Travel?

B

bogz

Temporal Navigator
No, this isn't about people posting hoaxes, this is just a boring question, not an exciting time travel claim that will span 10 pages.



I want to know if people think the concept of time "travel" is more believable than the idea of only being able to see the past using only software.

Here is a quote from Pierre-Simon Laplace.

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."


Personally, I think the idea of software to view the past, is easier to comprehend than physically visiting the past, or in other words, changing the past in some way, sending information to the past, etc...

If anything I think we will achieve software based time travel long before we ever get to do it physically (if ever).

Anyone else wonder about this?
 
Web Bot Predictions (George Ure and associate Cliff)

This Coast To Coast guest uses software to predict the future. It scans chat room for specific words that are precursor to event happening. He clams that people subconsciously predict the future unknowingly and talk about it in chat rooms.

Coast to Coast Web Bot Preditions
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2007/07/04.html

Web Bot sites
http://www.Urbansurvival.com
http://www.halfpasthuman.com

There is another person out there that is doing the same thing as these people and was once on Coast To Coast predicting the future. This other group was mention once on this broadcast show in the link above for Coast to Coast AM.

Sort of related are the Princeton eggs random generator that predicts future events to.
 
Ottawa eh? That's pretty cool /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I'm right near you.

I had heard of the web bot software on c2c, and this site before. The Merlin project is new to me.

In my opinion any software that is not open source is not worthy of discussion as it can't be reviewed by the public. Any claims closed source software makes can not be confirmed.

What Laplace is hinting at (I think) is that there could be a single equation that would describe the position and movement of every particle in the universe, and once we can process information nearly as fast as the "universe" does, we will be able to "render" the past, present and future on our computer screens.

So, someday I think we'll be able to input Latitude, Longitude, orientation and date/time and then be able to look at anything, anywhere.
 
History Cycles itself so what happened in the past will come back again its just like karma. I read somewhere we are currently in 1929 time frame, which I don’t believe. Here in Ottawa all the teenager are whereing really long hairs just as if we are back in the 70’s. Some people track the stars to see what will happen if a repeat configuration will happen again and use the past historic event as an indicator of the same thing repeating.

But the problem with all this is what I learned in the stock market. The recent past can’t predict the future events we all learn this in the stock market in 2000 after the dot come failure and this is the problem with your model.

The only way you can get your software to work it you decide to write the code for it. 1. Find what cycle of the past we are in using the stars or event trend or what ever. 2. Once you find the repeat cycle scan the history books for key event to make the future prediction.

History cycles are long since some people believe that countries have karma in them as a collective group. I don’t know if I believe that or not.
 
What you are already taking about is already here it is a technique it is call Remote Viewing. But it is not always accurate. You take Latitude, Longitude as a target and you view in see what there and draw a picture. Date and time are difficult since everything is event driven in this world but you can predict what the next event will be in the future with this technique. So both the future present and past can be viewed with Remote Viewing.
 
History Cycles itself so what happened in the past will come back again its just like karma. I read somewhere we are currently in 1929 time frame, which I don’t believe. Here in Ottawa all the teenager are whereing really long hairs just as if we are back in the 70’s.
Click to expand...

Yes I see trends repeat themselves in fashion, however in Ottawa the teenagers I see are all clean cut and well behaved.

The only way you can get your software to work it you decide to write the code for it. 1. Find what cycle of the past we are in using the stars or event trend or what ever. 2. Once you find the repeat cycle scan the history books for key event to make the future prediction.
Click to expand...


What you are already taking about is already here it is a technique it is call Remote Viewing. But it is not always accurate.
Click to expand...

I don't want there to be any confusion. I am not talking about Remote Viewing at all.

But let me tell you something, if this software ever gets made, you'll be able to "remote view" the people who "invented" remote viewing and find out for yourself if they are scamming you.

Oh yes, all who have built their legacies on lies will be remembered for who they REALLY are.
 
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past
Click to expand...

The present is a product of past events.

and the cause of its future.
Click to expand...

The future is a product of present events.

An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed,
Click to expand...

God or who/whatever you believe created the universe

if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis,
Click to expand...

If the creator planned his efforts to create the universe,

it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom;
Click to expand...

There would be a single formula that would let us simulate our own universe.

for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.
Click to expand...

A really fast computer could look at any spot in the simulation and tell you what was there. So we could look at the past, present or future at any location, any zoom level, and record a video, and post it on you tube?

The only thing that bugs me is Laplace used the words "SINGLE" formula. When I think of simulating all the natural phenomenon of the universe, there are billions of equations to take into account. But Laplace knew this obviously, so why did he say SINGLE formula. WTF???
 
bogz,

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."
Click to expand...

The problem with Laplace's theory, and it was generally accepted at the time, is that it pre-dates quantum theory. From quantum physics we now know that even if someone were able to know the current state of every subatomic particle and field in the universe that given sufficient time predictibality of the future state of the universe would fail.

On a more local scale, and somewhat Classical state, we can't even predict where the planets and moons in our Solar System will be if we try to predict them far enough into the future. Celestial mechanics are good predictors of objects in the Solar System only if we don't try to predict their positions too far into the future. Fifty years ago we couldn't even predict the position of the moon too far into the future because after just three days it is no longer where simple orbital mechanics would predict its position to be. There are just too many variables (about 100-150 variables go into predicting the moon's location to within 2 seconds of arc after three days).

During the lifetime of Laplace Maxwell did fix the speed of light (no, Einstein did not fix the speed of light). In the mid-19th Century we were well aware that there was no way possible for anyone to know "the state of the universe" at any given time because the speed of light was fixed and not infinite. We cannot see the present state of the universe, other than by approximation, even within the Solar System. Everything that we "see" (can detect) represents the past WRT our position in spacetime. We can't even detect "the present" with precision WRT activities going on in the room where we stand. Every meter of seperation between ourselves and what we are observing represents, at a minumum, 1/300,000,000 millionths of a second of seperation in spacetime. "Things" that we can detect that are one meter away, assuming that they are traveling near the speed of light, are at least a meter away from where we think they are besed on our observations. We have no clear idea about where they "really" are at the time that we make the observation.
 
The problem with Laplace's theory, and it was generally accepted at the time, is that it pre-dates quantum theory. From quantum physics we now know that even if someone were able to know the current state of every subatomic particle and field in the universe that given sufficient time predictibality of the future state of the universe would fail.
Click to expand...

Someone told me that Einstein said "God does not play dice". Did he say that because he hoped for a discovery that allowed quantum mechanics to work without probabilities?


On a more local scale, and somewhat Classical state, we can't even predict where the planets and moons in our Solar System will be if we try to predict them far enough into the future. Celestial mechanics are good predictors of objects in the Solar System only if we don't try to predict their positions too far into the future. Fifty years ago we couldn't even predict the position of the moon too far into the future because after just three days it is no longer where simple orbital mechanics would predict its position to be. There are just too many variables (about 100-150 variables go into predicting the moon's location to within 2 seconds of arc after three days).
Click to expand...

So when Laplace said "single formula" did he mean a single formula with billions of variables?

During the lifetime of Laplace Maxwell did fix the speed of light (no, Einstein did not fix the speed of light). In the mid-19th Century we were well aware that there was no way possible for anyone to know "the state of the universe" at any given time because the speed of light was fixed and not infinite. We cannot see the present state of the universe, other than by approximation, even within the Solar System. Everything that we "see" (can detect) represents the past WRT our position in spacetime. We can't even detect "the present" with precision WRT activities going on in the room where we stand. Every meter of seperation between ourselves and what we are observing represents, at a minumum, 1/300,000,000 millionths of a second of seperation in spacetime. "Things" that we can detect that are one meter away, assuming that they are traveling near the speed of light, are at least a meter away from where we think they are besed on our observations. We have no clear idea about where they "really" are at the time that we make the observation.
Click to expand...

Darby, I promise you I will never forget Maxwell now. I'm sure I've read his name dozens of times but if you asked me before I read your post, I wouldn't have been able to remember his name. Everything you said is interesting, and fun to visualize, which is why I'm not going to forget.

But would the position of "stuff", even if it was moving at light speed, not be the result of natural phenomenon that can be represented by a small number of immutable laws? (That's my attempt to paraphrase another Laplace quote on the same subject)


I want to read more of what Laplace wrote. Not books about him, stuff he actually published. Where's the best place for this? I'm also interested anything Charles Babbage wrote. Is there a site that contains old math/physics papers that you know of?

RainmanTime got me interested in this guy because he was talking about the LaPlace transform a lot, one day I went looking for LaPlace quotes and read that he wasn't the one who created the LaPlace transform, it was only named after him. But what I did read, made me want to see/learn more. (I don't even know who made the LaPlace transform hehe, I bet RMT knows though
)
 
bogz,

But would the position of "stuff", even if it was moving at light speed, not be the result of natural phenomenon that can be represented by a small number of immutable laws? (That's my attempt to paraphrase another Laplace quote on the same subject)
Click to expand...

No. The first problem with knowing the absolute position of "stuff" is the speed of light. By the time that we receive the information, even if it is transmitted to us at the speed of light, is that it is no longer where we preceive it to be...it has moved.

The second problem involves the core of quantum physics...the principle of uncertainty. There's an absolute maximum of information that we can know about both the position and velocity (energy) of an object. The more we know about one aspect the less we can be certain about the other aspect. This uncertainty goes beyond the fact that any action that we take to measure the position, velocity or energy involves doing something that adds or removes energy from the object under observation. The closer we get to knowing the absolute value of one aspect the more the observation affects the other aspect. In Classical physics we can ignore the problem because we are dealing with relatively large objects and relatively long periods of time (even if the relatively "long" period is thousands of seconds). This problem appears, as far as we can determine, a basic truth about the world around us...there is an absolute limit on how much information there is that we can rely upon the make predictions about the present, not to mention the future.

BTW: THe issue of uncertainty involves not just position and velocity. It involves any two calculations where one depends on the other...they tend to confound each other if you scale it down far enough. A gross example might be "where am I right now?". Sure, you can say that I am at the corner of A Street and 7th Avenue. But it that absolutely true? No. You are smeared out in that intersection (not because a Chevy truck hit you
). You occupy quadrillions of coordinates if you just refer to the position of every molecule of your body and assume that they aren't bodies in motion (which they are). The best that we can say is that on the whole we occupy a general location that is "good enough for government work" in the situation at hand...even though it is not absolutely acurate. Now try to locate something something several light years away.
 
So is the problem that we can't measure things, so we wont be able to test if the "simple formula" is working or not?

I don't understand the BTW, do you mean we don't have a coordinate system that lets us refer to any point in the universe?
 
I don't understand the BTW, do you mean we don't have a coordinate system that lets us refer to any point in the universe?
Click to expand...

Because the universe is E=MC2. It's relative to light and light is everywhere, it's not relative to any "thing" in the universe. There is no "you are here" to the universe.
 
Bransonian

So your are finally here.

1. Is divergence real as John Titor said?
2. Is Titorian C = ME^2 true?
3. Are you going to start you thread in the other section soon. Let keep this thread separate.

That all for now
 
Relative to light? I thought it was relative to velocity. Just add an extra element to your array. Instead of x,y,z it's x,y,z,v

Designer, I wouldn't ask this "Brasonian" about physics.... Stick to people who's credentials are public and who have established reputations. Oh, and JT is a hoax remember, I told you in the other thread....

Happy 777 everyone.
 
How can you equate the observer into the equation since in quantum mechanics the observer effects the result and have no idea how it will effect the result until it happens.

Your problem is to great a problem set. Why don’t you just write a game application using the language of you choice you will find great satisfaction with that I think? They are quantifiable mini world as they are. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
How do you quantify free will in an equation what would you use karma and grace as variable. I have known idea the processes in which I make my detailed decision in life, do you? These are the kind of thing you need to know in detail in making prediction in future event. Each person in a universe so how do you quantify all these universe we are all mysteries.
 
Your problem is to great a problem set.
Click to expand...

My problem is I could care less if someone else says it's too hard.

Why don’t you just write a game application using the language of you choice you will find great satisfaction with that I think? They are quantifiable mini world as they are.
Click to expand...

I have contributed to open source "games" and I gotta say, it's a lot more fun to work on a game with other people. I plan to start coding a game engine in the next couple years based on the World Wind source code (WW is like an open source google earth). My language of choice is C, 'cause a lot of the GNU apps I see are plain C. I'm a fan of all the GNU coders therefore I wanna use what they use. World Wind is C# though so it'll be extra effort to port it.

Oh but if you got like a million bucks I'll make a game for you, and I'll forget all about this ;-)
 
Back
Top