Political Crossfire Forums

[Towie]

To put it easily...

http://home.flash.net/~csmith0/time.htm (yes more Kaku, hate me all you like, he is one of the most respected specialists in theoretical physics)

and for || universes, http://home.flash.net/~csmith0/bigbang.htm


Also, may I point out, that the question asked was "Is it possible to change the past?" It would really be safe to assume that Hyde expected us to change our own continuum.

Another point is that the "parallel universe" idea is extremely flawed. When you supposedly go back in time and change the past, you don't magically go into a new universe, nor does the current one branch off. This idea was made for the general public in scifi because it is so hard for people to stop looking at time as linear. I will not debate the idea of these universes, but we have yet to find a way to travel along time in our own universe, let alone pass through the "No Nothing" to reach another. It is much more important to realise that we can not change the past of our own universe, for the same reasons I posted before. It has "already" happened, and that is inevitable.


--Towie

[Towie]

Another thing I think is a necessary add is the highly requested information on John Titor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor

hahaha ;)


--Towie

[johnflesh]

Thank you for the link to J.Tidor, wasn't sure anyone would throw that up there.


There is a way to change the past. Time travel, not sure.

The past is simply a view on, well the past. What our brain collects as information is all the past will ever be once it is the past. To change it, is to simply think of differently. For example:

Johnny stole $5.00 from me today and I am really mad at him for doing so.

<a month goes by and you still feel the same way about Johnny, you see him as a thief, in your mind you can picture him going into your wallet and stealing the $5.00. You process this as an event in your past.>

After a month information surfaces that proves Johnny did not actually steal the $5.00. You now are forced to change your opinion of Johnny and thus changing the past (the vision of him actually stealing) to the new culprit who actually stole, thus changing the past.

The only thing you cannot change however, is the fact that the $5.00 was stolen.

[issaiah1332]

Towie wrote: To put it easily...

http://home.flash.net/~csmith0/time.htm (yes more Kaku, hate me all you like, he is one of the most respected specialists in theoretical physics)

and for || universes, http://home.flash.net/~csmith0/bigbang.htm


Also, may I point out, that the question asked was "Is it possible to change the past?" It would really be safe to assume that Hyde expected us to change our own continuum.

Another point is that the "parallel universe" idea is extremely flawed. When you supposedly go back in time and change the past, you don't magically go into a new universe, nor does the current one branch off. This idea was made for the general public in scifi because it is so hard for people to stop looking at time as linear. I will not debate the idea of these universes, but we have yet to find a way to travel along time in our own universe, let alone pass through the "No Nothing" to reach another. It is much more important to realise that we can not change the past of our own universe, for the same reasons I posted before. It has "already" happened, and that is inevitable.


--Towie

Funny that you mention Kaku, for he is a co-founder of string-field theory, the theory that mathematically points at multidimensions as well as a multiverse. The theory of parallel universes is not flawed at all, and you are pointing at a much different theory, a parallel universe is nothing more than a 4d membrane floating in a 11d hyperspace (Book by Kaku). So it is not flawed at all it is actually mathematically and scientifically sound. If you know relativity then you know that a wormhole is accurately predicted, as well as absolute on the quantum level. If you know Hawking and Kaku then you know that this wormhole could be an umbilical cord to a mother universe or even a baby universe. This could basically be a blackhole connected to a whitehole (the time reversal of a blackhole), one collecting matter and one expelling it. You seen to be pointing at the manyworlds interpretation. While this is also backed it is a little more faulty, but I do agree with this interpretation as well.[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation[/url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-theory



Take into account F-theory which makes room for 2 x axis (time) this could be interpreted as one past and one future and as you move through the y axis you progress through the 2 x axis. Now if you could make a wormhole from one axis to another you would be able to get from present to past or future...now I don't like this to much because it uses a block time type theory of simultaneity. It is something to think about.

[Towie]

I made no attempt to call the theories of parallel universes existing faulty. What I meant to say, if I was unclear, was that going into the past to change it cannot be done, seeing that you or I cannot create a new universe. As Kaku said himself, they spring to existence from No Nothing as it destabilizes. The energy problem is solved through the fact that true energy created is countered by gravity.

So let me rephrase: Another point is that the "parallel universe" idea in time travel is extremely flawed. When you supposedly go back in time and change the past, you don't magically go into a new universe, nor does the current one branch off, creating a new one. This idea was made for the general public in scifi because it is so hard for people to stop looking at time as linear. I will not debate the idea of these universes, but we have yet to find a way to travel along time in our own universe, let alone pass through the "No Nothing" to reach another. It is much more important to realise that we can not change the past of our own universe, for the same reasons I posted before. It has "already" happened, and that is inevitable.

[issaiah1332]

Towie wrote: I made no attempt to call the theories of parallel universes existing faulty. What I meant to say, if I was unclear, was that going into the past to change it cannot be done, seeing that you or I cannot create a new universe. As Kaku said himself, they spring to existence from No Nothing as it destabilizes. The energy problem is solved through the fact that true energy created is countered by gravity.

So let me rephrase: Another point is that the "parallel universe" idea in time travel is extremely flawed. When you supposedly go back in time and change the past, you don't magically go into a new universe, nor does the current one branch off, creating a new one. This idea was made for the general public in scifi because it is so hard for people to stop looking at time as linear. I will not debate the idea of these universes, but we have yet to find a way to travel along time in our own universe, let alone pass through the "No Nothing" to reach another. It is much more important to realise that we can not change the past of our own universe, for the same reasons I posted before. It has "already" happened, and that is inevitable.

Why couldnt you go into another universe...if wormholes are umbelicle cords why oculdn't you use them to reach another universe. If they took you into say the time of WW II and you happened to appear beside Hitler, then this would be your present...why couldn't you kill hitler and thuse change the past, in that respect.

[Towie]

Because if you did, you would never have gone back to kill him in through time travel in the first place. Stop looking at it so linearly, and stop trying to make it so simple as a new universe being created when you pop back in time.

If you went back from the future to try to kill Hitler, you would have known about it before you ever did it.

[Hyde]

Towie wrote: Because if you did, you would never have gone back to kill him in through time travel in the first place. Stop looking at it so linearly, and stop trying to make it so simple as a new universe being created when you pop back in time.

If you went back from the future to try to kill , you would have known about it before you ever did it.

but if it already happened, why would you need to do it. :wink:

i wouldnt go back in time to kill lincoln if he was already killed now would i. :wink:

i do not want to imply that i would kill lincoln. he was the first person to pop into my mind.

[issaiah1332]

Towie wrote: Because if you did, you would never have gone back to kill him in through time travel in the first place. Stop looking at it so linearly, and stop trying to make it so simple as a new universe being created when you pop back in time.

If you went back from the future to try to kill Hitler, you would have known about it before you ever did it.

You are right that is where parallel universe theory comes into play!!!! If you understand physics or mathematics (In terms of M-theory) then you know that parallel universes are needed and they do resolve the problem!!!!

[sparsely]

You can't go to the past because we've brought it with us.
It's already here.
So is the future.

Behold.

[issaiah1332]

sparsely wrote: You can't go to the past because we've brought it with us.
It's already here.
So is the future.

Behold.

WTF!!??

[sparsely]

Should I write it slower?

[issaiah1332]

sparsely wrote: Should I write it slower?

Maybe you should elaborate.

[Towie]

In response to the parallel universe theory... again.

You must realize that going back in time does not put you in a parallel universe, nor does it create one. Also, please do not quote the M-Theory to support your assumption that traveling into the past would create another universe. The M-Theory is the theory that unifies the five sound superstring theories, it does not prove nor does it define the physics of parallel universes. It merely assumes their existence to aide its definition. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory )

Without sufficient proof that parallel universes can pop-up and dissapear with a little time travel, your argument, the argument that sprang from bad sci-fi television, holds no ground. Good sci-fi doesn't try to sidestep the real ramifications of time travel. Try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%27s_Arrow_%28TNG_episode%29 . Maybe even watch the episode. Data gives a perfect explination, if, of course, you can handle the complexities.

In short, the past cannot be changed. You can travel there, you can observe, you can even alter the normal course of things, but it will only aim it in the direction of the past you knew before you even got into your time machine.

[locke862]

Time travel refers to quantum mechanics which is what I think one of the most confusing subjects to ever tap into.

[Towie]

I must agree that it is quite difficult to understand everything that is involved in quantum mechanics, since it is really a form of physics that changes the regular rules at high speeds or extremely small calculations. It can really explain why physics can sometimes fail us, in the larger sense. It is just the current step in the physicists quest to find the unifying rule of the universe. To join all four forces into one formula, dropping the constants. It's too bad that the closest they have come to one is so long a formula that it's useless.

On a side note, did you pick Locke as an alias at random, or did you get the idea from the Ender series? Just a question. I for one love those books, especially the Bean quartet. Following the journey of Locke/Demosthenes/Peter to the top is very entertaining.


--Towie

[issaiah1332]

Towie wrote: In response to the parallel universe theory... again.

You must realize that going back in time does not put you in a parallel universe, nor does it create one. Also, please do not quote the M-Theory to support your assumption that traveling into the past would create another universe. The M-Theory is the theory that unifies the five sound superstring theories, it does not prove nor does it define the physics of parallel universes. It merely assumes their existence to aide its definition. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory )

Without sufficient proof that parallel universes can pop-up and dissapear with a little time travel, your argument, the argument that sprang from bad sci-fi television, holds no ground. Good sci-fi doesn't try to sidestep the real ramifications of time travel. Try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%27s_Arrow_%28TNG_episode%29 . Maybe even watch the episode. Data gives a perfect explination, if, of course, you can handle the complexities.

In short, the past cannot be changed. You can travel there, you can observe, you can even alter the normal course of things, but it will only aim it in the direction of the past you knew before you even got into your time machine.

If you use a wormhole, that according to relativity exists, then you will be able to go to a different place in space and time. Therefore you could end up in a different universe as well as a different time. Maybe they just dont spring up, but maybe they already exists and a wormhole is the bridge to get there. As you probably know there is finite amount of matter in the universe and there for a finite amount of ways it can arrange itself, so somewhere in the universe or multiverse you exist. So you could use a wormhole to get there and t=you may just be an infant, and you could kill your parallel self and alter nothing but you parallels self's worldline.

[Towie]

Wormholes are generally accepted to transfer within a universe, not so much between universes.

Also, if you did end up in the past in a parallel universe you couldn't change the past, because it wouldnt be your past. Thus, the point is still that you can't change the past.

[issaiah1332]

Towie wrote: Wormholes are generally accepted to transfer within a universe, not so much between universes.

Also, if you did end up in the past in a parallel universe you couldn't change the past, because it wouldnt be your past. Thus, the point is still that you can't change the past.

You could kill your parallel self, thus changing you parallel self's past. I never said that you can change your past in the sense of going back in time and planting your dad's sperm in marilyn monroe's body, and then growing up to be rich. I simply met that you can change A past.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

The best way to change the past is to rewrite the past.