Jump to content

Topics Limited to 11 Pages?


Recommended Posts

Gosub is not so much a swear word at all since it implies the return linkage of the subroutine (the "sub" part) you are "going" to.


It's "GoTo" thats become passe and no longer used.


The equalivent "verb" or "control" statement to Gosub in COBOL is "Perform".


xBased languages use "Do" in calling a closed subroutine.


In Java and C++ which are Objected Oriented Development platforms, the term or it's equilavent is moot since the very technique itself is superceded by invoking instances of Classes.


But at the pure machine code level after it's been compiled, the action is controlled by the the same concept.


Object orientation is a conceptual paradigm, at the source code level, just as "Top Down Modular" was when "Gosub" was a common practice.


GoTo was merely the first control statement that was used for branching. As computers themselves became more sophisticated and powerful, automatic return linkage was built into the source code languages that forced the compiler to automatically return to the next statement after Gosub when the subroutine had completed firing.


Thus eliminating the "spaghetti" logic of "goto" code.


But all the dicipline of Object Oriented Programming (OOP) still doesn't keep some people from writing really crummy code.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic



Thanks again for your responses. The reason I'm asking details such as clothing and sunlight is because my film company is in the process of making a movie of your story and we just wanted to get some visual ideas.


But seeing that you are shy about the subject, we'll just have to be creative.


If you want to supply some more details about your daily life in 2036, let me know.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

time traveling guy...


I just wanted to ask if you know anyone in the future who is important who has the initials J.W....and if so perhaps you could name them? or him?...

heh, i made a riddle once...what clock is a clock that tells time only twice a day?


thought you were gone...guess i was in the wrong place...

time will tell, sooner or later, time will tell



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deviper and Wanderingsoul,


Thankyou for the high marks but I have no formal education in quantum physics. To tell you the truth I have not even read a full book on any technical subject. I often go through electronics books and physics books of various topics and skim them for knowlege that I have not gained. I am truelly as much an ametuer as anyone else here.


I have read a little on the subject of quantum physics but there is a lot that I do not know.


This is why I come here humbly to share my hypothesesis with others on this forum. I also consult formally educated physisists.


One reason I like confering on this forum is the fact that it is filled with all manners of peoples of different backgrounds and various points of views. Most of us are open minded in some respects and others are closed in some reaspects. All of this is valuable I believe if these traits are put together properly.


I have noted that Einstein came up with his theories in 1901 and 1905 this is before he went to college, Am I correct on this?


One other point to make is that many of the cool gadjets and theories that were created were done by those who were not formally educated which might have been one reason they were open minded.


Einstein was both a closed and open minded person it seems. And many open minds had to single handedly accomplished a great deal for technology during thier lives over a hundred years ago do to the fact that comunications between long distances was not as practical then as it is today.


Here on this forum I see there are hundreds of posts from many people with open minds able to comunicate with the whole world with nothing more then a key board, a telephone jack, and a computer. The point being that we can more then likely accomplish leaps and bounds more then the open minds a hundred years ago because comunication for us is much more palitable; not because we are any smarter then they were back then.


What does everyone think?


Edwin G. Schasteen



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir rgrunt,


I think Einstein went to school first.


I think an open mind is an empty mind.


I think we should master fith grade science before positing a grand unified field theory.


I think an ounce of fact is worth ton of speculation.


I think it is hard to know everything without knowing anything first.


I think you get the point.


And can't you think up a better handle than "rgrunt"?



Link to comment
Share on other sites



One of the bane's of formal education is cementing ways of thinking...although initially it can expand...

I find less tolerance for thinking out of the box in *highly educated* people rather than what I fondly call independent thinkers *little smile* If I were stuck on an island and had to choose *educated* vs. *independent* No brainer to be sure ?


Keep thinking out of the box rgrunt !! *applauding loudly*


Be safe and dream sweetly.





Link to comment
Share on other sites


rgrunt is not posting a GUT, it is a theory. It is as vaid as any other. If you can disprove it, do so.


If rgrunt wants that to be his name, then that is his choice. He does sign his name if you care to look.


A Lot can gained with an once of fact and it can be helpful to speculate. That is where ideas come from.


Those ideas are the basis for inventions that make all we have now possible.


[This message has been edited by djayr42 (edited 21 February 2001).]



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the act of time-traveling removes one from the stream of events.


Let's say I go back to 1980. This is the original timeline:




When I go back, a new timeline is created...








...and the old one disappears. I still exist because the instant I appear in the past, I am in the new timeline.








I don't believe the theory that time-travelers fulfill their destined role in the past. If an old man tells me how to build a time machine, and I do, and when I get old, I tell my younger self how to build a time machine, where does the time machine come from?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Doc Brown!

took a look at your web site it is very interesting.wow, I see you have done a lot of research.

your link didnt work at first in your profile. then I realized you just typed it wrong.

should be .com/x_squared

(just to let you know..so others can view your site.. )

I like the music!!


[This message has been edited by pamela (edited 23 February 2001).]



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc brown, from your web site:


"If a time-traveler somehow got stranded in the past, he might have descendants. If this were the case with a lot of time-travelers, that would make our species appear older than it is."


I've often thought of this as a matter of fact.


Here is one for you....

What if a lonely time traveler got stuck way in the past something went wrong with his machine and it blew up after he managed to get out. lonely and depressed he knew he was never going to get back home.

Millions of years in the past he looked out over his horizon the closest thing he had to relate to were the apes nearby...


And I think you were suggesting there may be a time line where the dinosaurs never got destroyed but evolved and developed into a higher species. and then developed time travel.and then visited different world lines.??


you could probably take that a step further and try to imagine what a species would look like if you combined the DNA from different worldlines.


it seems like the further a species evolves they will eventually get into DNA manipulation and altering. creating new species to their own liking and after their own images.


I enjoyed reading all the info you have on your sight. especially the archaeological

pictures. I didnt get to read all of it I will have to go back to it later.




[This message has been edited by pamela (edited 23 February 2001).]



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc Brown:


While it does indeed seem that the velociraptor was quite intelligent, (as evidenced by it's proportionately sized brain cavity found in the fossil remains,) I would want to consult a serious paleo-biologist before I would speculate elevating to the level of the chimpoanzee. Do you possibly have a reputable source that can speculate this with impunity? I'd appreciate your sharing it.


As to the 5 million years "from there" in the "present timeline", I'd have to say you are off by about 55 or 60 million years.


The Chimpanzee is not radically older in evolutionary time than is man. The Great Apes are not our ancestors, just a separate branch of evolution that came from the same source as we did about 3-5 million years ago.


(Or maybe I misunderstood you and that IS what you meant?)


But the Velociraptors still went extinct 60-65 million years ago. In "this" (ahem) Timeline.



Link to comment
Share on other sites



Hello - and hello to Pamela and Javier.


We do get around. As John Titor on another site, I ask you if your name was an anagram for "I John Trot", aka Clown, Clodpole, Clodpate. I accidentally arrived at this site tonight and found Trott conversing with you on the thread.


Have I nailed the anagram or is this a very strange considence?


- for those unfamiliar with my dialogue with John Titor/TimeTravel_0 please note that I find John to be humorous as well as interesting. I enjoy the threads on which he posts.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


I am a physics doctoral student at an american university. I do not have time to sit around and spin some elaborate web of a story of being a time traveller on multiple websites. I am much more interested in factual and experimental information than fictional story telling. I do occasional come to this site to see if anyone has the slightest glimmer as to what they are talking about. So far, I have not seen any indication of that. And for that reason, I have neglected to post the information I have concerning the subject.

As far as John Titor or TT_0 is concerned, I believe that I shined a light on a hole in his story awhile back. The fact that he added that he could not complete a 0 divergent trip meant that he could not return to his timeline and hence a mission into the past to help his people was logically flawed. In fact, since I posted that, his postings have been infrequent and sparse.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

((The fact that he added that he could not complete a 0 divergent trip meant that he could not return to his timeline and hence a mission into the past to help his people was logically flawed. In fact, since I posted that, his postings have been infrequent and sparse.))


I thought we went over that to your satisfaction? Doesn't everyone know after looking at a Perrose for a Kerr singularity that you have to travel faster than light to get to the "exact" same worldline?


I can see your not amused that we would be confused as the same person. I did find it flattering. I think you find some of the physics questions we're dealing with on other sites quite interesting...perhaps even convincing.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time traveler_0: Hi. I do believe in time travel, that man will eventually interact with reality in ways that we are only beginning to imagine. It is still extremely hard for me to set aside the possibility that you are just toying with people here on the forum, and as I hear from some, in other forums as well. Your story is extremely interesting, however, and I don't want to miss an opportunity of a lifetime to gather insight from someone who has supposedly "been there done that", so I will set aside my human urge to judge you, and see were this goes. So - I'd like to ask you a few questions.


1) I saw on another page of this board that you are from 2036, and still use batteries and solar cells. why do you still use batteries, when such great men (thats my faith talking) such as Tom Bearden and the former Floyd Sweet and Bruce Depalma, have possibly made great strides in the areas of free energy. What happened to limit the success, and widespread distribution and developement of these discoveries?


2) have your scientists found a link between consciousness and reality?


3) Is light speed as you understand it simply the capacitive reactance of our spacetime/quantum vacuum?


4) I'm gonna throw my idea of how a time machine works out there, and it would be cool if you could key me in on how far I am from your truth:


A time machine in my book, is slightly like a teleportation device. It zeroes in on a specified pattern of quantum states (like the quantum states of the particles involved during a significant event) and then reconstructs the coinciding reality. This is because reality is possibly a hologram, related to the wave interactions at the virtual (fundamental) particle/wave level, and if you look at a small portion of a holographic plate the entire image will be on that section as well as the whole plate, just with a lower intensity. The quantum patterns duplicated by the time machine will be interpolated to form a complete reality. Now, the time machine records and impresses your quantum imprint on the resulting reality, causing virtual particle/wave interactions to form your resulting physical body. The virtual state of a particle, is possibly just the period in its life where it does not interact with the surrounding environment. A virtual particle does not exist in time, which is the reason it can become virtual in the first place. A virtual entity lends itself to the creation of time however, in that its interactions with other particles gives rise to the property of time. When one virtual particle exchanges its information with another virtual particle, a real particle results (one that is measurable - actually the mere process of measurement creates a real particle because of the unescapable exchange of info between what is assumed to exist (the virtual particle that will soon become half of the observed entity), and the virtual particles that confirm that asumption by interacting with the inferred particle). The concept that a fundmental particle has a virtual state is where the possibility of time travel comes into play. Actually, what is actually happening is inter-reality travel. There are an infinite amount of virtual particles (because they can not be observed) so they constitute the realm of possibility. Any and every potential transfer of energy takes place out of the virtual particle flux, because of its zero/infinite existence in time. Therefore, when one decision/observation is made, a whole new universe is started. This happens in jumps, due to the interactions of virtual particles. At any given instant, however, consciousness (the mediator/observer of particle interaction) can only see/exist in its own universe, but the potential for its existence in others as a parallel entity is infinite. I'm starting to run out of time, so I'll quickly sum it up. We now have the mehanism for time travel and teleportation - they are extremely similar, but instead of materializing something in its own time, another time is chosen. each time a travel is made, you make a reality jump to a different "world line". You would not be able to return to your exact world line, but to one so close, it could still be considered your world line. You would have left in a time machine in that world line (your parallel you), and Upon your expected arrival, the first "you" that left would be replaced by "you", on time, as expected.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Trott,


What do think about the following theory that I posted to expain how gravity might work? Having a doctorate degree would you do me a favor and quickly read over this theory and tell me if it sounds like the theory might have any grounds(that is if the theory might have some accuracy to it).


If you find flaws in the theory would you mind jotting them down real quick (if it won't be too inconvenient for you, I know you are probably busy and I appreciate you taking the time to look in on this forum from time to time.)


I look forward to learning from your next reply. I might add..will you do me a favor and even if you think the theory might be correct will you prove it wrong for me. If you prove it wrong I will be able to have a much deeper grasp on the conscepts that I am theorizing on because you will be hitting on point's that I have neglected or overlooked which will give me more knowlege to correct my theory( actually everone's theory who works on it).

I really appreciate it.


If you want to send lot's of technical information please fill free to do so. I ask that you write in what ever manner you are used to and not to worry about trying to explain it in terms that I would not understand.


If I get confused I will look up words, phrases, or conscepts that you jott down that I do not understand and will learn about them. This will help me develop a stronger vocabulary with which to comunicate more intelligably to the scientific comunity. Thankyou for your time.




Edwin G. Schasteen U.S.M.C. Active


here is the post:


I am aware of the limitations of our measuring technology and it is a good question as to wheather or not it is the measuring equipment that produces the affect(paradox) or if the particle is truelly in the form of a wave and sometimes in the form of a particle.


However to me, it seems that the energy density verses space-time density is merely a simple coscept of one kind of energy occupying energy in the form of a container(space). A simple visual aid to help assist in visualizing the conscept that I am suggesting is to take a single piece of string and tie the ends together so that you have a loop. Now take the loop of string and make a one-half twist so that you have a figure eight.


Now hold the figure eight out in front of you so that the figure eight looks like the infinity symbal. Let the loop that is pointing to your right represent energy and it's density, let the loop that is pointing to the your left represent the density and quantity of space-time that is occupied by the energy.


Now if you increase the radius of the right loop-which symbolizes the energy the left loop will decrease in size and density. If you make the right loop twice it's original size the left loop representing space will shrink to half it's size.


This is the conscept that I am suggesting is accuring with electrons and all energy and mass. Energy occupies space such that when you increase the density of energy the partical absorbs energy from the space that it occupies thus decreasing the density and space that the partical of energy occupies through displacement.


This results in a decrease in the radius of the partical as a result that the particle has more quatity gained from the vacuum of space and has a smaller radius and thus a greater density.


I would say that the the majority and most likely all the extra density gained by and electron of high energy interaction would be absorbed solely from the space-time that the energy occupies resulting in a low space-time pressure intertial hole in the within the quantum matter making up the electrons energy.


I would say that there would be a low pressure region of space-time around the electron itself caused by the space-time of high density surrounding the electron gravitating towards the intertial hole created by the displacement of space-time quantity into electron density.


So I believe that the electron does not absorb energy from the surounding space-time quantity to create the gravitational field surrounding the electron but absorbs the space-time quantity from into energy to add density to the electron during high energy interactions only from the space-time that the electron occupies and that the gravitational field surrounding the electron is caused by the space around the electron to gravitate towards the intertial hole or low space-time pressure within the area that the electron is localized.


This, in my oppinion, is a static system and that the space-time does not flow into the electron from outside the electron but creates a static flow into the electron.


An easy visual aid to observe this kind of phenomenon is to observe the spinning candy cain pole at your local barber shop. Notice that the red and white spirals(helixes) do not actually move up to the top of the cylindrical cain but the rotation of the cylinder makes it appear as though the red and white spirals move toward the top of the candy cain pole.


The helix of the spinning candy pole can represent the space-time in the form of helixical waves spiraling towards the electron mass of low space-time density as a result of the centripital(or centrifical) forces(I am always getting these two confused) at work within the electron.


It is sort of like the whirl wind created in a blender. The water does not flow through the bottom of the blender but all the blobs of chocolate mix is carried by the water toward the blades of the blender. The low pressure created by the spinning blades combined with the torque of the blades creates the static whirl wind affect which is quite similar to the dynamic whirl wind affect created by the water draining in your toilet when you flush it.


The space time quantity is laiden with all kinds of waves fields of space-time quantity but when the low pressure space-time is created by the presence of dense energy the space-time waves of high pressure gravitate towards the space-time of low pressure creating the spin affect of the space-time waves and fields. This process creates a dynamical flow of energy in the form of energy or mass(not space) toward the region of low space-time density in the same way that the nestles quik is carried on the milk that is spinning in the blender toward the low pressure milk at the surface of the blender blades.


What I mean by "the energy and mass are dynamic and space is not" is merely that the chocalate coco moves toward the blades of the blender but the milk itself as a whole does moves very little towards the blades of the blender if at all.


What does everyone think? Does any of this make sense?




Edwin G. Schasteen



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not offended, I did find it amusing. That is why I responded to it. Your argument as to my point was not sufficient. You suggested that an alternate you would most likely return to your world line. It just does not seem logical for one to go back in time on a mission for their world line only to return to an alternate worldline where the mission goal may or may not have bearing if completed.

By the way, the Kerr ring singularity is a spacetime possessing CLOSED timelike curves. You would clearly need a naked singularity so that the chronology violating region would not be hidden behind the event horizon. This places limits on the size of the ring of the singularity, i.e. radius>Mass, using geometrized units.


Perhaps, I have mistaken your backgrounds. If anyone can provide a proof to this, I will share what I know on the subject:

If a spacetime contains a causality-violating time machine, but does not contain a chronology-violating time machine, then the only closed causal curves in the spacetime are closed null geodesics.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Create New...