Hello

[LordFishsticks]

Allo, im new here. As for my intentions, lets just say time travel...interests me...

 

My name is LordFishsticks, or you can call me fish if you want. I found this site looking for places to upload my theories on time-travel and maybe get some critisizm back on them. Also, i have some ideas on un-related topics that i might be posting abroad. hope to get some feedback.

 

~~back to the main subject~~

 

To get this started, i believe that the time travel theories here[the A/B/C/D things] are lacking one.

 

Suppose that you do succeed in going backwards, or forwards, in time, and you are able to get there without incident[ie, blowing up the universe]. Theoretically, within the concepts of time travel itself, it describes how this would happen quite clearly, to me anyways[this is my interpertaion.

 

Theory Fishsticks:

 

You succeed, go back, and there becomes a loop in the time stream for that amount of time, since your specific harmonic resonance that is part of the time-space string that moves our universe about, and you just keep going. Suppose that time does repeat itself infinately[as some believe], then you would infinately go through that loop, otherwise it would just be another mark in the history of the universe. This would cause the fact that if you were to die, but you saw yourself die and tried to go into the future to prevent your death, succeed, go back, and see you watch yourself die and then dissapear going off onto your task, would just create an endless loop of you watching yourself watch yourself die, though it would be a "different" person each time. Sevvy? if this is confusing, just ask and ill try to clear up whatever i can.

 

Also, as to the fact of blowing up the universe, if we suppose that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed and manipulated, then how is the universe constantly expanding? Where is all this extra matter coming from? white holes attached to other universes by black-holes that are eating up the matter and spewing it out at us? If this is true, then why dont we decrease at just as fast a rate with the amount of black holes we have, and if were getting more then were givig away, wouldnt that mean that we would eventually run out of "gas" and start to implode? Going by this idea, if we were to add/take away matter, it would just cause a small variance in the harmonic fields that would even out by our universe getting smaller/larger in response.

 

If i were to use Dr. VonSchnelling's idea about the bucket, it would be more like a balloon that we will eventually have to stop inflating due to lack of oxygen to fill it with, and the time travellers would be like a leak or a little bit extra that it could take in/give out.

 

this is just a bit of my thoughts, but i dont feel like typing em all down right now, especially since i dont have them all about me at the moment. heh

 

 

[Keven]

i never really understood the whole universe is expanding, i mean what is it expanding into??

 

 

[RenUnconscious]

that was a really confusing post. I would just like to say however, the Universe is expanding but that doesn't mean its gaining matter. Only that things are getting further apart. Imagine a bomb blowing up in outer space, each second you record all of the fragments they are further away from the initial explosion. there aren't magically More fragments or More mass. its just further apart.

 

 

[LordFishsticks]

now then, i thought of that too, but if you think about it, everything is getting farther away true, but where is the extra space coming from for it to get farther away to?

 

 

[RainmanTime]

where is the extra space coming from for it to get farther away to?

Noted physicist John Archibald Wheeler provided some thoughts that may help answer this question:

'Spacetime tells matter how to move. Matter tells spacetime how to curve.'

 

In other words, Space (and Time) cannot and do not exist without Matter (Mass). What we perceive as the "separate" dimensions of Mass, Space, and Time are really just different aspects of Energy.

 

RMT

 

 

[RenUnconscious]

but where is the extra space coming from for it to get farther away to?

what extra space? I think you are confusing space with Air here on earth. Or perhaps just with a Gas in general.

Space is the absence of that, meaning, it is just a void, empty, nothingness. This may be hard for you to comprehend. And unfortunately, there appears to be no end in sight, meaning the universe could theoretically expand forever. There's no wall at the end, no bubble that says the universe can't get any bigger. And the infinite of the emptiness of space is almost impossible for any human being to comprehend so I do understand where you are coming from.

 

 

[LordFishsticks]

i was saying this:

 

for there to be nothing there has to be something for the nothing to be in. I am just saying this in regards to the theory that the universe is [and i think people look this fact over when they read my posts] constantly expanding . for this to happen, there has to be something that is creating more room for the space to occupy.

 

 

[RenUnconscious]

You are approaching a philosophically advanced way of thinking. This I can tell. "For there to be nothing there has to be something for the nothing to be in."

 

This is the ying/yang of it all. Think about the big bang, 1 trillionth of a second before it there was nothing. But if there is nothing at all there is no time. So 1 trillionth of a second could be a trillion years or more. it could be forever. Then all the matter in the entire universe enters this space in a fraction of a second. Explodes possibly even faster than the speed of light and not even a single element was around for 800,000 years or more, not even Hydrogen.

 

You keep thinking its expanding because there is more matter.

 

What really happened is all the matter came in that one point in space, the big bang, all at once. It exploded, its moving away, there is not more or less of it, its just moving further away. There just happens to be all this empty space all around it so it can keep exploding forever. Or eventually be pulled back in to start again. Thats the only debateable point.

 

 

[Einstein]

RMT

 

Noted physicist John Archibald Wheeler provided some thoughts that may help answer this question:

'Spacetime tells matter how to move. Matter tells spacetime how to curve.'

 

In other words, Space (and Time) cannot and do not exist without Matter (Mass). What we perceive as the "separate" dimensions of Mass, Space, and Time are really just different aspects of Energy.

I think you understand it just as I do. I came up with a hypothesis that time and space are extensions of matter. There has to be some type of closed loop action going on to sustain everything. Space is being swallowed up close to bodies with mass creating gravity. But there has to be some process going on creating the space. Obviously it is being created faster than it can be absorbed. Seems to coincide with the arrow of time also. My candidate for the creation of the extra space would of course be the sun.

 

 

[RenUnconscious]

My candidate for the creation of the extra space would of course be the sun.

what are you talking about? What extra space? space is space there is not any extra of it. and "the sun" is very vague. Which one? ours? the 400 billion others in the milky way? a star in another galaxy? A Supernova thats already exploded to give birth to our star over 5 billion years ago?

 

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi Ren,

 

What extra space? space is space there is not any extra of it.

I get the feeling that you are of the opinion that "space is empty" or "space is just a bunch of nothing". At least that is the way it comes across. Are you aware of investigations into the "Zero Point Vaccuum", which (in a nutshell) claim that space is not as empty as we perceive it, but is rather a seething "ocean of energy".Not sure if you caught a post of mine awhile back in which I discussed my thoughts that Mass, Space, and Time are each just different manifestations of Energy, where the difference between the three is based upon frequency. Mass = lowest freq, Space = middle freq, and Time = highest freq.

RMT

 

 

[RenUnconscious]

Rainman,

 

I do not think space is empty, not the space the universe currently inhabits. Its got trace amounts of gas, ions, radiation, particles, the echo of the big bang, radio waves, etc all flowing through it. However lets just say you could measure for any of this in space that is in front of the big bang. for the furthest galaxy on the fringes of the known universe. If you could measure the space in front of the big bang it would be more than likely empty. Until the matter, radiation, radio waves, etc etc pass through that region.

 

this sounds like a bumbled reply I will quit now.

 

 

[Rhudey]

I have read about the theory that space is finite and that if you tried to leave it you would eventually travel in a circle. I believe I read this in Stephen Hawkings a Brief History of Time, although I am sure I am not doing it justice.

 

 

[Einstein]

RenUnconcious

 

what are you talking about? What extra space? space is space there is not any extra of it. and "the sun" is very vague. Which one? ours? the 400 billion others in the milky way? a star in another galaxy? A Supernova thats already exploded to give birth to our star over 5 billion years ago?

Every sun in the universe would contribute to the production of more space. We know for a fact that the universe is expanding. Lets talk about space. Close to the earth space is supposed to be curved contributing to the force of gravity. So you could say this special kind of space attracts you to the earth. In all likelihood there is more than just one kind of curved space. Inward curvature and outward curvature. The other kind of space would tend to push things apart. And its presence is indicated by the fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. So you see I don't look at space as being nothing. We keep coming up with new ways all the time to measure and indicate properties of space.

 

 

[OllyB]

Also people assume that after the Big bang, when space began to start 'expanding' from then on, its expansion was that of the material universe. The universe is what we can see, therefore it must be expanding.

 

In fact it may well be that the Universe expanded at a much faster rate (i.e. appeared beyond measurable processes of physics). That the material universe itself is not expanding, rather spreading out into 'space' that already exists for it to spread out into.

 

There could well be many more layers of the universe that are created for the very purpose of lying in wait to hold this expansion, rather 'spreading out'.

 

In otherwords the universe is spreading out rather then actually growing. Its spreading out into into the superuniverse thats was already the size it was even at the point of the big bang.

 

We also don't know how much of the unknown universe existed before the 'Material' universe came into being in the form of the big bang. Being non 'material' these parts of the universe don't need to abide by material processes such as a 'big bang' of energy. In this case these parts of the universe wouldn't even 'expand' as this is a material process.

 

If i set off a bomb in a warehouse with all the lights switched off, you'd think the engergy of the blast was expanding into nothingness (the energy representing the what we can 'see' and 'know'). you'd think the energy of the blast was growing space (expanding, where before there was nothing). When in fact its just spreading out into the space of the warehouse. Its just you cant see the warehouse, because all the lights are out. So you don't think it exists.

 

maybe that was a poor analogy, but its next to impossible to get something like this across in a cohesive way.

 

of course this leads you to ask, who built the warehouse and how did that component come into play.

 

Kind regards,

 

Olly.

 

 

[RenUnconscious]

In otherwords the universe is spreading out rather then actually growing. Its spreading out into into the superuniverse thats was already the size it was even at the point of the big bang.

Olly, thank you for basically agreeing with me. Just because the universe is expanding doesn't mean its becoming more massive, its just spreading out and filling in the space that was already there at the point of the big bang.

A Lot of computer time, millions of years of it, have gone into equations trying to predict the big bang, and so far the only one that makes sense is that shortly after the big bang, because of the gravity, speed, mass, nature of the atoms, temperature, etc. The big bang may have "exploded" faster than the speed of light, slowed down, and then according to einsteins Universal Constant is now pushing itself further apart, faster, basically Accelerating again.

 

does anyone else think Gravity isn't so much as an attractive force as a repelling force? Maybe we are all being pushed down to the planet by gravity. who knows, gravity is very mysterious, the most mysterious force in the universe.

 

ps : I want my antigrav hoverboard and car by the year 2020!!!

 

 

[Einstein]

RenUnconcious

 

does anyone else think Gravity isn't so much as an attractive force as a repelling force? Maybe we are all being pushed down to the planet by gravity. who knows, gravity is very mysterious, the most mysterious force in the universe.

My specialty. Have you seen "The Experiment" thread over at anomalies.net in the time travel section? Here is a link to an mpg file I made:

Gravity

 

In my opinion gravity is just as Einstein stated. Curved space. Like a hole where the dimension of length is swallowed up. The only thing different is that I don't believe it is a property of space around bodies with mass. The gravity effect is being caused by a signal received. And that signal may not be local. I suspect our sun is broadcasting the signal that causes gravitation in our neck of the woods.

 

ps : I want my antigrav hoverboard and car by the year 2020!!!

You know I checked around and found out people would be willing to pay 500 dollars for one of those. Should I start taking orders?

 

 

[RenUnconscious]

What signal?

 

I tend to think of space as more of a repulsive vacuum, than a, well, ummmm, a Sucking vacuum. I tend to think of gravity as the space that compacts the mass around it, pushes it towards a central point. This would always tend to be spherical in shape the larger the mass.

 

 

[Einstein]

RenUnconcious

 

What signal?

I tend to think of space as more of a repulsive vacuum, than a, well, ummmm, a Sucking vacuum. I tend to think of gravity as the space that compacts the mass around it, pushes it towards a central point. This would always tend to be spherical in shape the larger the mass.

If you watched the video, you heard a noise in the background. That was the sound my tesla coil makes. It creates a voltage signal in space. The shape of the signal is a chopped voltage wave with just the decreasing segment of the wave being constantly repeated in space. There is no magnetic wave at all. The chopped voltage wave would be the signal in this experiment that caused the objects to curve the space around them thus causing the gravitation. This is my interpretation of what is going on. And this is only one week old, so the interpretation can change over time. But if you have studied gravity at all you would know that gravity cannot impart energy to an object, otherwise it would violate conservation laws. So by definiton gravity does not push or pull on an object. All the action is done on the space around the object. You could interpret that action to be length changing in the decreasing direction around objects. That is my interpretation. But then I did use this line of reasoning to predict the outcome of the experiment before I actually performed the experiment. So more than likely I will incorporate length changing theories into future experiments. Seems to be a successful approach so far. And using this approach it becomes obvious to me that there would be a way to make an opposite type voltage wave making space curve the other way causing objects to gravitate away from each other. Antigravity. I want a hoverboard and a Jetson car too. It would be nice to generate enough interest in this technology to make it happen.

 

 

[RainmanTime]

Way to go, Einstein!

 

But if you have studied gravity at all you would know that gravity cannot impart energy to an object, otherwise it would violate conservation laws. So by definiton gravity does not push or pull on an object. All the action is done on the space around the object.

Exactly. And what is amazing to me is how "mainstream science" accepted Newton's non-conservational, unidirectional model of gravity for so long. Just because the equations seem to give you the right answer (when the appropriate universal gravitational constant, fudge factor, is applied) does NOT mean the equations are correct...only that they seem to model what we perceive.Now that Pioneer is leaving the influence of our solar system, we are starting to see the evidence that gravity is NOT unidirectional. And this data from Pioneer comes at an appropriate time, as we are also now verifying that the universe is accelerating its expansion, which obviously provides evidence for an anti-gravitating, opposite force to what we have always thought of as "unidirectional gravity".

I know I am not as smart as I would like to be, and certainly not as smart as many people who are deeper into these investigations. However, I am smart enough to both see and KNOW that we are on the verge of a MASSIVE "a ha!" in the coming years. And mark my words, we SHALL come to understand that Mass, Space, and Time cannot be fully comprehended until we understand that they are all completely related and integrated. The concept of the Heisenberg Uncertainty with regard to momentum and position is the biggest "clue" that this is true. You cannot separate-out any one element of physical reality (Mass, Space, or Time) and expect to have complete knowledge of any of them! They must be taken as a whole. And this is precisely why Conservation of Energy is the "perfect" law, because Energy does not attempt to differentiate the elements of what I call Massive SpaceTime.

 

And...as much as Creedo likes to tell me how "wrong" I am about Massive SpaceTime, I have yet to see him offer his MATHEMATICS (beyond high school level, please) that would show me how I am wrong.

 

Space is a vector. Mass is a vector. Time is a vector. When you integrate them together, you get a complete, balanced, 3x3 = 9 dimensional TENSOR field. Anyone who has studied tensor mathematics will see that this is a very real possibility. And I think there is a certain amount of elegance and balance achieved when we start to see Mass and Time as vectors, just as we identify Space.

 

RMT

 

 

[Einstein]

RMT

 

Exactly. And what is amazing to me is how "mainstream science" accepted Newton's non-conservational, unidirectional model of gravity for so long. Just because the equations seem to give you the right answer (when the appropriate universal gravitational constant, fudge factor, is applied) does NOT mean the equations are correct...only that they seem to model what we perceive.

Now that Pioneer is leaving the influence of our solar system, we are starting to see the evidence that gravity is NOT unidirectional. And this data from Pioneer comes at an appropriate time, as we are also now verifying that the universe is accelerating its expansion, which obviously provides evidence for an anti-gravitating, opposite force to what we have always thought of as "unidirectional gravity".

The way I've been doing this is to make an observation. Interpret the observation. And then mathematically describe the interpretation. So basically the math is only going to be as good as the interpretation. The interpretation is the theory. If the theory is incomplete or lacking then the math will reflect that. So basically it is the observation that is the fact. Everything else is mans attempt at comprehension.

Now as for Pioneer not being where calculations say, well that's an observation. A new interpretation is needed. There is something I have noticed in my experiments that could be relevant. I've been mapping the fields around my tesla coil during operation, and I find that the voltage fields terminate. They don't extend out to infinity. If gravity parallels this behavior, then we have a real big job ahead of us, to come up with a math model that could show how this could be.

 

And mark my words, we SHALL come to understand that Mass, Space, and Time cannot be fully comprehended until we understand that they are all completely related and integrated. The concept of the Heisenberg Uncertainty with regard to momentum and position is the biggest "clue" that this is true. You cannot separate-out any one element of physical reality (Mass, Space, or Time) and expect to have complete knowledge of any of them! They must be taken as a whole. And this is precisely why Conservation of Energy is the "perfect" law, because Energy does not attempt to differentiate the elements of what I call Massive SpaceTime.

Oh yes, they have a relationship. I think Einstein pointed out that time space and mass undergo varying changes with relative motion. Now I do have to disagree about not being able to separate out any one element of physical reality. Mainly because there are observations to support the idea that a separation can take place. At the speed of light time is supposed to stop. That would take time completely out of the picture. But the mass would still be there. It probably wouldn't have an infinite value because infinity seems to be an imaginary consept that just isn't paralleled in reality. I like to think that stopped time is what makes mass stable.

 

Space is a vector. Mass is a vector. Time is a vector. When you integrate them together, you get a complete, balanced, 3x3 = 9 dimensional TENSOR field. Anyone who has studied tensor mathematics will see that this is a very real possibility. And I think there is a certain amount of elegance and balance achieved when we start to see Mass and Time as vectors, just as we identify Space.

What I find really amazing is that nature doesn't seem to have a problem coming up with some things that just defy imagination. The one thing I remember is something really basic like a point. In math it is alawys given. How can you justify its existance? Where did it come from? Then if you look toward nature you will see clues as to how a point is created. A gravity field defines a point. Something as simple and basic as a point probably shouldn't be so simple. Apparently there are rules to abide by to allow the existance of that point. Nature probably provides all the clues we need to make our math work.

 

 

[RenUnconscious]

I like to think that stopped time is what makes mass stable.

I'd like to think that you're wrong.

You cannot accelerate mass To the speed of light and even if you get Mass moving faster, through some sort of a worm hole, time is always around you.

 

A gravity field defines a point.

What? guess I've never heard of this physics before. to my knowledge we have a very limited understand of gravity, so basic in fact that the first experiment to test it was recently launched into orbit.

 

 

[Einstein]

RenUnconcious

 

I'd like to think that you're wrong.

You cannot accelerate mass To the speed of light and even if you get Mass moving faster, through some sort of a worm hole, time is always around you.

I might remind you that it is just an idea I had. But the idea fits the observed behavior. I know we do not have a way to accelerate something to the speed of light. But that doesn't mean nature hasn't found a way. I have given considerable thought to the subject of time. Time appears to flow when energy is released. It doesn't flow at the same rate in every location. Kind of like there is a regulator mechanism in place somewhere. Einstein showed that time is relative. That does suggest that each and every reference frame has its own time flow rate. And you can take that line of reasoning right down to the atomic particles. So if each small particle of matter has its own time flow rate, then I suppose some of those particles could have a very sluggish time flow rate. Maybe sluggish enough to make us think time was stopped. Mass is stored energy. But it only remains stable at certain values. So just maybe those certain values could be values that only exist when time is stopped. I have yet to see anyone else even take a stab at trying to explain why mass is stable.

 

What? guess I've never heard of this physics before. to my knowledge we have a very limited understand of gravity, so basic in fact that the first experiment to test it was recently launched into orbit.

Actually when I said gravity defines a point, I was referring to the spatial directional vectors around a gravitating body. All of those vectors point toward a central point. All of the vectors intersect at the center of the gravitating body. Nature seems to have found a way to define a point but our math always skims over this like it was unimportant. So some of our basic mathematical assumptions could be in error.

 

 

[RainmanTime]

I'm with you on some of this, OneMug...

 

Now as for Pioneer not being where calculations say, well that's an observation. A new interpretation is needed. There is something I have noticed in my experiments that could be relevant. I've been mapping the fields around my tesla coil during operation, and I find that the voltage fields terminate. They don't extend out to infinity. If gravity parallels this behavior, then we have a real big job ahead of us, to come up with a math model that could show how this could be.

And yet there is another observation that has been with us for quite awhile now that could help us with this new interpretation. And that observation is this: If gravity was unidirectional, what about the observation that the universe was expanding (indeed, now accelerating) and that it is obviously non-homogenous in nature as the matter in the universe is clumped into galaxies. These observations have, for quite a long time now, told me that "mainstream" science and their peddling of "right" theories as if they are the new religion, are and have been off-base. But they are catching up now that they are admitting that most of the energy in the universe is NOT Mass, but rather dark matter and dark energy.My interpretation is that Space is a "background medium" which has properties associated with it that our senses cannot readily perceive. Just like our earth's atmospheric composition is a "background medium" with the difference being that we have been able to identify it. How did we come to identify, and "prove" that our atmosphere is a medium with something in it? By extending our reach beyond our atmosphere into space. It was through this ability to contrast "here" from "there" that we came to understand the medium of our nitrogen-oxygen-carbon dioxode medium that we live in. If you ask me, our reinterpretation of "empty space" will follow this same pattern, and reaching beyond the galaxy is the next level of this fractal pattern.

 

Mainly because there are observations to support the idea that a separation can take place. At the speed of light time is supposed to stop. That would take time completely out of the picture. But the mass would still be there.

OK, but as you, yourself, have pointed out, these observations could well have lead to incorrect interpretations. IMHO that is exactly what has come to pass in how we view the speed of light. You say at the speed of light time is supposed to stop. I say this is only true if you modify the statement to read "at the speed of light our perception of what time is would appear to come to a stop." I restate it this way because transcending our perceptions is how we achieve new levels of understanding. What if time is not scientifically real at all, and nothing more than an illusion of our perception? What if there is no time at all (beyond our perceptions), and the speed of light is simply the limiting aspect of our senses that makes us believe that cause always precedes effect? This is precisely what I theorize, and I use the concepts of fractal embedding and self-similarity to try to illustrate this theory: The speed of sound and the speed of light are fractally self-similar. A being that had no perceptive senses that would respond to light frequencies, but only senses that would respond to sound frequencies, would view the speed of sound precisely as we view the speed of light. In that being's reality, time would stop if they achieved the speed of sound. And indeed, they would also see a reversal in their ordering of cause and effect if they could transcend that sound. Why would it be any different for us and the speed of light? I say it is no different.And as such, this is why I claim that the "individual measures" of Energy that we call Mass, Space, and Time are not at all real when we transcend our limited senses. When such transcendence is achieved, one comes to understand that there is only one, everlasting, eternal moment. And one also understands that we are, indeed, eternal beings who exist on much higher levels of existence than what these scraps of flesh reveal to us.

 

The one thing I remember is something really basic like a point. In math it is alawys given. How can you justify its existance? Where did it come from? Then if you look toward nature you will see clues as to how a point is created. A gravity field defines a point.

Ahhh, now hold on a second and let me try something on you here. Perhaps the gravity field only SUGGESTS the point? But it doesn't really DEFINE it, now does it? Rather, your mind infers it by observation of the effects of the gravity field. It is exactly like the classic picture where colored panels are placed in such a manner that they SUGGEST the outline of a triangle within them. However, there is clearly no definite triangle there, but the mind "fills in the blanks" (literally) and infers the triangle just because of the configuration of the space around the place of the inferred triangle. This is precisely how I believe our minds get "tricked" into making that leap from observation to interpretation that you so elegantly described. In this case, we are not actually observing a triangle, but our minds are inferring it. We get a bit sloppy and say that we have observed a triangle when we really have not. Our minds create the triangle and are only too happy to go along with the illusion that the triangle is there.In all of this rambling, I believe there is an important connection to what folks like Carlos Castenada (for one example) have tried to teach us about our mind and our observations: Namely, we should be highly cautious about what we really observe and what we simply THINK we observe. Castenada wrote that Don Juan taught him to "look between the spaces", or rather to look DEEPLY at what you think is nothing, for there is likely something there. Just as in the example of the triangle above, our mind is telling us something is there, when in reality nothing is there!

The understanding of these dyads upon which our perceptions are based is a large part of achieving higher levels of evolvement, to include spiritual evolution. We must all be willing to admit that what we THINK we observe has a highly liklihood of not being reality, and moreover, what we think we DO NOT observe could be holding some very important observations if we look more closely.

 

People would be amazed at the things you can see by sitting on the beach, quieting the mind, and gazing off into the endless ocean and sky without actively focusing on the ocean or the sky... by trying to see the "space between the space", much can and will be revealed. It is highly empowering, and I suggest those reading give it a shot some day!

 

RMT

 

 

[RenUnconscious]

Ok so I'm right there is no Point. There is no triangle? I am not familiar with this triangle you speak of Rainman please post a picture or link it if possible. thanx.