An Exposition on Time Travel and Parallel Worlds

[zerotwoone]

28 Oct. 2011

 

Here is my exposition on "Time Travel" and the "Multiple Universe" theory. When I first heard of theorists talking about this I was kind of disgusted. I thought maybe some of them were taking one too many nips from the ole' sauce, but now I am even more impressed with their vision and genius to be able to extrapolate this. But as I examined my mathematics, I suddenly realized what they were seeing. I constantly check my work with the experimental fact and what current theories are predicting to gauge the correspondence of my own mathematics.

 

 

a: They are talking about time travel to not this world, but to a parallel world.

 

b: And they are also talking about an infinite amount of parallel universes in the "Metaverse."

 

 

a: Could be true.

 

b: Could be true.

 

 

Let me tell you why through what I see. This can all be possible dependent on where we are on the number line (reference www.zero-2-one.com for a further explanation on this line). All of the above scenarios are dependent if we exist on this line, or in this line. If we live on this line, nothing is greater, we are seeing the Universe in its full glory, but if we live in this line, and dependent on how "deep" in the line, there could be an infinite amount of "universes" above.

 

I think a little bit more explanation on this line is warranted than what I gave with the above link. With this number line, every point is a possibility. Now stretch out every point to so it is approaching zero, every point on every point you just stretched out is also a possibility, now stretch every one of those points out so it's approaching zero. You can do this forever.

 

Alright, time travel. Time travel is possible with time control; and only possible if we live in the line. If we live in the line we could "jump" to a "higher" dimension, but if we live on the line there is no place to jump, therefore time travel is not possible, although time control still is. When you jump to the higher dimensional universe, you will be able to see your previous universe completely and be able to control it's time. What about the "Grandfather Paradox?" When you jump, you removed yourself from that system, since that system is part of a greater system the "arrow of time" is still moving "forward" regardless of how you manipulate the time within the system you just left. Meaning you can't erase history, but you can rearrange all of the particles inside this system to "emulate" the system's history with the future evolving with or without you.

 

The number of parallel worlds is dependent in which way you jump. If you jump towards One, there will be less and less possibilities as you jump, the sum has to equal the Universe, but if you jump towards Zero, the number of these possibilities will increase. I don't know how "you" could jump towards zero though, unless you sent a nano sized doppelganger of yourself, since if you would jump, your mass would probably create a black hole in their universe. And I don't know the effectiveness of jumping towards One either, since your mass would not change, it's not like you would all of sudden increase in mass and energy.

 

My point was just to talk about the realm of possibility, not the realm of practicality or feasibility. Where do I think we exist? I think we exist on the line. I have no proof, since I don't really know what I'm looking for yet, but since I don't know, why not pick the greatest version?

 

 

 

 

I'm not complaining, just inquiring why this was moved. I thought Time Travel and Parallel Worlds was being discussed in Main Stream theoretical physics. I mean if people can talk about "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" and "Super String Theory" I thought I could talk about this. Was it because I sound like a "know it all?" Or because it's based on non-conventional mathematics? Or because I referenced my webpage? Or because you don't know how I'm coming to these conclusions? Because according to your own stipulations "Please note that all posts that are baseless in scientific fact or that are outside of mainstream physics can and will be moved to the Speculations forum. Make sure that you think about the nature of your post before you hit the "post" button," I satisfy at least one condition. I don't want to put myself in a adversarial position so please let me know, so I can discuss issues in a way that I won't be removed. Thank you.

Edited October 28, 2011 by zerotwoone

[Xittenn]

I'm sorry, but, you said something about mathematics? I wish I could do mathematics : <

[Ophiolite]

I'm sorry, but, you said something about mathematics? I wish I could do mathematics : <

I wish zerotwoone could do mathematics.

[zerotwoone]

I remember sitting in my calc II class when the professor came in the room. He proceeded to tell the class that there are people who can do math, and people who know math. He pointed to me and said that I know math. He then pointed to some portraits of some of the greatest mathematicians who've ever walked the Earth and said that someday my picture will be among them. I thought at that time that the statement was a little overstated, but the difference between me and the other students was critical. I wasn't striving to just complete the mechanics, fill in the blanks, I was interested in the reasoning, the logic. I wanted to understand why we were doing this instead of doing that and for what. And if you understand math, you can do math, after all, it's just mechanics.

 

The first instance that gave me a clue that calculus wasn't the final mathematical framework when I found out that calculus has holes, unexplained discontinuities. I was stunned. The second instance was when I was doing integrals and we had to add constants, where were they coming from? I wasn't satisfied because "it works."

 

Under the unmbrella of Mathematics there are two major subsets, applied mathematics and pure mathematics. I do pure mathematics, I work with generalizations and abstractions, my mathematical framework is the most generalized and pure abstraction, but it can yield every possibility and every geometry. You can't get this framework without physics or chemistry, these properties are integrated into the framework.

 

There is no branch of mathematics, however abstract, which may not someday be applied to the phenomena of the real world.Nikolai Lobachevsky

 

If Nikolai Lobachevsky is correct, then nature uses my math. I'm not choosing which one is better between pure and applied mathematics, I just chose pure mathematics because I was interested in the mechanics and the discovery. I know some of you on here are applied mathematicians, but don't accuse me of not knowing applied math, it's just not that interesting for me. Besides, your work starts where my work ends.

 

I am not going to release my framework at this time. I am releasing the mechanics in a "word salad" format. The written word precedes mathematical symbology. Realize that I am giving word problems like back in elementary school and physics class. Then refute my logic, my mechanics. I want you to, if you are able to then that will only make me think harder. With an exposition like this you almost have to refer to some mechanical process, it is an extremely complicated process and to keep this idea in a word salad format would be near impossible. And also, I am giving original explanations and mechanics to problems probably only a few can give. Current theoreticians are telling you what could be possible, and I am telling you how. So who is using the higher math?

 

And if you like, ask me a question that has not been answered yet in physics and I will try to give an explanation using my framework. It will be fun for both you and me, me to answer and you to try to find flaws. It will be productive for both of us.

Edited October 31, 2011 by zerotwoone

[Xittenn]

When I was young, a pastor once told me I was like Gideon. He told me that I was amongst the tall grasses and hiding, but that it was my place of learning and that one day I would rise up win the war and become a great leader of Man. That said I am probably never going to be a great leader of men and well even if it came to be, the merit of these claims . . . people like stories.

 

I associate 'word salad' with schizophrenia. A failure to immediately disclose framework is usually a causal sign of an inability to produce or is sign of the prior. I cannot extrapolate any meaningful mathematics from the description given. Your statement about "checking your mathematics" suggests you have mathematical models of such natural phenomena. As a reader of your post I see no such realization and am left to wonder. I can't visualize your proposal as given and this is probably why the moderators moved it into speculations and hence my post. If you want to discuss this seriously it would require further investigation via proper analysis, which in physics requires the proper use of both pure and applied mathematics.

 

Having an education you should be privy to such mentality; you should probably know better!

 

p.s. I would really like to discuss this properly!

 

*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*

 

 

For starters, can you fill out the blanks of how this would develop through say Hilbert Space? I'm not terribly familiar with this level of physics but Hilbert Spaces seem play an important role in such theories . . .. .

Edited October 31, 2011 by Wuz Here

[zerotwoone]

I do know better, and it very well may be fear. Fear that I am wrong, and fear that I am right. I fear if I'm wrong that I have failed and I need to reevalute and will subject myself to public ridicule. My fear of being right is what I will unleash. To be truthful, I have no idea what to do next. I keep looking irrationally for "signs" and I am getting none. That's why I've started a business to hopefully pursue my "madness" privately. It's just when you hear or read something, you can still detect logical errors, and that's what I'm doing, hoping and not hoping that you find logical fallacies in my explanations. I'm not taking your post as a personal attack, but of personal introspection. It's one small step at a time. I just can't release a small bit here and there, I have to release it in it's entirety, that's the way it works. And I am not ready for that yet. I know I will be someday, just not right now. But thank you for your post, I appreciate your sincere response.

[Imparticle]

17 Oct, 2011

 

If this number line from Zero to One really does represents all of the possibilities in the Universe, then where is all of the evidence? We know about atoms, sub-atomic particles, and blackholes, but where are the particles between atoms and blackholes? I predict the creation of moons, planets, suns and even some blackholes were influenced by the larger values on the number line. It is more plausible than clumps of gas attracting more clumps of gas, or rocks attracting more rocks. What would this mean though, if this prediction is true? Would this increase the probability and speed of star and planet formation? Is this why these types of bodies have spin? Is this why some planets are geologically dead, because the atom that influenced their creation has decayed? Would this explain the difference in the magneto spheres? This isn't a hypothesis, but what my mathematics predicts should exist.

-zero-2-one.com

 

I think my Imparticle Singularity Principle (see imparticle theory) may have some correspondence, somewhere in the depths of the thoughts composing this paragraph. It revolves around an infinitely valueless, hyper-quantum particle...

 

a: They are talking about time travel to not this world, but to a parallel world.

 

b: And they are also talking about an infinite amount of parallel universes in the "Metaverse."

 

 

 

a: Could be true.

 

b: Could be true.

 

Admittedly, this theory of ten dimensions with parallel universes is interesting, but I myself have not been able to find, nor has there been provided to me by anyone, a true cause to speculate that parallel universes exist. You approach a fork in the road. You can choose to go left, or right, relative to your own body. Let's say you choose right. Now, there is no true cause to speculate that the mere fact of the variation actually spawned an alternate universe in which you turned left. There is no reason to suggest that an infinite number of universes unfolded out of the variables in this instance. Yes, there are hypothetical realities, but what cause is there to be alternate realities that are not hypothetical?

Everything that exists, exists. That is indubitable. Based on that fact, how can one justify the notion of independent worlds existing parallel to the one that really exists? Time is not a line. Everything that possibly can occur, does occur--why?--because that's what the word possible means. And everything that can occur is interconnected--why?--because it all originates in the same principle, that is to say, possibility. And what creates this possibility? You can use many words to point at this thing, this principle, but inherently it recluses from them, it does not hold onto words, because that which originates all possibility has no possibility of its own. All this possibility, all this infinite variation must come from something, everything has origination.

In a scientific framework, we must use this principle as our hinge. In regards to this principle, the ten-dimension theory consists that instead of one "infinitely valueless" particle, there are an infinite number of them. My response to that is: Well, naturally there an infinite number of valueless particles exist, but since they cannot fundamentally ever be extracted or disassociated with each other, they are effectively only one valueless particle. They are equal to zero and infinity and one. That is what scientifically permits them to originate the infinitude of possibility that exists. And some scientists come along and say other realities exist parallel to this reality, because they represent everything in terms of lines, they say the universe is linear.

I speculate that every possible variation not only happens, but is contained within the interconnected sphere of reality, and I have put forth my cause for such speculation. That said, what is the cause for the speculation of parallel realities?

Juju.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Imparticle