The Time Vortex Actiavtor??

W

Warrior381

Temporal Navigator
I just wonder does anybody own a Time Vortex Actiavtor?? and does it work or not I just wonder anyway write to me private or on this group
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Quoted from other timeline since the owners of this device are no longer in this timeline! LOL

"We discontinued providing the device to the public due to critics, media intervention, and others which we won't bother to name. Currently, there are approximately ten TVA's out in the market. Unfortunately, over half the customers that bought them are vanished and cannot be located. Speculation about them traveling through time is running rampant here in our lab. Unfortunately, there is no identifiable proof that they actually did travel through time - unless they come back and tell us their story."

What is a Time Vortex? A "Time Vortex" is a loophole that has the capabilitily to carry an object into the future or past, and as far as we know, these loopholes had always existed on Earth as one of Earth's unknown mysteries. Maybe they were left by the aliens to transport themselves to Earth from distant galaxies? No one really knows. "Time Vortexs" are not easy to locate. They are invisible entities that exist and are naked to the human eye. It is believed that some forms of life on Earth can detect them.

"
end quoted

--
Best Regards
Gold at 920 :oops:
 
James Catteral told me that he had stopped selling the device because people would ridicule him and call him up on the phone to poke fun at his device. He told me he had better things to do with his time.

From other sources I was told that Jcat is an electronics engineer and works long hours so he really does not have the time to be building devices for people. That said the plans are probably on some website. James Catteral's Yahoo group is still up.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TVAUsers/

He said the Time Vortex Activator was hard to build, but that people could follow his plans and build it themselves. I actually talked to a person who built James Catterall's Time Vortex Activator and this person is running tests on it.
 
The problem is that device does not have a "Variable Gravity Lock", so you can change timelines! when you travel in time....
Click to expand...


Well that ofcourse is if you over look at the heart of time travel, paradoxes and alternative timelines is basic problem of causality : what happened yesterday affects what happens today. Go back and try to change yesterday and you threaten threaten to change today too, making the casual loops inherently poblematic. But maybe there's a more comprehensive escape clause than restricting all time loopa to detailed self consistency.

You ever shoot pool? Strike the cue ball at a certain velocity so it collides with another ball. In absence of "casual loops" the motion of the two balls after collison is completly determined by the initial speed and direction of the cue ball.

Translation: crap happens. Go left, and the universe will react, but go right and the universe only explodes if you bump into a switch that triggers the universe killing bomb. The whole concept of switching timelines is not only far fetched, but just plain stupid. Only a fool would think they could exhist in a world where you had ham and eggies for breakfast, when in that timeline you had oatmeal. Your atoms have absorbed the atoms of the ham and egs. Its who you are. You didn't have oatmeal that day. So if you switch, you infact become the tear in timespace. One time line you had a steak and a cocacola, another you had a chicken vindaloo with a beer..... you might displace the same amount of mass, but over all your biological makeup is different.

Now lets take this theory to extremes if you will. You ever been in love? I mean "I'm in the kitchen doing the dishes cause she asked" love? Well lets just say she dies. Doesn't matter how, but she does. You freak, and go through whatever crap you have to jump timelines. You switch timelines and lets just say you manage to replace the other you. Ok, so there you are, probally fatter, cause you woman cooked your meals. You were probally wearing nicer stuff, cause your woman wouldn't put up with you looking like crap. Fact is, your a different man. And your atoms will not match up with what was here. So because the universe can only handle so little dramatic change. The universe explodes at the speed of light. And oh yeah, your other self comes to this timeline, and once agan the switch causes this universe to explode as well.

So I'm dead all because you feel in love. Thanks a lot. Next time, just greve and go to eharmony or myspace and get on with your life. Women out number men like 4.7 to one on the planet. And for every lesbian there are 3.8 gay males... translation there are a lot more fishes, then fishermen. So please don't try and switch timelines. Just let us all live.


Brick
 
I don't think the Universe explodes.
Click to expand...

Yannooooo,

This could open up a wholeslew of philisophical arguments. So for the mindset of an analogy I'll just leave it alone.

Brick
P.S. The idea of the universe exploding could be explained if you are willing to just think of the following.....

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their asses off)
The oceans and pangea
See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!
It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will cause the stars to go the other way,
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it wont be hurt
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!
Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating out while here they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy, Encarta, Deuteronomy
It all started with the big bang!
Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology

It all started with the big BANG!
 
You ever shoot pool? Strike the cue ball at a certain velocity so it collides with another ball. In absence of "casual loops" the motion of the two balls after collison is completly determined by the initial speed and direction of the cue ball.
Click to expand...

That's only true in an idealized gedankenexperiment if, and only if, you apply classical mechanics to the situation. If you contemplate a situation involving three or more billiard balls then even classical mechanics has a huge problem determining the final vectors in the real world. It all depends on the degree of accuracy you want to apply to the situation while stating that the outcome is strictly deterministic.
 
Darb,

Yeah, but there's only one problem. By doing the experiment by using basic philisophical mathmatics, you have to take in account all the what if's. Its more like shooting drunken pool. Personally, I've always thought drunken pool was more fun and responsable then shooting slop pool.

Lets face it, you get a small buzz on, the table looks different. So by using complete philisophical mathmatics, instead of basic Quantum gravitational physics and or Gödel logic, you can think of opening the vortex much like playing pool with a few shots and a pint in ya, not trying to over play the table.

Always remember C is the speed of light in this dimension, but you must judge and think of what it would mean in another. Different dimension,time/universe, you get a different meaning.

Roomie
 
Took a look at the TVA and it seems to me the reason why half the customers dissappeared was because they took the device some place "secret" and then proceeded to electrocute themselves. So, in several "secret" places where they believed a time vortex to exist, are probably decomposing bodies sitting within the coils of their TVA.

I find it difficult to believe that one would simply input a Gregorian date to travel to another time period.

I don't believe the dynamics of the universal "clock", as it were, would abide by a man-made measurement of time.

As far as the pool table example...even with just two spheres on the table, to determine the path that each sphere would follow would require the consideration of many different factors other than initial speed and direction.

The composition of the table, the resistence of the felt, any surface features of the felt, the composition of the spheres ( as far as the center of their weight ) , the exact location of the cue stick striking the cue ball, whether it is a straight-line strike or some physical attributes of the cue stick would cause the cue ball to spin, distance to be traveled, are just a few of many factors required to pre-determine the path the spheres would take.

It seems as though it would be possible to develop a computer program that would be able to process enough variables to be fairly accurate with calculating a pre-determined outcome on the pool table, but if one did develop such a program, what other purposes could such a program be used for ?

There was a paper I read several years ago regarding the possibility of quantifying an individual's life and using a program to pre-determine the choices that individual would make via a mathematical equation. However, the quantity of variables required to be input into such a program were far too many to make the development of such a program viable.

And not only is playing pool bit more interesting with a drunken buzz, but to use bent cue sticks also makes for a more interesting game.

I may be impressed by pool players that win using expensive, customized cue sticks, but am far more impressed by the pool players that win using twisted and tweaked cue's selected at random from the rack off the wall.
 
It seems as though it would be possible to develop a computer program that would be able to process enough variables to be fairly accurate with calculating a pre-determined outcome on the pool table, but if one did develop such a program, what other purposes could such a program be used for ?
Click to expand...

If you developed a computer that could, through analytic calculations rather than numeric calculations, accurately predict the future paths of the balls on a pool table you could then apply the technique to many physical processes. Orbital mechanics comes to mind. Analytic techniques have accuracies that can extend far, far into the future. Numeric approaches are estimates and are only accurate for relatively short durations.

If your program and computer could accomplish the task then all Near Earth Objects' orbital paths could be accurately calculated and we'd know which, if any, posed a threat to the Earth long before they became a hazard. We currently use numeric calculations and estimate the future locations of objects and then update the projections when the original analysis' projections are no longer accurate.
 
KT,

Follow-up:

Here's the rub with predicting the future evolution of a system. To do so you have to know the precise state of the system when you initiate the process of making the prediction. But there's no possible way to know the exact state. The speed of light assures that much. No matter how accurately you measure your observables at t(0) you have no way of knowing what's occuring outside your light cone at t(0) and how those events will interact with your system.

In the case of the pool table, assuming we have virtually frictionless balls, rails and felt and place it in a vacuum so that the balls can roll around for years - hey, it's a gedanken experiment
- you can always have a meteor that was a rock far beyond the sun when you started the balls rolling, strike the table and vaporize it and the balls. In that case your prediction of the future evolution of the balls' paths fails.

Too many variables - too many unobservables.
 
In the case of the pool table, assuming we have virtually frictionless balls, rails and felt and place it in a vacuum so that the balls can roll around for years - hey, it's a gedanken experiment - you can always have a meteor that was a rock far beyond the sun when you started the balls rolling, strike the table and vaporize it and the balls. In that case your prediction of the future evolution of the balls' paths fails.

Too many variables - too many unobservables.
Click to expand...

LOL...Sure, it's possible, but not probable that some sort of catastrophic event would take place during the movement of the ball's. I would think that the probability factor would be low enough not to effect the variants involved with determining the "probable" path of the sphere's.

In thinking about the pool table example...isn't this what an experienced pool player is actually doing... taking into account the angle or any tilt of the table, the condition of the felt, and becomes familiar with the habits of the ball's in play...and develops an idea of what kind of techniques to utilize in getting the cue ball to properly strike the target ball and achieve a specific goal.

Sure, there are failures, but how many failures as compared to successes ?

At what percentage would you consider such a program to be a success, 100 % or would a lesser percentage qualify the program as workable ?

However, it seems that the pool table would be far simpler to work with, since the environment is fairly stable. Once extending outside the environment of a pool table, it would seem that a less stable environment becomes involved, and exactly what kind of variables may be needed to be considered, increase.

I don't think the time and expense of creating a computer and program to accurately "predict" the path of pool ball's would be worth it...for the reason/s as stated above. I know I could develop just such a thing, however, for it to work with other applications would be doubtful...so I don't see anyone, including myself, wanting to spend the time or money on developing such a computer/program.

And of course with a pool table, nobody's life or expensive equipment that may have taken years to build is involved. Different situation if someones life depends on the accuracy of any such program as discussed.
 
Ok here's a two parter for darb and kerr..

Darb, I think ya might need some friction on the table for the analogy, something has got to represent the energy loss during the phase shifting of ripping open the vortex, no?

And kerr,

Lol yes the mis bent sticks. Some how by useing the right drunken logic even the most warped cues have the chance for the right amount of english on a ball, let alone the perfect "jumps". And I won't lie, I have afreind who owns his own cues, but when the right amount of liquor hits me, I can take him (no smack here, just truth.) Because, useing a house cue, means you done have to give a damn, and you can tear it up on a break.

Roomie
 
Now that you mention it, most experienced bar-fly players never use their custom ques for the break.

For the frequent fly-ers, the house ques also come in handy for use against those unable to channel their frustration over their lack of pool playing skills into more positive, less painful directions.

This sometimes results with additional house que sticks getting bent.

In one bar ( some of you Southern California residents may even know of this place...The Golden Elk on Hwy 18 just outside of Running Springs, it had a large plastic Elk painted gold on their sign )...

There was a pool player that had developed his skills to the point that 9 times out of 10, he would get the Eight-Ball into a corner pocket at the break. He knew where to position the que ball, and knew the angle of attack, and how much force to apply to the que ball. He made alot of folks angry, when expecting a nice little game of pool, he won on the break. He did make for a fast rotation of players against him, and the need to hit up the bartender for more quarters at an increased rate.

It seems to me that if someone really wanted to develop a program to calculate the movements of the spheres on a pool table, excluding catastrophic events ( Darby ), that it could be done.

Regarding the chess playing programs... " A 10-level tree contains about 10,000,000,000,000 (10 trillion) positions. The depth of the tree that a computer can calculate is controlled by the speed of the computer playing the game. The fastest chess computers can generate and evaluate millions of board positions per second. "

So we would have a good base to start with ... and could adapt the Chess playing program to be used for the pool table.

Granted the chess board is limited as far as the direction of pieces, however, the pool table contains less "pieces".

What we are really looking at is a plane with fixed points on a grid, and the positions of the pieces on that grid.

If I am not mistaken, there are already formula's for action ---> reaction of objects that would be very similar to the variables required to calculate the probable path's of the sphere's on our grid.
 
Regarding the TVA...

It would be interesting to know what discussions the group are having at Yahoo Groups. The TVA might be worth the investment, at least providing something to tinker with, instead of just having endless "discussions" about what could be or might be ( or not ) regarding time traveling.
 
Hi there Kerr:

It seems to me that if someone really wanted to develop a program to calculate the movements of the spheres on a pool table, excluding catastrophic events ( Darby ), that it could be done.

Regarding the chess playing programs... " A 10-level tree contains about 10,000,000,000,000 (10 trillion) positions. The depth of the tree that a computer can calculate is controlled by the speed of the computer playing the game. The fastest chess computers can generate and evaluate millions of board positions per second. "

So we would have a good base to start with ... and could adapt the Chess playing program to be used for the pool table.
Click to expand...

I think I am with Darby on this one. One reason that a chess-playing program is easier (much!) to program than a pool game is that the moves on a chess board have nothing to do with physical kinematics of objects with mass moving around. In other words, we can (and have) abstracted the minimum essentials of playing chess into the computer world with no loss of information. Each piece is constrained to the manner in which it can move, but nothing is defined as to the physical mechanics of how the piece moves from spot A to spot B. This is quite different when it comes to physical dynamics, which the game of pool are HIGHLY subject to.

And Darby was just giving one example when he used his catastrophic example. There is a large difference between an "idealized" simulation of a pool game and being able to predict events for a real game. Let me give an example from my own experience.

I play pool at my friend's house every Friday afternoon as part of our weekend rituals. I have noticed that the dynamics of the cueball (and ALL of the balls, for that matter) change dramatically after he polishes them. In fact, the change in their dynamics would not even be considered "intuitive". We always lag with the cue ball to determine who breaks (for those who are not familiar with this term: You strike the cue ball such that it hits the far bumper on the table, and you try to make the cue ball come to rest as close to the front bumper as possible, without touching it. The person who is the closest to the front bumper wins the privilege of breaking the rack).

When Scott polishes the ball, we have all determined that it actually takes a GREATER initial impulse (strike) on the cue ball to get the cue ball to the same position than it would have if he had NOT polished it. My engineering theory is that the polishing of the ball creates a smoother surface which causes more surface area of the ball to be in contact with the table felt, and this increases rolling friction. So this illustrates just ONE of MANY small variances that would have to be excruciatingly modeled if you wished to reach any level of stochastic prediction of a pool game. How "rough" (at the microscope level) are each of the balls?

And this kind of tendency can be identified for the table itself, as well. Initially, we would try to model the table felt as a homogenous surface (i.e. it is in the SAME condition everywhere on the table). This MIGHT be true (not likely) after a fresh felt resurfacing of the table, but it is most definitely NOT true after several weeks of play on a fresh table. Spots develop which have divots and shorter felt, etc. Just like polishing the cue ball, all of these "small differences" contribute to statistically significant changes in the dynamics of the balls rolling over the table. The effort just to try and quantify a non-homogenous pool table surface from an engineering modeling perspective would be IMMENSE... and then, it would ONLY be valid for one game... heck, it might only be valid for one shot!

If I am not mistaken, there are already formula's for action ---> reaction of objects that would be very similar to the variables required to calculate the probable path's of the sphere's on our grid.
Click to expand...

There are formulas, but they are pretty strictly Newtonian in nature. What that means is that even these equations do not take into account all the statistical variances of the elements involved. In fact, most Newtonian analyses deal with bodies of mass as "point objects with homogenous density". These problems (the slight variations) are what add-up to form the foundation for Quantum Mechanics (how SMALL variations at microscopic levels can all add-up to having large effects at macroscopic levels). In fact, the Newtonian equations are really only accurate (to a certain degree) for only TWO BODIES in a gravitational field moving with respect to one another. Once a THIRD BODY is added to the mix, the problem becomes VERY COMPLEX from a dynamics perspective.

In physical mechanics this is what is referred to as the "N-body problem". The following Wiki gives a good summary, and note that it took a lot of math just to solve the 2-body problem, a HUGE amount more math to even propose a solution to the 3-body problem, and to-date no one has ever been able to prove a solution to the generalized "n-Body" problem that they can demonstrate convergence for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

RMT
 
I understand what you're driving at here...both of you. And I realize from where the extreme example of Darby is coming from. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

However, with the example of the pool table, I think we could easily and accurately convert this to geometric terms. As mentioned, what we are really discussing is a plane with points within a grid. The spheres are located at specific points within the grid of the plane.

The Chess program does not calculate an entire game, but only calculates only a given amount of moves. The pool program would do the same...not calculate an entire game, but only address the movement in steps.

Since we are in the early stages of development of a pool program, it would make sense to create a specific environment, at first. We would be able to reduce the variables of probablity to values that would then be small enough to not really effect the outcome of the programs calculations.

The size of the grid, the resistence along the plane, the physical characteristics of the spheres located within the grid, all of these could be determined or created to meet specific values.

If we have only two spheres within our grid, merely by using lazer pointers, we could determine the probable path of the spheres within the grid, and be fairly accurate with our prediction with the direction of the spheres along the plane.

The problem then would be where the spheres would stop, where their final resting place would be. So direction isn't really a problem...depending on the size of the plane. The force or transfer energy that is applied to the sphere's and where the energy is transferred during the movement, is where we would run into problems.

I understand that there are numerous variations that would make it difficult to pre-determine where the spheres will stop...but I don't see it as not possible to do. I believe that it can be done, and would be easier than either of you believe.

The chess program was just an example, there may be others that are better suited to use as a BASE for a pool program. It's just that if the current chess programs can "evaluate millions of board positions per second ", really, how hard would it be to adapt the program to evaluate the position of the spheres within our plane, and where the spheres would stop after force has been applied ?

And remember, the program is NOT evaluating an entire game, but each movement results with a new set of variables to be evaluated.

It would seem to me that as many variable's that may be involved, it would not exceed "millions" per second...would it ?

I think I need to stress that developing a program for a game of pool seems rather pointless, since even though the variables may be numerous, they still are somewhat smaller than when compared to other situations.

To address the same with a game of Golf, yikes ! With Golf, the idea of developing any possible program that could pre-determine the movement of the golf-balls, I would have to admit defeat and climb into the same boat as the both of you.
 
TTR,

Darb, I think ya might need some friction on the table for the analogy, something has got to represent the energy loss during the phase shifting of ripping open the vortex, no?
Click to expand...

That's why I added the caveat that we had a gedanken experiment - a thought experiment - where the idealized system was frictionless and placed in a vacuum. True, real pool tables encounter friction and aren't generally placed in a vacuum, real balls are not perfect, real rails aren't prefect, real collissions between balls aren't perfectly elastic, etc.

The original thought was that even on an idealized pool table we don't have the mathematical ability to analytically predict beforehand the future evolution of the paths of several balls bouncing off of each other and the rails for more than a few seconds. (Actually it should be a billiard table so that the balls don't "disappear" from the system via the Time Vortex Activator by falling into the pockets.
) The extension of the idea is that it applies to real world physics.

I used celestial mechanics as an example of why it is advantageous to look at what happens in a small system, like a pool or billiard table, and use that as a test bed for experimentation. Physicists use the pool table analogy over and over because it is a good representation of a thermodynamic system. What we lack is a single equation that includes all of the perturbing influences affecting the orbits that spits out a single, accurate result that details the future evolution of the orbits involved without making mid-term adjustments, corrections and approximations. If you can develop a theory to predict the paths and locations of the balls several hours in advance on the idealized table then you've made a huge step toward predicting the celestial mechanics of planets, moons, comets and asteroids.
 
Back
Top