Time Travel without Space Travel?

Hello there. How are you? Well I hope.

I must say my dear, that I have a couple of minor problems with your reply. Firstly your assumption that I'm some kind of gullible fool. Secondly, that I will stand for the kind of misguided patronising that you've just posted.

The belief that you can 'intellectually' belittle a regular of this forum through the means that you are doing so is deeply mistaken. I hope that your conviction to this ill advised path has prepared you for the following analysis. (Actually I hope that it hasn't)

1. Do you believe that saying that you don't expect to be believed makes your claim more credible? I feel that you believe this to be a new angle on that old chestnut "look at me, I'm a time traveller".

Since you insist that you know that nobody believes you, why do you persist in wasting your time? You may not find the exercise futile, but I'm afraid everyone else does..Can you not see that?

It's quite simple..PROVE IT. Or SHUT UP. You have now reached the threshold of mild amusement and you're rapidly becoming very tedious. Do you understand. It's not clever, it's not witty, it's certainly not original. It's DULL, it's BORING. WE'VE SEEN IT ALL BEFORE!

2. You are using your flimsy premise to claim that you are more socially advanced than us 'primitive' natives. Unfortunately for you, but fortunately for us, the things that you say contradict this offensive, arrogant nonsense. You see, you show an incredible lack of understanding of human nature.

I practice no organised religion and my 'beliefs' lean more towards pragmatism than dogma, but you are grossly mistaken in the assumption that religion and science aren't closely related. You should read some history. They have always ferverently fed off one another. When science has challenged religion, religion has adapted and asked bigger questions, which science has strived to answer. On and on it has gone..

It's ironic. If you actually were a time traveller, you could offer insights into how it 'was' achieved, but you appear to be surprisingly ignorant of the human development (scientific, religious and philosophical) that would have lead you to be here. You would know that they are all parts of the essence of human inginuity. Every pioneering scientist has had to use pure faith at times, has had to go out on a limb. Your irritating sense of intellectual superiority is utterly false. Your basic understanding of the most important element - the human element, falls way short of some of the 'primitive' intellects that regularly visit this forum.

You really should employ some dignity while you still have some and drop this charade. You are not a time traveller. If you were you could presumably offer some proof. Any less and you are just willfully making a fool of yourself. Why would you do that? You tell me..

3. I mention drug induced states just ONCE off hand and you manage to equate that with a 'fascination'. How's that??
Oh no, I've mentioned it again, is that an obssession???

4. I am always asking questions by the way. I don't know how time and the universe works. Nobody does. You don't. Why are you pretending that you do?

Is this some form of rampant insecurity?

Do you feel that it is preferable to concoct this 'cushion' to give supposed weight to your opinions rather than accept that you are in the same boat as the rest of us, even though you'll be made to look foolish in the process?

If you'd just let your thoughts speak for themselves instead of clouding them, dressing them up in the ludicrous fashion that you have, you'd get as fair a hearing as anyone. But you can't admit your idiocy now can you? You've taken it too far, haven't you?

Do you have some deep seated inadequacy complex?

Or are you simply a peurile piss talking adolescent? No friends?

That may be off the mark, but I have to tell you, I'm having real doubts that you're above the age of consent..

I am also overwhelming convinced that you are no more than a snivelling piss taker. Please read the "for all the urine extractors out there" message. I think that you may well fit the bill.

Just as long as you know that I'm under no misconception...I think I've got your card.

One last bit of advice, if you're still there...

You're probarbly racking your none too extensive imagination for something dismissive enough to offset this message. Well, good luck.
You'd better get it right the first time though, because I've just about had enough of your moronic indulgences and unless it's useful or interesting, It will be the last of your messages that I waste my time reading..

If you feel that I'm being way too harsh, then maybe you'll think twice before levelling your childish fantasies at me again!

I'm actually normally very amiable, but at the monent I'm at the end of my tether with 'bloody time wasters'.

You do still have one form of reprieve though. PROVE CATEGORICALLY THAT YOU'RE A TIME TRAVELLER. PROVE IT . PROVE IT.......Do you get the picture? PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE IT!!!!

If you can, I'll take it all back....
 
It does make your head hurt doesn't it..

Maybe we should ask Jon Whatshisname..Thingy..

He's got it all figured out you know. We're all virtually apemen compared to his thundering intellect...

Although he seems unable to prove anything that he claims is fact..

..funny that..

I'm sorry to bitch about him, but he really managed to offend me earlier..

I guess I'm too sensitive about rampant idiotics..:))

Sorry again Lee, bye bye.
 
To work we'll have to assume that our solar system isn't moving. We know that earth is becuase of it's orbit of the sun. So let's say we want to time travel ten years into the future. If you leave June 4th at 1:04 and nine seconds (the seconds are even important) Then you set your method of travel to have you reappear in the year 2009 on June 4th at 1:04 and nine seconds, then you should appear at the same position. Because the earth moves at such a fast rate you have to get it to the second. But since there is probably at least a small variance of earth's position fron year to year, it would probably be safest to travel one year at a time and reduce your chances of being in space. It's kind of hard to prevent reappearing in mid air or even underground though.
 
I certainly don't disagree with ANY of that. I trust you did not think I did.

It was the point about temporal mechanics solving the position issue with regards to time that I said if you accept, then the position problem goes away.

That's a BIG 'if' however. A very big one indeed.

The resolution of the three body problem however is not a computational one however, its a result of relativity itself. All the computing power in the universe can't measure anything if you have no base or frame of reference to measure in relation to. The positional problem is a result of THIS, not lack of math musclepower.

If you checked my reference site in the P.S., you found that NASA could not locate a solar satellite they lost when it's signal went dead due to the very issues in the 3 body problem. Fortunately, it came back on again and they were able to find it.

In tracking Pluto thru the Solar system, it is only ever a 2 body problem since both the relative positions of Pluto and the Sun are always known at any given time. Tracking the Sun around the Galactic core is the same 2 body problem.

Finding where Pluto will be relative to the Virgo Cluster even one day from now however becomes another problem entirely and it has nothing to do with any lack of computing power. It becomes unsolvable due to identification of frame of reference which NO amount of math can solve.

Thanx.
 
Hello SimonB. Despite your direct hostility and lengthy ad hominem attack, directed toward someone most people of your time would regard as at worst a mild annoyance which they'd simply ignore, we've decided to at least post a response in the hope of learning more. I say we, because several members of our party have expressed a special interest in interacting with current individuals whose seeming psycho-social perspectives resemble yours. Some of this posting is thus a "composite" of material that members have submitted for your response. The rest is mine. As stated earlier, if our postings are a source of "annoyance" to you, all we can suggest for you to do is stop reading and responding to them.

1/ Does the suggestion that Jon Formet does not expect to be believed inherently make his presentation less plausible, considering the context? If so, why?

2/ Do you believe that there is a zero probability of Jon Formets narrative being factually based ? If so, why? If not, why?

3/ Please describe some situations in your past when you felt someone was encroaching on your "turf" or "talking down to you." Please provide details of your subjective emotional state when reacting in these circumstances.

4/ Would you describe yourself as a "highly competitive individual"?

5/ Do you believe that you spend more time than others thinking about personal security issues?

6/ Do you believe that it is possible to differentiate between "religious" truth and "scientific" truth?

7/ Do you agree or disagree with the following statement : "Drug addiction is one of the great scourges of the 20th century".

8/ Would the knowlege that unassisted biologically based lifeforms are functionally incapable of grasping the vast majority of what nature can teach fully sentient beings effect your emotions in a negative way?

9/ In your normal social interactions, to what extent does the apparent "age" of an individual influence your opinion of that persons value?

10/ In your opinion, are the opinions of those age labeled "adolescent" in your culture, inherently less valuable than others?

11/ Would the knowledge that Jon Formet's current visit has been extended for a 2 year period, and that he intends to continue posting to this site intermittently during that time, effect your emotions in a negative way?

12/ Please define "piss take".

13/ Should the fact that you mispelled the word "ingenuity" in your posting influence our opinion of your level of intelligence? If not, please rationalize this position in light of your earlier comments regarding spelling skills.

Jon Formet et al
 
Hello Lee. Along with the precise manipulation of massive gravitational fields, the enabling principle for establishing a frame of reference that permits navigation through gravitationaly distorted regions of spacetime, is a super advanced computational ability. Given a large enough mathematical model to work from, why do you doubt that a route between any 2 given points in spacetime can be calculated ?

Jon Formet
 
Yeah it's a fun problem huh!

I'll have to sorta repeat a post I made a couple of weeks earlier but lets try this:

Hold up your index finger and while looking at it, say "NOW".

OK. It's now already several seconds since you said that. Lets say you want to return your index finger to that exact point which is now even more seconds ago, somewhere else. But where is it?

The Earth has revolved a little on its axis at 1200 mph, and moved around the Sun just a little further at 64,000 mph.

The Sun has proceeded roughly northerly in the direction of Vega on its continual orbit of the galactic center, at some x velocity I can't remember, but we'll assume it's knowable. At this point we have only dealt with individual steps, each of which is only a 2 body problem. Solvable.

The Milky way has moved in it's relative direction to the local cluster which is itself expanding. It's now a 3 body problem since we are not sure of the direction exactly, relative to any of the bodies we have discussed so far. We know from doppler spectrography that we are expanding locally, but are unsure of just how fast, and in precisely what direction relative to the Milky Way itself. From this point on, we have no baseline.

The local cluster has moved relative to the Virgo and super clusters which are themselves expanding.

They are moving in some direction we can't really determine since they appear to be moving away from EVERYTHING we see further out.

Since we lost our baseline way back at the Milky Way, and we've added at least 7 more direction/velocity parameters (read vectors) to this confusion without a firm reference point to measure from, what numbers are you going to plug into your supercomputer's algorhythm to work with?

To find that point you finger was, now several minutes ago, is already hopelessly lost. Your computer can calculate until it overheats but it will not be able to solve this equation since it still requires inputs to the equation that are themselves unknown.

Can YOU tell me where your finger was a few minutes ago? Remember, you're chasing a moving target all the while, and it's getting further by the second.

Good luck. If you solve this, I have a few sites you should be submitting this to beyond this one. It's Nobel Prize material my friend.
 
The site you listed here is a great tool and i wish i had re-checked it before I gave an answer to Jon Format below way down in this thread. It gets our VELOCITIES a little more in tune with the time/positional problem but once we get out to the Galactic cluster level the exact DIRECTIONS get fuzzy.

Without the directions to go along with the velocities we can't pinpoint the location at all.

Nice work on your part tho. Now I have to add an addendum to my post to Jon.

Thanks, and sorry I took so long to get back to you on this.
 
I should have remembered nolo contendere's post up the thread, sorry.

He posted this excellent site at:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/874948869.As.r.html

where the velocities I left out up to and including the cluster expansion can be found.

They still won't solve YOUR problem however since the vector directions are uncertain.

Knowing the Earths velocity thru the background radiation gives us an indication of just how fast our corner of the universe is expanding, but it won't tell us the direction. The directions in the 4 vectors leading up to it are also ambiguous. By direction of course I mean relative to what.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this next point, but hasn't it been axiomated that while the three body problem is unsolved, there is no proof it can't be done?

I'm not trying claim here that the 3 body problem can't be solved, just that your specific problem can't be sloved by sheer calculation power alone based on what we can input to it.

I would concede that the problem COULD be solved if we resolve ALL of the vector issues we have discussed, but I doubt that those issues THEMSELVES can be resolved since we can't define a fixed point to reference tham from. Hence, no complete verified input, no solution.

If you have an answer for this, I'd LOVE to see it.

Peace.
 
Hello Lee. Thank-you very much for your continuing friendly discourse. Your expression of strong desire to obtain a solution to the 3 body problem in 1999 provoked prolonged sympathetic laughter in the room. Rest assured that we understand your "hunger" in this regard, and promise you that a resolution is closer than you can imagine. Someone suggested reminding you of the old story of the Kings cartographer. The King constantly harried the royal mapmaker to produce ever more detailed charts of his domain. Increasing specificity demanded that the map sizes had to grow ever larger to produce more and more room for the mounting details. In the end, the only chart that pleased His Majesty was one that literally covered his whole Domain, a one to one correspondence with every building, blade of grass, and pebble. What we are asking you to imagine is analogous to a computer "simulation" of ALL POSSIBLE particle interactions since the initial singularity. The determinists are basically right, but on a scale in this multiverse, they currently have a hard time even conceiving.

Jon Formet

P.S. Thank-you for continuing to provide web site locations for our cataloging purposes.
 
Ooooo K!

Suppose I continue to humor you as I have been in this endeavour of yours to assume the role of some hypothetical Time Traveler. I enjoy a good charade as well as the next fellow.

Under the circumstances then, I come down to two basic questions.

1. When are you going to answer the question I posed above in regards to the solution of your "any-point-in-space/time to any-other-point-in-space/time" problem? So far, the ego self massage you are engaging in is one of style over substance until you provide some form of back up in the form of references for the postulations you offer. (If your sole purpose is to demonstrate what a smart ass you are, you picked on the wrong guy. You're in over your head I assure you!) Keep it up. You know very little about me and it would not be in your best interest to be presumptious.

2. Considering that you admit you and your collegues are enjoying "sympathetic prolonged laughter" with regards to my genuine efforts to ignore the rather immature manner in which you have chosen to seek your mastubatory endeavours, why should I feel any way other than insulted by this last descent into the childish arena by you and said associates?

You're beginning to sound like some of the "Creation Scientists" of our era who talk a lot, with eloquent words, but in the end, actually SAY nothing.

In short turkey, put up or shut up!
 
I humored him as long as I could Simon. (See my last post in the above thread.)

I was patient with him, and in the end he seems to have finally revealed himself to be what he can only ever be at this time until he grows up a little.

Ah well!

Fortunately we are getting some new participants whose intellect is greater than their desire to self-gratify. Alas, Jon just doesn't appear to be one of them.
 
But the problem is that the solar system is moving, and the galaxy is moving, and the cluster is moving, etc.

If only the earth were moving around the sun, then you wouldn't have to be that careful about when you "come out of warp". By the time we develop time-travel technology (if we ever do) we will have some pretty fast space-travel devices so we will be able to move around the solar system at reasonably rapid rates.

However, as I suggested in another e-mail, the combination of movements of the earth, solar system, galaxy, etc. in combination with the amount of time you go back/forth and the amount of actual time you take in going back/forward could require you to travel at several times the speed of light in order to get back to the earth before you left (if you travelled back in time.)
 
Hello Lee. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are asking for a specific solution to what is referred to as the "3 Body Problem." Why are you assuming that it's possible for us to divulge any SPECIFIC details at all regarding this matter? Surely you are capable of grasping the fact that posting specific future solutions to current scientific problems would be completely impossible while maintaining temporal continuity. If we were to "humour" you in this regard and proceeded to post that type of material, you can be quite sure that none of us would continue in THIS timeline . We are bound to only engage in activities which will not interfere with known historical developments.

Jon Formet
 
Hello Lee. It seems that you have chosen to ignore the explanation that was provided as to why no specific solutions can be provided by us for current scientific problems. I believed that it was possible for you to grasp the rationale behind this refusal, it appears I was mistaken.

Jon Formet
 
Right. Since you have obviously given some proper thought to your response in terms of character analysis, I will grace it with a reply.

You admit that most perceive you as a mild annoyance. I congratulate your self awareness.

Well here's a surprise..I actually didn't find you at all annoying to begin with. I actually thought of your postings as mildly amusing and pretty harmless fantasy. I say fantasy, because you appear to be completely unable or unwilling to provide any proof of your claims.
As I'm sure you are aware, if you make claims that border on the incredible, only an extremely impressionable and foolish person would take them seriously without actual proof. Do you not agree?

Common sense thus backs up everybody's natural reaction to your proposal.

As I thought that I had clearly stated, my hostility arises from your reliance on this 'fantasy' to claim psychological and socialogical superiority. Your arrogant dismissal of my viewpoints is based on claims that you refuse to substantiate in any way. It is these patronising groundless comments that annoy me. If you still insist that they have grounds, why don't you really put me in my place by somehow proving it??

As you should know by reading my 'normal' messages, I am generally extremely amiable. You however have caused offence as I have stated and like anybody else I react likewise. This is not caused by any psychological diificulties, but by being an averagely emotional human being. If you believe that signs of natural defensiveness signify some kind of behavioural disorder, then you are even more ignorant of human nature than I had previously stated. You really should not be surprised by my reaction. You know just as well as I do that you were being deliberately patronising, further comment on that is pointless.

I see your in depth psychological questions as no more than a desperate smoke screen however. You are simply answering questions with questions to divert attention from the crux of my message. The fact that I am giving your questions any time at all should tell you something important about what is happening here. Your whole evasive attitude simply undermines your comments more and more..

Do you know of the respect that Lee has here?

If so, the fact that he is in agreement with me should be taken as a very damaging blow..

I admit an interest in psychological and socialogical issues. So what?

There is also no evidence that I am replying to more than one person. (At the most I would suspect a couple of your friends joining in on the 'fun'). The nature of your messages would strongly suggest that you are alone. I can't imagine why you would wish to be so easily outflanked in front of friends.

As to the rest of your reply, you have either seemed to massively over simplify the opinion that I was stating or misunderstood it altogether. I'll elaborate(like I wish that you would).

re: 1/ Does the suggestion that Jon Formet does not expect to be believed inherently make his presentation less plausible, considering the context? If so, why?

I said that claiming not to be believed does not make your claim any MORE credible. Not that it makes your claim any LESS credible. Your claim is what it is. No more no less.

As I have stated, because you will not prove that your claims are true, I don't feel that your claim could be any less credible than it maturally is.

re: 2/ Do you believe that there is a zero probability of Jon Formets narrative being factually based ? If so, why? If not, why?

Again you misunderstand. It is your credibilty that is in question here, not probabilty. These may seem like the same thing, but they're not.
In terms of probabilty, unless categorically disproved, anything is 'possible'. We all know that. Is there zero probability of your claims? - no and I never stated that there was.

The real question is, "Do I BELIEVE you?. Given the available evidence, are your claims CREDIBLE?"

The answer is no. It once again all comes back to the unassailable fact that you can't/won't prove your 'incredible' claims. They simply require some form of corroboration to be taken seriously by anyone. Please grasp this fact.

re: 6/ Do you believe that it is possible to differentiate between "religious" truth and "scientific" truth?

I was simply trying to get you to think about the historical interrelation between science and religion. Think about it. What questions have science and religion always asked? Are they really all that different? Science revolves around evidence with an infusion of faith. Religion is the opposite way round. They are in effect different ratios of the balancing pragmatic and dogmatic elements that make mankind what it is.

To fully answer your question, you'd have to elaborate on exactly what you mean by truth, in what context? Is truth not entirely subjective? I think that if you spoke to a scientist and a holyman, they would have very different ideas about what is meant by 'truth'. The same can probarbly be said about any two different people.

TRUTH is not the same as FACT.

re: 7/ Do you agree or disagree with the following statement : "Drug addiction is one of the great scourges of the 20th century".

My opinions on that matter are irrelevent. As I said, I simply made a 'trivial' comment in passing. I'll make myself clear once and for all...

I wasn't referring to 'drug addiction', or 'recreational' drug use at all. Neither was I making any reference to the role of drugs in society. It was more related to the kind of hallucinagenic compounds that the Native Americans (Indians) have been using in rituals for hundreds, or thousands of years. That's all. Maybe I wasn't clear and so I apologise for the misunderstanding. It is not something that I place any great stock in 'time travel' wise. It was merely a passing comment, a stray thought, that's all.

8/ Would the knowlege that unassisted biologically based lifeforms are functionally incapable of grasping the vast majority of what nature can teach fully sentient beings effect your emotions in a negative way?

You'll have to let me know what the relevance of that is..I have always stated that we have much to learn..I'm quite humble about it. It is a realisation of the stage that we are at, I have no emotional negativity (very councelling) connected to it.

re: 9/ In your normal social interactions, to what extent does the apparent "age" of an individual influence your opinion of that persons value?

Irrelevent. I regard the value of a person's opinions based on those opinions, not their age, particularly here, where age is normally unknown.

However, some attitudes are espeically indicative of youth, attitudes that will mellow later when mixed with actual experience. You cannot claim that adults and children behave in the same way(under normal circumstances). There are some abrasive teenage characteristics in particular that are difficult for adults to 'wear'. I know, I was a teenager. I now know where my attitudes needed refining, although I didn't see it at the time. That is one of the benefits of growing up.

If you read my comments again, I pointed out the benefits of letting your opinions speak for themselves. They are presently adversely affected by the means through which you are stating them. This seems unwise, perhaps a product of youth?

There was another side to my remarks however. I judged that questioning your age would cause offence, because I was feeling somewhat angered by your comments. I admit this, but whether I was accurate or not, they seem to have done the trick.

By the way, I'm only 25, so I have a very good recollection of the bullshit that I used to pull in my younger years.

re: 12/ Please define "piss take".

You don't know what that means? Taking the piss?

Oh very well, it means 'making fun of', 'ridiculing', 'trying to make a fool of someone'. You must know, you must really know, that is exactly what you are doing to every serious visitor here.

re: 13/ Should the fact that you mispelled the word "ingenuity" in your posting influence our opinion of your level of intelligence? If not, please rationalize this position in light of your earlier comments regarding spelling skills.

You caught me red handed with a typo. Oops, sorry. Genius - Ingenuity.
I assure you that I can spell that, it was just a silly typo, what can I say?

If you want to question my intelligence over that rather than what I am actually 'saying', that's your affair. I would say that it would question your own intelligence however. Your decision, not mine.

It was one(I think) accidental mistake in a lenghthy message. Maybe I have other things on my mind too?

Regarding my 'earlier comments' on spelling skills, I only remember claiming that I had used the British spelling of 'meagre' (which I am correct about incidently). I never claimed to be the 'God' of spelling or anything. I had expressed annoyance at being told that an Englishman couldn't spell a word correctly, by an American who choses to spell it differently. For example, you use the word rationalize. The English spell it 'rationalise', so there you have it. That's it...If anyone perceived a further meaning, then please rest assured that that wasn't my intention. I can't say fairer than that.

Additionally, you're just as guilty of typos as I am. Please note..

8/ Would the KNOWLEGE(knowledge) that unassisted biologically based lifeforms are functionally incapable of grasping the vast majority of what nature can teach fully sentient beings effect your emotions in a negative way?

I assume that you would have double checked for such mistakes, yet it slipped through. Easily done isn't it?

Even though you're still sticking to your guns(??), I thank you for sending a reasonably interesting reply. I had expected you to blindly ramble on in the way that you had previously about your elevated position, no matter what anyone said. At least you have partly taken up the gauntlett that I had thrown down, even if it is in a highly deflective manner.

You still haven't proved anything though. Nothing that you have said has improved the 'dead end' situation that you are in. Oh well..It's what we all expected..

Oh honestly, this is all so stupid. You know and I know what's going on. So does Lee, so does anyone with any sense..

At this stage, you'll have to really dig deep to remain in any way interesting..
 
Back
Top