time travelling..

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by Joshi

I know, it's to do with the shape that the graph takes when a certain equation related to the chaos theory is plotted on a 3 dimentional axis.

 

that is the buttefly attractor an odd attractor, which are used to express a systems behaviour. odd attractors exist mostly in multidimensional (6 and more) phaserooms. eg. for a 3 dimensional system you have a 6 dimesional phaseroom to create an odd attractor.

 

simplified it's like you have 3 axis to display the position and 3 for the vectors of a point.

 

the odd attractor of an swinging pendular is a circle, that of a circulating pendular is a torus.

 

funny, it is.

 

But then there's also that old saying "How come, when a butterfly beats it's wings in Africa, it rains in New York?" (my locations are probably wrong there) which is used to descibe the basic form of chaos theory which is that we cannot really define the start of an event, like rain. It may be due to humidity, or the position of the moon or whatever, but whist we can define these things, we can never be 100% sure of something like that, which is really the basis of chaos theory.

 

that is the butterfly effect. the beat of a butterfly's wings can theoretically cause a storm somewhere else. probably rain too, but the main idea is that a small breeze builds up to a giant storm.

 

now guess what planes, wind generators and high ostacles of our civilisation could cause.

 

anybody else wondering about climate changes??

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by Joshi

I know, it's to do with the shape that the graph takes when a certain equation related to the chaos theory is plotted on a 3 dimentional axis.

 

that is the buttefly attractor an odd attractor, which are used to express a systems behaviour. odd attractors exist mostly in multidimensional (6 and more) phaserooms. eg. for a 3 dimensional system you have a 6 dimesional phaseroom to create an odd attractor.

 

simplified it's like you have 3 axis to display the position and 3 for the vectors of a point.

 

the odd attractor of an swinging pendular is a circle, that of a circulating pendular is a torus.

 

funny, it is.

 

But then there's also that old saying "How come, when a butterfly beats it's wings in Africa, it rains in New York?" (my locations are probably wrong there) which is used to descibe the basic form of chaos theory which is that we cannot really define the start of an event, like rain. It may be due to humidity, or the position of the moon or whatever, but whist we can define these things, we can never be 100% sure of something like that, which is really the basis of chaos theory.

 

that is the butterfly effect. the beat of a butterfly's wings can theoretically cause a storm somewhere else. probably rain too, but the main idea is that a small breeze builds up to a giant storm.

 

now guess what planes, wind generators and high ostacles of our civilisation could cause.

 

anybody else wondering about climate changes??

[Joshi]

Originally posted by RayJones that is the butterfly effect. the beat of a butterfly's wings can theoretically cause a storm somewhere else. probably rain too, but the main idea is that a small breeze builds up to a giant storm.

 

now guess what planes, wind generators and high ostacles of our civilisation could cause.

 

anybody else wondering about climate changes?? [/b]

 

Of course, you have to remember, that this build up of moving air will be effected by objects in it's path plus the fact that in going around the curve of the earths surface, it would have to lose a certain amount of speed and power due to friction.

[Joshi]

Originally posted by RayJones that is the butterfly effect. the beat of a butterfly's wings can theoretically cause a storm somewhere else. probably rain too, but the main idea is that a small breeze builds up to a giant storm.

 

now guess what planes, wind generators and high ostacles of our civilisation could cause.

 

anybody else wondering about climate changes?? [/b]

 

Of course, you have to remember, that this build up of moving air will be effected by objects in it's path plus the fact that in going around the curve of the earths surface, it would have to lose a certain amount of speed and power due to friction.

[Mort-Hog]

This is assuming chaos theory is true.

 

Theoretical physicists don't usually like chaos theory much.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by Joshi

Of course, you have to remember, that this build up of moving air will be effected by objects in it's path plus the fact that in going around the curve of the earths surface, it would have to lose a certain amount of speed and power due to friction.

 

of course it loses power. but air is always moving, analoque to a fluid if you want. the movings add up together and compensate (don't know if it's the right term, but i think.. so just don't hate me, m'kaay? .. ) each other, a constant "up and down". and if butterfly or not "storms" (or similar happenings in fluid or gases) are the result of those "interferences", some sort of order within the chaotic system "our atmosphere" (or gases or fluids). all that also goes conform with physics, the according laws are still appliable. in fact all of this can only happen this way because of physic laws. and since chaos is "normal" and not order, most butterflywingbeats won't end up as storm. (well,.. it would be only a very small part of a storm anyways.. )

[Joshi]

Originally posted by Mort-Hog

This is assuming chaos theory is true.

 

Theoretical physicists don't usually like chaos theory much.

 

Depends on how you look at it. The term Chaos basically means having no idea whatsoever of what's going to happen in the next second, or indeed milisecond of chaos. The reason for this is because there is no order, no matter how you try to manipulate something, there is no guarantee that things will turn out as you want because of chaos. You could apply this to life as of course, we cannot predict the future on a 100% confindense interval. The reason theoretical physicists don't liek this is because, true and simple, life and matter and existense is not as chaotic as people would think. We cannot predict the future, but the universe is not chaotic. If you take one molecule of matter, or one atom, and slow time down to just over actually stopping time, and then you assesed the atoms surroundings and everything that could effect the movement or action of this atom in one millisecond, and then disprove everything but what you know for sure is going to happen because you're in these conditions, then I think that it is true to say that you could actually predict, 100% what is going to happen.

 

Of course, the fact that we can't even do this, let alone predict what is happenening all over the world or the universe in order to maybe predict whether I will be walking out of my door tomorrowis the reason why people call it chaotic and theoretical physisicts don't like this because, it is quite simply untrue. the world is not as disordered as Einstien thought it was.

[Mort-Hog]

"The world" on a macro scale is not 'chaotic'.

 

You are playing snooker. You hit the white ball and it is going towards the red.

 

I can easily predict that the white ball is going to hit the red ball and the red ball will go off in that direction.

 

 

Up until about 40 years ago, physicists liked to think that atoms and molecules behaved like balls on a snooker table.

 

They don't.

 

An atom travels erratically, occassionally changing direction, occassionally it simply dissapears altogether and returns a few nanoseconds later. The movement of an atom certainly appears to be 'random'. To explain this physicists need to use particle-wave duality, up to 11 dimensions, and Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle comes into play.

 

But you have things sort of backwards.

 

On the "big" scale, things are very predictable. On the "small" scale, things are very random and you can only state things in terms of probabilities.

[Joshi]

Even still, on a large scale, you cannot take everything into account for things to be 100% predictable, only very close to 100 percent, as if you plot it on a graph and 100 turns out to be an asymptote.

 

Simply, if you hit the white ball and it's heading towards the red ball, you can only predict to a certain extent that it will hit the red ball, unless you're thinking of the snooker table as a universe on it's own. But as we all know most snooker tables to be in this universe (apart from that one in my local pool hall, that's in the universe of arsewipes), that means that any number of things could effect and hinder the white ball from hitting the red ball. A blue ball from a nearby table get's hit the wrong way and flies over hitting the white ball changing it's trajectory. Guess it's not hitting the red anymore. The chances of this happening are slim, very slim, but there is still a chance.

 

Of course I'm not trying to prove what you said wrong or anything, it is very much right, you can predict, I'm just refining that into saying that, only to a certain extent can you predict something.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by Joshi

..

Simply, if you hit the white ball and it's heading towards the red ball, you can only predict to a certain extent that it will hit the red ball, unless you're thinking of the snooker table as a universe on it's own.

 

that's EXACTLY how it works. i think it called a 'closed system'. you just "watch" the snooker table. then everything is predictable. assumed you know all the variables within that system. and that's gonna be a hard job. but it 's is not impossible.

[Joshi]

Originally posted by RayJones

that's EXACTLY how it works. i think it called a 'closed system'. you just "watch" the snooker table. then everything is predictable. assumed you know all the variables within that system. and that's gonna be a hard job. but it's is not impossible.

 

I never said it was impossible, I'm just saying, witht he state of science at the moment, we're not actually getting anywhere close to predicting to 100 percent the outcome of an action.

 

And plys, in reality, there is no such thing as a closed system.

[Ray Jones]

oh, yes there is. and there is not.

[Joshi]

Originally posted by RayJones

oh, yes there is. and there is not.

 

I would like to know of one totally closed system.

[RoyTordesLegend]

Recently saw the film "Paycheck" (stop laughing!), and there was an interesting theory regarding seeing into the future.

 

If the universe is circular, and thus when you reach the end, you're back at the beginning............could it be possible to see the future using a lens so powerful you saw to the end of the universe so were in effect looking at yourself in the future?

 

Sounds like rubbish....but I'd be keen to hear the more educated members of the forum discuss this.........

[Joshi]

What you've written there seems to be an uneven mixture of space and time, which doesn't really make much sense. Looking at the 'end' of the universe would be looking at something at a certain distance, not a certain time (although because of light-speed we'd probably see it in it's past state rather than it's present state, the future doesn't really come into it). If that's how the movie put it, I'm glad I didn't see it.

[Ray Jones]

Paycheck.. HAHA. *thud*

 

Errmm.. yes, no, perhabs.. maybe not exactly like that. Not a circular universe like in 'shape' but more like a universe where space/time/spacetime appears to be totally "twisted". So much that random "space- and timelines" describe a circle (with an incredibly huuge circumferrence btw). If you now "move along" such a timeline it's theoretically like moving through time (forward) and if you move far (or long??) enough, you get kinda "recycled" in time and step to the past. Then you shoot your grandpa, you won't get born and don't go back in time and don't shoot your grandpa then you are born again but decide not to travel in time but to meet nice girls instead.

[DrMcCoy]

Recently saw the film "Paycheck" (stop laughing!)

 

Hmm? I liked Paycheck...

[PoM]

yhtenäiskenttäteoria

 

Is that one or several words?

[elTee]

I'm glad Mort corrected whoever it was about the variable nature of the speed of light. It's a constant in the same way that absolute zero is a constant, but the actual value can change. In this case, massive gravity bends light to the point where it slows down.

 

But that's not really relevant because time is only a percieved effect. This is the idea that the reason birds (and other animals) have such incredible reflexes is that they experience "more" time than us - so a second to a human is more like ten to a bird. It's all conjecture obviously, but it makes sense in its own way. This also explains why various chemicals affect your perception of time so powerfully.

 

I hate to get back to Hoffmans problem child, but if you take it and experience half an hour in your head during a five minute rest, what's happened?

 

Do you know what happens when you go insane? You accidentally fall through time. You go back into the past and your very presence negates your existence. Which negates the entire trip in the first place. Congratulations, you have unwittingly unlocked an eternity cycle. How could ones brain cope with such an experience? Not easily.

 

Time is only a factor in this plane of existence. In the land of dreams time is arbitrary - you can speed it up and slow it down to advance your adventures.

 

All our times have come

Here but now they're gone

 

Besides, all of this gibberish is irrelevant because I've travelled through time personally. I didn't use a machine or any other scientific device - and I'm not the only one.

 

Time flies when you're having fun....

[Ray Jones]

That is like when you try one of those pills mum is hiding from you..

[elTee]

Well, you know what they say about those pills....

 

One pill makes you larger

And one pill makes you small

And the ones that mother gives you

Don't do anything at all

[DrMcCoy]

...Hmm, I just know:

 

A pill to make you numb

A pill to make you dumb

A pill to make you anybody else

But all the drugs in this world

won't save her from herself

 

(Marilyn Manson - Coma White)

 

*shrug*

[RoyTordesLegend]

Did we ever get the definitive answer on "Time Travelling"?

[Ray Jones]

Yes we did, in 7624 years.

[Joshi]

Yes, Time Travel is possible as long as you have a big enough horse saddle.