PhysicsBurger

Okay so then the *CORRECT* term is not "Time Travel". The correct idea is simply a personal, slowing of aging in relation to your environment. But I want to take that even further. Exactly what is happening to you when this happens? Someone above said "light takes longer to travel within you". Therefore aging slows - i assume just because everything within you has slowed. Wish I could get my head around that concept. But why would light be the thing that's slowing. Everything - physical - would be slowing wouldnt it? Your circulation, your whole "system" (body) processes slow. I love this stuff. Its just mind boggling to me. So light takes longer to travel around within you because of your speed of movement. But the net result is that you age more slowly. Its a closed system. Alright. Whats this babble I hear about you having to move "eastward" ? Is this just because the earth rotates westward so you automatically get a higher speed going in relation to things around you? Thats disappointing. Do some people believe its possible? I have never heard that its total BS before ...

Okay ... I came here because I know nothing, and wanted input from people who do. Not so some guy can tell me im dumb. I dont claim to know anything, and nobody got cocky. I will have a thousand more questions, and I am interested in hearing *why* they're wrong, or right, or not possible. A lot of my posts may contain common misconceptions. If that annoys you or makes you lash out with snarky comments, then ... maybe you could ignore me instead. =================== Getting back on topic. Please don't focus on the fact that I said "article". It wasn't a published journal article. If you went back in time, you would "see yourself". But I see why the concept of physically dividing sounded absurd. That's why I am here. Im not an unintelligent person. Just have zero training on the specifics of these topics. So basically going back in time and "standing 5 feet away from yourself" would happen how? Or is it assumed this isn't possible because going back in time is considered impossible? I understand the helpful comment above regarding a personal slowing of aging. That makes total sense. I guess im confused where the duplication occurs, so that you are outside of yourself, looking at yourself. Secondly, above someone stated that flying around the world does not slow down time. I pulled that comment from the atomic clock that was flown around the world and they found it having changed. Again probably a misunderstanding on my part, but I'd like to learn. Lastly, I have about five hundred thousand questions like these, and I would enjoy tossing them out there. If this isn't the best web site to do that, then I can use others. -PB-

You just qualified as a "Troll". That was a useless response. Anyone with a brain want to weigh in?

Okay so I have this theory (LOL) ... Actually its a fact. All of us are in a different "time" than when we were born. Movement and height changes throughout our life push us forward in time. I just flew around the world, eastward. And I just read in an article that doing this trips you up by about 0.0347 nanoseconds. So technically I have traveled forward in time in relation to the rest of you. So here's my question. It was stated in the same article that if the difference in time could be extended to 2 or 3 minutes, we would "Meet ourself". Maybe that statement is wrong, but at some point you differentiate from yourself. Physically, you would have to become two bodies. And I guess that's my first question. Why? More importantly is my second question ... You can't say that this "separation" from ones-self only happens at a certain stage. If its true for 2-3 minutes then its true for nanoseconds. That means there SHOULD BE an undetectable change happening in all of us, the longer we live, that we are literally splitting off from ourselves. And this isnt science fiction mumbo jumbo. This would have to be a fact. Physical duplication in microscopic levels. Pile that up across 37 years of movement, arline flights, and living for years in a skyrise above the rest of the population, and you've got a person who *SHOULD* be detaching from himself .... PHYSICALLY! So why isn't that happening? Wouldn't that kill me? Make me sick? At the very least psychologically something should be happening. Something has to be wrong with this theory of time travel. If the theory were true, all of us would be slightly - PHYSICALLY - warped looking. And a final thought. Maybe this is what Deja Vu is ..................................................... I mean why not. If one is experiencing some sort of detachment where he perceives time in two different levels, just moments apart, wouldn't it stand to reason that you'd sometimes experience something immediately before it happens? Comments?

Understood. As I mentioned, I know there are some particles. But for the most part, how can we not say its pretty close to a void? Do you actually picture space as just another place? I suppose the argument could be made that it is. Because of the sporadic particles. And gravity fields, etc. So your opinion is that we would need to actually find the edge of the universe, and step outside it, to experience void. Or whatever is past it ... I still say that when your existence and everything you know is based on the sensory experiences underneath this thin layer called an atmosphere .... going outside of it is pretty damn close to a void.

Let me play devil's advocate here. You said you had a reason for your thinking. I still dont see an actual reason. Honestly it seems random. And when its a random assumption based on nothing, my brain says - well if we're just making things up, we could go a thousand different directions with the same logic. As the last poster stated, there are some things we know to be true. There is "scale" outside of just our perception. The speed of light, etc ... these things are constant. They dont change with the size of the person viewing them. But my point here is this - I dont see any particular reason why you decided on this theory. There is nothing in your theory that indicates what lead you to believe that this one was the correct one. Therefore it sounds like you just randomly are guessing, which is fine. But you could have randomly guessed at any number of theories. Like why didnt you come to the conclusion that our universe is a circular pendant hanging on a cats collar, like in that one movie ? Or we are a speck of dirt on a big Ogres fingernail ? Technically you could go anywhere with your theory and none of it really has any backing. Its just pure guessing. Which could be fun, but its hard to take it seriously.. Now if you had real life examples to point to .... that might lead you to a conclusion .... then I'd understand more. I get the analogy of atoms, etc. And I think its a pretty common theory that maybe our universe is part of something larger. But for the details of your theory, honestly it just sounds like creative thinking. Not scientific thinking. Which - again - is completely fine.

I'm not really sure how to word this. It may come off sounding like "captain obvious" or it may be full of scientific holes. But I was just thinking the other day about "reality" and what "is". What we know here on earth is material - we've got tangible things to touch. We can move our hand through the air and feel the resistance. We can hear sound. We sense being glued to the earth. We can feel water, and eat food, and see sunlight. All because what we have around us, has "Substance". The atmosphere is dense with air pressure and microscopic objects which create that resistance when we move (wind). We can hear because sound has physical substance to travel from one place to another on. We see sunlight because there's something there to reflect it. Existing is - here on earth. This is reality. This is "existing". And space? Is nothingness. Its not just "outside our atmosphere" and another place. It literally is - the void. You leave earth and .... not very far away, you've left existence. Everything we know to give substance to everything we can experience - is gone there. There is no sound. There is no sunlight unless it hits something. And theres nothing for it to hit so if you face away from the sun, you dont see sun going beyond you. You see utter darkness. Void. Go high enough and you leave "existence". I never really thought about space like this. That its basically nothingness. I know there are a few stray atoms floating around out there, but its about as close to non-existence as you can get. Sure you can go up there in a space suit, that has "earths environment" recreated inside it. You go up in a bubble. But you can't go out there bare naked. Again this may sound obvious to most of you. But viewing space as the "place that has absolutely no creation" ... the actual void .... is very surreal for me. I think most people view the "void" as whats beyond our universe. I think its right above our heads. And when space travel really takes off, we will start to appreciate the nothingness a lot more. Because "existence" ... life .... whatever God gave us ... is right here. Earth ... this gorgeous blue marble .... is where life really is. And if there are others like it, thats where life, and existence will be too. But in between? You are outside creation. Just a step away. -PB-

The earth doesnt "end". You just keep going round until you end up right where you started.

This has absolutely no evidence supporting it in my head. Aside from the simple fact that pretty much everything we are aware of in this universe, is, in some fashion, circular. Atoms, Cells, Planets, Solar Systems, Galaxies .... even dogs walk in circles before laying down. It just seems to be the most common pattern in the universe. Those that thought they'd fall off the edge of the earth found themselves right back where they started. My guess is the same will be the case with the universe. Maybe its infinite. Maybe a circle that has no end, is infinity. There's no up, and no down, and no end that can be found. Just a hunch. I'll let the folks 5,000 years from now confirm or reject my theory. -PB0

Im going to still stick with my opinion - even if there are "infinite" universes. Do you know how big the number gets when you have billions of years of variables? All butterfly effects? The numbers shoot up incredibly high in a very short time. (the carriage return on this forum is irritating the hell out of me. when I hit enter it jumps not 1, not 2, but 3 lines down, yet only sometimes! other times its 2. - and I have to backspace up just to keep my post from looking like it wasn't written by a lunatic) Anyways lets say the first step was a guppy having a mutation that grew it flippers so it could waddle onto the sand and be the first land animal. Did it turn left and get squashed by a rock rolled up onto the sand by a wave? Or did it turn right and go on to eventually make humans? Did it dry out because it was 40% sunny that day, and the clouds above just happend to have enough breaks in them to keep sunlight on him for long enough that he suffered and got too hot? Or did the clouds move a different motion and 39% sunlight hit him and he was fine? Did he walk straight or turn around because he was hungry? was he hungry or did he just eat? Already you've got like 30 possible variables. Maybe he went straight, and a wave washed him back in the water. Maybe the current took him back out to sea and he never happend to hit land again. Maybe he got out to sea and was swept left, or right, or up, or down ... and only one of those ended up taking him back to land. How many variables are we up to in the first 1 hour of this process? 100? 500? a thousand? That's in 1 hour. Now add billions of years. I guess its possible there's another me, as things "tend" to go similar directions in certain situations. But its complete hogwash to say there are infinite me's. If anything, if there are infinite universes (and we assume they all had the same big bang?? with the same materials that expanded in the same directions? HAh! wild assumption!) .... then I'd say there is a 0.00000000000000000001% chance that there is another me.

I apologize if this goes in a different forum. I don't understand why I keep hearing comments about multiple universes with another "me" in them. The butterfly effect isnt a theory. Its a fact. As a result of that fact, the chances - even with multiple universes - that there is another me, seems almost impossible. Let alone 5, 10, 15, 100 other me's all living in my same apartment, but one ate pizza today and the other is on a diet. The probability of there being other me's decreases exponentially with more time. The more time, the more choices, and the more possibilities and variables that would lead circumstance to me, here and now. Given the fact that it has taken literally billions of years for "me" to exist, the insanely miniscule possibility that all circumstances panned out in other universes resulting in a copy of "me" seems pretty much NILL. So every time I hear people talking about another me in another universe, I don't understand. I don't get it. The simple fact that my parents had sex is proof enough. In a teaspoon of semen there are tens of thousands of sperm. Unless there is a God conducting how things happen, there is absolutely no way the SAME SPERM got to the egg in all the universes where my parents were having sex!! Impossible! My parents probably don't even exist for the exact same reason!! in fact because of that one fact alone, if we went to another universe, there would not be a single "same" person over there. Period! Can someone explain to me why brilliant physicists constantly talk about other "me's" in other universes? Its so funny I watch Fringe and they've got New York city - pretty much 95% the same, but minor differences. WRONGGGGGGGGGG. Try an entirely different city. Shoot - maybe we didnt evolve that far yet and there isnt even a city yet at all ! In summary: The differences should be unrecognizably dramatic. Not nearly identical.