Than perhaps you will find happiness in the thought that somewhere, in a different universe, he is president again, and you are his wife ;).

Basicly, in a different universe, everything is possible. Which, in itself, is also a paradox, but enough paradoxes for the day .

Mr U

__________________

Bah, I'm interested, but I'm not going to sort through hundreds of links. If you know of a good article or good site (or good search engine ) then I'd be grateful if you shared it with me
I understood the claim about the multiple universes and timelines, but I still don't understand how you think time travel is achievable. Also why you think it must be...

Continuing on that train of thought, on the assumption that the actual act of traveling through time is achievable; if I went for a ride on another one of my timelines for, say, a week - would you say that if I felt like coming back to my previous timeline, I would go there and be considered missing a week? Just trying to see if I understand your logic correctly. Seems to me like timeline-travel doesn't have the paradox that time-travel has, but I still don't see why you think this is physically possible... this kinda thing would sorta cheapen life though wouldn't it? Reminds me a bit of "6th Day"... terrible movie that...

Yeah, but we all travel at the same speed. The question is whether or not we can move against this speed (i.e. back through time) or faster than it, like Archie interestingly suggested...

You see, this is the point where I stop understanding how time-travel works; when people start speaking words neither they nor I understand. Please elaborate and explain...
Lets say that I agree with the general claim that creating a mini-universe would be very helpful. Now, how exactly are mini-universes created and if you have no clue in hell what makes you think that this is possible? Anything beyond Star-Trek?


Personally, I don't believe in time-travel, but that's largely because of my religion so you guys will probably have trouble agreeing with me since it's sort of a package deal Some things are enough to prove other things sorta thing... anyway, I believe that a human will not be able to change the past, at least not by his own power, but that the fact that something has happened does not mean it is unchangable - for instance, if you hear of some kind of a disaster where someone close to you might have been injured, the fact that the disaster has already happened doesn't mean you cannot do anything to affect the security of your loved one (and I don't mean like health, I mean the actual moment of danger - what's happened there...) - as long as you don't know what has happened you can do certain things like pray to try and safeguard your loved one.
Actually, now that I think about it this doesn't necessarily go against the separate time-lines theory. Actually, it has nothing to do with it. But I'll leave the last paragraph anyway just as a personal thought.

__________________

Imagine you have two sheets of paper. Each represents a universe at one point in time (including time now would make the model incomprehensible). On these pieces of paper live 2D people. They leave their houses through 2d doors.

These two sheets of papers are aligned next to each other. See below.

[] []

Imagine them lying on a table in 3d space. There is no way one of the people living in 2d to travel, or even see anything that is going on in the other universe.
Now imagine one person on the right sheet is called HomoUniversalis and has just developed a time-travel device. He activates the device, and creates a bubble (in actual 3D!!! This mean we would create a 4D bubble if we would travel but I'm too tired to explain the complications). This bubble moves through 3d space, and his sensors detect the other piece of paper. He than crashes into the paper, and tada, he has traveled to the other sheet of paper.

I mentioned sensors in this model. This is one of the problems there would be. I have no idea how we should be able to detect where another universe is, and at what time it is.

What goes for 2D, also goes for us. We enter a 4D realm, and we can re-enter 3D. Read Flatlanders for more 2D humour.

Hope that helped ,

Mr U

__________________

Some crazy theories going on here. I plan to study these, along with a Chemistry major, when I head to college this Fall. I enjoy reading all of your theories, but I have neither the energy or the time to reply my theories. Maybe later.

BTW, thread moved to Science and Technology.

__________________

Finally I couldnt find this thread......
HU we may disagree on our theories on time travel, however if in the futur if it became possible, who in the world will be the person to use it, knowing that no matter who uses it the timeline will change futur or past, unless the timeline was meant for time travel to occur, which would explain why people keep knocking on my door asking if they can use the Sub-sonic frequency emmiter, Im geussing its some sort of communication device....

Whoa how this thread has changed!

Now FYM, there's this problem in your analysis of the original topic: the question of which rule to bend. On one hand you have an infinite number of throws and an infinite number of balls. On the other you have the inevitability of midnight. I must remind you however that the beginning of the question already put it in the purely hypothetical (and thus just plain fun) region of infinity by allowing for an infinite number of balls outside. Thus infinity is achievable both in throws and number of balls in the room, while midnight is still inevitable. Zero still cannot be an answer.

Now HU: you're also on shaky ground. While your points make sense, they are purely theoretical and belong in the same region as the Big Bang. For one thing, the multiple tree branches theory is hard to accept since it gets very close to the 'infinite universes' theory which is hard to entertain, practically, as more than a sci-fi idea. For all we know, Hawking might be right in his stand that nature would never allow time to be breached.
I'm also not sure of this travelling back in time thing, besides firstly the impossibility of countering the infinite mass needed to achieve lightspeed. Let's not forget tachyons: technically they'd be anti-time, if they exist.
But I digress. I still don't see how you go back in time instead of going through the time dilation effect. Basically the rate of time can be altered and is relative yes, but there is hardly any proof that it can go to zero and beyond. Everything I've read has not posited it before, even, if I recall, Hawking's book.

__________________

Sorry for the double post...

To answer a few questions you raised, FYM.
Firstly the many questions you raised are the arguments against the 'Time is a Tree' theory. That's what keeps it, and all else, just theories. There's also this: the formation of the various branches in this tree also follows its own timeline: various branches are formed at various conflicting time, and at some point certain branches cannot be formed till another branch has been...but 'when' will this branch be formed? Intrigueing, no?

Warp field. I loved Star Trek for this: they used real physics as much as possible for their science. The problem with going to lightspeed is that you have to achieve infinite mass to do so: that is impossible. Thus, they utilise a 'warp field' consisting of a series of field layers peeling off the ship, formed by the (mainly) two blue-glowing thingies called Warp coils, to both reduce the Ship's theoretical mass and push it into a region of space called subspace. How and how fast the field layers (like that of an onion) peel off determine its speed. And like all forms of science this has its own limit in physics: the Warp speed curve follows an exponential extending to an impossible infinity at Warp 10 i.e. you are everywhere at once at Warp 10. As of now, only the Borg are capable of doing that, and in a limited fashion.
Lecture over. ;)

__________________

Simple it will be infinity.
Infinity can not run out and infinity can not multiply.
Infinity has a sign of an 8 on its side.
Atleast it looks like an eight.
That means its endlessly looping no matter how many balls the dude throws back.
You can not run out of infinity.

Simple.
You cant have less than zero.
And zero times 2 is still zero.
Same with infinity but a little different.
Infinity is UNendable.
The definition of infinity is that it can not end.

Cheers
NXM

__________________

I didn't make that up, Macleod. It are simply the laws of Quantum Physics.

However if time is indeed a 'tree'. There are an infinite amount of universes that lead to an event in which our universe is altered. Opposed to that, there is also an infinite amount of universes that halt this alteration, allowing nature to flow naturally.
If we could actively destoy one of these universes, we could actually change the history of our own universe, without making a branch. since infinitity minus infinitey plus one, is one. So there would be one universe leading to an alteration. Perhaps we are actively responsible for the creation of the Big Bang!

Traveling back through time is a pickle. We have no idea what practically happens at the speed of light. We just don't bloody know. Untill we know, however, I'm against experimenting. I'd rather not have 'Planet of the Apes'-scenarios .

Mr U

__________________

That's true indeed. Anyway I admit I've said it rather wrongly: your theory meaning the theory you've followed, not wholly yours, of course. I doubt none of us humble MM-ers can claim to be quantum physicists. () In any account like I said, their theory (not law), has alot of flak, the first as I've said being the not generally accepted 'infinite universes' idea.

__________________