Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Time: Linear, non-linear or both?

archer2371 · 08-25-2004, 02:40 PM

[DISCLAIMER]The following are just some musings of mine that wrote one early morning around 2:30. There are some statements about God and the Trinity, this is what I believe, I do believe in Christ, so let's get that out of the way right now, please don't criticize me on that point. Now, I'm not a scientist, and I don't claim to be, I have a very basic education in the ways of the Universe, so don't take what I say too literally. I guess what I'm asking you is to have a "willing suspension of belief" and to just follow along. If you want to factually correct my science that's fine, but again, please don't reply with "Don't you know that there is no God and that you're a mere sheep among masses that have been lied to for thousands of years?" This is just a kind of "What if?" and "How would that work?" piece by me with some stuff in there from my beliefs, and it probably won't win any points on organization, it jumps around quite a bit.[/DISCLAIMER]

Quote:

Time must be both linear and non-linear. It has linear propreties, only because we as humans can only comprehend linear documentation. However, because there is a God (I believe), then time is also inherently non-linear because He exists everywhere at every time. For God to exist time must be non-linear, with our linear barriers that we place on it. To achieve the concept of time travel, we must accept time as non-linear. The Universe itself is the perfect example, nothing is linear, all patterns are cyclical in one form or another. Not even our souls are linear (again, I believe), we have existed before in the presence of God but not in human form. Even after we have left the major barrier of time, our bodies, we will continue to exist. While interesting, the concept of alternative universes is rather flawed (If I'm right), simply because time would have to be linear for this to occur, and it's not. However, it is entirely possible that kinks exist in time to give the perception of an alternate reality, but everything results in the same way. Now back to time travel. Since time is non-linear, it may be possible to "bend" it so that the point you currently exist in is close enough to a previous or future point, so that a "jump" can occur. To do this would require a great amount of energy, fusion would have to be involved to create such an effect. An explosion would not be necessary, but rather a reaction. A contained black hole, for the sole purpose of the use of the event horizon would be required. It is the only occurence that bends time in the natural universe. If the power of a black hole could be tapped and analyzed, then I believe that time travel would be possible. However, if two points in time were brought too close together, the result could be catastrophic. In fact, over-usage of time travel could break down the space-time continuum as we know it. However if the periods could be analyzed and made sure that the continuum could repair itself, then time travel would be one of the greatest discoveries ever. To create a contained black hole, a contained nova must occur first, and even then the problem of maintaining a large mass in a small space would be worthy of a Nobel Prize in and of itself. Perhaps if we knew exactly what happened inside of a black hole, then we could harness it. If a black hole were just a gateway to another point (both in space and time), it would explain the communication loss after a recording isntrument entered it. This path of pursuit for time travel would require a creation of a quick nova, with a black hole that collapses in on itself (again, Nobel Prize worthy feats). Even if a black hole only transported an object to another point in space, without the time displacement, it would still be a great breakthrough in space travel. However, there are just too many unknowns that exist at this point to pursue a true scientific endeavor. If the polarity of a black hole could be found, then a choice of polarities could determine the point where one ends up.

I know, I've arrived at a rather unappealing conclusion there, but that's really the only conclusion I could come up with, maybe if Stephen Hawking were writing this he could come up with a solution, but I'm just little ol' me. This is probably filled with so many flaws, I should probably be sent back to my eighth grade science course, but eh, it was just something that I wrote off the top of my head really, which is why I put it in Philosophy rather than in Knowledge.