lets say that time starts again and again, but not all at the same instance
please refer to picture at bottom.
where "1" is always the beginning
so if we are the top line, and we are at "5" and we travel "back" in time, we would actually not travel back in time, but over to #4 on the next line down.(or down onto 3, or 2 of the other lines, depending on how far back you tried to travel). so it would be possible to kill you grampy if you wanted to! because you technically dont exist in that time line
this fits in a bit with phase space if every timeline started at a different "time"
I realize i'm using the word "time" in 2 different contexts, but i hope you understand what i mean
just a possibility?!?
***edit - changed this a bit to make more sense***
I saw the posting requesting the basic systems for a gravity distortion system that will allow time travel. Here they are:
1. Magnetic housing units for dual microsignularities. 2. Electron injection manifold to alter mass and gravity of microsingularities. 3. Cooling and x-ray venting system 4. Gravity sensors (VGL system) 5. Main clocks (4 cesium units) 6. Main computer units (3)
It is almost exactly what I have in the drawing board! Btw, it is an alternative propulsion system, not a time machine.
Wow, John Titor story is great. I just started investigating. Thanks for the link
Titor mentioned about a problem in UNIX system at 2038. So, this is the result of a simulation on my machine:
$> ./timetest Tue Jan 19 03:14:01 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:02 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:03 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:04 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:05 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:06 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901 Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901 Fri Dec 13 20:45:52 1901
So there is really a problem with UNIX in 2038. However this problem exists on 32 bit machines only. Running the simulation on a 64-bit machine:
$> ./timetest Tue Jan 19 03:14:01 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:02 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:03 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:04 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:05 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:06 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 2038
So these things really don't add up. Most UNIX system today are running on 64 bit machines, which do not have this problem at all. In 32-bit UNIX arena today we have 32-bit Solaris, Linux, and BSD running on 32 bit processors. Solaris is normally run on 64 bit SPARC processor, and Linux is already running on 64-bit computers, although most people still using it with the popular 32-bit Intel architecture. Even Windows and Mac are making transition to the 64 bit environment.
Why would the engineers from 2036 living in a 64-bit computer dominated world need an old 16-bit IBM 5100 computer to solve a problem with 32-bit machines???? I don't really know, but the only reasonable explanation for me is that John Titor is a clever hoaxer putting small chunks of information together without really understanding the real issue.
You dont really think the rules i make apply to me do you?
Posted 16 December 2003 - 05:09 AM
I watched a show in which steven hawkings theorized that you could not go back in time to any point before the time machine was built, i forget the exact reasons why, but its pretty interesting theory.
Anything is possible, after all, wasn’t it once considered that man, would never make it to the moon? The Earth was flat and you would fall of the edge if you sailed to far, or even that the sun revolved around the earth.
[QUOTE=zygon,Dec 3 2003, 06:56 PM]if you went back and killed your grandfather then you wouldnt be alive to go back and kill him. this argues that time travel could be impossible due to the alterations you could make that would change history[QUOTE]
Yeah, but the argument to this theory [apart from the multiple universe one] is that you could never actually kill him-circumstances would always prevent that event from happening. The very fact that you were alive to time travel meant that your grandfather could never have been killed. So paradoxes can't happen.
That John Titor thing is quite cool as well. True or not, it's thought-provoking and imaginative.