NeoNo.1
In physics, when we consider a particle and its past, present and future path throughout the universe, we call its definite path a ‘’worldline.’’ A particle will always try to move in straight lines throughout spacetime, but because space and time are curved into each other, most of the time, they follow curved paths through space.
This is what we mean by a warped space, or distorted spacetime. We find that these distortions are in fact just gravity, or curved spacetime. And gravity is the presence of matter itself. Even light cannot escape the wrath of gravity at very strong levels, but usually, a tiny photon traveling in empty space will almost definitely travel in straight lines.
But there really isn’t just one straight line, or worldline for any particle. We find that according to Feynman’s Sum Over Histories, a particle actually has every possible path to its disposal – these path’s are of both times past and times to come.
We find that these paths have themselves a statistical element about them and will variably shape how a particle will end up in any state given upon measurement. Take a photon traveling from the past: It will take every known possible path, even those improbable paths through a black hole (but as you can imagine, the statistics for this are so vanishingly small, we can nearly neglect them, but Hawking shows that it is possible for allowing a particle to travel at superluminal speeds using the uncertainty principle), and upon arrival at Earth, we can measure the photon, and all the paths its could have taken, according to the wave function, suddenly collapses into a single probability!

For Feynman’s Sum Over History to apply to physics, one must use imaginary time, rather than the concept of real time. Imaginary time is the same thing as real space, whereas real time is the same thing as imaginary space. The two concepts are pivotal to understanding how we contemplate different ways to look at our universe at large, and even at small scales.
Granted, the concepts themselves are purely mathematical, but they play an enormous part in relativity and quantum mechanics. You need to first gather up all the possible path a particle can take, bundle them together so-to-say, and then we need to measure those statistics against real time, and the result is the real conditions of the particles history; but even those results have a slight statistical aura about them.

In the case of the universe at large and gravity, Feynman would need to have analyzed all possible histories of a curved spacetime, and this at large affects everything that has a worldline in this universe. There would indeed be a finite number of possible outcomes, but one would need to chose which outcome best fits this universe today.
Hawking reminds us, that if this is indeed the case, the class of curved spacetime that determines the universe today (including those spaces and times which are blown into unimaginable proportions, or singularities), the probabilities of such spaces cannot be determined by the theory. However, he says it is possible if we calculate them in some arbitrary way. Dr. Hawking is very cryptic this way, but what he means is that science cannot predict any history for the universe if there is a singular past. So any attempt to learn how a universe with a singularity would result, is really a disaster for science.

Now, since this study is about time and space at large, let’s consider CTC’s or ‘’Closed-Timelike-Curves.’’ This is a worldline describing a physical system which is ‘’closed’’. This means something physical in fact returns to original starting point. We call such movements ‘’sinusoidal’’.
The idea of CTC’s was in fact developed by Willem Jacob van Stockum in 1937 and later by the infamous Kurt Godel in 1949. There is indeed a lot of controversy over their existence, but if they do exist, it could revolutionize relativity including our ability to create machines capable of a global causal violation; in other words, a path that twists in space and moves through time.

Worldlines and of course Feynman’s Sum Over Histories is best described in terms of ‘’light cones’’, which is really a more specified term that is timelike in nature. It will probably be more recognized than the last two concepts. Light cones describe every possible future of a physical object in spacetime, given a current measurement during the present time. This can seem a bit strange, because not only does one deflate all possibilities of the past events to a single value upon measurement (the collapse of the wave function), but one can now calculate all possible path’s in the future in real time.
Because particles don’t have a specific arrow of directionality following cause and effect, one can have in special conditions, a particle which experiences a timespace and spacetime that is so heavily curved, it can return to the place it began – in other words, things at very small levels are able to move back through time… From effect to the cause instead of cause to the effect. These are simply basic rotations through space and through time, which are conveniently called, ‘’closed-timelike-curves’’, so just think of a loop that twists in space and moves through time back into its original starting point.

Frank J. Tipler, Prof. of mathematics and physics at Tulane University in New Orleans, developed an ingenious idea involving such closed-timelike-curves. I have read his article… it’s a good read. He explains that classical relativity does in fact predict pathological behavior. The exact nature of the pathology, or, CTC’s, are however very debatable, since the predictive nature of relativity has itself many outcomes.
His design is quite old now, but it is still a probability in physics creation of time machines today. His design is to create a huge rapidly rotating cylinder (possibly in space – I assume), and the spacetime around the cylinder will be warped to such an extent, that even time itself becomes sinusoidally warped so that instead of flowing in the correct direction… that is forwards, it in fact varies in an oscillating manner. Of course, one might think that such a spacetime would rip a spacetime traveler apart, but we aren’t talking about black holes here. If one entered this machine carefully, one could avoid being turned into spaghetti and experience a dilated time frame. Perhaps this is the time machine of the future?

Retrocausality

There is something very fixed in the universe: This is the observer…
She observes the universe in all its glory, and there is a specific directionality to this phase. This is of course, the psychological arrow of time. This arrow allows the psyche to adapt to a certain flow within the universe… This flow is forward. Because the human is intrinsic to such properties, we find that in the Copenhagen Interpretation that time is actually relative to the observer… Indeed, it states that if the observer was not here, there would be no such thing as time!! We say the same thing about energy-matter and space, since according to relativity, all are deeply connected and somehow the same thing.
If things where going backwards, things would seem very strange indeed… According to Dr. Hawking, if time is reversed, then so must the entropy contained within the universe. This means, everything that has evolved into today’s present states, would suddenly begin to de-evolve, and the plate that fell onto the floor would suddenly reassemble on the table! Counterintuitive? Perhaps, but this what we should expect, since the entropy reverse on the microscopic scale would indeed drag even the components it makes ‘’macroscopic objects’’ to the their previous states…

Something more can be seen in this though. The human mind, according to my theory, and understanding of the Copenhagen Interpretation would not allow us to know that the plate had reassembled on the table. Why? Because one must assume that even ‘’secret knowledge,’’ or personal knowledge is also dragged along with the matter…
For those who believe that mind is bound by the matter of the brain, then mind too must experience the same flow of time, and same consequences. This means that personal knowledge that was increasing as time passed, now begins to decrease! So I propose, even though Hawking explains that if time went back and in result we would see the proverbial plate reassemble, we wouldn’t know! He doesn’t explain this. But it makes logical sense… since to the observer now, time is still flowing in the correct manner… In short, we wouldn’t know. He may have proclaimed this before though, but I do not recall him mentioning this in his book, ‘’A Brief History of Time.’’

So, what should we expect if time does move back? Should it move back at all??
According to the Omega Theory of Cosmological Evolution, everything will reach an end singularity. A singularity which halts all known forward laws of physics, and inexorably forces everything to move backwards; but this depends on a steady balance of matter against the ratio of spacetime…There are existing theories right now which currently goes against such a point, against such a symmetry in time, such as the known acceleration of the universe, which seems to be indicating that our universe is ‘’Open,’’ meaning it will continue forever to expand. If it does, this can lead to Armageddon visions such as a Big Freeze or even Big Rip.

However, such a symmetry in time leads to exciting proposals that makes us realize that in subtle ways, the end and the beginning are somehow the same thing. It is easier to understand this, by using Hawkings analogy that if the universe sprung from a singularity, it would end in a singularity… both are somehow points which oscillate in imaginary time.
Reversing time allows us to find these strange results predicted, and if we could watch a reversed time frame of the universe, we ask the question, ‘’would it look the same as it did going forward?’’

Take a jar of gas. Any gas, with about a billion, billion, billion atoms. As time moves forward, the atoms in the jar become more and more disordered, and more and more less like the original state they had evolved from. How long would we need to wait, until all of those atoms reached the same states as they begun? It’s very difficult say, but in the long run, it should take trillions of years… maybe even longer…

Now, this so far, has explained in very pragmatic terms what energy-matter is subjected to in this universe; a constant disorder which should never reach a state which it had begun, unless everything is suddenly reverted back to whence it came via an Omega Singularity, or a Big Crunch.
But what about this notion that the beginning is somehow very much like, if not the same as the end? How can one come to such a conceptualized view of the universe?
The answer turns out to be very dubious indeed. The answer might lye in closed- timelike-curves… In short, just to get a very quick picture of what is being said here, is that the beginning of the universe might be a state which eventually curves back onto itself so that that there is what appears to be, a superb intrical Gordian’s knot.

As explained earlier, a CTC (Closed-Timelike-Curves) are states of a physical system which twists through space and time, and ends up exactly where it began. Is this the nature of the universe? It begs the question.
Let us view the universe like an atom, as described by Hawkings principle of Quantum Cosmology… and then assume that this particle/universe reaches a state which is so heavily curved upon itself, it is forced to end up where it began… then it turns out that the end is in fact the beginning, and vice versa… (This idea could be related intimately to pulsating universe theory).

But something even more sinister can arise from all of this, I speculate. If the beginning is the end, and the end is the beginning, (as I believe some old wise religions and philosophies state), then there might be room for some retrocausality – but first, what is a retrocausality in physics?

It is when the effect precedes the cause… We postulate this from interpretations of general relativity, and some interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, Dr. Wolf reminds us that the uncertainty principle, which governs our inability to predict all that there is to be known at the very small scales of quarks and protino’s, that cause and effect breaks down!!! This is very true, and since we know that physics predicts this, we can say that retrocausality must happen everyday in our lives; we are not concerned with this strange action though, because we exist on levels which are not normally affected by such a principle.

Cause and Effect, or the Effect Causes the Cause

In this section, I want to explore the foundation of how macroscopic objects capable of knowing their surrounding (us) is not an intrinsic direction at all. In fact, the very rise of macroscopic intelligence does indeed come around through tiny objects that defy a directionality in compared with what we call ‘’forward time flow.’’
The retrocausality is best described as what can inexorably happen in the future affects what we call the present, and what we call the present can indeed affect the past…

Such affects don’t defy the rules of physics… in fact, they SHOULD be intrinsic properties happening all the time, as I have explained so far. What we call the past, might be a loop in time, or a ‘’time loop,’’ which confines everything within its own existence. The past can therefore be the future, as much as the future can be the past; that intrical Gordian’s knot I spoke of.

It actually allows ‘’things’’ – whether that be of an energetic or even a corporeal nature can move back through time… but for this to be possible, we need to make sure the mass is imaginary…
Such matter is called tachyonic in nature, but as I have shown, tachyonic doesn’t necessarily mean a particle traveling constant at v>c… instead, it can mean for a very short period, that a particle can travel at superluminal speeds… such as a photon.

According to Dr. Cramer and his Transactional Interpretation, such backwards through time-travel is very possible. In his theory, there is two types of time waves. A time wave that moves forward in time, called an ‘’Offer Wave,’’ and an ‘’Echo Wave’’ which moves back in time.
Every time an observation is made in the present, he predicts that these two waves, one coming from the past, and another moving back from the future meet up in the present… the original wave, the Echo Wave, meets up with its complex-conjugate, and they multiply. The creation is said to be a collapse in the wave function… when a superpositional system is reduced to a single value which equals exactly 1.

What are these waves?
According to this very smart physicist, they are in fact time waves. They move at superluminal speeds, and because of this, they can travel freely throughout the time dimension, spending very little time in real time.
These waves create everything solid and defined. They are the result of everything we call ‘’tangible,’’ and they might even give rise to consciousness itself, according to Dr. Wolf and many other psychophysicists.

Retrocausality can now play a new part in all of this… According to one specific interpretation of relativity, ‘’All Time’’ or all that is past, present and future, in fact all happens in one go…!! Why?
This is because time is not fixed. The psychological arrow shows us that we have a definite position during the present, and creates the true illusion that we are living in only one present time. In other words, the past and the future are happening right now! This is very difficult to imagine, but it has been found to best analyzed by saying that the human consciousness creates this defined existence here and now, and without it, time as we know it would all happen in one swift go!

Again… hence… time is only relative to the observer… Without the observer, the past and future, including the present, are all present. This is what allows time travel and superluminal speeds to exist… but this might not be true for macroscopic systems, even though they are themselves made up by systems that seem to defy the normal macroscopic constant of cause and effect. Instead, what we call normal procedure of cause and effect, is an effect before the cause.

Wheelers Delayed-Choice Experiment

Dr. Wolf reminds us in his book, ‘’Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds,’’ that we are being told by top physicists that what we do now, is in fact shaping the early state of the universe! This is very counterintuitive, but it turns out to answer for quite a lot in physics.
The state of a system, unless collapsed into a value through decoherence, is found to be in a mixed state of probability. The best way to imagine this is by understanding that a photon doesn’t travel across the galaxy via one course or path. It actually travels through all of the potential paths, and out of which one upon measurement creates a defined history for that photon.

Wheelers Delayed-Choice Experiment was first proposed as a thought experiment by John Archibald Wheeler in 1978, and it was a variation of the famous Thomas Young’s Double Slit Experiment, in which the detector screen that ‘’picks up the presence of the photon can be removed at the very last moment according to the observer who measures the experiment.
It is a choice however that is made after the photon has passed the slit, and it could have traveled as a particle, or it could have traveled as a wave and we also find it could have traveled in many varied paths regardless of the instrument being used.
However, the instrument could be set up so that we couldn’t determine which path the photon had arrived, then the two paths are superpositioned together – and just as found in the Double Slit Experiment, the two waves are found to interfere with each other so that the final state is different to what would be expected without that slight change in the instrument being used.
In short, it is we who decide, by our choice of how the set-up is performed whether the photon traveled path A or path B or both A and B. It is the very last moment to decide whether to make that slight change that determines the past history of the quantum system… The experiment was verified in 1985 at College Park by three physicists by the names of Carroll Alley, William Wickes and Oleg Jakubowicz – and confirmed again later by Yoon-Ho Kim in 2000, using another advanced experiment called delayed-quantum eraser, verifying a delayed choice and proving backwards through time travel.

Somehow, we are making the universe more and more defined through the measurements we make today… It is sending signals back through time, creating a more defined reality for us – and for the times of the universe when there wasn’t an observer present… unless one resorts to some superintelligence.
Dr Hawking and Dr Wolf reminded us that in the beginning, the universe couldn’t have had a unique radius, or any unique configuration, because no one was there to give it these unique factors. Therefore, we have had to resort to the idea that perhaps somehow what we are doing now is shaping the early universe. This is very strange, because it suggests that the beginning of what we call ‘’big bang,’’ is somehow happening right now. Time is all laid out like a fine fabric, which allows the past and future to exist alongside the present time as their own present times. Because of this prediction, Dr Cramer allowed superluminal time waves to permeate every corner of spacetime, past, present and future.

The present time in the future, is sending waves back through time, creating things here and now… But what is creating these waves from the future?
Astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle, who passed away in 2001, believed that these waves where coming back through some superintelligence located in the future. I believe he attributed this to some high-powered, Godlike machine… He was a very vivid thinker this way. Much like what he predicted for what was happening in the future sending these waves back, one must assume that we are sending waves into the past…
Dr Cramer shows in his Transactional Interpretation, the present only affects the future in a statistical sense. It is really the future which shapes up everything we call ‘’tangible’’ and ‘’material’’ here in the present. This means that the past affects our present time in a statistical sense as well. But which future send these messages to us? Great developments in black hole theory now suggest something quite different to what Dr Wolf proclaimed in his book. He stated that these messages were being sent back through time from other universes.
In a recent proposal, Dr Hawking solved what was called, ‘’The Information Paradox’’ of quantum physics. It suggested that information cannot ever be destroyed or lost in a universe… But if things where able to move into black holes and into other universes, this would suggest that even information would be squeezed out of existence.
In order to solve this, Hawking now believes that information is in fact mangled and squeezed back into the same universe, instead of moving into any other. This means that information is never lost… and this brings a boundary on the Transactional Interpretation…
When Dr Cramer developed his theory, he never designed it for multiple universes. Instead, the future which sent back these messages was in fact the ‘’most probable future.’’ Information cannot spontaneously flow from one universe and into another with physics reshaping how we define as a ‘’self-contained’’ universe.

There is a double flow in time. This flow clashes during the present time, formulating everything we know: Perhaps even consciousness itself arises out of such a collapse in the wave function, as the growing enigmatic theory goes right now. As explained earlier, the original wave needs to square with its complex-conjugate; any waves that do not manage this, simply cancel out.

The Phase of Information and the Group Phase of Velocity
So… this is all perhaps so far, just ‘’small talk’’ – But when Einstein developed his relativistic wave equations of velocity’s, he was biased with his own work, I assume. Just because phase velocities described ay wave, he meddles with the mathematics, so that he could see it as a local phenomena, coupled with a group velocity, which reduced the Phase Velocity to a value of 186,350 mp/s ‘’c’’… But he would not accept superluminal waves: Waves that are totally ethereal in nature, but oscillate in a sinusoidal configuration, providing everything, space, matter, time and energy to flow into a mixed probabilistic state. What he never realized through, was that Bell, years after Einstein’s death, solved this by a loosely-used term, coined ‘’non-localism,’’ inherent in the universe, despite any other rule.

Bell it turns out from my assumptions that he might have seen the from the wrong side of the equations. Instead of saying everything was ‘’non-local’’ – including the entire universe – is just another way to accept that Einstein was right about time information waves traveling at v>c… As you will see, in this four paper analysis of modern Physics, it might be best Einstein wrong about his first assumption concerning concerning some waves can actually be predicted through relativity and even quantum mechanics, in a purely logical sense.

Is There Math to Indicate
a Wave Exceeding c?

Phase velocity
Look at this wave equation:

d2u d2u
-- - c2 -- + w2 u = 0
dt2 dx2
…has a set of solutions:
u = A cos( ax - bt )

c2 a2 - b2 + w2 = 0

Which are sine waves propagating with a speed,

V =b/a=√(c2+(w/a)2)

The problem here, is that they are moving at a speed which exceeds ''c''. These are normal equations for any wave form or particle. The problem can be removed, by distinguishing this velocity which is known as the phase velocity vpr from another velocity known as the group velocity vgr which is given by,

vgr = c / vph

Now, this basically means that a wave packet will have a velocity at the value of ''c'' when in a group. But here is the problem, we can apply the same values for actual information waves in space and time, and when you measure an entangled photon, the other photon is instantly determined: despite any group variables. We could apply the phase velocity equation to an information wave which would allow instantaneous action at a very spooky distance. The equations just shown, say that is it is only possible to send information with such a wave equation at a group velocity ''c'', but it doesn't account for possible information determining the action at great distances.

The Phase Velocity however, does in itself; describe faster-then-light communication. It begs the question to what kind of information we are dealing with, without resorting to a group factor. If there isn't anything which describes this phase velocity, then the phase velocity is just a lame example of a speed faster than light which cannot carry a message.

This doesn't seem right, especially when we have top physicists, such as Dr Cramer whose interpretations describe faster-than-light travel for certain information, the Wheeler-Choice Experiment, which even proves in itself backwards through time travel, and the well known phenomena of action at spooky distances which could be answered for by superluminal phase waves.

In Summery:

Bell sis not actually [prove] that the universe was non-local. All he did was prove that entanglement could be observed in the lab and proven Einstein wrong… which is a massive achievement in itself.

1. If Bell’s Hypothesis is correct, then what does a non-local universe really mean?

If a universe is non-local, then nothing about it in the whole is local*… which actually presents a paradox, since the universe is a local system; reason why, is because Einstein showed us through his relativistic equations that there is NO OUTSIDE to the universe… Not only that, but it defined through the Quantum Mechanical principle of a self-contained universe/

2. If Bells hypothesis is correct, then there is only one way to solve the ‘’Cosmological Self-Consistent Paradox’’ (CSP)*, and that is the mathematical convenience of the Multiverse: Only difficulty here though, is that there certainly would need to be an infinite amount of universes…. instead of the finite number theory.

1. If Bells hypothesis of a non-local universe is correct (which I don’t believe myself), then nothing about this universe is unique. In other words, totally inconsistent.

2. But even this can be solved by allowing superluminal speeds, which in theory, can easily cancel out Bells mathematical notations. Remember, all Bell did was prove it could be done, he never fully explained why.

> The Universe is a local configuration, which is maintained because the most fundamental of all waves*** actually move through everything in ‘’all time’’, creating collapses.

*Reason why, is because the universe is an Atom, though Hawkings mathematical solution and design of Quantum Cosmology.

**I coined this phrase

*** That is the waves of Cramers Transactional Interpretation (which we call primal time waves)
NeoNo.1
I am considering sending this the London Review of Science....
phyti
quotes from NeoNo.1

This post raises lots of questions, and here are two.

QUOTE
This means something physical in fact returns to original starting point.

How would you determine the original starting point?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE This means something physical in fact returns to original starting point.

How would you determine the original starting point?

Take a jar of gas. Any gas, with about a billion, billion, billion atoms. As time moves forward, the atoms in the jar become more and more disordered, and more and more less like the original state they had evolved from

How disordered can they get?
NeoNo.1
QUOTE (phyti+Dec 7 2007, 01:26 AM)
quotes from NeoNo.1

This post raises lots of questions, and here are two.

How would you determine the original starting point?

How disordered can they get?

''How would you determine the original starting point.''

If there is enough gravity surrounding a particle or quanta. , it can experience a time-like-curve, which allows the system in question to twist through time, and return to it's original space from where it started. It is predicted by QM and relavity.

''How disordered can they get?''
Potentially, they be disordered into infinity,a nd never return to their original positions.
Guest00
Neo, I don't mean to come off harsh, but before you consider submitting your "paper" to the London Review of Science, you ought to consider a few things.

I. Learn to spell and use proper punctuation (granted, no one is perfect, but this just doesn't cut it man).

II. You seem to contradict yourself several times throughout your "paper." Tipler's proposed method of time travel (that is, from my understanding) states that you can't go further back than the creation/inception of the time machine. A simple/crude analogy would be trying to go back in time before the big bang. How can you go back in time to a point that doesn't exist? As far as I'm concerned, the big bang was the start of it all (granted, this is debatable). Simply put, you can only go back in time to a point when the cylinder exists.

III. The Tipler cylinder requires infinite length. This just doesn't work with our physics. I'm sure AlphaNumeric could prove me wrong, but then again, physics isn't my specialty.

BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (Guest00+Dec 6 2007, 10:52 PM)
Tipler's proposed method of time travel (that is, from my understanding) states that you can't go further back than the creation/inception of the time machine. A simple/crude analogy would be trying to go back in time before the big bang. How can you go back in time to a point that doesn't exist? As far as I'm concerned, the big bang was the start of it all (granted, this is debatable). Simply put, you can only go back in time to a point when the cylinder exists.

III. The Tipler cylinder requires infinite length. This just doesn't work with our physics. I'm sure AlphaNumeric could prove me wrong, but then again, physics isn't my specialty.

Guest, you are correct in both accounts, and I would bet money that AlphaNumeric couldn't prove you wrong. (Of course, I might loose, but that's where I would put my money ) I inadvertantly "re-discovered" a Tipler's Cylinder for a high school "Science Fiction Fair" where students were challenged to propose sci-fi devices based on real world technologies. My science teacher actually pulled me aside when I submitted the idea and showed me some information on Frank Tipler, and how the idea even predates him (I think someone named Stockholm originally came up with it.)
So as you can imagine, the Tipler's Cylinder is a subject near and dear to my heart
NeoNo.1
QUOTE (Guest00+Dec 7 2007, 03:52 AM)
Neo, I don't mean to come off harsh, but before you consider submitting your "paper" to the London Review of Science, you ought to consider a few things.

I. Learn to spell and use proper punctuation (granted, no one is perfect, but this just doesn't cut it man).

II. You seem to contradict yourself several times throughout your "paper." Tipler's proposed method of time travel (that is, from my understanding) states that you can't go further back than the creation/inception of the time machine. A simple/crude analogy would be trying to go back in time before the big bang. How can you go back in time to a point that doesn't exist? As far as I'm concerned, the big bang was the start of it all (granted, this is debatable). Simply put, you can only go back in time to a point when the cylinder exists.

III. The Tipler cylinder requires infinite length. This just doesn't work with our physics. I'm sure AlphaNumeric could prove me wrong, but then again, physics isn't my specialty.

''I. Learn to spell and use proper punctuation (granted, no one is perfect, but this just doesn't cut it man).''

The abillity to spell, is hardly equivalant to a good theory... I can easy spell chack before i send it off.

''You seem to contradict yourself ''

''Seem'' doesn't hold to a good arguement: here is why>

''Tipler's proposed method of time travel (that is, from my understanding) states that you can't go further back than the creation/inception of the time machine.''

Is right... in arbitrary senses... but>

''A simple/crude analogy would be trying to go back in time before the big bang.''

This is solved by Dr Hawking by saying that a time machine cannot move into a time, when time machines are not invented - therego, the day we create a time machine, if we can, we will only be able to move into the future.

'' As far as I'm concerned, the big bang was the start of it all (granted, this is debatable). Simply put, you can only go back in time to a point when the cylinder exists.''

Which is partially true, if big bang is even the correct truth. With the massive hole found recently in the back ground temperatures, big bang has now found itself a serous problem. I hypothesize an early antimatter-matter collision, which created the hole we are seem to be observing.

''III. The Tipler cylinder requires infinite length. ''

Actually, it only requires a string gravitational foundation: To call this an ''infinite length'', his machine would require a singular construction, or a singularity. His paper only requires a certain density which drags spacetime, and creates a Global causality violation.

Thank you.
phyti
quotes from neono.1:

QUOTE
If there is enough gravity surrounding a particle or quanta. , it can experience a time-like-curve, which allows the system in question to twist through time, and return to it's original space from where it started. It is predicted by QM and relavity.

While it moves, the rest of the world also moves. How would you know it to be in the same spatial position? Position is relative to everything else. If it showed up earlier it could not be in the same position!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE If there is enough gravity surrounding a particle or quanta. , it can experience a time-like-curve, which allows the system in question to twist through time, and return to it's original space from where it started. It is predicted by QM and relavity.

While it moves, the rest of the world also moves. How would you know it to be in the same spatial position? Position is relative to everything else. If it showed up earlier it could not be in the same position!

Potentially, they be disordered into infinity,a nd never return to their original positions

Entropy is a (vague) measure of order/disorder of a system of elements.
A closed system can only lose so much order/(energy distribution) until it becomes stable with an approximately uniform energy distribution. At this point it can't become any less ordered, i.e. there's a limit.
NeoNo.1
I'm not even going to dignify that with a reasonable response. You troll my thread, therego, i'm not feeding you any more. It's obvious you know very little about physics, so our conversations are now terminated.
Guest00
QUOTE (NeoNo.1+Dec 7 2007, 10:58 PM)
''I. Learn to spell and use proper punctuation (granted, no one is perfect, but this just doesn't cut it man).''

The abillity to spell, is hardly equivalant to a good theory... I can easy spell chack before i send it off.

''You seem to contradict yourself ''

''Seem'' doesn't hold to a good arguement: here is why>

''Tipler's proposed method of time travel (that is, from my understanding) states that you can't go further back than the creation/inception of the time machine.''

Is right... in arbitrary senses... but>

''A simple/crude analogy would be trying to go back in time before the big bang.''

This is solved by Dr Hawking by saying that a time machine cannot move into a time, when time machines are not invented - therego, the day we create a time machine, if we can, we will only be able to move into the future.

'' As far as I'm concerned, the big bang was the start of it all (granted, this is debatable). Simply put, you can only go back in time to a point when the cylinder exists.''

Which is partially true, if big bang is even the correct truth. With the massive hole found recently in the back ground temperatures, big bang has now found itself a serous problem. I hypothesize an early antimatter-matter collision, which created the hole we are seem to be observing.

''III. The Tipler cylinder requires infinite length. ''

Actually, it only requires a string gravitational foundation: To call this an ''infinite length'', his machine would require a singular construction, or a singularity. His paper only requires a certain density which drags spacetime, and creates a Global causality violation.

Thank you.

Neo,

I. On Language
Not to argue with you, but I believe spell checking is relevant. In fact, proper grammar, syntax, punctuation, etc. are important-- a thing I learned in High School. A long time ago when I was in AP Physics, I gave my teacher an answer... despite it being mathematically correct, it was poorly written. I told him that English didn't matter because it was a physics class, but what he told me is something I still remember to this day. He told me that without language, we can't properly establish a medium of communication. If you want to use MS Word's spell-check feature, that's fine (in no way shape or form do I endorse this product). Most-- in fact, all-- word processing software is garbage (granted, they do help). They don't know a thing about em dashes or the proper use of commas, semi-colons, or even colons. If I paste Wollstonecraft, Woolf, or Chomsky it gives you a load of grammatical errors... which simply is not true.

II. Writing a good theory...
A good theory in my opinion requires three things:
i) It must be both clear and well written (thus allowing the reader to understand the author's intent)
ii) The author uses proper grammar, syntax, etc.
iii) It shouldn't have too many vagaries

I'm not saying your "theory" is crap, nor am I saying you shouldn't submit it. What I am saying is that you (and many others in this board) should take certain steps prior to sending your work to a professional peer-reviewed journal. If you want to send your stuff, I guarantee you that the first thing they'll do is toss it in the trash. Ensuring your success does not mean meeting their standards, but going beyond them.

If you want to be considered as being serious, you need to meet certain professional standards. I can personally testify to that, and I'm sure that if AlphaNumeric reads this (and responds), he too will say the same thing (that is, you need to meet certain professional standards).
NeoNo.1
I suppose i could agree with that... ??? Maybe/
phyti
QUOTE (NeoNo.1+Dec 8 2007, 06:12 AM)
I'm not even going to dignify that with a reasonable response. You troll my thread, therego, i'm not feeding you any more. It's obvious you know very little about physics, so our conversations are now terminated.

There's no trolling, there's just too much nonsense presented as science.
Don't take it personally.
PJParent001
fasteR THAN lighT COMmUNICATIOn

Though I've not studied the group/phase velocity thingy much, I am intuitively led to think it might be possible to encode information so it can be neatly represented ''into'' phase velocities.

Re retrocausal phenomenae; If ever proven possible, it would be very difficult to notice a symmetric occurrence. An asymetric one would be highly unlikely to ever occur.

PJ Parent
NeoNo.1
QUOTE (PJParent001+Dec 11 2007, 02:19 PM)
fasteR THAN lighT COMmUNICATIOn

Though I've not studied the group/phase velocity thingy much, I am intuitively led to think it might be possible to encode information so it can be neatly represented ''into'' phase velocities.

Re retrocausal phenomenae; If ever proven possible, it would be very difficult to notice a symmetric occurrence. An asymetric one would be highly unlikely to ever occur.

PJ Parent

Totally imprevious. Have you been studying my work? You are well-adversed into what you are talking about.

Nep
PJParent001
re: Have you been studying my work?

I did read some parts of this thread which inevitably conjured some thoughts.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.