I've been away for the holiday weekend... but it seems, true to form, Darby and Twilight have taken this thread in the exact same direction I was going. When I posted my comment about a purple dino getting his PhD in Tehran, I was alluding to the point that Twighlight has made many times now:
My point was that the 'camera' device being illustrated here would of course randomly throw up pictures of events that never happened. Which then gives rise to the question.....how does one differentiate between those ( which would be a far larger number ) and the 'real' pictures ? How does one know that a picture in this device corresponds to any real event that occured ?
I have asked this question now 6 times in this thread......still no response from the inventor of the time camera.
Dimmack:
First, you need to explicity answer Twighlight's question... if you can. It seems like you were tap dancing around it, but not providing an answer.
I am going to be honest with you Dimmack, and please do not take this personally: Your theory is not scientific, and your jump from describing how a digital camera quantizes light and stores a photo in binary, to the point where you say a camera is not necessary makes for a gigantic chasm. A chasm that you cannot simply jump over without addressing all the points in between. What you have done is not at all scientific, because you have merely taken an existing technology, ignored a bunch of things related to physics that make this technology possible, and then claim that the basis of this technology can provide "visual time travel."
Your theory sounds very much like another person we had frequent the forums in the not too distant past. I hope you are more understanding of a scientific discussion than he was, as he seemed to get angry and turn an attempt at a scientific discussion into a catfight. That won't work here, and this was why I was concerned about the tone at the end of your video. In any event, let me present two major problems that your theory completely ignores:
1) Space and Time are intimately connected. This cannot be argued. There are many forms of evidence to this fact. As such, since your theory only deals with the quantization of light in a 2-dimensional image. It ignores the 3rd spatial dimension, since no camera can accurately capture the details of that third spatial dimension. In essence, your camera (and therefore your entire theory) performs what is called an affine transformation from 4-D to 2-D. Indeed, the very fact that you quantize individual frames of light as digital photos, you are also quantizing time in your theory. How do you propose to "travel" through a dimension that you have reduced to quanta, when we all know this dimension to be continuous?
This leads to point #2 which you have not addressed:
2) Because your entire theory is based upon digital quantization of light fields, the approach is particularly susceptible to a form of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. We refer it by the simpler name of
quantization error. Because you quantize the Field Of View and color into discrete values, you cannot accurately capture (or define, if you omit the camera) the complete scene from any given time. I don't care if the photo you present is on our timeline, or another timeline
(but I still think Twighlight's question needs to be answered about how you tell the difference), that photo does NOT capture all the detail of the event of that alleged time. The reason is because you have chosen an arbitrary quanta of resolution for both space and color, not to mention time when you decide upon a video frame rate. As the distance away from the suggested Point Of View of the camera (or non-camera) increases, the quantization error for capturing the light for that event increases. Additionally, since the camera only captures a 2-D slice of light, the digitized scene in memory can NOT capture the reality of what might be going on behind some object that shows up in the scene.
Imagine a person in the scene with their hand behind their back... are they holding a banana that they are about to eat, or are they holding a loaded weapon that they are about to shoot you with?
How can you make the claim that your description (which amounts to nothing more than describing a mundane photographic technology) describes a means of "time travel"? It does not. The most mundane explanation why it CANNOT be any form of "time travel" device is because you make the continued mistake of believing that TIME and SPACE are separable. They are not. ANY time machine must treat TIME and SPACE as they are naturally, which is integrated. The more specific explanation for why your device cannot be considered a time machine is because it ignores at least two dimensions of what constitute a real event (the photo is a 2-D representation of 3-D space, and your scheme also quantizes time).
This problem I have noted above also has grave implications for your ability to answer Twighlight's question. Because of quantization error, and your scheme ignoring 2 of the 4 dimensions of spacetime, you will have virtually NO capability to determine if an image you generate (randomly or not) was an actual image of an actual event on this timeline or any other.
Let me point out another problem with your approach, but this in the form of an analogy. We know that binary code can represent anything. It is only a means for representing something. As such, if you can successfully claim (and we are saying you cannot, but let's pretend you can) that you can make a "visual time travel device" by generating images, then it stands to reason by the nature of digital media that I should be able to make an "auditory time travel device" under the same principles. Right? All I am doing is capturing a different frequency regime with a different set of physics as its basis. A camera captures light (EM radiation) in the visible range of frequencies. A digital sound recorder captures pressure waves (pressure radiation) in the audible range of frequencies. Yet, such an "auditory time travel device" has the exact same problems of quantization error and not representing the totality of space-time as does your "visual time travel device".
In fact, when you understand physics at the level of most scientists, you will begin to see other areas where you theory unravels: What about ALL those other frequencies of EM radiation that are NOT captured by a camera? HOW would your theory purport to represent those frequencies? Clearly, at any point in time, those frequencies DO makeup the reality of events in that area of spacetime.
I hope these discussions help you apply some more scientific rigor to your ideas, Dimmack. I also hope you do not simply close your mind (as your tone at the end of your video suggests you might) to reasoned scientific explanations... and thus lead you to telling us we are the ones with closed minds because we do not believe your unscientific theory.
RMT
