Jump to content

VinnieLT

Members
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by VinnieLT

  1. Looking back 10 years, it seems a little silly, eh? Yes, the dollar (and related economy) fell for a while. Pretty much the same as has happened in cycles for as long as records have been kept. But there was no "collapse". Though it was slow turning around, it was steady and mostly continuous. The recovery was led by the dollar (and related economy). And far from collapsing, check the 10-year history against the pound sterling or the euro: XE: USD / EUR Currency Chart. US Dollar to Euro Rates Predicting that cycles will continue to rise and fall or that a surprising historical event will happen or that an amazing scientific discovery will be announced are all like predicting that it'll hurt if I drop a bowling ball on my foot.
  2. So, is anyone willing to admit that they converted all of their dollars to Euros?
  3. How would it be possible to know that someone didn't use that Destination time tomorrow? I mean, sure, I could keep track of my own Destination times. But how could I know what that other guy in the competing group will choose tomorrow? Either there's a danger or there isn't. (Not great logic, but it'll do.)
  4. That's an interesting statement when you think about it. Does it mean "[('NO')] violations"? Or "no violations (beyond some threshhold)"? It interests me because of the implication that, in some experiment at some point, an actual violation happened with some measurable effect. If an effect was noted at that time, could it also have been noted by someone a year later? A century later? Would there be a difference of magnitude the farther along the time-line that you went? Would someone be irritated eventually? If so, what defense is there from someone in the future?
  5. "Zeshua" is God in the (supposed) sense that he creates new reality (new timeline) by sending messages into the past. I wonder what Zeshua in 2036 thinks of the time-quakes caused by Z-2026. I wonder if he smacks himself down for it.
  6. Re: Mallett's Miller Time problem Come to think of it, what happens to the Law of Conservation of Matter/Energy if I send a photon out of my time and into the past?
  7. It took a while before I was bored enough with meaningful stuff to come back here. Now I'll have to check whether or not the reply I'm interested in was posted six hours before this one. It ought to be easy since by "April 4th 2026" this post will already have been in existence for 20 years. That is, it existed in this thread when Z first started the thread -- at least in Z's time it already existed. Either that or Z doesn't exist in "2026". Z wakes up some morning and decides to check the internet archives. Lo and behold! This thread is there. But Z made the first post? Ah, well, such is time. Now, Z figures that our posting messages changes the timeline thereby affecting Z's present. Every action chosen today causes a new timeline. You choose, I choose, that Chinese kid chooses... pretty soon there's an infinite number of new timelines. It seems too bad that there is only a single one of all possible futures that has a Z in it. But wait... If that's true, then Z could never be in alternative timelines. Remember, new timelines would also be created by actions tomorrow or a year from now or in late March of 2026 thereby causing alternate Zs. In fact, Z would cause alternate timelines beginning at multiple points beginning April 3rd 2026! But if there's only one Z, that means that every alternate timeline created by Z must necessarily be one where Z simply ceased to exist, i.e., every timeline but the one where we have Z sending messages back here. Poor Z is certainly on shaky ground. Poofing out of existence at every timeline branch... (You'd think with odds like that, we'd notice it happening to people around us every once in a while, like every other second!)b And what's really interesting is that there's only one timeline out of all the infinite ( infinite! ) alternates that has time control and technology to communicate. Sad state of affairs. The chance of us progressing along that line is infinitesimal. I guess that's why it won't happen. You can't beat odds like that. Pure BS. How can people swallow it?
  8. You're right, I don't understand the math. Sorry, but I thought you were saying that this was a gravitational effect and that the apparent motion was somehow caused by spatial expansion. I could only make estimates of the duration of the pulse and it seemed that the apparent acceleration was similar to that that would result from the mass of a small planet given the duration. I'd say that was pretty intense for the volume -- your device is perhaps a liter? How 'intense' would you think a gravity field would be if it were that small and produced effects in the same order of magnitude as a strong magnetic field at those distances? I'd be interested in three additional videos. One, use a disk of similar shape and volume but made from, say, oak. Two, let a column of carbon smoke rise through the field. Three, let a thin stream of water run down freely through the field. Perhaps the math will become apparent.
  9. Too bad you can't supply the math, it would go a LONG way towards the simple visible evidence from your video that there is no 'anti-gravity' effect at all and certainly nothing resembling 'space expanding'. What you show has nothing to do with gravity, anti-gravity or 'space expanding' in any way. Your video refutes your claims. Such an intense gravity/anti-gravity field as could deflect your pendulums against the effect of the entire Earth right below you would produce visible evidence of warpage of space -- a kind of 'anti-gravity lens'. But the strings remain perfectly straight, the background remains undisturbed as the light from it passes through your field. The pendulums remain unwarped, the device remains clear and stable. I haven't examined your device, but I see no evidence that the effect is anything outside of what would normally be expected from an electro-magnetic pulsing. Create a device that produces an anti-gravity effect and your video will be much more interesting. BTW, I do _not_ subscribe to the view that the math is a necessary element. Much of our history involves discoveries that had no supporting math until centuries later. Unfortunately for you, mathematics is the language that most closely resembles the reality that we measure. It is the language that we use to communicate precisely to others even though it's not required to demonstrate principles -- models _can_ stand in place of math as long as anyone can build one and no trivial alternative explanation exists. But given the lack of _any_ evidence from you whatsoever, I'd say you better work on the math.
  10. Darby: Yes, you're speaking some sense here. This <font color="#666666">Zeshua[/color] character -- 'Z' -- can't even think successfully in four dimensions, much less be anyone likely to be given access to such technology. ( Of course, this is similarly true of everyone making similar claims, but we have a specific target in this thread. ) I started picking on him (probably "him", doesn't seem to be "her" from wordings used) simply because he was handy at the time. 'Z' appears totally oblivious to the future after his supposed time. Given the assumption that his supposed technology is possible, then any time in the future after his, the technology could be rediscovered by an uncountable number of others. It would never remain a secret "forever". 'Z' also seems to have bought into the mistaken idea of 'alternate futures'. That is, he proclaims that he won't divulge certain kinds of information. Now, there can be no possible reason for this because he would already know what the result would be since it would have already been divulged in his past. But he avoids doing so because he seems worried that it might somehow 'alter' the future time-line. This could only be valid if alternate futures were indeed be possible. But that leads to a problem... Where are they? I.e., where are those alternate futures? Where are all those alternates of OUR future where 'Z' made the alternate choice? Where are the posts from alter-'Z' that indicate that an alternate future really is possible? From the viewpoint of the present, we think in terms of a single time-line leading out of the past to NOW. We can also conceive of infinite alternative futures branching off from every instant of time that passes. But that means there would be uncountable alter-'Z's "already" in our "future" sending messages back to here. Yet there is only one claimant. Alternate futures are purely a product of our incomplete mathematics today. Where are the contradictory posts from an infinite number of alter-'Z's? No such posts exist because no alternate future exists. 'Z' can post any info and not change his supposed future in the slightest. Of course, 'Z' doesn't know that because he's sadly ignorant of the true issues of TT. He's doing nothing but attempting to suck in others who (1) are gullible and (2) also have no grasp of the issues. His ignorance betrays him when he doesn't post tomorrow's headlines for every day for the next month; it is a pointless avoidance. Well, pointless except for how blatantly it exposes the attempted hoax.
  11. Hey, I understand that you'll only say it one time... saying it twice would be pointless since you haven't made significant sense the first time. You clearly don't understand the technology of today well enough. How could you be expected to imagine what might be possible in 20 years? Throwing out terms such as "40-50 Teraflops" in the context of a problem that's supposedly "not as complicated" as I make it out to be is blatant smoke-screen stuff. (BTW, if 40-50 teraflops isn't the equivalent of a power-user desktop in 20 years, I'll be disappointed.) None of what you wrote makes the slightest difference and in fact seems to compound your problem. You've managed to admit the horrendous problem of precision without describing how you managed to get _our_ equipment in _our_ time to react as if a _two way_ communication (i.e., the communications protocols necessary on _this_ end) to view you as anything but random static. But all of that is neither here nor there. Here comes your _real_ problem -- I've stayed away for a while because it's otherwise a waste of time with you. I put these notes here to get others to realize how much of a waste of time you are. To demonstrate that, there's one small element that you can _easily_ do that will divulge no secrets from the future but that will prove (almost absolutely; I know of a couple ways around it but you apparently don't) you are who you claim to be: Since you already know the future of this forum (see: "information that was posted at TTI some years from now" in your post, and I couldn't help but notice your little mistake in "years from now"), please be so kind as to post your reply to this post six hours, plus or minus five minutes, before I post my next message in this thread. I'm not likely to add much more here for a while but I'll give you the 'plus or minus five minutes' so you can pretend that your precision isn't perfect. For you, it ought to be trivial. You claim to be able to control your connections down to a few milliseconds (remember TCP/IP two-way protocols?) I'll check back to see if your reply to _this post_ is waiting for me and to see what its timestamp was. Feel fortunate that I wouldn't expect you to reply to my _next_ post instead. I mean, you already know what's gonna be in it, right?
  12. Which doesn't affect the original question at all. It implies two potential outcomes that co-exist. Otherwise, there's no divergence at all, i.e., no, they don't "diverge". If divergence actually happens, then there are indeed two potential future timelines from a point just before the decision. Travelling into the future could potentially take either path. If it were not possible to take either path but only one path, then divergence does not in fact happen. The problem with divergence -- In the next room over, while the President sleeps, a personal secretary is on the verge of a decision. An instant before the President awakens and decides, the decision is made by the secretary in the next room. Therefore, assuming divergence due to decision, two Presidents now making decisions result in four future potential timelines. But down the hall, a Presidential aide has just recently chosen a tie from a rack of twenty ties. At least twenty potential futures came from that, so twenty personal secretaries gave rise to forty Presidents who created eighty potential timelines. Given the number of decisions being made every instant among all sentient beings in the universe, time travel forward would be impossibly complex within less than a millisecond -- if divergence happened. I'm pretty sure divergence is an irrelevant concept. (Hmmm... as I tried to decide what the right word was and then settled on "irrelevant", how many divergences happened?)
  13. Minor note... You think to raise your hand, and your hand rises. That is, because you thought, you caused electro-chemical action. Your mind directly affected matter, no matter how small the effect was. Perhaps only causing the motion of a few electrons, thereby breaking some chemical bonds, but it was mind-over-matter regardless of the magnitude. There can be no argument whether it happens or not. We all do it constantly.
  14. Except, of course: Approximately zero chance of that. 2.2 miles is not within any reasonable margin given the uncertainty of position after 20 years. Sheesh, 2 years is beyond possibility. We simply are not currently tracking orbital motions accurately enough today for you even to have historical data that would help you. And we definitely aren't tracking factors of perturbation. If we aren't tracking it, it doesn't exist for you to use. And we have no projects planned in the near future for such tracking. Algorithms won't work for this. Further, it needs to be a particular kind of "2.2 miles". E.g., 2.2 miles underground or behind any RF blocks renders it unusable -- there's no way around the 2-way communications necessary for the receiving end to reconstruct a valid TCP/IP conversation. Sure, on your end, you can handle the protocols and error-correction any way you wish; but you can't affect those factors on the receiving end. And I think it's pretty obvious that you haven't been causing RF emissions that would appear from thin air here of such magnitude as to overcome such an issue as being nowhere near 2.2 miles. Even considering a 2.2-mile radius, we're talking a 4.4-mile wide strong coverage. The FCC would be all over that. :P If you think you can cover up by trying to weasel out to "2.2 miles", you clearly know little about Wi-Fi and the actual related technologies. There's no possibility of you calculating even within 1000 miles, 10000 miles. We're not talking fancy time-travel math here; this is orbital mechanics for which math is well established. We already know it's impossible to calculate the position of a moving body (such as a comet) to within 2.2 miles six months out. Why? Because bodies don't move in a predictable fashion. A gamma-ray burst could impart energy at any instant that alters angular momentum slightly. After six months, 2.2 miles would be considered a lucky bull's-eye. That's why we have such trouble knowing whether a given asteroid is going to hit the Earth a few months out; and the Earth is far bigger than 2.2 miles wide. But 20 years? With no recent data? You're off your rocker.
  15. Yeah, right... in 2026. As if. I assume you realize that the Earth has moved some 1.6 million miles from where it was in its orbit around the Sun since yesterday? And I assume you know that the solar system has moved around the galaxy to a similar degree? ...and that the galaxy has moved through its local cluster to a similar degree? Etc., etc.? And that the variations in pressure from the Sun has caused uncountable variations in the Earth's orbit second by second? And that the Moon in orbit around/with the Earth has caused additional variations? And that interactions with other planets and all sorts of gravitational fields has caused even more uncountable variations? And that _NONE_ of these are currently being tracked to any significant degree so that no one in the future knows exactly where this planet was at this time? So, I assume you also realize that if someone from the year 2026 wanted to send a signal back through time, that the signal would also have to travel to a distant, incalculable point in space to account for all of the generally known but specifically unknown perturbations in motions in order to intersect at _precisely_ the right molecular time to enter a specific electronic circuit (whose absolute physical location isn't even known in THIS time right now) in order to cause a message to appear? If the entire planet couldn't be localized, I assume you know that the location of particular molecules in an electronic circuit is even less determinate. Get real. How can anyone have such a small life that wasting time with such a story would seem to be worthwhile to him? At least go to a forum that's dedicated to fantasy.
  16. Why do you have the idea that time "flows" at all? It doesn't. Time stands still -- it's always the same time. Time doesn't move; we move through it. Space doesn't move; we move through it. All of anything that makes it appear as if space or time are moving, all of it is simply perception, illusion if you will. All time is is an axis on a coordinate system so we can mark a position. The axis doesn't move any more than "up" or "down" move.
  17. How about thinking along a specific line? The device will allow you to travel back along your own life-time and you can stop for 30 minutes once. After 30 minutes, the device will begin to fail and you will be brought back to your real time. What will you take with you? At which point in your life will you stop? And what will you say to yourself? There are a few points I'd like to revisit. But which one...?
  18. Zeshua: I'm a bit new to this, so I'm also a little confused. You say you somehow inject/insert/whatever TCP/IP packets into some proxy/router/whatever here in our time. Now, that seems plausible enough, but... How do you manage to alter the actual physics of the device on this end so that it's able to return ACKs back to your time? (Cool! That'd mean you could reconfigure matter in this time to create a device that could send messages to the future!) And if you CAN'T do that, how do you keep it convinced to continue accepting each subsequent packet from you so that it manages to string each (unACK'd) packet together into a message? And if you CAN do that, how do you manage to change the physics in such a way that it only affects YOUR packets and none of the other packets that are passing through the adapter/circuit/whatever from other sources on the network without totally scrambling the whole set of TCP/IP conversations that are going on all the time? To point out exactly how bogus your BS is, please describe the major technical problem that needed to be overcome in order to send coherent information back to our time. Don't discuss the solution; just tell us the problem itself. And I don't mean the physics of sending info across 'time' -- that's a given for this discussion.
  19. I won't even mention the particular blatant flaws in this since one of them has already been discussed. It's sufficient to say that the entire original is a joke at best and a sad commentary on our common mathematical abilities at worst since the vast majority simply fall for it. So, I'll only add... When we understand 1, we automatically assume that we understand 2 because "1 and 1 is 2". But we too often forget "and".
  20. You're perhaps asking the wrong question. By asking in those words, you are implying that 'time' is a 'thing'. It is not. There "is" no such 'thing' as 'time'. You might as well ask "What is 'yellow'?" Yellow doesn't exist either; it is purely a generated illusion. Human eyes have red, green and blue color receptors and we technically can't even detect 'yellow'. The color is generated in the mind as a reaction to the balance between firings of the various color receptors. In fact, _everything_ you "see" is purely a mental construct. Photons strike your retina and cause electro-chemical reactions that get passed along and eventually result in an "image" being constructed in your consciousness. That _image_ is what you actually see. Hence, the truth to the idea that "What you see is *NOT* what is there." Hence, what you "see" is in fact an illusion. It is simply a very convincing image that represents some external objective reality. (The mystics are technically correct.) You definitely perceive that "image", whatever it is, as if it were totally outside of your head; but it isn't. Time is similar. It is purely a perceptive process, not a thing that can be manipulated. Your perception can be manipulated, however, and that allows the illusion of varying rates of time. Time doesn't move. It's always the same time --- Now. Time doesn't move. It stands still and we move through it as a perceptive process. But don't try to convince anyone of that 'cuz they _know_ it can't be true because their clocks "prove" it.
  21. But this isn't an enigma. Since it's fictional, it's asking "How can something that never happened happen?" There never was any watch, there never was any character who travelled back in time with a watch, there never was a young lady who received a watch from a time-traveller, there never was a woman who grew up to give a watch that she received from a time-traveller to the future time-traveller. It's a meaningless question, not an enigma.
  22. Mallett's Miller Time problem After "thought-experimenting" with Mallett's proposed device, I have a question. Can anybody direct me to a discussion of the following: So, say I build one of those things, start it up, then start up my ol' trusty photon detector and wait. Yow! Sure enough... out pops a photon from my Mallett time machine that looks to be exactly what I hoped to find. Yes! I like the way this photon looks, so I name it -- p[0]. It's Miller Time! I celebrate! The next morning, I wake up with a bit of a hangover, head back to my lab and turn on my photon detector again. Immediately, I capture another photon emitted from my time machine. I name it p[1]. But as I examine p[1], I start thinking that it looks suspiciously like p[0]. In fact, it looks so much like p[0] that I can't shake the feeling that they're the -same- photons at different times. What...? How could I have seen p[0] yesterday if I captured it today? Or, doesn't every photon p[n] have to pass through each day? Or, more directly, how does a signal sent in in the future know when to emerge? Won't _every_ particle emerge at the same instant, all super-imposed and jumbled, either at the instant I turn it on or at the latest instant that particles can emerge? We tend to think of "signals" serially; but this is _time_ we're thinking of here. Therefore, the real question: Is it reasonable that Mallett's time machine might both work perfectly and be absolutely worthless at the same time? In fact, if it does indeed work perfectly, won't it necessarily be absolutely worthless?
×
×
  • Create New...