Time Travel - Possible or Impossible? (Phase 1, Part 1 - Forwards or Backwards?)

Today, we often ask or wonder whether it is really possible to travel through the 4th dimension. We've all seen films, etc. where the plot is set some way off in the future, and inevitably from this there will be a scene about time travel. Many interpret a time travelling machine as a box of some sort, with buttons and a lever to take you to your specific date.

Yet is there any truth behind all this? Scientists and physicists often get into heated debates about such matters. But this is not why I'm here, so JAFHR, if you want a debate, then read no further.

The reason why I'm here then, is to explain my views of such matters. I have personally promised to JAFHR that when I build a time machine, he can have the first human go on it.

Anyway, back to my views then. First, and crucially, I deem it very nearly impossible to time-travel backwards, i.e. to the past. The very tiny part of me that thinks it is possible only thinks that we can go back for at most two or three seconds into the past. In my views, there are to ways to go back, but neither will be able to go back far enough. The first reason is this. It has been scientifically proven that time is affected by gravity. A clock capable of keeping time extremely accurately is also affected by this. So then if you put one clock underneath another, each exactly synced with each other, each atomic, and losing only nanoseconds of time in millions of years, the one underneath will be about a second behind the one on top after billions and billions of years. Then, this form of travelling backwards is practically useless as after waiting for so long, it is only possible to go back seconds.

The other form of travelling backwards involves a substance/thing/theorem that while has strong arguments to prove its existence, isn't actually something that we know and have seen for certain. As explained by Kjartan Poskitt- you may remember I dedicated a poem to him earlier-in his book about the galaxy, if you take a large clock, a man called Sid, and a black hole, it can explain the second way to time travel backwards. Here is the diagram explained:



                         

A Black Hole (supposedly)

 The arrows denote that Sid moves towards the black hole. Now there are three steps:

1: Stand well back from the black hole (this is why a large clock is needed)

A man called Sid holding a large clock

2: Tell Sid to walk towards the Black hole. You will see that as he walks towards it, the time gradually slows down, and comes to a halt when Sid is on the edge of the black hole.
3: Say goodbye to Sid forever...
 

Ehh?

That useful diagram over, perhaps now you can see that if we stop time by moving towards a black hole, there is definitely potential to somehow use this to go back in time, although it is more likely that we would go forward using this mode, as if you wait for a few minutes in the proximity of a black hole, then move outwards, then it is possible that when you go outwards, time will be ahead of you and thus it means going forward in time.

This then, hopefully brings me onto my main, most crucial point in that time travel is only possible forward. We've just seen here that in using the power that a black hole possesses, we can potentially move backwards, i.e. when we walk towards a black hole, we see what was there years ago. And as initially mentioned, this is hardly useful at all, unless we build a society directly identical to ours and visit it.

So because of this, it is really only easier to travel forwards and thus that is why I think that time travel forwards will be invented (hopefully by me) before time travel backwards. 

So now though, one question remains- how is it possible forwards then? Well one option is the black hole but if we get near enough to a black hole for time to be affected, we will already have been sucked into its core by its huge gravitational field. What happens after we get sucked in is anybody's guess but some believe that that could possibly be a way to time travel.

A more easier method though, is to use another means- one that is possible by all means, in that it has been done before, but not with humans. Naturally, as with all things associated with space and sci-fi, I'm talking about travelling at light speed. Some years back, scientists managed to send a beam of light from one corner of a room to another corner of the room. Whether this is possible with humans is still debatable, but many believe that one day this will happen, as do I, and only when this is possible is it possible to travel forwards in time, so hopefully somewhere in our generation. Let me explain:

Setting: 17th May 2022. 

JHWW has just invented a vehicle that travels at the speed of light. His best friend has just had a baby boy  and they are there to wave him off as he steps into his vehicle. All over the world this is being broadcasted, but still there is a look of utmost calm on JHWW's face. The videos do not follow JHWW inside his vehicle as JHWW has publicly stated that if anything goes wrong he wants nobody to know how he has built his vehicle in case somebody wants to replicate it and gets badly hurt. On a loudspeaker, JHWW counts down from ten to the time he presses the button. 9...8...7... The crowd are biting their nails, some are even fainting, but JHWW's calm voice spurs them on. 2...1... And just like that, the vehicle is gone...

End of Part 1...

Thank you all for reading, and remember all comments are welcome- unlike JAFHR I won't be looking to argue, instead I will respect any ideas you have, and may even incorporate them into Part 2 of Time travel: Possible or Impossible coming in mid- June 2012...

Until then,

-JHWW-

Why Lack of Free Will Proves the Existence of God

Free will is a difficult topic. There are three main opinions on the matter:

1) Free will exists as a separate entity to the brain - the soul. Only humans possess this and it is what separates them from animals.

2) Free will exists but is a part of the brain. Our actions are the result of decisions that we are making in some area of the brain.

3) Free will does not exist. Every decision we make, big or small, is the result of a combination of our inherited genetic code and external stimuli.

If the latter possibility is true, then we may assume that everything in inevitable, if people are only reacting as a result of the actions of others. Therefore, there is no such thing as probability, since everything can be predicted if we know the inputs. A dice roll, for example, can be predicted with 100% accuracy if one were to know the resistance of the air on the dice and the amount of energy put in. The amount of energy put in is not random either, as it can be predicted by the experiences and nature of the dice-roller. If things seem random on a quantum level that may only be because we do not understand all the input variables the determine an outcome on that scale.

But what about the nature of a person? Surely that is at least partially random? Well, no. If we were aware of the exact properties of each sperm cell and all the possible dangers it would face, then it would be easy enough to deduce the genes that would be present in a zygote. I say it would be easy, but that is only because of the nature of the being which knows all, the being which must have been present to initiate the birth of the universe. 

If one starts from the beginning - before the universe - there is nothing. Then, something happens. But how? Is it random? It can't be, probability does not exist. God must have created the universe and what He did to create it determined everything from its beginning to its end.

I am not saying that I believe this argument to be true, I merely found it superficially and partially convincing. It does not explain what separates us from animals, and there surely is something as JAFHR will attest.. I may speak more about the matter later, and how it links in to the Fall of Man and how we came to have free will. Until then, farewell.

-PWN-

Remembering Sarkozy

This is dedicated to the best pictures of Sarkozy's time in politics.

As A young Lawyer

At wedding, 2009

At his election, 2007

Merkel and Sarkozy, 2009

At Copenhagen Chaos, 2009

At Lisbon, 2010

With the Brits at election, 2010

At the Last Stand, 2012

Having Conceded defeat, 2012, 'One of the most dignified speeches seen for fifty years'.

'A Born President'...

'Most sincere president seen for fifty years...'

'In the force, size matters not...'

FAREWELL VIEILLE BRANCHE
AUFWIEDERSEHEN
On ne t'oubliera pas de sitot.

The French People Have Made Their Choice

President Francois 'The Squid' Hollande

Last Sunday at eight o'clock, as I watched the French news channel TF1 in an anguished prolonged silence, I saw the goose-like face of Francois Hollande flash across a screen in Place de la Bastille. The turbulent crowds of militant Socialist teenagers erupted into cheers, while I fell into a chair, and stared.

I can't deny that we've all been expecting this- throughout this campaign, Hollande has been working on the crowds' psychology and feelings, and everything about his campaigning won him partisans not through reasoned argument but through sentimentality.

Hollande's victory was due to the economic crisis in which we find ourselves; the people found jobs lacking and harsh rules (as in 'no-stupid-spending' harsh) imposed on them to prevent national catastrophe; and, rather than grit their teeth and go through it telling themselves it's in the country's best interest, they did the human thing- they moaned that things could somehow be better, that Sarkozy should somehow have somehow magicked the crisis away. They didn't recognize that Sarkozy had done amazingly and stopped the country from sinking to Greek depths when everything was pointing that way; to recognize that requires intelligence, and, while an individual may possess that, a crowd, a collective mind, is nothing more than a stupid, ravening, selfish primal beast. What Hollande did was to take advantage of that primal beast; it was already thinking that things had to get better if a change was made, and Hollande filled that hope with empty promises- he said that he would be giving away land for free, stabilize the price of petrol by paying the excess, remove France from the austerity treaty , and many other heavenly joys- overall, he has promised a non-restricted paradise, where one can borrow money without ever thinking about paying it back, and where everything is at its cheapest. And who is to pay for all this? Steal from the Rich, give to the poor... problem is, there aren't enough rich people in France to pay off all this mad planning, so the lower classes are probably going to be taxed just as excessively in the end. No wonder this plan prevailed, in a world of harebrained, selfish, materialistic  poverty, when the opposing plan is one of self-sacrifice in order to help the country in the long run...

Hollande didn't just win by promising the people what they wanted; the crowds don't just want their selfish needs satisfied, they want them justified. Hollande posed an ethically pleasing image- he almost made himself cry during his speeches, in order to look like a caring, passionate man (rumours concerning onion peelings have yet to be confirmed). He even put music along some of his speeches. He made the crowds feel justified- the rich are but parasites, you deserve their money (he didn't use those exact terms, but he did say very similar things). I don't really see how this is ethically correct, but the crowds lapped it up, as they always have since the Revolution.

Then there's the banker-bashing business. That term doesn't exist in French, because no-one there doesn't banker-bash. This has been compared to the Jewish persecution in 1930-40s Germany; the crowds blame the following three for the crisis:

1. Sarkozy- because he was leader at the time, and imposed 'harsh' rules.
2. Bankers- because economy is doing badly, and bankers are hands-and-feet in economy.
3. the Higher classes- the jealous 'Its-Not-Fair' argument, which fails to notice the fact that rich people work harder to earn more- the crowds, who have never tried this and enjoy living off benefits (which are incidentally going to rise dramatically at higher class expense) fail to understand the concept of more work = more cash, or the fact that money doesn't fall into peoples' laps.

(Numbers 2 and 3 overlap each other, because of the Bonus idea.)

Number two was the one under which Jews were once classified, because Jews were better at financing.

Hollande has taken advantage of Number 2 as well as the two others- his campaigning was aimed towards the crippling of independent financial power. Stupid idea if ever I saw one, for reasons I don't even need to mention.

So will Hollande actually stick to these crowd-inciting policies, or will he admit to them being empty vessels of naive hope? Several right-wing politicians have talked of the 'Waking up with a Hangover' effect, which they say is due to happen within one year-or two; the idea is that the crowds were 'drunk' on these foolish ideals, and, when they call naively for Hollande to fulfill his promises, the realization of their impossibility will cause a rapid back-down-to-earth effect not dissimilar to the splashing of cold water on a drunkard's face. The world-renown financial adviser Reuters is already predicting a U-turn in Hollande's politics within the next two years, simply because of their lack of realism.

Farewell to he who fought for France...

So we leave France in a dreary state -poor Sarkozy, who quite honestly did his brilliant best, is to be ousted from his office by 15th of May, in five days, to leave space for the materialistic Francois 'the Squid' Hollande, whose promises are just about as false as his surgically engineered smile. A grim time for the Republic, who may not lift her head for another twenty years.

Yours in politics,

JAFHR

That Which Makes Us Human

Greetings to All Ye Fellow Readers.
This post deals with a philosophical idea which came to me a couple of weeks ago; as this blog is the mediator of my philosophy, I make it my duty to propagate the idea. Well. here goes...
There are many subjects at school which are deemed by many and most to be utterly useless. History, Latin, some branches of mathematics, creative writing, and, of course, philosophy, are all included in this long list. Many would have us drop these subjects, ban them from school, and forget them. According to them, the point of school is to teach us how to attain jobs, and how to survive in society.
It would appear that animals are just as practical as these fine thinkers; it would never cross a cat's mind to study its ancestors' history, and a whale would never take up poetry. Cats may play with balls of yarn and iPads, but this is to trigger hunting instincts, which will be useful later on in life. A whale may sing melodiously and a spider may spin works of art, but this is for nutrition or reproduction only. What I would conclude from this is that an animal is not capable interested by something which does not help it to survive.
If this is the case, it is because evolution sees no point whatsoever in something that does not help the animal to survive, and so does not make the cat capable of studying history of its own free will. Try teaching your cat about the Feline Revolution of 1832, and see what happens.
And yet... following this train of thought, humans should never have even thought of studying history. It would seem that humans are unique among animals, in the sense that we are the only ones upon which evolution has committed a mistake- we have the capability of enjoying history.
Science probably has a good explanation for this- maybe it is just a byproduct of bigger brains, for example- but this does not change anything to the fact that what makes us different from animals is this miraculous faculty which was never, scientifically speaking, meant to happen.
So here we are- an animal's main aim is to survive, and to pass on its genes. A human does not live only to survive, but because there are things to live for, things which are only useful because they entertain him. Thus, I can state that the useless things in life are what give life meaning, and those who are only interested by something that helps them to survive are those who do not understand or enjoy life.
Bear in mind that this post is simplistic- the love of uselessness is not the only difference between us and animals, nor is it the sole meaning of life.

Respects,

 

JAFHR

Hi Again

Apologies for not posting for ages, I simply could not be bothered. I'll just give you an update on what's going on that interests me in the entertainment industry (since no one else on this blog seems to cover entertainment):

- Avengers Assemble isn't terrible.

- Call of Duty Black Ops II is showing innovation (although I have no doubt that Treyarch will double back on its promises and deliver something bland).

- Dishonored is casing a stir, and rightfully so. Again, I have to be cynical and doubt that it will be all that great. However, I've never been right before.

- I've invented a new word. It's absolutely gegassitous.

Now that I've got that out of the way I can get back to pretending to be academic and clever in my posts.

PWN