Time travel.

The Core RPGC Main Forum
41

As for the line, no, I do not expect you to think of the line as if you could see it in a real 3-dimentional world.

That’s also what I meant by “expanding the mind.” You have to be able to think of things in terms like this.

As for the specks of dust, even if that make a difference, it won’t make it infinitly different.

As for the Columbia, as you said, part of it broke off. Clearly we’re talking about technology advanced enough to not fall apart.

I’m not planning on time travelling be ready by tomorrow, but maybe someday.

42

You are completely insane. And infinity is not a number, you can’t perform algebraic operations on it.

43

LoL

Not just can you perform algebra on infinity, you can class it (as I have). When you get to college take a course that discusses the structure of the number system. (A very abstract mathamatics course.) It will explain part of what I’m talking about.

But you were right about the insane part :smiley:

44

That’s also what I meant by “expanding the mind.” You have to be able to think of things in terms like this.

That doesn’t really say anything…

But, I do find your theories very interesting. If you’re planning to post more I’ll always sure to read it.

45

Bing, you really don’t know what you are talking about.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Continuum.html

There’s a page that describes the continuum, c, the set of real numbers. And according to that page, c raised to any power is equal to c. There are the same number of points on a plane as there are on a line. Your own intuition is limiting your understanding of mathematics, when you seek to have others understand. There are the same “number” of real numbers on any interval on the number line or on the real plane or any subset of the real plane.

And what if space has a smallest possible subdivision, a quantum of space? Then space would resemble the integers anyway. Still, the cartesian product of the set of integers with itself has the same cardinality as the set of integers…and this cardinality is less than the cardinality of the reals…but none of this has anything to do with time travel.

Your many worlds idea is a somewhat well known interpretation of quantum mechanics, that all outcomes happen in parallel universes…I guess it’s an alternative to believing that quantum events can really be random. Another alternative is hidden, non-local variables…but what if there were subatomic wormholes…I have no idea how that stuff works though

46

First, I would like to apologize. You’re not the stupid kid I thought you were. I’m not trying to pick a fight, but I do stand up for what I believe in, so either people have to give me some lean-way or debate until one of us passes out.

The site you gave me was EXACTLY what I was talking about. However, I was not referring to c. I was referring to Aleph-0 (pronounced “alef-null”, alternate spelling: Aleph-null). The “null” was made to mean “lowest form” and aleph being the Hebrew letter, which just means “a certian set of infinite” in math terms. You can go here to read more about aleph-null. (From the site you listed.)

Aleph-null (the spelling I learned it as) is the cardnal number of the set of the counting numbers (all whole numbers except zero). It is also the cardnal number of any set of numbers that you can put to a 1-to-1 relation to the set of counting numbers.

The sets of numbers whose carnal number is Aleph-null are: counting, whole, integers and rational. For irrational numbers, the carnal number cannot be defined as Aleph-null. (I wrote a proof once that argued this, but I sort of had a flaw. (If you really care about my proof, I’ll E-Mail it to you, just let me know.)

Anyway, according to my theory about Aleph-null, the cardnal number for the set of irrational numbers is Aleph-null times Aleph-null, or aleph-null squared. However, since I cannot think of how to set a 1-to-1 corraspondance to aleph-null squared I cannot prove my theory.

But, the point is, math even classifies some different levels of infinite values.

And since everything about time travel is based on theories, I can’t prove anything, but these are how my theories are built.

Again, I clearly took you for a fool you are not. If you have any other questions or flaws in my theory of time travel, let me know! I look forward to continuing this thread.

And Cless, I’ll be doing a lot of posting on this site, and off. If you want some essays I’ve written (just for the fun of it) on any topics I bring up here, I have them, and I’m totally willing to share them.

47

You’d make mroe friends though, by not immediately assuming that people are stupid…

48

Probably, but if someone’s first sentance is going to be “you’re completely insane”, their friendship isn’t the first thing I’m aiming for.

49

You’re still a little mixed up… aleph-null * aleph-null = aleph-null (assuming that the multiplication is the cartesian product…). Aleph-null ^ aleph-null = c, the continuum.

It actually says that right on the page you linked to…

The cartesian product of a countable set and a countable set is a countable set. Usually it is ordered something like (1,1), (1,2), (2,1), (1,3), (2,2), (3,1), (4,1), (3,2), (2,3), (4,1) and so on.

The irrational numbers cardinality isn’t aleph-null because it is impossible to define a 1 to 1 correspondence between the natural numbers and the irrational numbers. Given an ordering of irrational numbers, it is always possible to define a number which is not in the ordering (by choosing digits for that irrational number such that each digit disagrees with at least one number in the given ordering).

“You may think I’m insane. But I can explain it all.”

50

Ok, I should have probably fully read that page before posting it…

First, remember, this is all theory.

Now, on the page you will find this rule, which argues part of (but not all of) my theory about Aleph-null, but doesn’t refute my time travel theory:

 Aleph-null^r = Aleph-null, for r>0

But then then on the same page it says:

 Aleph-null^Aleph-null=c

Well, the page jsut said that Aleph-null is NOT greater than zero. (Plug in Aleph-null as r. There are no restrictions on it; the page says f (a variable in another property) must be finite, but never says r must be.)

So, clearly either or both of the following two things must be true:[list=1]
[li]That web site has flaws in it’s math
[/li][li]The way I looked at my aleph-null theory was not correct
[/li][/list=1]
I saw was because, since my theory is just a theory, I can change it. My aleph-null theory was not based on the fact that aleph-null squared is aleph-null, otherwise peoplpe would agree. I must have meant to say aleph-null to the aleph-null power.

Regardless, math can somewhat classify different levels of infinite. And while you may argue infinite squared is infinite, I will agree. However, if you can simply understand my views on the first two dimentions, the rest should seem to make sense.

Of course there are infinite many pissiblities of a one-dimentional world as a 6-dimentional (since infinite^6=infinite^1), however, by NOT simplifiying these numbers, we can gain a better understanding of how they work.

Of course, if you don’t want to see things my way, you won’t. Just like anything else: if you don’t want to learn something, you can’t truly learn it.

I hope this makes sense.

51

When dealing with infinity, things just aren’t very intuitive.

Here’s something sort of interesting…

Let’s postulate that the progression of the universe and everything in it is computable. That is to say, knowing everything about the current state of the universe, we can calculate the progression into future states. If that is the case, then even the simplest of turing machines, with an appropriate program, could compute the progression of the universe. How simple could this be…well, a computer with an infinitely long tape, divided into cells, with a read/write head over one of the cells, each cell containing a symbol. The read/write head has a finite number of states it can be in. It reads the symbol under the read/write head, and then depending on the current state it writes a new symbol into that cell, changes to a new state, and then moves left or right. There’s a description of a simple turing machine, hypothesized to be able to compute anything that is computable. And so if the universe is a computable function, a one dimensional, infinite tape with this read/write head could compute it, given enough time and the proper program. The tape can even be infinite in only one direction. Adding more dimensions doesn’t add to what can actually be computed.

52

When I first posted on this thread I was hoping to keep things simple…clearly that’s not going to happen.

Anyway…what you’re saying is that if the EXACT same circumstances were replacated for two different dice rolls, the outcome would be the same for both. Very true.

A master computer could simulate our world…almost.

Human choices are not always based off things. Some human choices are random.

That means that our would good be simulated as one fated string of actions, as long as mankind is a mindless animal or does not exist (in which case it’s not going to be the same world, but it’s as close as we can get in a computer simulation).

However, even that program would be 4-dimetional (our 3-dimentional world, along with time. Altough since choice is no longer an issue, the fifth dimention only has one path, which is the path that the computer is simulating).

Still, since a computer cannot making infinitly small differents in it’s output, it cannot properly replicate this world. (Example: the computer simulates the infinitly large 3-dimentional universe at some time, then does it again at a later time, once things have effected eachother as much as they can. However the differences in the time frames can be cut in half, and another frame could be inserted there. Since the computer could not simulate these infinitly small differences, it can’t simulate our world. But, since we need to “strech our minds”, I’ll go along with it.)

But, like I said before, human choice changes things. The further back you go, the more different the effects could have been. For example: say Jesus wasn’t killed, would Christanity still be at the point it is today? The butterfly effect plays into the 5th dimention.

However, if you believe in fate to the extreme, then your never going to believe in the fifth dimention anyway. If that’s the case, the only way you’ll believe time travel possible is if, when time travel happens, it was fated to happen, and the results, too, are built into fate.

Any way, there is still plenty of room for debate.

53

Bing, could you check your posts for typos before you submit them please? Things get a whole lot more confusing when we have to guess what words you mean. For example:

That means that our would good be simulated as one fated string of actions…

Like for this instance, I’m assuming you mean “world could”, but it isn’t entirely clear.
So just keep that in mind when you’re writing about lengthy and involved subjects.

54

Human choice and free will or whatever is something else altogether…

Determinism just seems to make more sense than nondeterminism. If the same situation could play out different ways because of human choice, what is the source of this difference? One possibility is hidden variables, and in this case if the variables were known then the choice could be simulated. Another possibility is true randomness, but then what would really be controlling the decision? When trying to say that humans can actually make choices, that given the same exact situation a person could do different things, it becomes really difficult to actually find where the source of the different actions could be.

55

Yeah, really. Everything we do is ordered by our brain, and everything our brain orders is invariably controlled by chemical reactions and ion pulsings in nerve cells. And those, in turn, are controlled by atoms, which are in turn controlled by neutrons, electrons, protons, which are in turn controlled by their compositions. This process can go on infinitely and eliminate “free choice” since a computer with infinitely small subdivision capabilities can simulate this.

demigod: I think if you truly understood what he was talking about, you wouldn’t even notice those typos :stuck_out_tongue: They aren’t frequent at all.

56

Oh, I’m too stupid to understand what you’re all talking about then? Okay, I’ll stop trying to figure it out, because thinking might damage my brain cells. I’m sorry if my attention to proper spelling is distracting the importance of your discussion; who am I to interupt such a groundshaking debate?

57

Demigod, What was the point of that post? All they said was lay off the spelling cause it doesn’t really matter and it wasn’t that bad. So just shut up about it. If you have something to say make sure it’s got something to do with the opic of this thread. And I’m not a real god of mathematics but isn’t infinity just any unknown variable?

58

Infinity is something greater than every number. Negative infinity is less than ever number. But infinity is not a number, since there is no number greater than every other number…

It is possible to find the value an expression takes as variables in the expression go towards infinity. For example, x+1/x approaches 1 as x approaches infinity (the greater x becomes, the closer it gets to 1). So the limit of x+1/x as x approaches infinity is 1.

59

Really I just thought infinity was one number that was every number. ot greater than them just equal to every possibility.

60

I am not getting into the math part. But as for your hipothesis:

Specks of dust or whatever would not amount to enough to stop a piece of metal flying through space at the speed of light. After all, the dust isn’t even enough to stop light itself.

Wrong. The piece of metal would be destroyed by the friction against space dust alone if it reached light speed. And yes, it DOES stop light, although just a fraction of it. That is one way we have to study interstellar medium. We cannot see it since it does not emmit light, but we can detect it by the light abosrtion provided by it.

I, personally, think the light barrier method of time travel is the most “faked” version. (After all, you’re not changing time, jsut changing your perception of it.)

Good, let’s dub the work of all the scientists who are or were professionals as frauds and state that a high school teenager is deeper into physics than all of them together.

Objects with mass can’t reach the speed of light because, if one ever did, it would have more mass than the whole universe. It simply does not matter how much technology develops, you just cannot break this law.

Remember that the mass of any a given object is equal to its mass at zero speed divided by the Factor of Lorentz. At light speed, the Factor equals zero. Do the math.

Those two parts are still ok. But when you say that, by travelling faster than light, we go back in time, you’re just showing you don’t know what you are talking about. The flow of time is given by the Factor of Lorentz too: It equals time flow at zero speed multiplied by the factor. But, if you go faster than light, then the Factor of Lorentz becomes 1 divided by the square root of a negative number. And when you do the math, you do not get a negative number, proving your hipothesis untrue.

Post Scriptum: don’t use the word theory as you are doing. When a person comes up with a new idea it is not automatically promoted to theory. You should know the difference between a theory and a hipothesis.