Past present future?

[G410]

I have read that traveling in speed of light in the universe would help you travel across time spent on earth.
I was wondering if it is possible to rotate in speed of light rather that travel,meaning sitting in a sphere which the outer sphere is rotating in speed of light,would it get the same result?

Plus i am thinking that maybe there is 3 world,which this is what i think.
There are the present world we are living are progressing each day,and past which we have obviously passed and the future which consist only possibilities.
What i feel is that maybe there is a door/way for us to pass to walk through time,i meant that isn't it possible since we are the ones to invent time,days,month and year,and what ever we know today is what we Humans invented,no one could say it is right or wrong in nature.From my view i think that whatever we imagine are things that we actually could make,that's just what i think & believe.
So,i am hoping to gain more knowledge before i am going into the rotating sphere experiment and i am hoping to get some of others people ideas and thoughts.
Really this is thoughts and imagination here,so please save the Sarcasm.
Thanks

 

[KerrTexas]

I was wondering if it is possible to rotate in speed of light rather that travel,meaning sitting in a sphere which the outer sphere is rotating in speed of light,would it get the same result?

If I am understanding your post correctly...

The problem I see here is getting an outer sphere to rotate at the speed of light around an inner sphere. Do you have any ideas on how to do that ?

I would also say that humans didn't invent time, merely created a mutually agreed upon standard of measurement. I don't believe that we have an exact definition of what "time" itself actually is ...an active force, a passive force, or any kind of force at all.

Still seems to be a topic of debate.

Excellent insights as far as the idea of three seperate worlds..past, present, and future.

Instead of worlds, maybe you meant dimensions ? Yes ?

 

[Darby]

I have read that traveling in speed of light in the universe would help you travel across time spent on earth.
I was wondering if it is possible to rotate in speed of light rather that travel,meaning sitting in a sphere which the outer sphere is rotating in speed of light,would it get the same result?

I don't know what this would accomplish. If we suspend all of the other laws of physics and allow a real sphere to spin up in the manner described the only part of the surface of the sphere that would have an angular velocity of c would be a one dimensional line along the equator of the sphere. All other areas of the surface (moving outward from the equator toward the poles) would have decreasing angular velocities until, at the poles, it would be zero.

Now unsuspend the real laws of physics. The only place on the sphere moving at the speed of light is that one dimensional line. You'd have to be on that line to be traveling at the speed of light. But you're not a one diimensional line. You can't occupy the speed of light zone. Real spheres are made of matter. Spin up a real sphere and it is subject to, for instance, the centrifugal force. Eventually, and long before you even spin it up to even a fraction of the speed of light, the centrifugal force will be greater than the electronic binding energy of the molecules of the matter that the sphere is made from. The electrons let go, It blows apart and becomes much less a time machine than a really big anti-personnel grenade. There are other physical laws involved. Put an electric charge in motion and it radiates photons. Move it really, really fast, say approaching the speed of light and it radiates hard gamma radiation photons relative to the rest frame. So if you're inside the sphere you're either going to see the grenade go off or you're going to enter the "glow zone" and be irridiated with gamma radiation. That's just two physical laws to consider.

Moving at the speed of light, if it were possible for massive objects, isn't helpful in any case. Again, suspend all other laws of physics. If you move at the speed of light spacetime folds up and contracts to a point. You would simultaneously occupy all of spacetime from the Big Bang to the infinite future. You can't navigate because the point is dimensionless. Your x, y, z and t coordinates that you would otherwise use to navigate this 4-D spacetime disappear. Inside your vehicle - whatever you time machine is - your spacetime appears to be unaffected from your perspective but when you look outside its all one supermassive point containing the entire mass-energy and spacetime of the universe. No roadmap, thus no navigation.

 

[jameswade]

I don't understand what you mean by ( If you move at the speed of light spacetime folds up and contracts to a point)...Is this an affect caused by the physical incapability's of the eye??....Also....(You would simultaneously occupy all of spacetime from the Big Bang to the infinite future)..If it takes time to travel through space and space to travel through time, How can both be occupied simultaneously?

 

[Darby]

I don't understand what you mean by ( If you move at the speed of light spacetime folds up and contracts to a point)...Is this an affect caused by the physical incapability's of the eye??....

This comes straight from Special Relativity and the Lorentz Transformations. Go fast and spacetime contracts. Go at the speed of light and spacetime contracts to a point of zero dimension.

 

[plasticdan]

On the matter of the spinning sphere I just don't think it will work. As for past, present and future, well only one of these actually exist. The past and future are simply words we use to describe what has happened and what will happen, because neither exist, neither can be changed by us in the present. All decisions and actions can only take place in the present.

 

[trojan]

It is posts like these that, in my opinion, show the fundamental flaw of the human mind. We as humans have certain beliefs about space, time, the universe, etc that we try to prove or disprove by using our own theories, laws of time and nature that we have developed here on earth. With all due respect to some of the posters here, and believe me I have read a great deal of them over the years and some of you seem extremely intelligent and well studied in a number of issues. Our laws of physics and theories simply do not hold up in space. They may work out here on earth, but once outside of earths atmosphere we simply have theories, and who is to say one is right over the other? until a theory is proven to be a universal fact out side earth's atmosphere is remains nothing but theory. We still have absolutely no clue on how or where the universe came from. Sure we have ideas and theories, but no proof. We can see with telescopes black holes and other countless space anomalies, but no clue where they came from or how they were created. We have theories on space matter that we believe must be there or some of our most upheld laws of physics will be shot full of holes, but we can't find it. We have a periodic table of elements which is ever evolving and changing, with the newest element, copernicium, to probably be added this year. So as far as how time travel works, any thing is possible. Just because something will not work here on our earth in our time does not mean it can not work somewhere out there. It just means we have not discovered the means to do it. could we have been visited by a time traveler before? Of course we could have. John Titor?....ROFL...No! It is possible in my mind though it could have happened before, I just don't think I could go back to my own past, I would be in different time line if I did, because my own past has already been written. Then again, that is also just a theory. I have got to take my hat off to CERN though, they are at least trying to prove that our laws are universal and correct, and do not just apply to life here on earth. Exciting stuff they have going on there and I can't hardly wait for the information that comes out of there over the next few years.

 

[RainmanTime]

Our laws of physics and theories simply do not hold up in space.

Absolutist generalization alert! Caution, you are entering a spin zone. One must always discuss to what degree physical laws/theories do or do not hold up. Absent this, I would suggest to you that they most certainly do hold up in space! The question is: To what level of accuracy? That is what the transition from Newton to Einstein taught us. Newton was a limiting case of Einstein, and as such was only accurate within situations. The same is true for Einstein.

They may work out here on earth, but once outside of earths atmosphere we simply have theories, and who is to say one is right over the other?

Data....that is "who". There is always a measure of uncertainty, but that does not mean one cannot know anything. Such would be a nihilistic point of view. Have you ever heard about, or studied, "The Pioneer Anomaly"? It is by measurement and comparision with theory that we come to understand the limits of any theory's accuracy.

So as far as how time travel works, any thing is possible.

Another generalization. Don't you find those dangerous and/or defeating?

Just because something will not work here on our earth in our time does not mean it can not work somewhere out there. It just means we have not discovered the means to do it.

There is another one. I fail to see the usefulness of such statements other than to encourage people to have such an open mind that their brains fall out. That and the result of such thinking leads to nothing but arguments about definitions (what is your definition of "is"?). Example: By your generalization, we could say that just because a human being born with only male genitalia has never gotten pregnant that does not mean it could never happen. While it may be "true", it is trivially true only in that it could never be falsified (there is always another male waiting to be born to test the "truthiness"). At some point you have to leave such open-ended generalities behind and begin to estimate probabilities. And at that point, is it really valuable knowledge if you ascertain that the probability of a human with only male genitalia becoming pregnant is something on the order of a decimal point with 45 zeros after it termninated by a 1? Unless nihilism is your drink of choice, then no it is not really valuable.

I just don't think I could go back to my own past, I would be in different time line if I did, because my own past has already been written.

Assumption. I could now throw your own trivial truth back at you for making this assumption. And where would that leave you? :D

Then again, that is also just a theory.

There you go!

So after all of this, my question to you is: In your opinion, what do you think the purpose of your existence is?

RMT

 

[jameswade]

Is there a (PURPOSE) to any of us?..Are we not all just random!

 

[plasticdan]

What is the fundamental human mind flaw that I am showing btw? You stated it then went off into a techno-babble filled ramble that led to that good old conclusion "anything is possible".

 

[Darby]

With all due respect to some of the posters here,<snip> [o]ur laws of physics and theories simply do not hold up in space.

As they say in Missouri, " Show me".

Show me where the laws of physics break down. No opinions - experimental verification.

Yes, we're fully aware of the fact he General Relativity breaks down when velocities appraoch "c" or gravitational forces approach infinity. Other than that, show me.

 

[RainmanTime]

Is there a (PURPOSE) to any of us?..

A good question. I have my own opinions, but it might be better to start another thread (in another forum) to continue that. I will offer the system's engineering view on "purpose", and that is one must expand your contextual view to understand purpose of any system. So examine yourself within the context of humanity, and then humanity within the context of the earth...etc.

Are we not all just random!

What is "random"? The science of chaos theory (non-linear phenomena with closed-loop feedbacks) has taught us that what we once thought of as "random" has periodic signatures of order embedded within. Again, the principal of context helps us to understand that what may look random at one scale could and often does reveal an order at another level of context.

RMT

 

[Twighlight]

Is there a (PURPOSE) to any of us?..Are we not all just random!

If things were not random, they would be deterministic. In which case the entire future would be predictable as a result of cause and effect. And I'd find that apalling and depressing.

Thankfully, along came quantum theory.....randomness....and we most certainly are not in Kansas any more.

 

[trojan]

lol, one of these days I will learn to cut and past to answer questions asked, just not today : )
but to answer your questions. I was not meaning to imply our science is completely wrong. I just feel with current technology on earth, we are unable to test a lot of our theories, and laws of physics we hold to be true. I understand there has to be a starting point and a theory made in order to come to a final correct conclusion, otherwise, as you say, our minds would fall out...lol. That's pretty much how I feel all the time when thinking on such things, my brain goes to mush after about 3 hours of thinking and discussing because there are just sooo many possibilities. You are absolutely correct in the statement about most of the post I wrote was nothing more than generalizations, it was me thinking aloud if you will. There are certain things I just want to know, and I'm sure others do as well, and to explain those things we apply human logic to figure them out, which I believe is the flaw, because our minds can only grasp so much, and a lot of times if it does not make sense to our science, they say it is incorrect. My only question is who are we to say if a=b here, that a must = b in some far off reaches of space where space and time may be warped or torn by some cosmic force. I'm sure some day we will figure it out, that’s why I gave a shout out to CREN, because I think what they are doing there is very exciting, they are looking at things at a most primal level and attempting to go from there, looking for the "beginning" if you will. As to my own existence, I do not know. It is a question I have pondered many times. I grew up in a ministers home and my father is still a minister to this day. I would very much like to believe that a God exists, and in my heart I feel that to be true, but to what level he exists I am unsure. I have always maintained that if a scientist can believe that out of absolute nothingness gasses exploded and created matter and "poof" our universe started developing, then it is just as easy to believe there is a God who created it all, but that just leads to where in the world did he come from...lol. In my mind the scientific theory of the big bang sounds a lot like Greek mythology, in that, out of chaos and nothingness the universe was created. If you take all the god's stuff out of their mythology, the basics sound very much a like, in my mind that is : ) I have my own personal theory and belief on how we came to be here on earth, but it is way to long and defiantly not based on science or religion, but that would be for a different post.

 

[RainmanTime]

There are certain things I just want to know, and I'm sure others do as well, and to explain those things we apply human logic to figure them out, which I believe is the flaw, because our minds can only grasp so much, and a lot of times if it does not make sense to our science, they say it is incorrect.

This is very correct, and a very astute observation. In the biz we call this phenomenon "analysis paralysis." In short, if you spend all of your time thinking, and none of your time doing (i.e. building and testing) you will never get anywhere and you will never validate any of your thoughts as true.

As to my own existence, I do not know. It is a question I have pondered many times. I grew up in a ministers home and my father is still a minister to this day. I would very much like to believe that a God exists, and in my heart I feel that to be true, but to what level he exists I am unsure.

While I believe in a "certain form" of God, I do not believe one even needs to consider that question, or its answer, in identifying the purpose for your existence. Rather, it may be that one only needs to consider the one capability that we share with any form of God: The ability to create. It is often the case that people feel a compelling "need" to create something in their lives... sometimes it is just to procreate and in the raising of their children they realize their purpose in life. Other times it is that strong desire to build something (for me, it has been flying machines and semi-intelligent systems).

As an instructor I often find myself being asked to help students "figure out what they should do with their lives." Invariably, I try to talk to them and get them to express what sorts of thoughts and concepts "turn them on"... in other words, help them understand what sorts of things they are feeling "compelled" to create. By exploring that question, and actually taking actions in the world around you to "test the waters" (build something and see what happens), one can often uncover more facts about what you enjoy creating.

So, in short, one might say that our "purpose" is to create. What, how, when, and where we create... these questions are left to the creator. And as to WHY we create, or what the purpose is for any of us creating anything... well, to answer that question you have to begin to expand your view and look at much larger contexts of the universe. :D

RMT

 

[KerrTexas]

... building and testing...

With regards to the question of purpose, there also is "observational analysis". Maybe something that blends with 'testing', however, if we observe nature at work, there isn't anything in nature that does not follow some sort of pattern of purpose.

Kind of difficult to claim that everything in nature has a purpose, except one.

To reference a Hermetic maxim :

" That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below... "


Everything within our bodies has a purpose. From the smallest particle's, to the largest. Each serving a "unified" purpose for existence.

The particles that make up a Honey Bee is part of a process of nature, and serves a specific purpose.

Why would one unified body of particles, namely the human species, be excluded from the rest of nature in fulfilling a purpose ?

On a larger scale, do the dynamics change any ?

This is where it becomes difficult, since we can't place the Universe under the microscope.

Although we apply theories to the operation of the Universe, if we follow a logical sequence of observation, experiments, and testing, where would the sequence ( spectrum ) of purpose cease or change ?

The Sun serves a purpose...for the lifeforms of Earth.

What we don't comprehend/understand/fathom is the awareness of self .

Does the Honey Bee reason as to why it exists, and rationalize why it is doing what it does in its sequence within the spectrum of existence ?

If things were not random, they would be deterministic. In which case the entire future would be predictable as a result of cause and effect.

In theory, the entire future IS predictable as a result of cause and effect. The problem with determining the "effect" relies on a huge number of variables of "causes".

Just because we aren't able to compile all the variables, does not necessarily mean that anything is a random effect.

However...

What becomes interesting is when we bring in "self awareness" and the capacity to reason.

The question of purpose becomes a question of potential and the capacity of the will.

 

[Twighlight]

I have always maintained that if a scientist can believe that out of absolute nothingness gasses exploded and created matter and "poof" our universe started developing, then it is just as easy to believe there is a God who created it all, but that just leads to where in the world did he come from...lol.

There is actually a fundamental flaw in the scientific argument 'against' God. It goes something like this :-

Scientists argue that because everything can be seen to be working according to basic 'laws of physics', which impose order and structure on the universe, then there is no need for a God to exist to impose that order.

Sounds reasonable.....BUT in fact the way it is presented is actually in the form of a logical 'false dilemna'.

You see......if one argues along the lines of 'if A, then B'.....then conversely it should equally as well hold true that ' if not A, then not B'

However...it seems likely to me that if the universe was just a chaotic jumbled mess with no laws or structure......those same scientists would ALSO argue that as proof God did not exist. In other words........'if A then B......and if not A then also B'.....which is logically fallacious.

Which basically means that the existence of scientific 'laws' proves absolutely nothing either way, about the existence of God.

 

[Twighlight]

I would also say that humans didn't invent time, merely created a mutually agreed upon standard of measurement. I don't believe that we have an exact definition of what "time" itself actually is ...an active force, a passive force, or any kind of force at all.

Time is not a 'thing'.....it is a process involving things. We get older...but we do not say that 'getting older' has some sort of physical existence.....and all to often people make the mistake of treating time as though it existed that way. Outside of changes to physical objects, time does not exist. There is no such thing as time as an entity on its own. That is why Einstein correctly described a concept of 'spacetime'....as space and time are inextricably linked. All too often, problems dealing with time, or even a time machine, arise from an incorrect perception of the nature of time.....dealing with it as if it were an entity on its own.

 

[RainmanTime]

There is no such thing as time as an entity on its own. That is why Einstein correctly described a concept of 'spacetime'....as space and time are inextricably linked. All too often, problems dealing with time, or even a time machine, arise from an incorrect perception of the nature of time.....dealing with it as if it were an entity on its own.

Exactly. This fact has been pointed out regularly on this board. And I know Kerr is aware of this, as he has participated in some of those threads where we have reviewed this fact, and even gone further to discuss Massive SpaceTime as the complete, integrated manifold (i.e. spacetime and mass are not really separate things either, even though we perceive them to be).

Time as a standalone metric is what I call the "romantic notion" which leads to erroneous beliefs that one can "travel through time" without also traveling though space.

RMT

 

[KerrTexas]

Which basically means that the existence of scientific 'laws' proves absolutely nothing either way, about the existence of God.

Slippery slope there, Twighlight.

Rainman will know that I am referring to the God ? Thread here on TTI.

The God ? Thread is a bit lengthy and is difficult to "weed" through, does contain many posts you might enjoy reading...if you have the "time". /ttiforum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

There is no such thing as time as an entity on its own. That is why Einstein correctly described a concept of 'spacetime'....as space and time are inextricably linked. All too often, problems dealing with time, or even a time machine, arise from an incorrect perception of the nature of time.....dealing with it as if it were an entity on its own.

And I know Kerr is aware of this...

I am aware, and am not entirely in disagreement with the concept and/or concept(s) of space/time/mass. As Rainman pointed out in his reply, the concept(s) of SpaceTimeMass has been discussed within numerous threads.

I used the term "force", and there are specific reasons as to why I am using the term "force" relative to time.

I am curious to know, is exactly what you mean when you use the term "entity" ?