Jesus...the REAL Time Traveller

[iridium]

Ok...this is not intended to be a flames thread. I have probably type out a dozen or so threads on this subject only to cancel the process because I just don't want it to become a circus.

Anyway, I have been doing a lot of thinking lately. Trying to reconcile modern day physics with my faith. I've come across some things that astound me. Considering that the basis for my faith (the Bible) was written close to 2000 years ago.

I don't know how to put these thoughts/observations into writing so I will just list them.

1. Nature of God. Through the Bible, we understand God to be omnipresent (in all places at all times), omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), eternal.

2. Nature of Jesus. Through the Bible, we see a hypostatic union (Jesus is fully God, and fully man)

3. Nature of light. Science shows us that light has a dual nature (particle and wave)

4. Relativity. Person A is stationary. Person B travels at a speed close to c for 1 minute and returns. Person B experiences only the 1 minute of elapsed time. To person A, person B would seem to have been gone for much longer (not gonna do math here). If person B were to travel AT c, person A would not experience their return. Person B would be gone for infinity.

5. Jesus claims in scripture to be the "Light of the world". God is also referred to in scripture as light. So God, if he was going to, could "move around" at c. Could this make Him eternal?

6. Physical limitations to theoretical c. Actual c is not possible in our physical universe. An absolute vaccuum is required. Space isn't absolute vaccuum. So the light that we see actually travels slower than c. So TRUE light really doesn't exist...if it did would it be invisible?

7. Spatial contraction. The following are not my words, but those of a fellow board member. I can not attest to the truth of the science.
"The Lorentz Transformation also involves spatial contraction. As he closely approaches the speed of light he not only sees the clocks slowing, he sees the universe warp into a point directly ahead of him. It’s paradoxical, but he ends up moving directly toward every object in the universe except those that are exactly 180 degrees behind his path. And everything is blue shifted because he is accelerating toward them. He is running head-long at almost the speed of light directly toward a pin-point sized object that contains the entire mass-energy of the universe."

Could this mean that One who travels at c would have the whole universe before them? Omnipotence? Omniscience? Omnipresence?

8. Mulitple worldlines. Heaven? According to scripture, Jesus pre-existed His incarnation. Where was He? With the Father in Heaven. So are Heaven and Hell really what scientist are proving if they prove multiple worldlines. Jesus, according to scripture, "travelled" to all three. Of course if he is the Light of the world, c, He would have the ability to do this!

There is more than this that I've been thinking about, but right now, I just lack the ability to put it into words. For me, personally, I don't need this stuff to convince me that Jesus is real. But stuff like this excites me to no end.

RMT, Darby, Einstein, Herc, anyone..even Creeds...is there something missing here? Remember, the Bible was written close to 2000 years ago, yet in it are basic principles that science is just now (modern day) backing up?

Thanks all for not flaming! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Hercules]

So are Heaven and Hell really what scientist are proving if they prove multiple worldlines.

If multiple worldines are proved, then there is no heaven or hell. There is no “actual” death. There is death and rebirth. But YOU are REBORN as YOURSELF in the past.
If you travel to the past, you see your younger self. After you die, you are reborn in the past and see your elder self who has come to see you from the future.

Could this be the secret that any religion was covering up for all these years since the evolution of human life?

 

[TimeNot_0]

Well, actually with multiple worldlines, one worldline would be uniquely better and very much like Heaven or all Good. Also with that one worldline would be worse, and closer to Hell or very much like Hell, in a sense where nothing Good happens.

That was also discussed with Titor, and one of the posters came up with the:
If there are infinite realities then there are realities that do not exist either, and everything inbetween including the above. So striving towards making a worldline better is always a goal. But what exactly will make a worldline better? The answer was given as it enters into the realm of religion then!
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

 

[OllyB]

if multiple worldines are proved, then there is no heaven or hell.

-Multiple world lines is highly likely, science also has taken serious note of this thoery now. Also we should re-think what we know about quantum objects and which reality they seem to be locked into. Could it be that that they are locked into all dimensions at once, but pick a single path to show each reality (out of all possible combinations).

If this is the case, which is more then plausable, then its the strongest argument for multiple worldline theory yet.

read this

This may also go some way in validating a 'Zero time' dimension which connects all other dimensions as one. they would have to be connected to a 'bridging' dimension in order to be connected to all at once.


-If it was provable. How would it mean there is no heaven and hell. Also you need to define what you mean by "heaven" and "hell", wouldn't 'heaven' and 'hell' just be different dimensions? therefore if multiple worldline theory was proven, surely it would be the best case yet that they exist (depending on what you define them as?).

-also what makes you think that all parallel "you's" are being powered by the same individuated spirit form? surely the ones that are carrying out lesser evolved actions, are more likely connected to lesser evolved spirit forms (souls), and vice-versa.

I think the bible is a very flawed piece of work to be basing anything off. But thats just my opinion.

kindest regards,
Olly

 

[Hercules]

But it is the “memory” that is getting actually updated regularly as the years pass by. The memory is destroyed when we die. But it again gets updated in a different worldline. All these things happen simultaneously, I also have another view of this multiple worldline theory.

Between 1 and 2 there are infinite number of points. Likewise, between the year 1980 and the year 2080, there are infinite points in time. Each point is a Worldline. So we get infinite Worldlines. No two points in time are the same. If I go to the past and meet my former self, there are two souls which are the same but the difference is each one belong to different points in time.

 

[Lucien]

Does anyone understand the implications for 'infinite worldlines'?

Hercules is saying that in a set of infinity (time), there can be a distinguished 'point', which he then associates with a separate 'worldline'.

Lets look at that.

Ok. Between the years 1980 and 2080 are 'infinate' points in time (Hurcules states).

So let's try to pick a point.

Well, Point 2 (the point we're picking in this infinite set) must lie between two other points, as we are talking about a set, aren't we? Let's say Point 2 lies between Point 1 and Point 3. That all makes sense, doesn't it? Nothing interesting at all.

However, let's come back to what 'infinity' means, and whether or not it is indeed a set.

Infinity is a concept. When we were kids we'd use terms like 'infinity + 1' when arguing about how we're right and our sibling is wrong. "I am, I am I am I am I am, times infinity!!" You might hear. Then the retort, "I am, times infinity plus one!" Then you might think you can beat it by going to 'infinity times infinity' or later, 'infinity times infinity to the power of infinity infinity times!' or some such nonsense. But the fact remains, each answer is the same as the original, infinity.

Now, let's look again at our 'points in time' which correspond each to a different 'worldline'.

Point 2 lies between Point 1 and Point 3. Let's try to approach it from one of these boundries. Let's start with trying to approach it from Point 1.

Our Origin is Point 1. We move towards Point 3. We are now past Point 1.1, that was quick. But how many 'Points' have we gone past? The answer is that there are infinite 'points' between Point 1 and Point 1.1, as we are inside an infinite set. Likewise, The closer we get to Point 2, we notice we're seeing things like Point 1.9999999999990 etc, which has infinite points between itself and Point 1.9999999999991, and so on. To get from one 'point' to the next 'point',

we must cross infinite 'points', and this cannot be achieved because it is inherently nonsensical.

The fact is, if we claim there are infinite points in our set, we can never actually define any of them. We know we cannot divide infinity into anything less than infinity itself - even then we run into mathematical stupidities!

So, how can we identify an particular 'worldline' in a set of infinite 'worldlines'? We cannot. Infinity does not work this way.

Therefore, for infinite worldlines to exist, no worldlines must exist. This is pure nonsense.

We are sure that one worldline exists, which is where we are now. The fact that there is one proves that there are not infinite worldlines.

Thank you for reading.

 

[OllyB]

Yes i would agree. You can't take a worldline, and class each moment in that line as a seperate worldline. each moment of now flows in linear time to create that one worldline.

Each universe will be in tune with its one energetic time system, This is the energy that is responsible for regulation and maintaining the matter in motion effect that we all see in physical form.

Each timeline should be classed as a different universe of time. Each linear universe (timeline) is created from all moments of now flowing along a linear path. Again - it is possible to access each separate point via some sort of Zero-point dimension of time where it all merges into one (aswell as accessing other points of 'now' in other universes of time). However you would still be comming out in the same time stream.

I would class two different worldlines, not as two different points in the same timestream. But rather different timestreams and dimensions altogether.

however - back to the subject in hand - If you went back to see yourself in the SAME timeline (and not a different dimension/worldline) you would indeed be talking to yourself And it would be driven by the same soul. This is possible because the soul lives above time/space channels and is not subject to problems with numbers or maths.

The two 'yous' are driven by the same soul that is existing in the same higher dimension and are both one and the same thing regardless of their now being 'two' of you. each standing in the same point in time.

I predict that travelling up and down the SAME timeline, will probably be the last form of timetravel to be learnt. Due to the difficulties in coherence.

Really this subject requires a lot of non linear thinking, and you tend to either get it or not.

 

[OllyB]

Its similar to the idea, that time for higher dimensions does not exist, therefore to these dimensions the material universe started and ended in the same instant.

This thoery may well be the one that allows us to accept that for a soul that has evolved through the material dimension in this instant (relative to the higher ones - and that the soul is always connected too)....

It is possible for an evolved soul to travel back through the zero point and back out into linear time, to a life it inhabited millions of years ago, as an unevolved cave man - and still be talking to a double that is inhabited by the same spirit form, before it gained millions of years of wisdomic evolution. because outside of time, those millions of years all happened at once.

what i was trying to say - is that the soul lives in a dimension that is separate to the maths/physics/limits and paradoxes of the material universe. Ultimately time [and space] is not a law for it.

 

[RainmanTime]

Does anyone understand the implications for 'infinite worldlines'?
Hercules is saying that in a set of infinity (time), there can be a distinguished 'point', which he then associates with a separate 'worldline'.
Lets look at that.

Thanks Lucien, for pointing this out. I was going to do the same thing, but I hesitated because I'm sure Hercules would've thought I was attacking him, instead of his scientific analysis techniques. Let me see if I can shed even more light of clarity on what is wrong with Hercules' views of the potential for "infinite worldlines"...

Point 2 lies between Point 1 and Point 3. Let's try to approach it from one of these boundries. Let's start with trying to approach it from Point 1.

This whole issue can be boiled down to the simple distinction of Continuous vs. Discrete phenomenon. Something that Hercules, if he really is an electrical engineer, ought to know about. As best as we can tell, BOTH Space AND Time are CONTINUOUS phenomenon. When we digitize an analog signal, we are admitting that there is quantization error in going from a continuous analog signal to a discrete digital signal. How does this apply to Hercules' views of infinite worldlines? I'll tell you. The entire view espoused by Hercules assumes (he likes to do that) and is based upon a belief that moments in time are discrete, rather than time being a continuous phenomenon. Yet we know, scientifically, that time is indeed a continuous phenomenon, just like space. There are no discrete breaks, or dividing lines, that distinguish one moment from the next!

So, it is erroneous to think there are "infinite moments of time" between any two points in time, because this assumes time is discrete. Ergo, supposing there are infinite worldlines based on this logic is flawed.

However... it could be said that there are MULTIPLE worldlines, without there being INFINITE worldlines. And this is something I was trying to get Hercules to understand in another thread. The ONLY way you can discretize worldlines is if you consider that EACH OBSERVER HAS THEIR OWN, DISCRETE WORLDLINE. Time, as perceived by that observer, is still a continuous phenomenon. But that observer's view on their continuous flow of Time is, indeed, discrete. This is why I claim that MULTIPLE worldlines can and do exist, and that the number of worldlines is limited to the number of living observers.

The fact is, if we claim there are infinite points in our set, we can never actually define any of them. We know we cannot divide infinity into anything less than infinity itself - even then we run into mathematical stupidities!

Again, I wish to thank you for being scientific and mathematical about this in your analysis! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Herc, are you catching this? You want science... pay attention to this guy!

Therefore, for infinite worldlines to exist, no worldlines must exist. This is pure nonsense.
We are sure that one worldline exists, which is where we are now. The fact that there is one proves that there are not infinite worldlines.
Thank you for reading.

Thank you for sharing. I could not be in more agreement with your analysis!

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi Olly,

I do believe I agree with your excellent thoughts here. They seem to align perfectly with how I view dimensionality, and how physicality as we live it (3-D of Massive SpaceTime) is different from non-physicality of the dimensions beyond.

Each universe will be in tune with its one energetic time system, This is the energy that is responsible for regulation and maintaining the matter in motion effect that we all see in physical form.

Exactly. Science verifies to us that the one "unchangeable truth" of our physical universe is Energy. The Law of Conservation of Energy is the closest thing to a "Law of God" that you can classify in physical terms. It would therefore be good for both our Science and Spiritual views on Energy to coincide...for we are really talking about the same thing.

Qabalistically, you could say that Energy is the ONE TRUTH. But then how do we describe that ONE TRUTH? Well, it seems we describe it with TWO OPPOSING CONCEPTS. You've rightly named them... MATTER and MOTION. Anyone care to disagree so far?

What I claim I do in my Massive SpaceTime theory is simply to extend this concept, Qabalistically, along its natural extension. Specifically, I claim that the duality of MATTER in MOTION can be phsyically described and defined by THREE completely orthogonal, "REAL" dimensions. We call these THREE dimensions: MASS (Objects), SPACE (Volume), and TIME (Tense).

Not only does this fit perfectly to existing Science (just desribing it in a stricter, more hierarchical way), but it also aligns with a certain existing theory of Spirituality... that which is described in the knowledge of Qabalah, the Tree Of Life, and the story of our biology (DNA).

This is possible because the soul lives above time/space channels and is not subject to problems with numbers or maths.

The two 'yous' are driven by the same soul that is existing in the same higher dimension and are both one and the same thing regardless of their now being 'two' of you. each standing in the same point in time.

Again....agreed. I think you've described it spot-on. Not only is our soul (and higher self, the spirit) beyond Time and Space, but it is also beyond Mass. Or, you could think of our soul as being the 3-way conglomeration of these dimensions. Our body needs our soul/spirit and our soul/spirit needs our body. One could say these two structures of our Self are dualing, interacting Inward/Outward Spirals!

Really this subject requires a lot of non linear thinking, and you tend to either get it or not.

You can say that x-squared*y-cubed more times!

In my own field, I believe the next technology advancement will come from (is already coming from) our transition from building linearized control systems, to ones which are inherently non-linear. That will be when we agree we are crossing the boundary to creating "true" Artificial Intelligence...which can lead to Artificial Life. And once we can Create Artificial Life, Who do we become ONE with?

And at that point, is there really a clear distinction between "Artificial" and "Natural" life forms?

There are many interesting results from this line of thinking, sir! I suggest and encourage you to contine!
RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Hey there, Iridium:

RMT, Darby, Einstein, Herc, anyone..even Creeds...is there something missing here? Remember, the Bible was written close to 2000 years ago, yet in it are basic principles that science is just now (modern day) backing up?
Thanks all for not flaming!

No flame necessary IMHO. I think you are right about the connection between science and spirituality... maybe not one specific religion, but the general knowledge we have on spirituality, for certain. In fact, this is something OvrLrdLegion and I have both been saying: As Science progresses, we are finding more and more validation of certain interpretations of "sacred geometry" as well as things in other ancient scriptures that teach us about God and Creation.

I'd suggest: Understanding how our ethereal, non-physical selves (Spirit/Soul/Mind) interplay with our physical bodies and physical universe will lead to a resolution of Science and Religion. A single view which can encompass, describe, and validate both of these currently opposing views on reality.

I think Jesus Christ was a Qabalist. And I think his message can and will be shown to be scientifically correct, just like the same message given by other men such as Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed, Moses, etc. If so, then we only need to remember that He is We and We are He, and we are ALL aspects of the ALL. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT

 

[Hercules]

Really this subject requires a lot of non linear thinking, and you tend to either get it or not.

I don't understand why there are people who are MAD adbout the infinite worldlines. It is just a theory. It MAY OR MAY NOT be proved in the future.

I don't understand WHY most people are jumping to DEBUNK this concept with their OWN CONCEPTS.

I never come into CONCLUSIONS based on what you call PRESENT DAY SCIENCE. I already mentioned it in some other thread. I always go BEYOND the present day science. I don't BOTHER anyone calling it nonsense. I ASSUME their knowledge is LIMITED to PRESENT DAY SCIENCE.

 

[Hercules]

High Speed Transit Authority

We have for decades now referred to the world in which we live as "space-time". This refers to the fact that we exist in what appears to be a three dimensional world of space, that is length, width, height plus the dimension of time. Those who study relativity theory and quantum mechanics are familiar with space-time diagrams where one or two spatial dimensions are left off the physical representation of our universe. In these diagrams the dimension of time is usually represented as the vertical axis. And so it is usually perceived that time flows only in one direction as an arrow. Are there ways around this seemingly one way, metronomic existence?

Many have contemplated this possibility, and since Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity the number has increased dramatically. Two major conclusions have resulted from these theories concerning the concept of time. One is that moving clocks tick slower than ones at relative rest. So therein lies the famous twin paradox where twins separate, one journeys into space at near the speed of light while the other remains on Earth. The adventurous twin returns only to find his brother to be much older than himself. Is this possible? According to general relativity it is. The rub here is that in order to travel more than a few nanoseconds into the future, we will have to achieve speeds much faster than today's technology permits. Even if we achieve speeds near half the speed of light we could only hope to jump a whopping few hours ahead. In order for time travel into the future to be a reasonable possibility we would have to get to just below light speed. This, however, would cost us dearly. Lawrence Krauss (1995) states that the Starship Enterprise, which weighs 4 million metric tons (they actually have technical manuals out there that give the specifications of the ship), uses nuclear fuel to travel at what they call impulse power which at maximum is one quarter the speed of light. This calculates out that "... over 300 million metric tons of fuel would need to be used each time the impulse drive is used to accelerate the ship to half light speed" (Krauss, 1995, p.25). It would take years to accelerate us to that speed unless we had some kind of "inertial dampers" as used by The Enterprise. Otherwise the acceleration required to do this is a short period of time, say a few hours, would definitely kill us with G-forces. If we had this type of technology to eliminate these gravitational forces and wanted to make this acceleration in a few hours " the power radiated as propellant by the engines would then be about 1022 watts - or about a billion times the total average power presently produced and used by all human activities on Earth" (Krauss, 1995, p.26). Clearly we have neither the time nor the energy to accomplish this. Again , this only achieves twenty five percent of light speed, and this is just not fast enough to make time travel worthwhile.

Warp speed is another means of travel in this science fiction series. This is another ball game all together. The concept here is not to increase the speed of the ship moving through space but to somehow bend space so that slower speeds could be used. These warp speeds do not affect the normal passage of time. Therefore, the effect is to travel through space by wrinkling or curving space in front of the ship while stretching it behind thereby taking distance out of the velocity equation. We do not violate the universal laws of physics by traveling at greater than light speed. The theory of how this works (a-la Star Trek and not real physicists) is that the annihilation of matter and antimatter provides the power required to bend space. Even though great distances could be traversed there would be no significant movement through time with this method. We have no idea if this is possible, and the author has not researched respected theories concerning this. Even though forward time travel is possible according to general relativity, the use of near light speeds to achieve significant temporal displacement does not seem realistic in the all but distant future due to the physical constraints and energy requirements (Krauss, 1995).

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/blackholesth.htm

http://www.doesgodexist.org/JanFeb96/PhysicsOfImmorality.html

http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/m13.html


Disclaimer: I did not present these links to prove anything or DISPROVE SOMEONE ELSE'S APPROACH for Time Travel. They are for the sake of reading ONLY.


/ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[RainmanTime]

I don't understand why there are people who are MAD adbout the infinite worldlines.

I don't understand why you always need to personalize things. Could it be that we are not MAD about it, but rather that we have scientifically analyzed it and come to the conclusion that it is "less likely" than other competing theories?

It is just a theory.

Yes...one with some pretty significant holes, speaking scientifically. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I don't understand WHY most people are jumping to DEBUNK this concept with their OWN CONCEPTS.

You don't understand why? After all the scientific discussions I, and others, have presented against INFINITE worldline theories, you STILL don't understand? Well, if you don't understand scientific reasoning, backed by what we currently know as true, then I am at a loss to try to explain further. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif

I never come into CONCLUSIONS based on what you call PRESENT DAY SCIENCE.

History shows it is dangerous to "throw away" existing science. If you review the history from Newton through Einstein, you will see that each modification of our knowledge of physics INCLUDED and ENCAPSULATED earlier, validated scientific models of physics. IOW, Einstein had to show how F=ma was a limiting case of his E = mc^2. You would do well to consider existing science, and what we know is true, in developing your theories that extend beyond what we know today. Not totally ignore it.

I ASSUME their knowledge is LIMITED to PRESENT DAY SCIENCE.

Yes, you do. You really do like to ASS-U-ME. IMHO, this is your biggest flaw with respect to a scientific approach. It allows you to try to pass-off your sentiments as something other than your sentiments. Although, it doesn't work with me! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Take it easy...lighten up. Maybe YOU are the one who is MAD? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
RMT

 

[IgnorantSentient]

Saying that there is only one worldline is the same sort of thought as a couple years ago when people thought that the earth was the center of the universe... (and I realize its a little more than a couple

)