The Fundamental Principle of Time Travel

J

jmpet

Quantum Scribe
The Fundamental Principle of Time Travel

You're in the forest with a rope. You tie one end of the rope around your waist and the other end around a tree trunk, you walk backwards to remove the slack, then you pull on the rope.

When you pull, that "pull energy" travels the length of the rope to the tree, reaches the tree and an instant measurement takes place- your weight (or mass or gravity... whatever it's called) is far less than the tree's, you have no chance of pulling that tree towards you.

The pull energy then reverses itself and travels back down the rope again towards you, in reverse. That pull-energy returns to you as a "reverse-pull": you end up being pulled towards the tree, not the other way around.

In short, you trying to pull that tree down only made the tree end up pulling you.

Now you're in space. You tie one end of a really long rope around a boulder on the moon and the other end around your waist then you jump off into space.

You float away from the moon pulling the rope along with you. 300,000 kilometers away in space, you come to the end of the rope. You reach your arms out and grab the rope and pull hard. What happens?

The pull-energy travels the length of the rope- 300,000 kilometers- towards the moon, reaches the moon then reverses and comes back the same 300,000 kilometers towards you in reverse, you end up getting pulled towards the moon.

The flaw in this equasion is that the universe is relative to light and light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second. So when you pull the rope, it takes one light second for that pull-energy to travel the rope and one more light second for it to come back to you. And since the universe is relative to light, nothing can happen before light speed... you have just created a paradox.

In short, you pull the rope, nothing happens for two seconds, then you're pulled towards the moon. That two second window between you pulling the rope and the rope pulling you back is your window to travel through time. The effect is apparent, depending on the point of view.

-If you're standing on the moon watching this, it appears normal.
-If you're the astronaut on the end of the rope, it also appears normal.
-If you're an observer somewhere between the moon and astronaut, at some point you will see that astronaut blink out of existence and instantly reappear "two light-seconds closer to the moon".

You catch up to the observer and compare your atomic clocks. Apparently you just travelled two seconds into the future although you have no memory of doing it.

This is the fundamental principle of time travel. There are two vectors to control time travel:

Point A is the astronaut at the end of the rope
Point B is the astronaut's hands on the rope
Point C is the moon

One of the vectors is the "rope-pull energy": the pull itself and the time it will take for that pull-energy to come back (B to C then C back to B). The second vector is the space between A and B; the distance between you and your hands. The first vector (B/C) is unchangable and dependant on light speed; classical E=MC2 will give the precise measurement for this, the second (A/B) is very small and very changeable.

For example, if you pulled the rope then pulled even harder before that initial pull-energy came back to you, you might find yourself four seconds in the future. Conversley, if you pulled the rope then let go and hit your space suit's boosters zooming you away from the moon even further you'll find yourself moving backwards in time. The initial pull-energy returns to the theoretical spot you're in and "time catches up with you" and you find yourself 4 seconds in the past.

Through manipulation of the space between A and B while the rope pull energy is going from B to C then back to B, you can control where in time you want to go.

End of part one.

NOTE:
The Heisenbergian problems associated with this thought experiment are nominal. That is, this is not impossible to actually do.
 
the astronaut blinks out of existance for 2 light seconds?
you sure they aren't just "waiting" for the effect?
it's never an instant effect.....if you are close to the tree....infact, you can take your distance from the tree...say 1 kilometer, you will experience the "tug" twards the tree
1/300,000th of a second (because really it's 2/600,000ths but we know how to reduce the fractions right?) after you tried to pull....not instantly...though it would seem...I'm sure as humans we cannot, with our own senses...tell the difference between 1/300,000th and 1/60,000th of a second...
I'm just wondering where the "blink out of existance" comes from....is this a proven phenomenon? has someone actually observed it?
because even though everything is relative to light, light still has a "speed" it must travel. relative to you and your motion, which is 300,000 km/sec,
so if you create a larger distance, the "delay" would just be greater, so if you were a whole light second away it would infact take 2 light seconds to travel the distance,
in observer #3's "inertial frame" assuming he's standing still at the halfway point, would still be observing the speed of light, in the same "frame" because he is not moving in any sort of direction with or against the direction of the energy, which would create the "special" relativity where he would have a new "inertial frame" in which the paradox would be created?

I'm not educated on the matter just trying to make sense of it...I do see what your saying...but you're using math...I believe the man we all like to quote said it best once...."math only applies to all that is not real" - Einstein

you seem to basicly be saying...if you beat the equation...you traveled through time....you may have cut 4 seconds off, or skipped, but all events around YOU skipped with you and are still in YOUR frame....I believe there is no way to witness the EXACT same event twice...which would be the "fictional" time travel...like back to the future, I do believe that the time travel you speak of is definately a real thing, but relativity makes it complicated
see I believe firmly that time is only relative to us, yes things decay, neutrons and all that stuff...like carbon dating....but again...calculating nuclear decay is only an equation, the fact remains that nothing has to obey our human equations, just because we want them to, and even if it does, because of relativity, there will be a situation where it doesn't apply, like what's his name, one of einstein's friends who disproved all of euclid's geometry "proofs",we will continually run in circles trying to figure this stuff out because it will be different for each event. variables and more variables....existance IS a variable
this is not meant to be criticism, I am looking forward to part 2 of your time travel fundamentals
good stuff, I like the approach....you are attacking it from a NON-quantum angle
and it makes sense
 
>the astronaut blinks out of existance for 2 light seconds?<

It depends on the observer. For the astronaut at the end of the rope- yeah, he "blinks in and out" (which pertains to part two). For any other observer, there is some kinda weird delay... in trying to actually see this from any other perspective you really run into Heisenbergian problems.

>you sure they aren't just "waiting" for the effect?<

Simple- Tie a rope around you and the other end around a tree. How could you possibly pull on a taut rope and there's a delay between you pulling and you getting pulled back? But with a rope "light-seconds long", the universe has no choice but to blink you in and out; you're technically "moving faster than light"; light is not relative to you for those seconds.

>it's never an instant effect.....if you are close to the tree....infact, you can take your distance from the tree...say 1 kilometer, you will experience the "tug" twards the tree
1/300,000th of a second (because really it's 2/600,000ths but we know how to reduce the fractions right?) after you tried to pull....not instantly<

You can't have a 1 km long rope on Earth, it would weigh about a ton. But you have the principle right in your head. This is why I ended it by saying Heisenbergian problems can be dealt with- rope too heavy? Do it in space? A rope that long will get knotted? Make it out of an aluminum composite. Can't pull that much rope at once? Use a motor. And so on. The concept is to understand it, once you understand it you can work out practical applications that make it really work, like to go back 100 years instead of two seconds.

>I'm sure as humans we cannot, with our own senses...tell the difference between 1/300,000th and 1/60,000th of a second...
I'm just wondering where the "blink out of existance" comes from....is this a proven phenomenon? has someone actually observed it?<

You're right. This is why we need a time machine. Something that can record things like 1/30,000th of a second. Something like.... a cesium clock?

>because even though everything is relative to light, light still has a "speed" it must travel. relative to you and your motion, which is 300,000 km/sec,
so if you create a larger distance, the "delay" would just be greater, so if you were a whole light second away it would infact take 2 light seconds to travel the distance,
in observer #3's "inertial frame" assuming he's standing still at the halfway point, would still be observing the speed of light, in the same "frame" because he is not moving in any sort of direction with or against the direction of the energy, which would create the "special" relativity where he would have a new "inertial frame" in which the paradox would be created?<

Yes, but special relativity only applies to the subatomic and on massive objects like suns and black holes. You're just duplicating that effect on our scale. Best way to get the idea is to close your eyes, imagine you're the astronaut and mentally do it. What happens after you pull? Well, nothing for two seconds! But this is a paradox!

>I'm not educated on the matter just trying to make sense of it...I do see what your saying...but you're using math...I believe the man we all like to quote said it best once...."math only applies to all that is not real" - Einstein<

"Math" is equal to "quantifying something". Math applies to anything you can see, smell or observe and it's all relative to light. When you can't arround for that two second delay, you're going beyond math.

>you seem to basicly be saying...if you beat the equation...you traveled through time....you may have cut 4 seconds off, or skipped, but all events around YOU skipped with you and are still in YOUR frame....I believe there is no way to witness the EXACT same event twice...which would be the "fictional" time travel...like back to the future, I do believe that the time travel you speak of is definately a real thing, but relativity makes it complicated<

The outcome of you pulling that rope then doing something before that pull-energy comes back to you in effect puts you in another universe; an alternative universe that's 2 seconds behind this one. That's part two- "proving alternate universes" which is quite easy, but involves math.

>see I believe firmly that time is only relative to us, yes things decay, neutrons and all that stuff...like carbon dating....but again...calculating nuclear decay is only an equation, the fact remains that nothing has to obey our human equations, just because we want them to, and even if it does, because of relativity, there will be a situation where it doesn't apply, like what's his name, one of einstein's friends who disproved all of euclid's geometry "proofs",we will continually run in circles trying to figure this stuff out because it will be different for each event. variables and more variables....existance IS a variable<

Decay, time, etc... are all observations based on our universe which is relative to light speed. Once you move past (side step) light speed you're in a place all by yourself, math no longer applies. Math does not matter.

>this is not meant to be criticism, I am looking forward to part 2 of your time travel fundamentals
good stuff, I like the approach....you are attacking it from a NON-quantum angle
and it makes sense<

The second part is the really weird part. First you have to understand this part which you seem to! Great!
 
here's a super easy question I guess
this will make the difference between what you are thinking and what I am thinking.....I think..

why are you not supposed to be able to do anything before the reverse-pull comes?
I mean..if you can...you can....right?
 
ok I get what you are saying though, for you, the astronaut there IS no delay on the pull back, but we don't know that he would experience the reverse-pull instantly without being able to measure it...do we?
i c i c
 
>>why are you not supposed to be able to do anything before the reverse-pull comes?
I mean..if you can...you can....right?<<

The time after you pull and before the pull comes back to you is the window you have to travel time. In this case, you have less than two seconds, the pull itself takes time.

Your "time machine" in this case is the rope itself:
-A. The time you have to manipulate time is the time for that reverse pull to come back to you.
-B. What you can do with this time is the rope between the end of the rope and your hands.

A is relative to light- that pull-energy travles down the rope and back at the speed of light.
B is relative to the amount of (non-slacked) rope between your body and your arms. For example, you could take a quick tug on the rope than an even quicker, harder tug. The first pull-energy is travelling "and we don't have an answer to it yet" and the second tug is time travel.

That initial rope-pull energy will come back in 1 1/2 seconds and assumes you should be in an exact spot to recieve it back. The second tug moves you somewhere else. Simple concept.
 
>>ok I get what you are saying though, for you, the astronaut there IS no delay on the pull back, but we don't know that he would experience the reverse-pull instantly without being able to measure it...do we?<<

To the astronaut at the end of the rope, he pulls the rope and is pulled back, nothing special. Then he goes to his buddy and they discover their clocks are off by two seconds.
 
What happens when the rope is a noose hanging from the tree limb? Seriously though, can you demonstrate a time event that is NOT a kinetic energy event? Let me know if you can, a BIG cash award awaits you...
 
>What happens when the rope is a noose hanging from the tree limb? Seriously though, can you demonstrate a time event that is NOT a kinetic energy event? Let me know if you can, a BIG cash award awaits you... <

The underlying principle that makes the "rope in space" work is that we are using the gravity of something that's "further away from us than light speed"... when we pull the rope, we are in effect pulling on the moon, yet the moon is light seconds away from us.

The simplest answer for time is that it does not exist, time is little more than an open-ended wave function, multiple universes keep the wave open. As such, the purpose of all multiple universe is to keep the wave open; all universes have equal merit.

As far as the cash reward, the concept of time travel goes beyond math so there is no way to sit down and write out the proof, the proof is in the observer. However, we can write the concept of proof on paper and see it works, we just can never do it in a labratory with scientists watching- the outside observers would never see the effect we get.

Kinda like Schrodinger's Cat, which I am amazed no one has ever solved. The opposite (and solution) of Schrodinger's Cat is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. First we put the cat in the box, then we remove all external forces then ponder if the cat's alive or dead. Well you can never remove all outside forces, you're running smack dab into Heisenberg. That is, we can never say with absolute certainty that nothing from the outside was a determining factor in the cat's state of being so we can never arrive at a point where the cat is both alive and dead.
 
The State of Our Universe

Part Two

The State of Our Universe

We live in a four dimensional universe, we all know what that means. What seperates us from the fifth dimension is sequential time: if we could see all times laid out at once like a book we would be looking fifth dimensionally at it. So if you were in the fifth dimension, you could see all sides and angles of 3D objects at the same time as you can see it throughout its entire existence, and in our universe you simply cannot.

I actually mean that literally: it is impossible to see every single part of any object from any one vantage point. Like our moon- since it is locked in orbit (relative to the Earth) it is fixed; the most we can ever possibly see of it is 58% (due the the curve of the Earth). The other 42% is "the dark side of the moon" and to us people on Earth, it's always dark over there.

Imagining a baseball floating in front of your face you can only see 50% of its surface. If we spin it, we'll still only see 50% of it at any given moment. If you took a picture of a fast-spinning ball with a slow film camera, you'd see more than 50%, but it would be blurry. The camera is trying to see more than 50% of the ball by putting "one moment" and "one image" in one spot: on film; in short, it's asking more of the ball than it can give in 4D.

(NOTE: If you held a large sheet of paper up and looked at it on edge you could see almost 97% of its entire mass but you're more "stealing from the 2D world" than "looking into the 5D world"; if you could perfectly hold that paper up and see it dead on you'd also be obscuring the entire front and back of the paper; you'd end up only seeing 3% of its total area.)

The only way we can see more than 50% of an object is if it's moving faster than we can measure it; faster than light. High-speed film does this and it's quite simple: they take more frames per second than a human eye can percieve as motion, then slow the resulting film down to 23fps and we percieve it as "normal-speed". As such, a one second throw to homeplate can take a minute, prodived the film is 60 times faster.

The only way we can see a 3D object completly is if it's moving close to light speed and spinning, but of course then we'll need a camera with a "Planck shutter" to produce a 2D image; this becomes an impossible feat.

At the same token you could ask "what's the least you possibly see and still be able to see?" and the answer is well known- we can't see anything smaller than the smallest possible wavelength, which is why we rely on electron microscopes.

What these huge and tiny things have in common is their inability to be seen "all at once"; there will always be a part of every object that cannot be seen. This is the price to pay for existing in four dimensions.

From here we run into the classic "42 Scenario": while it can be determined exactly what part of any object can or cannot be seen, quantifying it becomes impossible- the closer you come to the answer (the more of an object you can see), the further away the answer will be (the harder it will be to see more). Mathematically, this number is pi. Pi is the unified field; pi is what links matter and energy together; pi is what makes this universe work and therefore the universe is relative, on paper, to pi.

One way to imagine this "pi effect" is to imagine yourself in dark space looking at individual perfectly round atoms flying by in all directions, zooming past you like black marbles in the dark. Imagine each atom cracks like an eggshell, and out of that crack comes a jet of energy sending that atom flying like a bottle rocket. The atom starts to spin and momentum takes over; the cracked atom becomes a "tiny spinning world" that looks like bubbles full of smoke. We call these nearly-impossible to penetrate things" atoms.

This pi-energy becomes the neutral shell that seperates this atom from the outside universe; this 5D atom gets cracked and becomes the tangable 4D atom. The size of the crack is pi, relative to its size; its total size is pi times its surface area which is a huge number. As such, atoms are theoretically infinite in size (which explains how "the Big Bang happened everywhere"), and only atoms with a pi-sized crack are detectable in our universe.

As such, our defined universe is governed by pi; atoms with a "pi-sized crack on them" becomes tangable matter, all the rest, while still existing, are impercievable and strange; they're subatomic particles.

So what is pi? Pi is a measurement that allows you to go from 2D to 3D. It also allows you to go from 4D to 5D if you cheat it. But first you need to learn universal measurements.

Shortest possible distance- one Planck unit
Shortest possible time- one Planck unit
Fastest speed limit- light speed

Once you create a number system based on Planck units and light speed you can then measure pi perhaps to the end.
 
Re: The State of Our Universe

Still waiting to see the math. So far, the descriptions are nice, but obscure. Math might help clear them up... or not.


RMT
 
I was waiting for someone else to point out some of the issues here, because I know you have such a bug up your butt about me, Ren, that you will just go high-order on me, and claim that I don't know what I am talking about. But I have a thick skin, so let me point a couple things out:

The pull-energy travels the length of the rope- 300,000 kilometers- towards the moon, reaches the moon then reverses and comes back the same 300,000 kilometers towards you in reverse, you end up getting pulled towards the moon.
Click to expand...
An engineering free body diagram would be the first step in quantifying and solving this problem. It has been shown though the years that one can think themselves into an incorrect conclusion without identifying all forces participating in a dynamic interaction. Just a thought. I'd like to see your math, even if you think you don't need a free body diagram.
The flaw in this equasion is that the universe is relative to light and light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second. So when you pull the rope, it takes one light second for that pull-energy to travel the rope and one more light second for it to come back to you. And since the universe is relative to light, nothing can happen before light speed... you have just created a paradox.
Click to expand...
1) Not sure I comprehend what you mean by "light second". The accepted understanding of this terminology is actually a distance (i.e. light-year).
2) What is it that makes you believe that the transmission of your force would travel down the rope at light speed? Given that there is mass involved, I don't believe this is a good assumption.
3) If you think you have created a paradox, it is more likely that you have missed something or not understood something. All "paradoxes" from the past that we thought were paradoxes have been resolved once we discovered that our prior understanding was incomplete, or wholly incorrect.

-If you're an observer somewhere between the moon and astronaut, at some point you will see that astronaut blink out of existence and instantly reappear "two light-seconds closer to the moon".
Click to expand...
Now I would REALLY like to see the math on this one. Given the description of your scenario, I can see no reason why this observer would see the astronaut "blink out of existence". Perhaps seeing your math would help me understand your analysis that lead to this.

This is the fundamental principle of time travel. There are two vectors to control time travel:
Click to expand...
I'd love to see the vector diagrams, and the matrix math to validate this. So far, it is not intuitive to my engineering mind.

RMT
 
The mistake you make in having a rope(rigid element in tension)pulling on the moon which is light seconds away is that the pulse of tensile stress is ALWAYS going to be less than c, that point was argued out long, long ago by relativists. As to time being a wave function : correct : t=dKE=m=(W >P) or time is Kinetic Energy at some delta rate which is mass, either inertial or gravitational, which is overrunning MATTER WAVE energy vs lagging back PARTICLE VELOCITY. You know it as deceleration or weight(W>P). Yes, there is ACceleration wherein W<P but you don't feel/sense/detect that(ever), that's the action part of Newton's 3rd, you can ONLY feel/sense/detect the REACTION of W>P. Thus your body(neurons thereof)is your "time eye" that ONLY feels overrunning MATTER WAVE energy(wavelength)which is DECELERATION. The symmetrical equation is not-t=PE=M=(W=P) or not-time is Potential Energy is Momentum is Wave energy equals Particle energy. Thus "time" is the temporary imbalance between the two great energy languages(W>P or W<P)and "not-time"is the balance between them(W=P). As to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle(h=dMxdPv or h=dMxdws)the mistake is in the term "delta Momentum". Delta means a rate of change whereas Momentum means no change of state; thus "delta Momentum" literally means rate-of-change-of-no-change-of-state : an OXYMORON. Thus Momentum is NOT a determinant of the quantum area(h), it is a RESULT of balanced W=P...got it? The two determinants of h are W and P or dWs by dPv(h=dWs x dPv), and when they get out of balance/out of sync you get TIME...got it? As to Schrodinger's cat/the EPR paradox that's nothing more than self centered nonsense. Picture it this way : a deck of cards face down on the table, draw one card and place it aboard the Pluto Rocket about to be launched. Years later the rocket orbits Pluto and you look thru the deck of cards to see which one is missing : AHA the 9 of diamonds(the curse of scotland)is missing, NOW I know its the 9 of diamonds on that rocket light hours away, KNOWLEDGE has exceeded the SPEED OF LIGHT....no...IDIOT! Your apriori assumption is that YOU are at the center of the universe. The 9 of diamonds(any of the 52 cards)was on the rocket all along, it doesn't make a whit of difference wheather you knew it or not... Einstein(and Galileo) said it over and over again : know the DIFFERENCE between local and global. Locally the earth is flat, globally it's round. You, outside the box are "local", the cat in the box is "global"...and does the cat in the box ever wonder if you're dead or alive....? W=P
 
Yup. Timer speaks the truth. You've also made an important distinction in Heisenberg uncertainty as it relates to momentum. The distinction between instantaneous momentum and change in momentum can often be confusing.

RMT
 
Re: The State of Our Universe

About that bit about pi?? Is there any truth to that? I always thought pi was the ratio of the area of a square with length s and the area of a circle with the same diameter. And that made it irrational meaning is has no end. Meaning if you're going to solve PI the closest you can get is finding an equation where that lets you figure out the n'th digit after the decimal place. I might be wrong, but that's what I always thought.
 
Thank you for your constructive email. I am not sure how much of it I can decipher but I'll try. Perhaps you can follow up with "dumbed down versions" of what you're saying where I need help, the point of the "rope pull in space" is to illustrate the principle of time travel, not actually a form of time travel. Once you understand the principle, you can substitute the moon with say, a mini black hole etc..

>The mistake you make in having a rope(rigid element in tension)pulling on the moon which is light seconds away is that the pulse of tensile stress is ALWAYS going to be less than c, that point was argued out long, long ago by relativists.<

I gave this a great deal of thought. What was even more puzzling to me is that it's near impossible to have a static neutral point in space at all; an anchor, since everything is moving everywhere. One approach was to have a coiled up roll of rope and two rockets that fire off in seperate directions, but that presents Heisenberg problems. Another is the rope itself, but again I don't mean for us to literally pull a rope as much as use something else instead of a rope and the moon like a black hole and gravity, or even "a stream of particles" as Titor suggested. A 300,000 km long rope would be a thing to see, but a 300 km rope with a clock that's 1,000 times as accurate has the same effect, so a time machine based on quantum measurements would only need the tiniest fraction of a second to actually work, the rest of the work is depositing that person in real time, which is where the 5100 comes in.

>As to time being a wave function : correct : t=dKE=m=(W >P) or time is Kinetic Energy at some delta rate which is mass, either inertial or gravitational, which is overrunning MATTER WAVE energy vs lagging back PARTICLE VELOCITY. You know it as deceleration or weight(W>P). Yes, there is ACceleration wherein W<P but you don't feel/sense/detect that(ever), that's the action part of Newton's 3rd, you can ONLY feel/sense/detect the REACTION of W>P.<

Ah, now I see the connection between time and kinetic energy. Tell me is this will do as a suitable answer. I also have a machine that turns cold air into hot air. It has no wires, uses no electricity and is self-contained. As long as the planet rotates, this thing will have energy. In principle, the machine will run forever once you start it. The operating principle behind this is as of yet undefined (to my knowledge), it's working off the principle that kinetic energy can be converted to thermal energy, but at the expense of matter. That is, the parts of this machine must wear out for it to work. But if you can take the point of "kinetic impact" and transfer that energy (to something else) before it converts to friction, you have a self-sustaining machine.

If you had a fan that draws in wind and a super powerful fan underneath that fan to suck all incoming wind down it wouldn't work unless you make the top fan open at the other end too, even though none of the incoming wind will escape that way. It's "fooling the wind".

Another thought experiment is an "ice heating box", which (for the lack of a better word) fools kinetic energy into giving free heat. It's a 100 gallon water container, the walls of the container are a composite made of copper and steel (and perhaps tungsten) intermeshed and held watertight by some sort of flexible adhesive (like rubber). Winter winds blow the container and freeze the 100 gallons of water inside and as water expands so does the copper/steel mesh. The kinetic energy of copper and metal expanding as such produces an electric charge which in turn heats the frozen water. So in short, the colder the wind blows on the box, the more kinetic heat energy it produces, you end up with a box that never freezes. Well, where is the energy going? You'd think the meshing would wear out from all the freezing and contacting it does but as long as it keeps a charge, it never flexes. It cheats kinetic energy. Closer to home, this is not much unlike the operating principle of a refrigerator. Once again this may not be a literal thing as much as as a different way of looking at the flow of energy.

>Yes, there is ACceleration wherein W<P but you don't feel/sense/detect that(ever), that's the action part of Newton's 3rd, you can ONLY feel/sense/detect the REACTION of W>P.<

I am saying it is possible to "cheat time" too and "force reality to quantify your location" independant of light speed.

>Thus your body(neurons thereof)is your "time eye" that ONLY feels overrunning MATTER WAVE energy(wavelength)which is DECELERATION. The symmetrical equation is not-t=PE=M=(W=P) or not-time is Potential Energy is Momentum is Wave energy equals Particle energy. Thus "time" is the temporary imbalance between the two great energy languages(W>P or W<P)and "not-time"is the balance between them(W=P).<

I don't know my equasions nearly as well as you do, but what I got out of this is that the observer won't blink out of existence as much as not notice a change at all. I can live with that because then we agree- the universe is dependant on our firsthand observation of it, since we have Space Stations scientists who have actually moved a split second out of our time, in theory it can work.

>As to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle(h=dMxdPv or h=dMxdws)the mistake is in the term "delta Momentum". Delta means a rate of change whereas Momentum means no change of state; thus "delta Momentum" literally means rate-of-change-of-no-change-of-state : an OXYMORON. Thus Momentum is NOT a determinant of the quantum area(h), it is a RESULT of balanced W=P...got it?<

Do I get it? Not really. Are you saying our momentum is contingent upon our "local gravity"? That the reason we're at 1G is because of the spinning earth, rotating earth, solar system, galaxy and so on? I always believed that if you could somehow escape our galaxy (and its gravity) you'd find yourself in a really weird place, wherever that is. Please elaborate.

>The two determinants of h are W and P or dWs by dPv(h=dWs x dPv), and when they get out of balance/out of sync you get TIME...got it?<

Why can't this be written in english words? I think I see your point but not with these terms. Can you dumb it down for me? I really think I know what you mean but my explanation would sound really weird.

>As to Schrodinger's cat/the EPR paradox that's nothing more than self centered nonsense.<

It is impossible to totally seperate any part of the universe from the entire universe, you should at least agree with that. Schrodinger's Cat works because it's based on a "subatomic trigger"; the experiment asks "what would happen if our tangable world was contingent upon the subatomic world?", right?

>Picture it this way : a deck of cards face down on the table, draw one card and place it aboard the Pluto Rocket about to be launched. Years later the rocket orbits Pluto and you look thru the deck of cards to see which one is missing : AHA the 9 of diamonds(the curse of scotland)is missing, NOW I know its the 9 of diamonds on that rocket light hours away, KNOWLEDGE has exceeded the SPEED OF LIGHT....no...IDIOT! Your apriori assumption is that YOU are at the center of the universe. The 9 of diamonds(any of the 52 cards)was on the rocket all along, it doesn't make a whit of difference wheather you knew it or not<

If the card isn't looked at until years later, how is the information going faster than light? I see what you're saying- a star a million light years away's light from us is travelling away from us at light speed, so by proxy the planets around that star are also, we just can't detect them. But these are two different things. If you become the deck of cards then "losing one of your cards" and "looking years later to see which card it was" are two different events; the only way in that case information could travel faster than light is is you could see the card (years later in this spaceship which is travelling at super high speeds) AND send that information back to the source. I wouldn't say it's impossible to do that (considering if you travelled fast enough away from the Earth you'd slow down, then see the card, then beam that information back to the Earth at light speed and it would arrive back on Earth before the spaceship was launched) but if this actually happened, that information would be sent to another universe, not the "ZD", as Titor put it. Like when he said (to paraphrase) "I will send your messages to the future with me and deliver them, but you must also be there in the future ready to recieve it"- that is what I am getting at.

>Einstein(and Galileo) said it over and over again : know the DIFFERENCE between local and global. Locally the earth is flat, globally it's round. You, outside the box are "local", the cat in the box is "global"...and does the cat in the box ever wonder if you're dead or alive....? W=P<

Hey- I like that! Well, is the cat alive or dead or both? The answer the that is he's all and none and both, all in different dimensions. Assuming you could truly isolate that box from the rest of the universe, when it rejoins our universe then the contents of the box will truly rely on subatomic special relativity, but getting to that point is near-impossible. I'm saying it's possible to "fool time" for a fraction of a second and be able to zip somewhere else.
 
Re: The State of Our Universe

>About that bit about pi?? Is there any truth to that?<

Put it this way- if it is, then pi is half the answer to the "Unified Field Theory" or "Theory of Everything"; it answers the Big Bang, although I haven't thought that far yet.

>I always thought pi was the ratio of the area of a square with length s and the area of a circle with the same diameter. And that made it irrational meaning is has no end. Meaning if you're going to solve PI the closest you can get is finding an equation where that lets you figure out the n'th digit after the decimal place. I might be wrong, but that's what I always thought.<

Lemmie look objectively at that.

As a noun, pi means "the symbol π denoting the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter (the length of a straight line through the center of an object)"
As a verb, pi means "to spill or throw (type or type matter) into disorder"

To me, pi is what makes 2D objects "work" as 3D objects. Imagining a sphere in front of you, to measure it you put it up against a ruler and measure its diameter. That tells you "how far across the sphere is"; it's a 2D answer. When you calculate that measurement by pi, you find out how round that object is. So if a sphere has a 1" diameter, it's circumfrence would be "3.1415 inches".

Well, since pi is an infinite number, we can never perfectly measure the circumfrence of anything and it makes sense too- if you had a perfectly round sphere, you would have no frame of reference to get its diameter from; you can never put the ruler perfectly in the middle of the sphere because it's perfectly round everywhere. This is where you run into Heisenberg, this is where "the more accurate the measuement is, the harder it will be to measure exactly" just like "the faster you go in space, the harder it will be to go any faster" or "the more of an object you can see, the harder it is to see more"... in any context and with any application anywhere it's impossible to measure anything exactly.

If you had a 2D printout of a 3D sphere and you cut it out and pasted it to the sphere, you can never perfectly cover the entire surface area, closest you can ever get is "it's surface area, less its pi factor".

What I am saying is the closest you can ever get to measuring something is "being able to measure its circumfrence, less pi", or over-simplistically "being able to measure 96.86% but not that last 3.14%" and again this is literally true- you can never perfectly measure anything because pi is "a cracked number".

Pi is the 3D version of prime numbers. That is; in the 2D universe, prime numbers can be "arranged in a fashion to form a 3D wormhole" to take 2D objects into 3D. If you can imagine a inward spiraling tunnel of diameters each based on universal numbers (Planck X light speed) and each a prime number then you could go through that tunnel and emerge in the 3D universe. I also believe there is a direct connection between pi and prime numbers, the link between 2D and 3D and also 3D and 4D and so on.

The way to prove this is to get an exact Planck measurement- find out exactly (nearly exactly) how wide one Planck unit is, then find out exactly how far light travels in one Planck unit. Once we figure out the "shortest possible distance in the universe" and the "exact amount of time it takes for light to travel that distance" you have your universal math to which primes, pi and so on all apply, you can throw out "ten based" sequential numbers out at that point. Using "ten-based" numbers will only produce an answer through repeated patterns in an endless string of numbers.

So if we take our camera with a Planck shutter speed and take a picture of a ball moving at 99.99% of light speed that's spinning at 99.99% light speed, we'd get a 2D image that shows 99.99% of that ball's circumfrence all at once, we will have nearly quantified pi.

In application, imagine each atom is a quotent of energy, only the smallest part of it is observed in our universe. Atoms are incredibly strong and contain incredible amounts of energy. If you split an atom, you are releasing all of its energy at once. Our ability to measure atoms is equal to our ability to measure pi; at best we can only measure the "pi quotent" of atoms; "3.14% of it" if you will. So when he have a close enough measurement, we can "reverse pi and figure out its true energy" which will be a whole lot more than pi; a whole lot more than it's showing.

Einstein never made this connection because he was in effect trying to come up with math formulas that quantify pi, as such he could never solve his problem because the more precise the measurement, the harder it will be to solve; he was trying to solve a 4D problem on 2D paper using a bad number system, this is why calculus and whatever else is so complicated- they're not using the right number-system, so they end up with these really long formulas to prove 2 plus 2 is four.

Pi is "the observable part of an atom" and it's a good thing because without pi, all universes would exist in one place, all times would happen at once, we'd be in a 5D universe without time. Pi is the "little thruster" behind black marble atoms that makes them move and spin.

Now let's look at a car from an alien's point of view. On one end, we see gas put into it to make it work. On the other end is a tailpipe that spits out "excess energy". The rest of the energy is used to propel the car. You cannot measure a car's exhaust and extrapolate how much gas was put into it, there are three variables that regulate this-
-Gas put in
-Energy used to make it move
-Excess energy; exhaust

If a car was a 3D object, then its exhaust would be its pi ratio.

Well, if pi is a real number for the universe, how can it have three solid numbers in front of it? If it's some sort of "crack", then how can there be whole numbers involved with it? Simple- the "3" part refers to our three dimensions and the ".1415 part" tells us "how 'here' it is in this universe"; oversimplistically, pi in a 2D universe is 2.1415.

I hope I presented one continuous thought here. You can't nail down pi, closest you can do is come at it from enough different directions then extrapolate an answer based on what's left. Kinda like how they detect black holes, which have a perfect circumfrence.
 
Thank you for your comments. You say "fool time" for a fraction of a second and be able to zip somewhere else. That's one way of putting it. I go into much greater detail in my Bohring Einsein paper I did for the Journal of New Energy. It has graphics as well(I'm an architect by trade). You can find it with a Google search : Wayne Powell/Journal of New Energy; it's but one of my many works/inventions(wanna know how the earth-moon system ACTUALLY formed? That's on the americanantigravity website). As to an ice box/expansion of H2O during a liquid to solid phase change, I pondered that many, many years ago although the energy given up by the liquid(80cal/gm)would just be stored as increased tensile stress in your CU/FE/TI alloy-box, if it didn't crack/break. Basically its a First Law of Thermodynamics thing : energy can never be created or destroyed, only transferred. Thus the 100 gal x # of grams/gal x 80 cal of heat loss in the phase change would be stored in the increased volume of the box but that's just increased PE in the increased tensile forces in the alloy. In other words, you've taken "money"(heat in the liquid 100 gal)out of this pocket and put it in that pocket(increased tensile stress of the box-alloy), you haven't gained anything as "free energy"(constant KE output with no equal input). Einstein put it this way : you can either keep your money in your pocket(Potential Energy)or put it in the bank(another Potential Energy)but you can't have it both ways. This is one of the most fundamental concepts in physics : you can't get something for nothing. There is no such thing as a perpetual energy machine, the patent office is DEAD RIGHT about that...but, there are BETTER BUYS..to wit, shoppers in supermarkets comparing prices, engineers improving motor efficiencies, etc. And yet again, you may want to research cryogenic ice, there are several types formed on the way down to 0 deg Kelvin. Then do some SERIOUS thinking about your icebox idea, who knows, you may be on to something there. And as to cryogenics, did you know that hydrogen becomes a liquid just above 0 deg K and a SOLID METAL with enough pressure as in the Jovian core. People working with diamond anvil presses have proven that. H/LI/Na/K/Cs are all metals then(I position in the elements table). Thus H20 is actually hydrogen RUST, this may be why you feel like the TIN MAN in the Wizard of Oz when you get up some mornings... "fooling time" : 3 1/2 years ago I visited Bill Ramsay in Palisades, CO. In 1991 he was fooling around with some electronic equipment(he's an electronics buff)and he disappeared right in front of his wife for 15 to 30 minutes. He felt himself in this black/blank void, no physical sensations whatsoever, just hanging there in this noiseless, lightless void. And when he came out of it the clocks in his house had also lost that same amount of "time". This sounds just like aliens doing the "missing time" trick, yes? I know perfectly well what it is : super-momentum(or su-mo as I call it). It directly relates to su-co(superconductivity) and su-flo(superfluidity)as quantum effects. All that really happens is that every particle velocity/matter wavelength in the volume containing your body is simultaneously BALANCED, ie, W=P means MOMENTUM. Its like a VCR tape, and somebody just hit your pause button. As a locality you're frozen on a single(invisible)picture frame(999,999 out of 1,000,000 photon particle/waves go zipping right thru your body, only 1 in a million hits an electron or nucleus and thus is deflected/attenuated = far below what your eye can see). You're still THERE of course, you're just quantum mechanically frozen on a single frame, AS A LOCALITY. The rest of the GLOBAL world goes trucking right on as if nothing happened(to them). Bill gave me his list of equipment, do you want me to come and su-mo zap YOU for the next 320 years? Yes or no? W=P
 
Yes, that's an important distinction : changing momentum vs static momentum. Normally(classically)you think of momentum as a ball rolling around in a cup, finally coming to rest at the bottom. Quantum mechanically its just the opposite : the ball is VERY DELICATELY balanced on top of a needle, the slightest little dWs or dPv jiggle kicks it off into mass-land. Newton's First : an object continues moving on a straight line(local momentum W=P balanced state)until an unbalanced force(dWs or dPv mass-change)acts upon it. As the quantum area (h) is 6.625 x 10^-34 Watts then the lowest(and largest)dWs is sqrt of that or 2.257 x 10^-17 newtons of wave force or 2.257 x 10^-17 m/sec of particle velocity change(to define the first area of h). That's a VERY small change, yes? Look at the equations : momentum = mv and mass = mv^2; thus the "other v" in momentum is hidden, invisible MATTER WAVELENGTH that is many, many orders of magnitude shorter than the visual range of 4000 to 7000 angstroms. "things seen come from things unseen", where have you heard that before? ....The mistake began with Simon DeLa Place(1827) : energy is momentum x velocity...parroted by Planck(1900) : the quantum area(h)is q x p (he uses q as his momentum symbol)...parroted by heisenberg(1927) : h = dM x dPv or h = dM x dW....a growing number of physicists know the HUP is WRONG. Momentum is a RESULT of balanced wave=particle, mass is a result of unbalanced wave not=to particle. Google search : Bohring Einstein by Wayne Powell in this year's Journal of New Energy, my best effort at explaining this.... W=P
 
>Einstein put it this way : you can either keep your money in your pocket(Potential Energy)or put it in the bank(another Potential Energy)but you can't have it both ways. This is one of the most fundamental concepts in physics : you can't get something for nothing. There is no such thing as a perpetual energy machine, the patent office is DEAD RIGHT about that<

I hold closer to the "pre-atomic" thought put into nuclear reactions (as opposed to runaway neutronic atomic explosions) and think that if you can aim your time machine right where you want to go and quantify a moment on the subatomic scale, you can fool the universe and just step outside of it within that time. One thing that gives Titor a lot of credibility is how he mentions both cesium clocks and an IBM 5100, both high and low end of the technological scale.

>did you know that hydrogen becomes a liquid just above 0 deg K and a SOLID METAL with enough pressure as in the Jovian core. People working with diamond anvil presses have proven that. H/LI/Na/K/Cs are all metals then(I position in the elements table). Thus H20 is actually hydrogen RUST<

That had never occured to me and it makes perfect sense. It's gonna take a while for me to process the implications of that. I heard recently that "from chaos comes order", and as the example they used a drop of water which turns to a perfect crystal by itself as it slows down. My take on it was that's great, but you can't make the same crystal twice; if nothing else it's "organized chaos".

>"fooling time" : 3 1/2 years ago I visited Bill Ramsay in Palisades, CO. In 1991 he was fooling around with some electronic equipment(he's an electronics buff)and he disappeared right in front of his wife for 15 to 30 minutes. He felt himself in this black/blank void, no physical sensations whatsoever, just hanging there in this noiseless, lightless void. And when he came out of it the clocks in his house had also lost that same amount of "time".<

I hate to use this analogy but time travelling is like playing a video game. You die, the screen goes black then fades back in at a different spot with you in the center and everything relative to you. Then time starts.

>This sounds just like aliens doing the "missing time" trick, yes? I know perfectly well what it is : super-momentum(or su-mo as I call it). It directly relates to su-co(superconductivity) and su-flo(superfluidity)as quantum effects. All that really happens is that every particle velocity/matter wavelength in the volume containing your body is simultaneously BALANCED, ie, W=P means MOMENTUM. Its like a VCR tape, and somebody just hit your pause button. As a locality you're frozen on a single(invisible)picture frame(999,999 out of 1,000,000 photon particle/waves go zipping right thru your body, only 1 in a million hits an electron or nucleus and thus is deflected/attenuated = far below what your eye can see).<

But we're still made of over three trillion atoms, at that rate you're talking about a divergence of 300,000 atoms (with one in a million) which I would call substantial. I lean more towards creating (Star Trek line) a "warp bubble shell" of neutral energy, kinda like how an atom stays cohesive. You on the inside are unaffected, the shell bears the brunt (like Titor's "IT" reference) and you move without moving. It could form as a wave and build steam (like ion propulsion, or even Sagan's concepts of interstellar travel), reach a halfway point then slow down.

>You're still THERE of course, you're just quantum mechanically frozen on a single frame, AS A LOCALITY. The rest of the GLOBAL world goes trucking right on as if nothing happened(to them).<

I like this a lot. I need to think about it.

>Bill gave me his list of equipment, do you want me to come and su-mo zap YOU for the next 320 years? Yes or no? W=P<

We can always use it on prisoners!

I posted last night about "the present" on another thread here. Can you check it out and weigh in on that as well? Thanks
 
Back
Top