Jump to content

Time-travel Paradoxes!


Recommended Posts



I think we're probably closer than you think here. I'll certainly buy your explanation of time travel as purely relative to the observer. I'm also not sure we're that far apart on the reason there are no paradoxes. (Your Dictionary definition is of course the correct one, I was merely making a simplification of it for my own purposes.)


As to the possibility of multiple universes, well, it gets used a lot to try to explain things that can't be explained but to me it's a cop out due to lack of evidence and the very fact that it GETS used so much as a way to explain that which is otherwise currently un-explainable. I need more evidence. The existence of multiple universes leads me to believe that if there is more than one of them, there must therefore be an infinite number of them. If there are an infinite number of them, then everything that can happen, has already. I dislike this theory for two reasons. 1. It destroys the necessity for free will thereby making all descisions made by choice inherently moot. 2. It goes against "Occam's Razor". The principle that the simplest explaination is probably the best one. I really don't see the Universe needing to be so complicated as to require infinite universes just to solve the concept of paradoxes.




I thought it interesting that my little "Flood" analogy sparked such conversation.


By all means many cultures refer to "Great Floods" in their history. And Local phenomenea ARE the reason these persist in mythology.


Pamela, you've been reading the propaganda of the "Young Earth Creationists" I see. Their web sites are all over the place. Unfortunately, these theories they propound are not only NOT POSSIBLE, but have long since proven to be so.


Unfortunately many of these, like the so-called "Dr." Kent Hovind have fabricated their own "degrees" in higher education. Hovind for instance, started a "University" in his living room, awarded himself a "Doctorate" in Theology, and uses this to tout his self professed "expertise" in geological and biologocal matters.


The "Vapor Cloud" myth is a fairly old one trotted out to answer the "Where did the water come from?" question. But YOUR explainations are right out of the Creationists handbook 101. And equally mythological as they are without foundation or acceptance by the Scientific Community at large.


Think about it. If it never rained before the flood, what did plants live on? As to the Vapor Cloud it self, it's already been calculated that to produce the water necessary for world wide full deluge, the cloud would be so thick as to block out the sun entirely. Meaning it MUST have been dark always before the so called "Great Flood". Preposterous. Every Creationists argument on this issue is totally debunk-able. Not just because it isn't so, but because it can be PROVEN to be not so.


May I suggest you do some browsing around the various Talk Origins websites where the real scientists hang out and you'll begin to see how truly silly some of these Literal Scripture interpretations really are.


Not that I'm arguing against (or for) the existence of God, just that if you want to view the Bible as an informative and inspirational document, may I suggest that you at least study the differences where metaphor is used instead of an intended depiction of reality.


Genesis has TWO depictions or accounts of Creation. The Creationsts won't tell you about the second one because it is contradictory to THEIR view. And supports the concept of Evolution. It's called selective intepretation. And they engage in it all the time.


Or as the old song goes,


"Some Things That You Libel,

To Read In The Bible,

It Ain't necessarily So."


Good luck, and





Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 410
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


I thought I already answered the questions you posed on this particular theory to me in my last posting. I apologize I didnt have more time to post more info on it. It was only one theory out of many that I have heard. I mentioned this one because of the article I read two years ago in the city newspaper.

The book the info came from was "A scientific approach to biblical mysteries."by Robert W. Faid.I have another book called "Beyond Star Wars."which I cannot locate at this moment. which is a scientifically based book discussing the many theories of ancient mysteries around the world. and it also mentions the water vapor canopy. both of them mention the rain falling for forty days and nights from the canopy and the rest of the water coming from the fountains of the earth being broken up.

I have never heard of the "young earth creationists." what is their web site? I would like to check out their theories.

One thing is certain though, DaViper, there was a flood for the evidence was left in the Earth. How it happened rests now in theories because noone knows for sure.

You know when it comes to Ancient Events most of the time all you ever have are theories because none of us were there at the time. and many things are not in existance at this time that were there in their time.Theories are formed and based on evidence found at the time and from piecing together writings or anything else found from the time period.or things found in the Earth.

someday we shall all know the truth. Maybe someday somebody will go back and "check it out" and see for themself. I am not afraid to study anything or research any theory. I piece it all together as I go keeping everything in mind. I see things from many different angles. and eventually the truth will be known.

Peace to you always.



(Robert W. Faid-a nuclear scientist and consultant to the nuclear power industry, has developed patented processes which have been used to protect nuclear power plants around the world against earthquakes and flooding.)


[This message has been edited by pamela (edited 26 December 2000).]



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Pamela if you want to believe in mythology as opposed to science and fact it's OK with me. To each his/her own so to speak.


I prefer knowledge however over the fabricated ideas of those who adjust theory to suit ther particulat religous beliefs.


Sure there have been floods. There's probably one going on right now somewhere. But...


AY NO TIME was there ever a flood that covered the entire Earth. There isn't enough water for there to ever have been. And no hocus pocus "vapor cloud" that could ever contain the amount of water needed to produce a rainfall of that proportion has EVER covered the earth.


But if you choose to believe this, fine. All the belief in the world cannot make it so.


The whole comment was an analogy in the first place.


I thought we were discussing time travel paradoxes. That's the title of the board anyway.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I have been out for a while. Does anyone no whether the forces exerted by a universal flooding could produce the force needed to seperate all the continents in in a period of a couple of months. Given the amount of water on the earth now if the land masses were but one land mass and there was one huge earth quake that cause all the land masses to spread at a constant velocity to their present location in a period of three months or so would the kenetic force mediated through the water cause universal flooding by generating huge waves of water covering the land. How fast would a land mass have to travel accross the earth for there in order to cause the ocean in the direction of travel flow up and over the entire continent of the united states from east coast to west coast? How hi would the wall of water be? Does the needed velocity match the biblical time period for the flood? If the continents were to have traveled at the nessecary velocity to cause the water to wave over from the pacific ocean to the atlantic ocean for period of time that Noah's flood was stated to have lasted in the bible could the continents have reached their present location from the pangea in that period of time at the calculated velocity. If not how far could the continents have traveled. How much heat would have been generated by the friction of the water over the continents surface if the water flowed over the earth. Would it have been enough to produce steem at the calculated pressure? If all the above proves true then is it possible find evidence in the soil for such events? If anyone is motivated enough to run a computer simulation and plug in all the variables in order to calculate the above hypothesis I would appreciate it. I donnot have enough computer knowlege to run the simulation. Whoever comes up with the answers to the questions above has the write to the discovery naturally so have at it.


God bless you all and Peace,


Edwin G. Schasteen



Link to comment
Share on other sites

to rgrunt


a computer sim ain't going to predict ancient earth geologic changes any better than it can predict next years weather


go to the library, open a textbook on geology and all your answers will there, indexed and catagorized


alternatively there is a cool website on the subject, I believe it is http://www.tomato-wizzard.com(ic)



Link to comment
Share on other sites



Nine out of ten theories are eventually proven false. Let the people who make them up defend them. The Earths history is unimaginably long and complex. It may indeed be harder to find something that has NOT happened over its 5 billion years.


There a million ways to be wrong and only one way to be right. Daviper will run circles around you because he's got this million to one rule on his side.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

The laws of physics have nothing to do with a belief system.


They are what they are whether one believes them or not. All the old belief that the world was flat didn't make it so.


All the belief that the earth was the center of the Solar System and Universe couldn't make it so.


And all the belief in the world that a "universal flood" EVER existed can't change the laws of physics that make such an event utterly impossible.


Where did all the water go when this "flood" was over? Evaporate into space? Sorry not possible under the laws of physics that are governed by the very gravity of the earth itself. Water which is heavier than air, evaporated into the vacume of space and left the earth's atmosphere behind? Sorry no dice. It just doesn't work like that as any meteorologist can tell you.


The story is based on local phenomenae at the time it originated. It probably looked to the inhabitants at the time that the "whole world" was flooded but the reality of physics is that it is not, never was, and can never be possible. (Barring collisions with several thousand Comets that is. Which would wipe out all life, change the entire structure of the mantle itself and cause evolution to start all over again.)


There is NO evidence this has ever happened in this manner.


The belief stems from the desire to insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible that the earth is but 6-8 thousand years old.


But it isn't just that meteorology, geology, palentology, astronomy, biology, physics, quantum mechanics or cosmology each show that this is impossible, it's that ALL these sciences agree thru related and intertwined studies that the aforementioned is simply not possible.


If one wants to toss aside ALL of these studies and the verifiable evidence they produce in favor of a mytology based on a single text that has NO proof, than I guess one is free to do so.


But an Ostrich is free to stick his head in the sand also.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They are what they are whether one believes them or not. All the old belief that the world was flat didn't make it so."


Isnt that amazing? but yet thousands of years before they came to the conclusion that the earth was flat it was already stated that it was indeed round!

Isaiah 40:22 "...the circle of the Earth.." heheh


For some reason this subject is an offense to you so I will not discuss it with you any longer.

All science also agreed that nothing could go faster than the speed of light. Scientists beleived and accepted this theory as true for years even based other theories on it. but in the light of new evidence the theory was proved wrong.(Just this year)

I want to think beyond the current theories. For I see them for what they are..theories only, not concrete facts.Thats why I like to research many different theories and maybe even come up with some of my own.

I respect your beleifs and theorys as I do all others.


In search of truth always,




[This message has been edited by pamela (edited 28 December 2000).]



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to create dissention for I am a man of science but in my own town there were discovered dinosuar bones that were carbon dated to be 80 million years old. The bones were discovered in a farming area close to bisbee AZ. Now a christian farmer went home slaughtered one of his cows took a bone from it and snuck into the escavation site one that night and buried the cow bone so that the scientists would discover it the following day. And the scientists did. They carbon dated the cow bone and their results stated that the bone was over 50 million years old. Further more the scientist identified the cow bone as being from a dinosuar. They presented their findings that week and the farmer came publicly to dispute them pointing at his cow bone saying that the bone was not 50 million years old that and preached creation. Thge scientists debated claiming that they carbon dated the bone and this evidence proved them wrong. The farmer stated that the evidence couldn't be right. The scientists argued with the man. And finally the man stated "that bone can't be 50 million years old, I snuck that bone in yesterday it's my cow bone My cow ain't 50 million years old." everyone laughed and the story spread throughout our town and the scientist left our town in shame and completely humiliated and bewildered. They could no longer use their arguements to sustain the hoax of evolution for in one fowl swoop by a genius farmer their entire arguement was broaght to ruins.



Link to comment
Share on other sites



I'm not sensitive about it at all. And I also respect the religious beliefs of others. (I get a kick out of some of the stories I see preffered from time to time.) ? But when hypothesis are profferred to suport religious belief that can be proven to be scientifically incorrect, one needs to realize that while religion is a personal matter, one cannot cancel the laws of physics in order to cling to beliefs that simply are not true.


The only people that see conflict between religion and science are staunch religionists. Sagan, Einstein et al were both believers in God. Hawking is a pure Agnostic. Which means that while he does not firmly accept the existence of God, he doesn't reject it either.


Science is not attempting to disprove God (some scientists MAY be atheistic) but Science itself takes no stand on the existence of God. He either is, or He isn't. To science, it matters not either way.


Hey, maybe God DID create the Earth. But it's a simple fact that He did not create it in what WE refer to as "6 days" as is metaphorically described in Genesis.


If one's faith is truly strong, all the scientific FACT in the world shouldn't be able to shake it. Even when preposterous claims are made but such as 'rgrunt' above.


His story is an old one and is without basis in fact. It has been circulated by the "Creationists" for many years. If 'rgrunt' did just a little research, he would find that CARBON dating is not used in Paleontology for dating things from MILLIONS of years ago. Other radio-isotope methods are used. There are 5 all in all. Each has it's own period of effectiviness depending on the half-life or decay rate of the isotope involved.


No scientist would even TRY to date a 50 million year old sample with Carbon dating. And any story that claims someone did is pure fabrication and bunk since no scientist would ever claim that he has.


By all means, please keep searching for the truth. But don't take someone else's word for anything. Do the research. The web is full of good science and "snake oil" salesmen like 'rgrunt'.


I wish you peace and success in your search for truth.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

P. S. Pamela:


By the way, think about this.


Physicists for quite some time now have understood radioactive decay quite well. In fact so well, we've been able to construct clocks based of the decay of various elements.


Since these clocks are SO accurate, they are used by NASA to time events in the travel of our space vehicles. The precision involved in sending the Pioneer, Voyager, etc Spacecraft to the outer planets for picture taking is so intricate that only atomic clocks will do.


If our understanding of radioactive decay was flawed, then these clocks would not work as we intend them too, and those planetary fly-by events we all remember NEVER took place since the craft would have missed the targets by millions of miles.


Mr. 'rgrunt' has some homework to do.


By the way, Evolution is observable not only in Nature but reproducable in the laboratory. Those who claim it doesn't exist are either too afraid to admit they are wrong, or just plain too stubborn to accept reality.


It's a scary thing to be proven wrong. Once one realizes it, one is stuck with the idea that other things one believes in MAY be wrong also. This is hard for some people to accept since it shakes the foundation of their whole belief system.


But an open mind and a willingness to actually learn will always get one through the tough spots.


I have no idea how or why the Universe came into existence, but I'm not going to worry about it. And I'm for sure NOT going to buy into ideas of how it happened that simply are not so, and can be proven to BE not so.


I bid you a good day.



Link to comment
Share on other sites



Yup! (heh heh).


Without even having to resort to quantum decay timelines.


Fossilization is a process where actual organic tissue is replaced by inorganic mineral deposits leaving a remnant of the original in it's original form, but with no organic material intact.


In short, a true "fossil" is actually a form of stone, (like the "trees" in the Petrified Forest), while a bone is...well, a bone!


Only a blind idiot couldn't tell the difference. (Actually, a "blind idiot" could weigh the two and tell the difference for that!)




And EVERYONE have a Happy New year.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

P. S. S.


And finally just one more...


(Couldn't resist on this next-to-next-to-last-day before the TRUE millenium.)


To all:


For the sake of pure information and learning, may I present the following links which will hopefully lay to rest the question of the difference between metaphor and actual history in attempts to understand the writings in the Bible.


Here's what we know on:


THE AGE OF THE EARTH http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/apprage.htm


THE RELIABILITY OF RADIOMETRIC DATING http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/radiometric.html#reliability


...and since I brought up "Dr" (sic) Kent Hovind earlier, here's a link to some of his foolishness: http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/kent_hovind's_challenge.htm


(Please, please, take note of the arguments HE presents and truly foolish they are from a purly LOGICAL standpoint, even before you get to the science parts that show what a ignoramus he actually is.)


He's the SOURCE of much of the foolishness that the likes of the 'rgrunts' of the world are pushing on us in the name of "science".




and finally, some humor for you. (Shades of the type of stuff 'rgrunt' has posted above.) http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/icr_suckered_by_april_fool's_joke.htm


Enjoy all.....



Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Anyone reading this...


What happened to the man of the moment T-T-0?!


All of a sudden i come back to check on the state of the nation and i find all you people talking about "great floods" and carbon dating! LOL!


Quite ammusing!


Anyhoo...it would be nice if we focus on the topic people!







Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. O,


I just read your postings. Something did catch my eye. You mentioned that the physics behind time travel will be realized within the next year at CERN. Currently, the project being run at CERN is the LEP, the large electron positron collider. It was scheduled to be shut down this past November but was not due to some potential evidence of a missing component of the Standard Model, the Higgs Boson. As you may or may not know, the Higgs boson is the theorized mechanism by which particles acquire mass. I will not mention more of this but suffice it to say that I am aware that for an object to travel at the speed of light it would have to be massless(that is to say if the photon is in fact a massless spin 1 boson as assumed). But in order to tip the light cone, you would need to travel faster than light.

While I do believe that time is not as fragile as some colleagues believe, I do find it interesting that someone would attempt to contaminate the time stream before a point in time at which time travel is possible. Actually, all current feasible theories of time travel negate the possibility of travelling back beyond the point at which the time machine was constructed.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

AH! Is that the official story then? When did Mr. O arrive at this board? Nov. 2, 2000 I see.

Hmmmm....then again, maybe it had absolutely nothing to do with the diagrams CERN received in Nov.---but then again----

you never know.

good day!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I think you know very well the answers to the questions you have asked. You just want to guage the quality of our replies, or just remind us that we SHOULD be up to speed on our constitutional rights and responsibilities.)


It would be nice to be able to remind everyone about their rights and responsibilities but I am not here to judge you. I am not capable of that nor would I want that in return. As you know, my interest is in history and in the paradox of thought. I do however, find it interesting how important the Constitution became to the average US citizen’s life, if even for a short moment.


(A young person should want to survive and live for better days ahead. At some point, however, an older person will realize, especially in the face of disaster, that better days are NOT on the horizon.......ever. What you are forcasting for 95% of the present population is 20 years of hell followed by survivors in the rubble. I've already put in my 40 year shift of work and worry. Why should we fret over politics on our way to slaughter? Isn't that like telling the Captain of the Titanic, that all he has to do to save the ship is to back up really fast after the collision?)


It saddens me that you do not realize your true worth as a keeper of information and experience. Perhaps the end that we fear will open your eyes to your true value as an individual. Young people need wisdom. The captain of the ship knows where the lifeboats are.


(When it is beginning to rain....

it is time to go rainbow gazing.)


I like the lyrics. They remind me of some other songs that are oldies but goodies from where I come from…anyone know these?


…gotta be home, by sunset. She asked me to giver her a ride, said she had to go, dropped her off by the trism through the atmosphere…by prism. Gotta keep movin , it was the human race to get away, sun bends light through a prism, she bent herself through the trism… …she pulls the lever and then bright light.


-- or this --


Waiting for bus number 99, goin’ to the store for hotdogs and wine when all of the sudden I felt real cold and wound up in the belly of a UFO... …Movin through the spheres at faster than light on our way to some planets that were out of sight… [well it had been 987 years in outer space when I got back, I couldn’t seem to find any of my friends to tell my interesting stories to.]


(Currently, the project being run at CERN is the LEP, the large electron positron collider. But in order to tip the light cone, you would need to travel faster than light. I do find it interesting that someone would attempt to contaminate the time stream before a point in time at which time travel is possible. Actually, all current feasible theories of time travel negate the possibility of travelling back beyond the point at which the time machine was constructed.)


I’m pretty sure they have a number of experiments going on at the same time at CERN. The one I’m referring to involves very high energies using protons. From my historical perspective on my worldline, I do recall the issue was a point of contention about 18 months ago or so. There were some scientists who thought the experiments were too dangerous to try. The time travel I refer to does not require faster than light travel and due to multiple world “reality”, paradoxes do not occur. Natural time machines do exist. Please check these web sites for the basics…on both ends of the scale.

http://www.leonllo.freeservers.com/blackworm.html http://www.geocities.com:0080/Area51/Station/5763/time.html



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mr.O,

It is true that CERN has 4 detectors/experiments but they are all centered around the LEP experiment. There are no experiments at CERN which deal with accelerating protons at this time. There is a planned experiment in 2005, when the Large Hadron collider takes over the tunnel at which the LEP is located. The experiment you refer to is not at CERN it is at RHIC in Brookhaven National Lab on Long Island, it is an attempt to create a quark gluon plasma, a form of matter which would have been present shortly after the big bang but before condensation of quarks into particles like protons and neutrons.

I am aware of the possibility of using wormholes to time travel, however you are still unable to travel back beyond the point of the creation of the wormhole. Even the Tipler cylinder does not allow a traveller to go back beyond the point at which the cylinder was made. It has been my view that in order to have controlled time travel you would need to have a description of the quantum structure of space-time, otherwise I do not see how you could undertake the calculations that would be needed. One reason it is not certain that a wormhole could be used to travel through time is because it is believed that quantum fluctations around the mouth of the wormhole would act to collapse it. Just as in a similar fashion quantum fluctations around the event horizon of a black hole act to make it radiate particles and eventually evaporate.

If you are a time traveller from 2036, how do you plan to retake your place there. Your presence in this time frame would, as you have pointed out, cause a "temporal divergence" from the natural sequence of events. If you believe in the multiverse theory, may I ask you if you have memories of an unknown uncle being around while you were young?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Trott:


I fear our conversation is in danger of turning due to an effect that is quite common on these boards. I realize what I’m saying is quite hard to swallow and it causes debate, weather serious or entertaining. It is even more difficult when you come into the middle of a conversation or a series of questions that are a few weeks old.


Your points are all quite valid and I have discussed them at length on this and other boards for quite a while. I do not wish to antagonize you however, we both know the Tippler cylinder is only a thought experiment to explain the very real physics behind Kerr black holes. As to your other comments, again, they are all true as defined by the limits of spacelike trips on single worldlines. It does not account for travel between worldlines.


I have never claimed to be a physicist or an expert on what the CERN laboratory is doing at any given moment so I feel it is pointless to argue about what they may be doing in the future or what "breakthroughs" they will or might have. My comments about the CERN lab are in reference to particle accelerators in general and other questions that have come up in the past. The major physics break through for controlled gravity distortion does happen at CERN in your future. Heck, we haven't even touched on "Z" field compression yet.


I suppose I could say that I was the one that traveled in time and convinced them to change their experiments but even I would have a hard time believing that one and I do not wish to insult your intelligence.


Just curious...what is it that interests you about time travel?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a graduate student in physics. I feel that the concept of time is in need of a lot more understanding. Because of that my interest in time travel is purely scientific. I am much more interested in the nature of time itself.

I must admit however that time travel would be the greatest technological breakthrough in all history. With such a machine all questions could be answered objectively.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...