question
- Thread starter ralph
- Start date
So you see time travel as something that is outside the realm of accepted science since these skeletons are not accepted as evidence by the palentologists. At least THEY don't recognize any of these as being valid examples from what I read.
Is that what you are saying? Or do you believe they are real?
Is that what you are saying? Or do you believe they are real?
mokrie dela
Temporal Navigator
Still theory.
Then there must be an infinite number of alternate universes already. Otherwise you would be postulating that this is the only one, and some time travel event "creates" another.
Then, we're stuck with the logic of either realizing that time travel has NEVER occurred YET, so we have only this ONE universe we now reside in, OR, that it HAS happenned in which case unless we know how many times it has, we are left with the only answer of an infinite number.
Or on the other hand,...
You're stuck with saying events other than Time Travel create alternate universes. At THAT point then we are left still with infinite alternates and the event of time travel really has no bearing on their creation at all.
Whichever it is, you can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other.
This hypothesis has been explored for years and not only has it never been proven, it won't even pass the muster of logic.
"Scientist", you make this claim as if it were some sort of proven fact already. Where is you evidence or references for this? Where has this been done? And by whom?
Then, we're stuck with the logic of either realizing that time travel has NEVER occurred YET, so we have only this ONE universe we now reside in, OR, that it HAS happenned in which case unless we know how many times it has, we are left with the only answer of an infinite number.
Or on the other hand,...
You're stuck with saying events other than Time Travel create alternate universes. At THAT point then we are left still with infinite alternates and the event of time travel really has no bearing on their creation at all.
Whichever it is, you can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other.
This hypothesis has been explored for years and not only has it never been proven, it won't even pass the muster of logic.
"Scientist", you make this claim as if it were some sort of proven fact already. Where is you evidence or references for this? Where has this been done? And by whom?
If there are infinite parallel universes, than that means there are infinite possibilities. So instead of finding a way to travel through time, all we need to do is travel to an alternate universe. Say, a universe where it's april 15th, 1912. Or a universe where it's 2250.
What if time isn't a 'line' as we envision it, but a collection of alternate universes, all lined up? In other words, what if yesterday wasn't really yesterday, it's just another universe where the date is May24th?
What if time isn't a 'line' as we envision it, but a collection of alternate universes, all lined up? In other words, what if yesterday wasn't really yesterday, it's just another universe where the date is May24th?
G
Guest
Well, let's go back to the 'infinite number of universes' for a second. Some of you were talking earlier about materializing and dematerializing. Actually, this shouldn't happen at all. You have heard of the theory of all-possible timelines. If you 'send' something/someone back in time, then the timeline for that person/thing to exist already exists and there would be no 'materialization'. In that timeline, that person/thing would have always been there! Same with the future. So, although much fun to think about matter-melding and the like, it just wouldn't be. Now, does that timeline suddenly exist just because you're sending someone/something back or has it been there all the - pardon the expression - time???
Whenever anything happens there are an infinite amount of events that could have happened instead which means that there are always an infinite amount of universes. It is just simple logic and as for what time is I am trying to get a theory published that will state exactly what time really is.
no ... i think if you teleport a rock into the future 5 mins ahead of us ...
it is literally like ripping out matter which is already woven into our current time line ...
and then placing this matter 5 mins ahead of itself ... the impact is that all the natural laws of the cosmos of the actual ripping out of the matter from its current time line ... will come into effect ...
whatever they are ...
we will just simply see the rock disappear ...
and 5 mins later we will see the rock appear again ... but we have to be careful ... where the rock will appear ...
5 mins into the future ... the earth and the whole solar system will have already moved ...
the earth will already have travelled hundreds of miles from its obit ... the rock may appear in space ... behind of us ...
a lot of the technology must be there ... to put it where we want it ...
anyways we will just see the rock appear ...
and thats it ...
naturally all the laws of the cosmos will again come into play ... when that rock from a previous time line is being planted into a future time line ...
what ever they are ...
i am not too sure if the very heart of matter it self must be time sync ... with the cosmos ...
if all matter has some kind of time sync machanism ... then strange effects will be seen ... but strangeness is only because we do not understand the laws of the cosmos too well ...
it is literally like ripping out matter which is already woven into our current time line ...
and then placing this matter 5 mins ahead of itself ... the impact is that all the natural laws of the cosmos of the actual ripping out of the matter from its current time line ... will come into effect ...
whatever they are ...
we will just simply see the rock disappear ...
and 5 mins later we will see the rock appear again ... but we have to be careful ... where the rock will appear ...
5 mins into the future ... the earth and the whole solar system will have already moved ...
the earth will already have travelled hundreds of miles from its obit ... the rock may appear in space ... behind of us ...
a lot of the technology must be there ... to put it where we want it ...
anyways we will just see the rock appear ...
and thats it ...
naturally all the laws of the cosmos will again come into play ... when that rock from a previous time line is being planted into a future time line ...
what ever they are ...
i am not too sure if the very heart of matter it self must be time sync ... with the cosmos ...
if all matter has some kind of time sync machanism ... then strange effects will be seen ... but strangeness is only because we do not understand the laws of the cosmos too well ...
"Simple Logic" does not say that there is an infinite number of Universes. To use logic, state your assumptions before making an extrapolation. For instance, in your argument, you assume that, given the possibility of an event, it must occur. Otherwise, having an infinite number of possibilities would not necessarily lead to an infinite number of Universes. And I hardly think that everyone accepts that assumption. Maybe everything doesn't need to happen. If I dropped a glass and broke it, maybe it just broke and that's the end of it. No alternate universes, just one event.
JS and Janus:
Yes! Now we are getting somewhere.
JS:
In the "infinite number of universes" I agree that there are indeed an infinite number of possibilities. But to me, therein lies the rub. If there are an "infinite" number of possibilites, (infinite is a really big number), then what motivation is there for human thought in the first place since all possibilities are already omnipresent. This is the essence of the "free will" argument.
Thus the problem I have with it is that in order to accept the infinite alternate universes theory, I have to therefore accept that every thought I have is already a preordained instance of reality. Not to be cynical or morbid here, but what stops me from blowing my brains out just to move on to the next infinite possibility out of curiosity alone?
Sorry, but I really really cannot buy into this as a logical structure of reality. It just doesn't fly with me since it's contrary to any need to be alive in the first place. At least on a self-aware level. This to me is a paradox that I do not believe exists, but it IS where the "infinite number of universes" hypothesis leads to. How can it not?
Janus:
Given what I just said, I agree that simple logic alone indeed DOES NOT say there are infinite universes. To me actually, quite the contrary. It is why I have problems with this hypothesis.
The issue of assumption is another matter however. We are in totally hypothetical territory here in the first place. Making assumptions is very dangerous. What we need is some verifiable evidence to make assumptions from. To date, we have none.
No antagonism or offense from me here, just honest scepticism. No claim to FACT, just strong arguments.
Truth is, I'd LOVE to be proved wrong but, I still have to say...lets hear it. Nothing in science today conclusively proves me wrong. Which DOES NOT mean I might not be. All I'm saying is, if I am, I'd like to see it. As yet, it's not out there.
Yes! Now we are getting somewhere.
JS:
In the "infinite number of universes" I agree that there are indeed an infinite number of possibilities. But to me, therein lies the rub. If there are an "infinite" number of possibilites, (infinite is a really big number), then what motivation is there for human thought in the first place since all possibilities are already omnipresent. This is the essence of the "free will" argument.
Thus the problem I have with it is that in order to accept the infinite alternate universes theory, I have to therefore accept that every thought I have is already a preordained instance of reality. Not to be cynical or morbid here, but what stops me from blowing my brains out just to move on to the next infinite possibility out of curiosity alone?
Sorry, but I really really cannot buy into this as a logical structure of reality. It just doesn't fly with me since it's contrary to any need to be alive in the first place. At least on a self-aware level. This to me is a paradox that I do not believe exists, but it IS where the "infinite number of universes" hypothesis leads to. How can it not?
Janus:
Given what I just said, I agree that simple logic alone indeed DOES NOT say there are infinite universes. To me actually, quite the contrary. It is why I have problems with this hypothesis.
The issue of assumption is another matter however. We are in totally hypothetical territory here in the first place. Making assumptions is very dangerous. What we need is some verifiable evidence to make assumptions from. To date, we have none.
No antagonism or offense from me here, just honest scepticism. No claim to FACT, just strong arguments.
Truth is, I'd LOVE to be proved wrong but, I still have to say...lets hear it. Nothing in science today conclusively proves me wrong. Which DOES NOT mean I might not be. All I'm saying is, if I am, I'd like to see it. As yet, it's not out there.