Advertisement
I have found that time-travel is very helpful as a tool or adjunct into perpetuating my existence. Anyone else agree that it is helpful? Just as preliminary feedback, would anyone join a "Time-travel" tribe?
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Immortality Research
Sat, December 20, 2003 - 4:02 PMWell, someone from up-time has to keep track of you! :) Yeah, I guess I would. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Immortality Research
Sun, January 11, 2004 - 1:31 AMMaybe that's something I should put together. I wonder what photos would work, however? Nice use of diction, by the way.
-
-
Re: Immortality Research
Mon, February 2, 2004 - 7:52 PMThe same physical theory we use to build bridges, manufacture pharmaceuticals, clean up toxic lakes, split the atom, and raise the yield of our crops suggests very strongly that time travel is inaccessible to our current level of technological development. Time travel is one of those memes that readily interfaces with our folk theories about causality; that the future is a "place" that we can "travel" to. Simply observe the quantity of fiction and non-fictional articles on time travel in the absence of any concrete evidence for the feasibility of time travel whatsoever. Even if you argue that evidence has only emerged recently, time travel stories have been around for a good while (at least two millenia, probably much more), placing it in the "mega-suspicious" category; we already know we have a *predisposition* to be interested in time travel in the absence of evidence. Current physical theory also predicts it would take many, MANY more units of energy to send a grain of sand through a time portal than to move a single particle through, and even more to move a macro-level object through time. There's also the little fact that no serious physicist takes time travel seriously, and people claiming for the feasibility of time travel don't stand up well in the crackpot index...
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html -
-
Unsu...
Re: Immortality Research
Tue, March 2, 2004 - 3:28 PMBut that's what they said about flight, telescopes, and vaccinating people against disease, too! You are wrong, incidentally, to think that no serious scientists take time-travel seriously. Many do. Ronald Mallett, Kip Thorne, Stephen Deutsch, etc....
-
Re: Immortality Research
Tue, March 2, 2004 - 4:48 PMIn agreement w/Michael here. Hawking once claimed that after a certain point after the big bang, the universe contracts into itself after spending it's intrinsic energy from the expansion. During that process, he claimed time would move backwards. The dead would jump up from the ground and back into mama's womb... egg's would unshatter... etc...
Lots of nonsense. He has since recanted his finding, claiming a mathematical mistake. Time moves in one direction. But it's interesting to watch the universe try to move backwards in time also, what with mullets, swing bands and neoconservative agendas jumping back into vogue now and then. -
-
Unsu...
Re: Immortality Research
Sun, March 7, 2004 - 11:30 PMHawking, too, while a skeptic, admits the possibility of time-travel. I believe that your "quotation" is inaccurate, only. What you might be referring to is a discussion from "A Brief History of Time" where Hawking discusses entropy and "time's arrow".
However, that discussion is irrelevant, since empirical proof of time-travel definitely exists.
What you are referring to, by the way (the contraction) is called the "Big Crunch". Physicists are still debating whether that occurs, and whether the collapse of space-time implies the
reversal of time.
Physicists Turok and Steinhardt have postulated that the Universe could, indeed, be forced to collapse and undergo the "Big Bang" again. So, Hawking is hardly the last word in this debate.
Incidentally, his credibility is not so high, nowadays, after his dubious statements relating to his wife's breaking his bones on multiple occassions.
Sadly, Hawking very much looks like someone who is simply
"in denial" of the facts.
-
-
Re: Immortality Research
Fri, March 12, 2004 - 6:24 PM"However, that discussion is irrelevant, since empirical proof of time-travel definitely exists."
Care to share the "empirical proof?" Or does that compromise your secret identity as a TIME COP?
;-D -
-
Unsu...
Re: Immortality Research
Sat, March 20, 2004 - 1:50 AMYou might want to read J. Richard Gott's "The Possibility of Time-travel in Einstein's Universe" which explains and discusses the proof of time-travel to the future.
As far as time-travel to the Past, I have plenty of proof of that, but I am unaware (to date) of how to explain it.
Apparently, there may be a phenomenon which prohibits information transmission to the past. Hawking calls it the "chronal censorship principle". I just call it "deafness".
I would be happy to share it with people, if they are serious.
What is required:
Sit around a really good stereo system and listen to Bach's 4th Brandenburg, and Mozart's 14th Salzburg Symphony, and also decipher Stockhausen's "Stop" and "Ylem".
Well, there is lots of other evidence, as well. Try p. 518 of James Joyce's "Finnegans Wake".
Try, try, try to understand that time-travelers (like moi) might encrypt information (messages) to their future self or
selves in enduring (relatively permanent) artworks, so that there would be a "permanent record".
Time Coppos aren't so secret, maybe.... Just too hard to follow.
Nice of you to ask. -
-
Re: Immortality Research
Tue, March 23, 2004 - 8:33 PM<Try, try, try to understand that time-travelers (like moi) might encrypt information (messages) to their future self or
selves in enduring (relatively permanent) artworks, so that there would be a "permanent record".>
This attests to the immortality of the human oversoul, and really has nothing to do with the immortality of a specific 'self.' Check out Shane Anthony's post in this forum. He sums it up as well as can be given the mystical and undefinable nature of the topic.
-
-
-
-
-
