🚀 go-pugleaf

Don H wrote:
> "Duggy" <Paul.Duggan@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:2b2195c5-e847-412b-a17d-ff739cad876c@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 6, 2:34 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>>> Surely that's a tautology. But as usual depends on your unstated
>>> definitions. Obviously the universes matter comes from the original
> point.
>>> Equally obviously the original point did not encompass the current size
> of
>>> the universe. Scientists do accept a singular point every time they
> claim a
>>> particular age for the universe by working backwards from the current
>>> positions at measured/calculated velocities. Something that seems to be
>>> widely accepted I might add.
>> We're sort of saying here's an inflated balloon: where did it begin,
>> and one person is saying "it started as a uninflated balloon, the
>> whole thing is the origin point" and the other is saying "it started
>> here where you blow the air in"
>>
>> Right?
>>
>>> And you know exactly how the earths gravity will affect a time machine
> that
>>> hasn't yet been invented, HOW exactly?
>> Which is why you have to discuss hypothetical types of time machines.
>>
>>> Not according to most cosmologists, of course it depends on your
> definition
>>> of explosion. Size increasing to encompass earths orbit before
> subsequently
>>> collapsing, is a widely accepted theory.
>> Would the speed of expansion be a factor?
>>
>>> Proof will have to wait a while :-)
>>> But if you have PROOF to the contrary, by all means let's hear it.
>> Why wait, can't we initiate something to cause it now?
>>
>> ===
>> = DUG.
>> ===
> 
> #  I'd claim that "time travel" is impossible - if you regard the whole
> universe as a chain of causal consequences, all more-or-less interdependent.
>    Hence, it is impossible to detach any Time Traveller, and/or Machine,
> from the totality of events.
>    The Past is gone, never to return.  The Future doesn't yet exist. Only
> the Present has existence, and only Duration is possible - to extend the
> Present into the Future.  And even Duration implies changelessness.
>    While Doctor Who and similar "time travellers" are pleasant fictions,
> that is what they will probably always remain - fiction.  In the movies,
> anything is possible.
>     To travel backwards in time, you'd have to "rewind" the whole causal
> chain, and we'd all go backwards together - not merely one entity.
>     "Time Travel" depends on prior philosophical problems being first
> resolved, and I doubt you can get past them.
>     As to an "exploding universe", and balloon analogy, these tend to suffer
> from the same basic flaw.  The Origin of the Universe assumes the Universe
> had an Origin - and if so, what was there beforehand?
> 
>
Philosophical problems??
Huh!!
I don't think that philosophy has anything to do with time travel.
Maybe you were thinking of the word "theoretical"

What if time can be treated like the two dimensional analogy, where a piece of 
paper (the two dimensions) can be folded to have non-adjacent points (in the two 
dimensions) adjacent

What if we could 'move' into a five (or higher) dimensional state of existence, 
'fold' time to be in the past (or future), move, then return to our state of 
existence. Space co-ordinates would probably by-passed as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what I vaguely read about string theory, 
the mathematicians have been theorising eleven dimensions, so is time travel 
possible in our state of existence?

Maybe!!

I think we'd need help from a being from one of those five or more dimensional 
states to give us a hand, but would they even know we exist?

After all, we haven't established there's ANY beings living in three dimensions 
(length, breadth, time), let alone one or two dimensions!!