to find the logic to back that up. Why would God make a universe we can see but never be able to physically reach? Logically it makes sense that there's gotta be another way but I am trying to figure out the logic behind it, facts don't change to suit the whims of the postulators. Closest I came is time travel- if you can travel time you can control time. If I were from a civilization a million years ahead of this one I wouldn't be sending spaceships to faraway stars, I'd be sending time machines far enough back in time to where that star was here, not the other way around then "put it in reverse" and take pictures of that star we see it up close today. THAT is my goal: realistic, practical time travel. Why? Because it makes sense, we only need enough science behind it to be able to make it happen, not account for every quark in the universe because that's impossible.
 
I will refer you to covenants post in 'time travel claims' for theological issues. The universe is massive, bigger than the human mind can feasibly visualise. Last I checked 'things', i.e other galaxies, are not speeding up, but slowing down, hence the 'big crunch theory'. Who knows, these days, astronomers are always contradicting each other on this issue.

The universe is not Doughnut shaped 'per se',that we could never observe, but is better described as thin hollow tube with edges folded back on the outside of the tube.

GS
 
For the record:
Ironically, Raimnan's analogy of the universe as doughnut shaped is absolutely correct
Click to expand...
That is not my theory or analogy. I believe that is one that Hercules subscribes to. I'm glad you know it is "absolutely correct", as I am not willing to go that far out on a limb. Now, my theory has to do with converging/diverging spirals. But I do not claim it is "asbolutely correct". I have simply noticed a preponderence of evidence that suggests counteracting spirals give rise to physical phenomena.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped ascribing quotes or statements to me that I did not make.
RMT
 
Was this actually a post without any snide remarks or insults in it? Could it be?

>That is not my theory or analogy. I believe that is one that Hercules subscribes to.<

Okay then, we'll go back to you being wrong. Suits me.

>I'd appreciate it if you stopped ascribing quotes or statements to me that I did not make.<

Which other quotes or statements have I attributed to you that were incorrect?

>RMT<

Is this your name?
 
Was this actually a post without any snide remarks or insults in it?
Click to expand...
I've just noted that you have provided the lion's share of that lately. But if you really miss my style, there are some more "gems" in your last post that I could point out as problematic. But then you'd just accuse me of "attacking" you again.
Which other quotes or statements have I attributed to you that were incorrect?
Click to expand...
Only quite a few of them in our past discussions. One example is claiming I called you an idiot. Other examples are where you claim I made a point I never made, in an attempt to bolster your side of the argument.
Is this your name?
Click to expand...
Is "jmpet" yours?

You should really write a book. It would be fun...
RMT
 
Back
Top