Questions for any body? Changing timelines

[Secretman3811]

does going to the past and saving someone life or not or doing to change one person will it affect your or not i think i remember there is no parodox or something so write back anybody.

 

[Secretman3811]

also why is there a Time Cop for what reason to stop it or what... i heard that someone save one person life from the Tiannic i can't spell it right but she is in this timeline but the time traveler is in another time line so tell me how did that possible?
his name is one of the Time Traveler Michael Rem or something he proved it but now he is on the Alter timeline so write back anybody thank you

 

[Doc 05]

does going to the past and saving someone life or not or doing to change one person will it affect your or not i think i remember there is no parodox or something so write back anybody.

No one really knows; but in a Multiverse Theory world one would just create another timeline if they did.
But also in a Multiverse there would be no need to "go back", you just go to the timeline where it did not happen.
And this is how really thinking about time travel and going down the "rabbit hole" will make you "Mad", like a hatter.

 

[Apri1]

Look into novikov's self-consistency principle. Forcing a different result during a particular time leads to an alternate branch in the junction. Meaning the new change isn't your parent line and thus nothing in it effects you. Can't change history.

 

[Secretman3811]

can someone from the past go with u to the future and live there? write back anybody.

 

[Doc 05]

can someone from the past go with u to the future and live there? write back anybody.

How does it get delivered?

 

[Doc 05]

Look into novikov's self-consistency principle. Forcing a different result during a particular time leads to an alternate branch in the junction. Meaning the new change isn't your parent line and thus nothing in it effects you. Can't change history.

Depends on technology/device used;
If one could achieve "Direct Path" time travel or be able to choose the time line you wish to effect; you could have issues.
The first step would be to see if one could "pick a time line";
eg. use remote viewing to view the time line where the Atom bomb was not dropped on Japan.
Then go from there; theory being if you can see it - you can get there.

But, we're still trying to figure out what gravity is.

 

[start at edge]

Look into novikov's self-consistency principle. Forcing a different result during a particular time leads to an alternate branch in the junction. Meaning the new change isn't your parent line and thus nothing in it effects you. Can't change history.

Let me tell something that for me is a certainty:
In order to have various timelines, a “split” (or more) must occur. This split is triggered by some previous cause, back to the definite original cause and never by the final effect. It also implies consciousness, even if at a very low level.
For example:
On some random planet, in some random solar (stellar) system, in a random galaxy, a huge rock breaks from the side of some random mountain and falls, blocking the course of some large river and changing its direction. As a result, somewhere in the future, a sea or an ocean will not form anymore or it will form in a completely different location. Extrapolating this, in an even more distant future, the planet could look completely different from what it could have looked like if the rock would not have fallen. If on this planet, over the history of its existence, no conscious life ever existed, then no split occurs, regardless of the cause/effect magnitude, as it is a somehow “local” event, that can not affect the neighboring stellar system, as the mass of this planet remains the same. This is just the same as we experienced in our solar system, when meteorites hit other planets – we, from earth, as conscious beings, could only observe this, but it did not affect the evolution of life on earth in any way, it was simply a recorded fact by us.
On the other hand, somewhere where there is conscious life (intelligent life), even a very small event (cause/effect) can drastically change history, because it refers to conscious life itself, that does not rely only on natural phenomenon, for example starting a war or not, which again hugely implies consciousness. Such splits happen on earth all the time, but not all events trigger a split, only those who count in noticeable differences in the future. Imagine a fly, a simple fly, that got into the eye of a car driver and that car hit the man who was about to start (cause) a war in the future (a young man who just entered politics). In this case, even if it is a very small event (cause/effect), it has huge implications on the future, so a split occurs. Anyway, the split does not occur the moment the man is hit by the car, not even the moment the fly gets in the driver’s eye – it occurs when, for example, a kid drops his ice cream on the sidewalk or not. If he does not drop it, the fly gets into the driver’s eye. If he drops it, the fly stops to feast on the sugary juice.
Either way, the timelines created by the “split”, can sometimes intersect in the future. They do not overlap each other, they only intersect for some certain amount of time (clearly the explanation of the Mandela effect that we are experiencing).
Bottom line – someone who travels through time, can affect himself or the timeline only if by his actions and deeds he triggers a split, otherwise he remains in the same timeline. That is why one of the most common sense rules of time travel is for the traveler to NOT let himself be noticed, to NOT reveal anything about his original time, to NOT do anything that could trigger a split. The last thing that anyone who travels through time wants to happen, is to land in a different timeline.
In addition, it is almost impossible to perform some action that will throw you in a desired precise timeline. It could be done only by creating “ancestor simulation” realities and monitor from a huge amount of outcomes the one you are targeting. Also note that this can be done only by FIRST traveling to the past, to some common “branch” timeline and only THEN to head towards the desired future timeline.

 

[Apri1]

Let me tell something that for me is a certainty:
In order to have various timelines, a “split” (or more) must occur. This split is triggered by some previous cause, back to the definite original cause and never by the final effect. It also implies consciousness, even if at a very low level.
For example:
On some random planet, in some random solar (stellar) system, in a random galaxy, a huge rock breaks from the side of some random mountain and falls, blocking the course of some large river and changing its direction. As a result, somewhere in the future, a sea or an ocean will not form anymore or it will form in a completely different location. Extrapolating this, in an even more distant future, the planet could look completely different from what it could have looked like if the rock would not have fallen. If on this planet, over the history of its existence, no conscious life ever existed, then no split occurs, regardless of the cause/effect magnitude, as it is a somehow “local” event, that can not affect the neighboring stellar system, as the mass of this planet remains the same. This is just the same as we experienced in our solar system, when meteorites hit other planets – we, from earth, as conscious beings, could only observe this, but it did not affect the evolution of life on earth in any way, it was simply a recorded fact by us.
On the other hand, somewhere where there is conscious life (intelligent life), even a very small event (cause/effect) can drastically change history, because it refers to conscious life itself, that does not rely only on natural phenomenon, for example starting a war or not, which again hugely implies consciousness. Such splits happen on earth all the time, but not all events trigger a split, only those who count in noticeable differences in the future. Imagine a fly, a simple fly, that got into the eye of a car driver and that car hit the man who was about to start (cause) a war in the future (a young man who just entered politics). In this case, even if it is a very small event (cause/effect), it has huge implications on the future, so a split occurs. Anyway, the split does not occur the moment the man is hit by the car, not even the moment the fly gets in the driver’s eye – it occurs when, for example, a kid drops his ice cream on the sidewalk or not. If he does not drop it, the fly gets into the driver’s eye. If he drops it, the fly stops to feast on the sugary juice.
Either way, the timelines created by the “split”, can sometimes intersect in the future. They do not overlap each other, they only intersect for some certain amount of time (clearly the explanation of the Mandela effect that we are experiencing).
Bottom line – someone who travels through time, can affect himself or the timeline only if by his actions and deeds he triggers a split, otherwise he remains in the same timeline. That is why one of the most common sense rules of time travel is for the traveler to NOT let himself be noticed, to NOT reveal anything about his original time, to NOT do anything that could trigger a split. The last thing that anyone who travels through time wants to happen, is to land in a different timeline.
In addition, it is almost impossible to perform some action that will throw you in a desired precise timeline. It could be done only by creating “ancestor simulation” realities and monitor from a huge amount of outcomes the one you are targeting. Also note that this can be done only by FIRST traveling to the past, to some common “branch” timeline and only THEN to head towards the desired future timeline.

That's not how time lines work. Things aren't "created" like that, and events don't happen in "real time". Multiple time lines are due to quantum uncertainty and quantum superposition. We observe the probability wavefunction collapse but there's no consensus on how, what way, and why. One of these models is the many worlds interpretation, which is the correct one. Via this our time lines are "created" by the millions every single microsecond into an infinitely infinite amount of possibilities depending on the configuration and compilation of events. For simplicity we can illustrate that as people's actions and choices, but it doesn't need to be. Even something as simple as an atom moving can do it. This is why the popular conception of measuring timeliness is via divergence: how far apart two time lines are from one another. Though I think this may be modeled better based on mutually shared junction (superposition).

Coincidentally this means our most realistic shot at time travel is through quantum entanglement between two lines.

 

[start at edge]

That's not how time lines work. Things aren't "created" like that, and events don't happen in "real time". Multiple time lines are due to quantum uncertainty and quantum superposition. We observe the probability wavefunction collapse but there's no consensus on how, what way, and why. One of these models is the many worlds interpretation, which is the correct one. Via this our time lines are "created" by the millions every single microsecond into an infinitely infinite amount of possibilities depending on the configuration and compilation of events. For simplicity we can illustrate that as people's actions and choices, but it doesn't need to be. Even something as simple as an atom moving can do it. This is why the popular conception of measuring timeliness is via divergence: how far apart two time lines are from one another. Though I think this may be modeled better based on mutually shared junction (superposition).

Coincidentally this means our most realistic shot at time travel is through quantum entanglement between two lines.

I understand your point, but you must agree at least on this: a different timeline (or more) makes no sense if no observer emerges at some point in any of the branches. So, it must be at least on branch that subsequently has an observer, in other words, if no observation is to be ever made, regardless of the vastness of branches (timelines), all those branches collapse to zero. Therefore, ruling out an observer, eliminates the very concept of a different timeline (or more different timelines). At this moment I can not think of a better analogy, but I look at it as this:

• if someone writes a book, even if there is nobody to read it, the book was written.
• if there are many potential readers, but there was no book ever written, those potential readers are still there.
• but if there are no readers and there was nobody to ever write a book, the very concept of book reading makes no sense, as nothing is defined in this aspect.

I have no better way to explain myself, but I have at least one excuse – I am not a native English speaker, therefore my vocabulary lacks a lot of terms that would be helpful.
The observer I mentioned, I see as a consciousness being, so to say “intelligent life”.
The many worlds interpretation is indeed a correct one (but not the only correct one, as quantum mechanics teaches us). The wave function collapses when there is an observer involved. In the double slit experiment, there is a way to measure the particle (an electron, for example), whether before passing through a slit or after – a moving electron can induce a detectable electric current (in a copper wire, for example) when it passes in its vicinity, without loosing that much energy to take it out of the equation. It must not be necessarily measured by destruction (letting it smash into some screen or layer of sensitive material). Its passing by effect can be measured by keeping it intact as a particle after the measurement. I wonder if anybody ever tried to do this type of observation in some laboratory. In this aspect, it seems a little weird to me that people speak about collapsing the wave function, when in reality, especially regarding the “double slit” experiment, it is the particle that is collapsed (eliminated) – not the wave.
The following is somehow off topic, but for me it would be interesting to know other opinions as well (if there are any):
Maybe I am not the first one who made this observation, but for me it is obvious that light speed is not the upper limit, even if we refer to our universe. In fact, it is some sort of zero, a stillness. As a demonstration, even proof, I have a thought-experiment whose result and outcome are undeniable.
If anybody is interested, I will gladly share this (it requires some drawing images attached and even if it is very simple, it takes a little time for me to draw them).