whoops... no... that is not what I meant.


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

whoops... no... that is not what I meant.

Posted By: MrHen Date: 12/18/06 9:49 a.m.
In Response To: Re: so where do you get hyper-time? (Forrest of B.org)

: I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "global time" and
: "relative time". Define them please?
Global time is the actual timeline as seen by the time-god. It is the actual, literal time axis that we all know of and think of as "time". Global time would be how one would measure someone's "place" in time. We generally measure global time in years, minutes, seconds.
Relative time is how much time any particular entity experiences. It could be seen as the age of that entity. I am twenty-two years old, so my relative time is roughly twenty-two years. (My actual relative time is probably less, but that gets into sticky discussions about experiencing time.) My position in global time is the same as everyone else in this time. It is the year 2006 and about to tick over into 2007.
Relative time will basically grow at a constant rate due to the way we experience time. Generally, this relative growth will match the rate of growth of everyone else in the universe. (Avoiding the complications caused by Relativity.) For the most part, every is experiencing time at the same rate and our entities are all moving along the time axis at the same speed.
Time-travel occurs when we change the speed we are moving along the time axis: we speed it up or slow it down. Our relative time will continue to grow at the same rate. It is nothing more than a measure of the time we have experienced. Our position on the time axis will change and that rate of change can change but the growth of our relative time will continue to remain constant.
Theoretically, that could change too, but it is a (fun) discussion completely outside of time-travel.
In a simple analogy, I will use the highway example again. Imagine the time-axis as laid out in asphalt. All of the cars are traveling forward on this highway at the same speed. At any point the highway-god can look at the highway and know the exact state of all the cars and their positions on the highway. That position is their global position and is equivalent to global time.
If we were to take a closer look at a particular car on the highway, we would know their position in terms of global positioning. But in addition to this measurement there is a second measurement we could take: how far this car has traveled. My car will have traveled 22 miles since it started moving on the highway. It is currently located at the 2006th mile of the road and is traveling forward.
My position, in global terms, is 2006 mi. from the beginning of the road. My distance traveled is 22 miles. The distance traveled is equivalent to my relative time. I have experienced 22 miles of driving even though I am currently located at 2006 miles from the beginning of the road.
Time-travel, in my model, would effectively have me slowing down my rate of speed in terms of my global position while maintaining the speed I experience. I would continue traveling at the same speed but be heading backward on the highway. My global position will decrease, but the relative distance I have traveled will continue to grow.
If I managed to turn around and head back toward the beginning of the highway and traveled for 22 miles I would have traveled 44 miles and find myself located at the 1984 mile marker.
The analogy breaks down because we think of the highway and travel and speed and all that in terms of two dimensions: distance and time. Time-travel only directly effects one dimension: time. For me to slow down and turn around I would need to find a way to change my rate of travel along the highway while maintaining my experience of traveling at that same speed.
It would be like running on a very long treadmill. Changing the rate of the treadmill underneath you does not have to effect the rate you are running. Your global speed will change, but your relative speed will not.
If you found a way to enter something that could effect how it experiences time you could travel backward in time without screwing with your experience. It would be a time machine. You would have to build something akin to a time-treadmill and hop on it while you keep running at the speed you have always run.
While the treadmill is off, you are doing nothing abnormal in terms of timetravel. When you turn it on and send it moving in the opposite direction you are moving your rate of change in global time will begin to slow down while your rate of change in relative time will continue to function as it always has. Eventually, the speed of the treadmill will increase past the speed you are running and you will begin to travel back in time.
All of this can be graphed as long as you keep the axes organized. If you plot your position in global time over your position in relative time you can watch yourself move through time.
: Ok, I think we're misunderstand each other even more than either of us
: thought. Your method of "time travel", if I understand you, it
: just resetting everything in 3D space to how it was in the past - not
: actually moving along any sort of temporal axis?
Uh, no, actually that was just an example. I was saying that the only way to return to a particular "time line" is to go back in time and reorder everything so that the event you remember happened again.
My model does have people moving around on the time axis. :)
: But I'd be
: extremely hesitant to really call that time travel at all; and to actually
: move along the fourth dimension, which is all I'd be willing to call real
: time travel, necessarily implies some sort of hyper-time to make any
: sense.
I agree that the model you just described is not really time-travel. I do not agree that you need a hyper-time, however. In the model I just described above, the time-god would be able to plot everyone's movements along the time axis without any problems. The only catch is that the other axis, which you want to call hyper-time, already exists and we all know about it. It is nothing more than our position in terms of where we were.
This is relative to each entity that wants to travel through time, but the time-god would know this assuming that each entity could be uniquely identified. In truth, we measure all distance this way. When we talk about someone running seven miles in seven minutes we merely mean he experienced seven miles in accordance with experiencing seven minutes. Someone running seven miles on Earth would obviously travel much further than seven miles due to the speed of the Earth.
Why should time be measured any differently? We have no idea what is hurtling us through time at the rate we experience it. All we know is that this experience is relatively stable. Relativity is something I keep meaning to dig into, but my very basic understanding of it leads me to believe it supports my model. People do travel through time at different rates but we all seem to experience it at the same rate.
When we measure time today we measure in it terms relative to experience. Clocks and timers all register time relative to their entity. We have no way to measure global time. We can depict it graphically, as our time-god would, but I see no necessity to use a hyper-time.
It gets confusing because of our language and because there is a misconception that the time we experience is, in fact, the time we have traveled. This misconception is similar to thinking I am not moving while standing still on a moving sidewalk. I am standing still but I am continuing to move.
: I'm also curious: what have identity and free will to do with this, in your
: model?
Because it is a pain to try and figure out how to determine what any one thing is. If I wanted to plot myself in terms of my changes in 3D space and plot the changes of my environment, where would the distinctions lie? Where do I start and my environment stop?
The problem has less to do with my model of time travel as it does with just plotting the dimensional change of anything and comparing it with everything else.
I suspect my issues with that have something to do with how much I hated Calculus and stopped after Calc 2. :P
Free will comes into play when trying to find the causes for anything to move and determining what, exactly, will change if someone travels back in time. Given the exact same physical state of the universe, is the next state predetermined? According to friends, this is delving into Quantum Physics which I have never studied.
If we have free will, one state does not necessitate the next state because could theoretically choose whatever we wanted to choose.
Free will adds all sorts of problems to time-travel. Theoretically, one could travel into the future because it has not been written yet. But if we can travel into the past we are moving the point of "future" backward and now we can travel back to the future which is a contradiction unless there is a point labeled "now" on the global time axis.
But I personally find that this is less of a problem than identity. Free will cannot exist unless there is will and something's will is dependent on the something's ability to distinguish itself from everything else. Metaphysically, it makes sense, but I am still trying to find a model of identity that fits with all of my other models.
Free will is really a rather pointless argument, in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not we have free will, I think I have free will and that makes me happy.
As the last bit on this, I think I have fully described my model. As a summary, we can move along the time-axis without moving along any other axis which means that a hyper-time does not need to exist. Showing the changes on this time-axis is the same as showing the changes on any of the other axes: either show the change in the time-axis in relation to the change in one of the other three axes or show the change in terms of the time experienced by the entity that is moving along the axis. All of this knowledge is readily available to the time-god so he can "see" it without needing a hyper-time.
Time can be measured according to two things: global time and relative time. Global time is the actual, true position on the time-axis and relative time is how much time has been experienced (or how much time has "gone by"). These global and relative measures exist on the spacial axes as well but we generally ignore the global measurements because have no way of knowing what they are.
It is possible to take two relative measurements and compare them to show how one has changed in respect to the other: I have run seven miles but have physically traveled much further than that when taking into account the relative movement of Earth.
Time-travel would work the same way: we compare our relative displacement with the relative displacement of the time-machine and determine that our net travel is negative showing that we have moved backward in global time (not accounting for other, unseen effects on our position in time).
Relativity appears to show that we can slow down our change in global time by speeding up drastically in our relative change on the spacial axes. In a sense, this is our time-machine. The treadmill has not caught up with our body's pace through time and so we are still traveling forward in terms of global time. Our net change is lower than the net change of someone who is moving at a slower speed.
All of my thoughts on Relativity are ad hoc and could be wrong. If they are, please, please correct me.
And that, if I said everything correctly and there were no typos, is my model of time travel which does allow for true time-travel and does not have any hyper-time. Hyper-time would make things a heck of a lot easier though...

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

The Garden of Forking Paths Document 11/29/06 8:50 p.m.

Re: The Garden of Forking Paths Forrest of B.org 11/29/06 10:11 p.m.

*sniff* Duality *sniff *NM* treellama 11/30/06 2:51 a.m.

That's not fair. RyokoTK 11/30/06 5:26 a.m.

Re: That's not fair. McNutcase 11/30/06 5:40 a.m.

Re: That's not fair. RyokoTK 11/30/06 8:51 a.m.

Re: That's not fair. McNutcase 11/30/06 9:25 a.m.

Re: That's not fair. RyokoTK 11/30/06 9:59 a.m.

Re: That's not fair. D-M.A. 11/30/06 10:05 a.m.

Re: That's not fair. RyokoTK 11/30/06 10:22 a.m.

Ahaa, I see what you mean now, point taken. *NM* D-M.A. 11/30/06 10:33 a.m.

define "well" MrHen 11/30/06 10:24 a.m.

Re: define "well" RyokoTK 11/30/06 11:31 a.m.

Re: define "well" Aaron Sikes 11/30/06 12:19 p.m.

Re: define "well" Forrest of B.org 11/30/06 1:26 p.m.

Re: define "well" Aaron Sikes 12/1/06 6:01 a.m.

Mmm... House of Leaves MrHen 11/30/06 8:00 a.m.

Re: The Garden of Forking Paths Vid Boi 11/30/06 8:13 a.m.

Re: The Garden of Forking Paths sdwoodchuck 11/30/06 12:39 p.m.

So, what was your conclusion? *NM* Frungi 11/30/06 3:57 p.m.

Re: So, what was your conclusion? sdwoodchuck 11/30/06 6:18 p.m.

in your theory, the dreams... MrHen 12/1/06 4:44 a.m.

Re: in your theory, the dreams... thermoplyae 12/1/06 6:42 a.m.

Re: So, what was your conclusion? Frungi 12/4/06 6:31 p.m.

Re: So, what was your conclusion? Forrest of B.org 12/4/06 9:07 p.m.

Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods Forrest of B.org 12/4/06 9:25 p.m.

Re: Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods Frungi 12/5/06 8:46 a.m.

Re: Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods Forrest of B.org 12/5/06 4:29 p.m.

heck, I would buy 'em MrHen 12/5/06 6:39 p.m.

Philosophy anyone? Icarus 12/6/06 8:29 a.m.

Re: Philosophy anyone? Forrest of B.org 12/6/06 10:46 a.m.

Re: The Garden of Forking Paths *LINK* Hamish Sinclair 12/2/06 5:06 a.m.

Re: The Garden of Forking Paths Document 12/2/06 6:17 p.m.

Re: The Garden of Forking Paths Document 12/4/06 7:03 p.m.

Official Bungie Canon? Shoeless 12/7/06 7:00 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Bob-B-Q 12/7/06 10:14 a.m.

Define "all" MrHen 12/7/06 10:20 a.m.

Re: Define "all" Document 12/7/06 4:20 p.m.

Re: Define "all" Document 12/7/06 4:21 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Chris Biberstein 12/11/06 10:28 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Shoeless 12/11/06 12:00 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Forrest of B.org 12/11/06 12:03 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? MrHen 12/11/06 1:45 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? *LINK* Frungi 12/11/06 3:22 p.m.

uh, thanks... MrHen 12/11/06 6:01 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Forrest of B.org 12/11/06 9:44 p.m.

I like being confused... MrHen 12/12/06 5:13 a.m.

Re: I like being confused... Forrest of B.org 12/12/06 3:53 p.m.

Re: I like being confused... Frungi 12/12/06 5:51 p.m.

Re: I like being confused... Forrest of B.org 12/12/06 9:42 p.m.

timelines and their glory MrHen 12/13/06 5:14 a.m.

Re: timelines and their glory Forrest of B.org 12/13/06 8:05 a.m.

Mmm... trippy... MrHen 12/13/06 8:20 a.m.

Re: timelines and their glory Frungi 12/13/06 1:43 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Chris Biberstein 12/12/06 12:37 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Forrest of B.org 12/12/06 4:02 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Chris Biberstein 12/12/06 4:43 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Forrest of B.org 12/12/06 9:52 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Chris Biberstein 12/13/06 4:17 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Forrest of B.org 12/13/06 6:06 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Chris Biberstein 12/16/06 5:42 p.m.

what? why? MrHen 12/16/06 5:47 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? kyjel 12/16/06 6:40 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Shoeless 12/17/06 4:13 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Frungi 12/18/06 5:09 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Chris Biberstein 12/18/06 8:47 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Frungi 12/18/06 9:22 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Chris Biberstein 12/22/06 9:58 a.m.

questions and answers MrHen 12/22/06 12:44 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Shoeless 12/22/06 1:24 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Shoeless 12/18/06 10:21 p.m.

rabbit trail, sorry... MrHen 12/13/06 5:23 a.m.

Re: rabbit trail, sorry... Chris Biberstein 12/13/06 4:29 p.m.

and the problem was... where? MrHen 12/13/06 7:06 p.m.

Re: and the problem was... where? Forrest of B.org 12/13/06 9:13 p.m.

ah, my bad. I understand. :) *NM* MrHen 12/14/06 4:54 a.m.

Re: ah, my bad. I understand. :) Forrest of B.org 12/14/06 1:22 p.m.

I am the same way. ;) MrHen 12/15/06 5:18 a.m.

Re: I am the same way. ;) Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 7:27 a.m.

Branching MrHen 12/15/06 9:46 a.m.

Re: Branching Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 11:04 a.m.

Actually, I think I did understand. MrHen 12/15/06 4:32 p.m.

Re: Actually, I think I did understand. Forrest of B.org 12/17/06 11:55 a.m.

Oh, okay, then we do disagree. MrHen 12/17/06 6:50 p.m.

Re: Oh, okay, then we do disagree. Forrest of B.org 12/17/06 10:08 p.m.

so where do you get hyper-time? MrHen 12/18/06 5:13 a.m.

Re: so where do you get hyper-time? Forrest of B.org 12/18/06 8:20 a.m.

whoops... no... that is not what I meant. MrHen 12/18/06 9:49 a.m.

Re: whoops... no... that is not what I meant. Forrest of B.org 12/18/06 1:58 p.m.

right, yeah, that is the identity problem MrHen 12/18/06 4:41 p.m.

Re: right, yeah, that is the identity problem Forrest of B.org 12/18/06 9:55 p.m.

ohhh... MrHen 12/19/06 5:44 a.m.

Re: ohhh... Forrest of B.org 12/19/06 9:20 a.m.

back to the math ;) MrHen 12/19/06 11:07 a.m.

Re: back to the math ;) Forrest of B.org 12/19/06 1:36 p.m.

wait, so my model is too... real? ;) MrHen 12/22/06 1:57 p.m.

Sort of. Forrest of B.org 12/22/06 3:22 p.m.

and the light turns on... MrHen 1/7/07 4:41 p.m.

Re: and the light turns on... Forrest of B.org 1/8/07 8:12 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Shoeless 12/13/06 8:11 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Chris Biberstein 12/13/06 4:34 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Shoeless 12/14/06 8:01 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Frungi 12/15/06 8:02 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 8:51 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Frungi 12/15/06 9:22 a.m.

hehe, Infinity MrHen 12/15/06 9:51 a.m.

Re: hehe, Infinity Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 11:16 a.m.

Re: hehe, Infinity treellama 12/15/06 12:18 p.m.

Re: hehe, Infinity Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 1:15 p.m.

Re: hehe, Infinity treellama 12/15/06 2:09 p.m.

Re: hehe, Infinity Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 3:15 p.m.

Re: hehe, Infinity treellama 12/15/06 4:12 p.m.

Re: hehe, Infinity Frungi 12/15/06 6:34 p.m.

Re: hehe, Infinity treellama 12/16/06 3:38 a.m.

So... do I have this right? MrHen 12/16/06 6:35 a.m.

Re: So... do I have this right? treellama 12/16/06 11:25 a.m.

Re: hehe, Infinity treellama 12/15/06 2:21 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? treellama 12/15/06 9:55 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? McNutcase 12/15/06 11:12 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 1:20 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? McNutcase 12/15/06 9:32 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? MrHen 12/15/06 9:49 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? treellama 12/15/06 9:56 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? McNutcase 12/15/06 11:09 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 1:34 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Forrest of B.org 12/15/06 1:39 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? ukimalefu 12/15/06 6:29 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? McNutcase 12/15/06 10:23 p.m.

awesome, thanks! *NM* MrHen 12/16/06 6:49 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Chris Biberstein 12/16/06 5:51 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? kyjel 12/16/06 7:08 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Chris Biberstein 12/18/06 8:36 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Frungi 12/18/06 9:48 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Chris Biberstein 12/22/06 10:00 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Forrest of B.org 12/22/06 10:19 a.m.

what he said MrHen 12/22/06 12:38 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Shoeless 12/18/06 10:23 p.m.

*sigh* MrHen 12/17/06 5:08 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Frungi 12/11/06 3:35 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Chris Biberstein 12/12/06 12:23 p.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Shoeless 12/13/06 7:56 a.m.

Re: Official Bungie Canon? Forrest of B.org 12/13/06 8:32 a.m.

another example (albeit overused) MrHen 12/13/06 8:57 a.m.

Re: The Garden of Forking Paths *LINK* irons 2/23/18 1:11 a.m.

LOKE *NM* W'rkncacnter 2/23/18 4:06 p.m.

Re: LOKE *NM* *LINK* irons 2/23/18 4:14 p.m.

LOKE *NM* *NM* *NM* *NM* *NM* *LINK* W'rkncacnter 2/23/18 11:09 p.m.

Re: LOKE *NM* *LINK* irons 2/24/18 3:31 a.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: Global time is the actual timeline as seen by the time-god. It is the actual, : literal time axis that we all know of and think of as "time". : Global time would be how one would measure someone's "place" in : time. We generally measure global time in years, minutes, seconds. : Relative time is how much time any particular entity experiences . It could : be seen as the age of that entity. I am twenty-two years old, so my : relative time is roughly twenty-two years. (My actual relative time is : probably less, but that gets into sticky discussions about experiencing : time.) My position in global time is the same as everyone else in this : time. It is the year 2006 and about to tick over into 2007. : Relative time will basically grow at a constant rate due to the way we : experience time. Generally, this relative growth will match the rate of : growth of everyone else in the universe. (Avoiding the complications : caused by Relativity.) For the most part, every is experiencing time at : the same rate and our entities are all moving along the time axis at the : same speed. : Time-travel occurs when we change the speed we are moving along the time : axis: we speed it up or slow it down. Our relative time will continue to : grow at the same rate. It is nothing more than a measure of the time we : have experienced. Our position on the time axis will change and that rate : of change can change but the growth of our relative time will continue to : remain constant. : Theoretically, that could change too, but it is a (fun) discussion completely : outside of time-travel. : In a simple analogy, I will use the highway example again. Imagine the : time-axis as laid out in asphalt. All of the cars are traveling forward on : this highway at the same speed. At any point the highway-god can look at : the highway and know the exact state of all the cars and their positions : on the highway. That position is their global position and is equivalent : to global time. : If we were to take a closer look at a particular car on the highway, we would : know their position in terms of global positioning. But in addition to : this measurement there is a second measurement we could take: how far this : car has traveled. My car will have traveled 22 miles since it started : moving on the highway. It is currently located at the 2006th mile of the : road and is traveling forward. : My position, in global terms, is 2006 mi. from the beginning of the road. My : distance traveled is 22 miles. The distance traveled is equivalent to my : relative time. I have experienced 22 miles of driving even though I am : currently located at 2006 miles from the beginning of the road. : Time-travel, in my model, would effectively have me slowing down my rate of : speed in terms of my global position while maintaining the speed I : experience. I would continue traveling at the same speed but be heading : backward on the highway. My global position will decrease, but the : relative distance I have traveled will continue to grow. : If I managed to turn around and head back toward the beginning of the highway : and traveled for 22 miles I would have traveled 44 miles and find myself : located at the 1984 mile marker. : The analogy breaks down because we think of the highway and travel and speed : and all that in terms of two dimensions: distance and time. Time-travel : only directly effects one dimension: time. For me to slow down and turn : around I would need to find a way to change my rate of travel along the : highway while maintaining my experience of traveling at that same speed. : It would be like running on a very long treadmill. Changing the rate of the : treadmill underneath you does not have to effect the rate you are running. : Your global speed will change, but your relative speed will not. : If you found a way to enter something that could effect how it experiences : time you could travel backward in time without screwing with your : experience. It would be a time machine. You would have to build something : akin to a time-treadmill and hop on it while you keep running at the speed : you have always run. : While the treadmill is off, you are doing nothing abnormal in terms of : timetravel. When you turn it on and send it moving in the opposite : direction you are moving your rate of change in global time will begin : to slow down while your rate of change in relative time will continue to : function as it always has. Eventually, the speed of the treadmill will : increase past the speed you are running and you will begin to travel back : in time. : All of this can be graphed as long as you keep the axes organized. If you : plot your position in global time over your position in relative time you : can watch yourself move through time. : Uh, no, actually that was just an example. I was saying that the only way to : return to a particular "time line" is to go back in time and : reorder everything so that the event you remember happened again. : My model does have people moving around on the time axis. :) : I agree that the model you just described is not really time-travel. I do not : agree that you need a hyper-time, however. In the model I just described : above, the time-god would be able to plot everyone's movements along the : time axis without any problems. The only catch is that the other axis, : which you want to call hyper-time, already exists and we all know about : it. It is nothing more than our position in terms of where we were. : This is relative to each entity that wants to travel through time, but the : time-god would know this assuming that each entity could be uniquely : identified. In truth, we measure all distance this way. When we talk about : someone running seven miles in seven minutes we merely mean he experienced : seven miles in accordance with experiencing seven minutes. Someone running : seven miles on Earth would obviously travel much further than seven miles : due to the speed of the Earth. : Why should time be measured any differently? We have no idea what is hurtling : us through time at the rate we experience it. All we know is that this : experience is relatively stable. Relativity is something I keep meaning to : dig into, but my very basic understanding of it leads me to believe it : supports my model. People do travel through time at different rates but : we all seem to experience it at the same rate. : When we measure time today we measure in it terms relative to experience. : Clocks and timers all register time relative to their entity. We have no : way to measure global time. We can depict it graphically, as our time-god : would, but I see no necessity to use a hyper-time. : It gets confusing because of our language and because there is a : misconception that the time we experience is, in fact, the time we have : traveled. This misconception is similar to thinking I am not moving while : standing still on a moving sidewalk. I am standing still but I am : continuing to move. : Because it is a pain to try and figure out how to determine what any one : thing is. If I wanted to plot myself in terms of my changes in 3D space : and plot the changes of my environment, where would the distinctions lie? : Where do I start and my environment stop? : The problem has less to do with my model of time travel as it does with just : plotting the dimensional change of anything and comparing it with : everything else. : I suspect my issues with that have something to do with how much I hated : Calculus and stopped after Calc 2. :P : Free will comes into play when trying to find the causes for anything to move : and determining what, exactly, will change if someone travels back in : time. Given the exact same physical state of the universe, is the next : state predetermined? According to friends, this is delving into Quantum : Physics which I have never studied. : If we have free will, one state does not necessitate the next state because : could theoretically choose whatever we wanted to choose. : Free will adds all sorts of problems to time-travel. Theoretically, one could : travel into the future because it has not been written yet. But if we can : travel into the past we are moving the point of "future" : backward and now we can travel back to the future which is a contradiction : unless there is a point labeled "now" on the global time axis. : But I personally find that this is less of a problem than identity. Free will : cannot exist unless there is will and something's will is dependent on the : something's ability to distinguish itself from everything else. : Metaphysically, it makes sense, but I am still trying to find a model of : identity that fits with all of my other models. : Free will is really a rather pointless argument, in my opinion. Regardless of : whether or not we have free will, I think I have free will and that : makes me happy. : As the last bit on this, I think I have fully described my model. As a : summary, we can move along the time-axis without moving along any other : axis which means that a hyper-time does not need to exist. Showing the : changes on this time-axis is the same as showing the changes on any of the : other axes: either show the change in the time-axis in relation to the : change in one of the other three axes or show the change in terms of the : time experienced by the entity that is moving along the axis. All of this : knowledge is readily available to the time-god so he can "see" : it without needing a hyper-time. : Time can be measured according to two things: global time and relative time. : Global time is the actual, true position on the time-axis and relative : time is how much time has been experienced (or how much time has : "gone by"). These global and relative measures exist on the : spacial axes as well but we generally ignore the global measurements : because have no way of knowing what they are. : It is possible to take two relative measurements and compare them to show how : one has changed in respect to the other: I have run seven miles but have : physically traveled much further than that when taking into account the : relative movement of Earth. : Time-travel would work the same way: we compare our relative displacement : with the relative displacement of the time-machine and determine that our : net travel is negative showing that we have moved backward in global time : (not accounting for other, unseen effects on our position in time). : Relativity appears to show that we can slow down our change in global time by : speeding up drastically in our relative change on the spacial axes. In a : sense, this is our time-machine. The treadmill has not caught up with our : body's pace through time and so we are still traveling forward in terms of : global time. Our net change is lower than the net change of someone who is : moving at a slower speed. : All of my thoughts on Relativity are ad hoc and could be wrong. If they are, : please, please correct me. : And that, if I said everything correctly and there were no typos, is my model : of time travel which does allow for true time-travel and does not have : any hyper-time. Hyper-time would make things a heck of a lot easier : though...

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

The Garden of Forking Paths	Document	11/29/06 8:50 p.m.
Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	Forrest of B.org	11/29/06 10:11 p.m.
sniff Duality sniff NM*	treellama	11/30/06 2:51 a.m.
That's not fair.	RyokoTK	11/30/06 5:26 a.m.
Re: That's not fair.	McNutcase	11/30/06 5:40 a.m.
Re: That's not fair.	RyokoTK	11/30/06 8:51 a.m.
Re: That's not fair.	McNutcase	11/30/06 9:25 a.m.
Re: That's not fair.	RyokoTK	11/30/06 9:59 a.m.
Re: That's not fair.	D-M.A.	11/30/06 10:05 a.m.
Re: That's not fair.	RyokoTK	11/30/06 10:22 a.m.
Ahaa, I see what you mean now, point taken. NM	D-M.A.	11/30/06 10:33 a.m.
define "well"	MrHen	11/30/06 10:24 a.m.
Re: define "well"	RyokoTK	11/30/06 11:31 a.m.
Re: define "well"	Aaron Sikes	11/30/06 12:19 p.m.
Re: define "well"	Forrest of B.org	11/30/06 1:26 p.m.
Re: define "well"	Aaron Sikes	12/1/06 6:01 a.m.
Mmm... House of Leaves	MrHen	11/30/06 8:00 a.m.
Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	Vid Boi	11/30/06 8:13 a.m.
Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	sdwoodchuck	11/30/06 12:39 p.m.
So, what was your conclusion? NM	Frungi	11/30/06 3:57 p.m.
Re: So, what was your conclusion?	sdwoodchuck	11/30/06 6:18 p.m.
in your theory, the dreams...	MrHen	12/1/06 4:44 a.m.
Re: in your theory, the dreams...	thermoplyae	12/1/06 6:42 a.m.
Re: So, what was your conclusion?	Frungi	12/4/06 6:31 p.m.
Re: So, what was your conclusion?	Forrest of B.org	12/4/06 9:07 p.m.
Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods	Forrest of B.org	12/4/06 9:25 p.m.
Re: Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods	Frungi	12/5/06 8:46 a.m.
Re: Time Travel and the Psychology of Gods	Forrest of B.org	12/5/06 4:29 p.m.
heck, I would buy 'em	MrHen	12/5/06 6:39 p.m.
Philosophy anyone?	Icarus	12/6/06 8:29 a.m.
Re: Philosophy anyone?	Forrest of B.org	12/6/06 10:46 a.m.
Re: The Garden of Forking Paths LINK	Hamish Sinclair	12/2/06 5:06 a.m.
Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	Document	12/2/06 6:17 p.m.
Re: The Garden of Forking Paths	Document	12/4/06 7:03 p.m.
Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/7/06 7:00 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Bob-B-Q	12/7/06 10:14 a.m.
Define "all"	MrHen	12/7/06 10:20 a.m.
Re: Define "all"	Document	12/7/06 4:20 p.m.
Re: Define "all"	Document	12/7/06 4:21 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/11/06 10:28 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/11/06 12:00 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/11/06 12:03 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	MrHen	12/11/06 1:45 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon? LINK	Frungi	12/11/06 3:22 p.m.
uh, thanks...	MrHen	12/11/06 6:01 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/11/06 9:44 p.m.
I like being confused...	MrHen	12/12/06 5:13 a.m.
Re: I like being confused...	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 3:53 p.m.
Re: I like being confused...	Frungi	12/12/06 5:51 p.m.
Re: I like being confused...	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 9:42 p.m.
timelines and their glory	MrHen	12/13/06 5:14 a.m.
Re: timelines and their glory	Forrest of B.org	12/13/06 8:05 a.m.
Mmm... trippy...	MrHen	12/13/06 8:20 a.m.
Re: timelines and their glory	Frungi	12/13/06 1:43 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/12/06 12:37 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 4:02 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/12/06 4:43 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/12/06 9:52 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/13/06 4:17 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/13/06 6:06 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/16/06 5:42 p.m.
what? why?	MrHen	12/16/06 5:47 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	kyjel	12/16/06 6:40 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/17/06 4:13 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/18/06 5:09 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/18/06 8:47 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/18/06 9:22 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/22/06 9:58 a.m.
questions and answers	MrHen	12/22/06 12:44 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/22/06 1:24 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/18/06 10:21 p.m.
rabbit trail, sorry...	MrHen	12/13/06 5:23 a.m.
Re: rabbit trail, sorry...	Chris Biberstein	12/13/06 4:29 p.m.
and the problem was... where?	MrHen	12/13/06 7:06 p.m.
Re: and the problem was... where?	Forrest of B.org	12/13/06 9:13 p.m.
ah, my bad. I understand. :) NM	MrHen	12/14/06 4:54 a.m.
Re: ah, my bad. I understand. :)	Forrest of B.org	12/14/06 1:22 p.m.
I am the same way. ;)	MrHen	12/15/06 5:18 a.m.
Re: I am the same way. ;)	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 7:27 a.m.
Branching	MrHen	12/15/06 9:46 a.m.
Re: Branching	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 11:04 a.m.
Actually, I think I did understand.	MrHen	12/15/06 4:32 p.m.
Re: Actually, I think I did understand.	Forrest of B.org	12/17/06 11:55 a.m.
Oh, okay, then we do disagree.	MrHen	12/17/06 6:50 p.m.
Re: Oh, okay, then we do disagree.	Forrest of B.org	12/17/06 10:08 p.m.
so where do you get hyper-time?	MrHen	12/18/06 5:13 a.m.
Re: so where do you get hyper-time?	Forrest of B.org	12/18/06 8:20 a.m.
whoops... no... that is not what I meant.	MrHen	12/18/06 9:49 a.m.
Re: whoops... no... that is not what I meant.	Forrest of B.org	12/18/06 1:58 p.m.
right, yeah, that is the identity problem	MrHen	12/18/06 4:41 p.m.
Re: right, yeah, that is the identity problem	Forrest of B.org	12/18/06 9:55 p.m.
ohhh...	MrHen	12/19/06 5:44 a.m.
Re: ohhh...	Forrest of B.org	12/19/06 9:20 a.m.
back to the math ;)	MrHen	12/19/06 11:07 a.m.
Re: back to the math ;)	Forrest of B.org	12/19/06 1:36 p.m.
wait, so my model is too... real? ;)	MrHen	12/22/06 1:57 p.m.
Sort of.	Forrest of B.org	12/22/06 3:22 p.m.
and the light turns on...	MrHen	1/7/07 4:41 p.m.
Re: and the light turns on...	Forrest of B.org	1/8/07 8:12 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/13/06 8:11 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/13/06 4:34 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/14/06 8:01 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/15/06 8:02 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 8:51 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/15/06 9:22 a.m.
hehe, Infinity	MrHen	12/15/06 9:51 a.m.
Re: hehe, Infinity	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 11:16 a.m.
Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/15/06 12:18 p.m.
Re: hehe, Infinity	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 1:15 p.m.
Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/15/06 2:09 p.m.
Re: hehe, Infinity	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 3:15 p.m.
Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/15/06 4:12 p.m.
Re: hehe, Infinity	Frungi	12/15/06 6:34 p.m.
Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/16/06 3:38 a.m.
So... do I have this right?	MrHen	12/16/06 6:35 a.m.
Re: So... do I have this right?	treellama	12/16/06 11:25 a.m.
Re: hehe, Infinity	treellama	12/15/06 2:21 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	treellama	12/15/06 9:55 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	McNutcase	12/15/06 11:12 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 1:20 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	McNutcase	12/15/06 9:32 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	MrHen	12/15/06 9:49 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	treellama	12/15/06 9:56 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	McNutcase	12/15/06 11:09 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 1:34 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/15/06 1:39 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	ukimalefu	12/15/06 6:29 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	McNutcase	12/15/06 10:23 p.m.
awesome, thanks! NM	MrHen	12/16/06 6:49 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/16/06 5:51 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	kyjel	12/16/06 7:08 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/18/06 8:36 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/18/06 9:48 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/22/06 10:00 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/22/06 10:19 a.m.
what he said	MrHen	12/22/06 12:38 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/18/06 10:23 p.m.
sigh	MrHen	12/17/06 5:08 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Frungi	12/11/06 3:35 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Chris Biberstein	12/12/06 12:23 p.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Shoeless	12/13/06 7:56 a.m.
Re: Official Bungie Canon?	Forrest of B.org	12/13/06 8:32 a.m.
another example (albeit overused)	MrHen	12/13/06 8:57 a.m.
Re: The Garden of Forking Paths LINK	irons	2/23/18 1:11 a.m.
LOKE NM	W'rkncacnter	2/23/18 4:06 p.m.
Re: LOKE NM LINK	irons	2/23/18 4:14 p.m.
LOKE NM NM NM NM NM LINK	W'rkncacnter	2/23/18 11:09 p.m.
Re: LOKE NM LINK	irons	2/24/18 3:31 a.m.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : Global time is the actual timeline as seen by the time-god. It is the actual, : literal time axis that we all know of and think of as "time". : Global time would be how one would measure someone's "place" in : time. We generally measure global time in years, minutes, seconds. : Relative time is how much time any particular entity experiences . It could : be seen as the age of that entity. I am twenty-two years old, so my : relative time is roughly twenty-two years. (My actual relative time is : probably less, but that gets into sticky discussions about experiencing : time.) My position in global time is the same as everyone else in this : time. It is the year 2006 and about to tick over into 2007. : Relative time will basically grow at a constant rate due to the way we : experience time. Generally, this relative growth will match the rate of : growth of everyone else in the universe. (Avoiding the complications : caused by Relativity.) For the most part, every is experiencing time at : the same rate and our entities are all moving along the time axis at the : same speed. : Time-travel occurs when we change the speed we are moving along the time : axis: we speed it up or slow it down. Our relative time will continue to : grow at the same rate. It is nothing more than a measure of the time we : have experienced. Our position on the time axis will change and that rate : of change can change but the growth of our relative time will continue to : remain constant. : Theoretically, that could change too, but it is a (fun) discussion completely : outside of time-travel. : In a simple analogy, I will use the highway example again. Imagine the : time-axis as laid out in asphalt. All of the cars are traveling forward on : this highway at the same speed. At any point the highway-god can look at : the highway and know the exact state of all the cars and their positions : on the highway. That position is their global position and is equivalent : to global time. : If we were to take a closer look at a particular car on the highway, we would : know their position in terms of global positioning. But in addition to : this measurement there is a second measurement we could take: how far this : car has traveled. My car will have traveled 22 miles since it started : moving on the highway. It is currently located at the 2006th mile of the : road and is traveling forward. : My position, in global terms, is 2006 mi. from the beginning of the road. My : distance traveled is 22 miles. The distance traveled is equivalent to my : relative time. I have experienced 22 miles of driving even though I am : currently located at 2006 miles from the beginning of the road. : Time-travel, in my model, would effectively have me slowing down my rate of : speed in terms of my global position while maintaining the speed I : experience. I would continue traveling at the same speed but be heading : backward on the highway. My global position will decrease, but the : relative distance I have traveled will continue to grow. : If I managed to turn around and head back toward the beginning of the highway : and traveled for 22 miles I would have traveled 44 miles and find myself : located at the 1984 mile marker. : The analogy breaks down because we think of the highway and travel and speed : and all that in terms of two dimensions: distance and time. Time-travel : only directly effects one dimension: time. For me to slow down and turn : around I would need to find a way to change my rate of travel along the : highway while maintaining my experience of traveling at that same speed. : It would be like running on a very long treadmill. Changing the rate of the : treadmill underneath you does not have to effect the rate you are running. : Your global speed will change, but your relative speed will not. : If you found a way to enter something that could effect how it experiences : time you could travel backward in time without screwing with your : experience. It would be a time machine. You would have to build something : akin to a time-treadmill and hop on it while you keep running at the speed : you have always run. : While the treadmill is off, you are doing nothing abnormal in terms of : timetravel. When you turn it on and send it moving in the opposite : direction you are moving your rate of change in global time will begin : to slow down while your rate of change in relative time will continue to : function as it always has. Eventually, the speed of the treadmill will : increase past the speed you are running and you will begin to travel back : in time. : All of this can be graphed as long as you keep the axes organized. If you : plot your position in global time over your position in relative time you : can watch yourself move through time. : Uh, no, actually that was just an example. I was saying that the only way to : return to a particular "time line" is to go back in time and : reorder everything so that the event you remember happened again. : My model does have people moving around on the time axis. :) : I agree that the model you just described is not really time-travel. I do not : agree that you need a hyper-time, however. In the model I just described : above, the time-god would be able to plot everyone's movements along the : time axis without any problems. The only catch is that the other axis, : which you want to call hyper-time, already exists and we all know about : it. It is nothing more than our position in terms of where we were. : This is relative to each entity that wants to travel through time, but the : time-god would know this assuming that each entity could be uniquely : identified. In truth, we measure all distance this way. When we talk about : someone running seven miles in seven minutes we merely mean he experienced : seven miles in accordance with experiencing seven minutes. Someone running : seven miles on Earth would obviously travel much further than seven miles : due to the speed of the Earth. : Why should time be measured any differently? We have no idea what is hurtling : us through time at the rate we experience it. All we know is that this : experience is relatively stable. Relativity is something I keep meaning to : dig into, but my very basic understanding of it leads me to believe it : supports my model. People do travel through time at different rates but : we all seem to experience it at the same rate. : When we measure time today we measure in it terms relative to experience. : Clocks and timers all register time relative to their entity. We have no : way to measure global time. We can depict it graphically, as our time-god : would, but I see no necessity to use a hyper-time. : It gets confusing because of our language and because there is a : misconception that the time we experience is, in fact, the time we have : traveled. This misconception is similar to thinking I am not moving while : standing still on a moving sidewalk. I am standing still but I am : continuing to move. : Because it is a pain to try and figure out how to determine what any one : thing is. If I wanted to plot myself in terms of my changes in 3D space : and plot the changes of my environment, where would the distinctions lie? : Where do I start and my environment stop? : The problem has less to do with my model of time travel as it does with just : plotting the dimensional change of anything and comparing it with : everything else. : I suspect my issues with that have something to do with how much I hated : Calculus and stopped after Calc 2. :P : Free will comes into play when trying to find the causes for anything to move : and determining what, exactly, will change if someone travels back in : time. Given the exact same physical state of the universe, is the next : state predetermined? According to friends, this is delving into Quantum : Physics which I have never studied. : If we have free will, one state does not necessitate the next state because : could theoretically choose whatever we wanted to choose. : Free will adds all sorts of problems to time-travel. Theoretically, one could : travel into the future because it has not been written yet. But if we can : travel into the past we are moving the point of "future" : backward and now we can travel back to the future which is a contradiction : unless there is a point labeled "now" on the global time axis. : But I personally find that this is less of a problem than identity. Free will : cannot exist unless there is will and something's will is dependent on the : something's ability to distinguish itself from everything else. : Metaphysically, it makes sense, but I am still trying to find a model of : identity that fits with all of my other models. : Free will is really a rather pointless argument, in my opinion. Regardless of : whether or not we have free will, I think I have free will and that : makes me happy. : As the last bit on this, I think I have fully described my model. As a : summary, we can move along the time-axis without moving along any other : axis which means that a hyper-time does not need to exist. Showing the : changes on this time-axis is the same as showing the changes on any of the : other axes: either show the change in the time-axis in relation to the : change in one of the other three axes or show the change in terms of the : time experienced by the entity that is moving along the axis. All of this : knowledge is readily available to the time-god so he can "see" : it without needing a hyper-time. : Time can be measured according to two things: global time and relative time. : Global time is the actual, true position on the time-axis and relative : time is how much time has been experienced (or how much time has : "gone by"). These global and relative measures exist on the : spacial axes as well but we generally ignore the global measurements : because have no way of knowing what they are. : It is possible to take two relative measurements and compare them to show how : one has changed in respect to the other: I have run seven miles but have : physically traveled much further than that when taking into account the : relative movement of Earth. : Time-travel would work the same way: we compare our relative displacement : with the relative displacement of the time-machine and determine that our : net travel is negative showing that we have moved backward in global time : (not accounting for other, unseen effects on our position in time). : Relativity appears to show that we can slow down our change in global time by : speeding up drastically in our relative change on the spacial axes. In a : sense, this is our time-machine. The treadmill has not caught up with our : body's pace through time and so we are still traveling forward in terms of : global time. Our net change is lower than the net change of someone who is : moving at a slower speed. : All of my thoughts on Relativity are ad hoc and could be wrong. If they are, : please, please correct me. : And that, if I said everything correctly and there were no typos, is my model : of time travel which does allow for true time-travel and does not have : any hyper-time. Hyper-time would make things a heck of a lot easier : though...
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: