Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[carloagal]

Thank you, I really didn't think that I had to point this out... but, that's what I get for assuming things.

So what do you think about the Eucharistic Miracles of Buenos Aires?

 

[partinobodycular]

Except light doesn't always travel in straight lines and can also bend.

To be fair, perhaps I should've said 'shortest' path. Which in curved spacetime isn't always the 'straight' path. I just assumed that you'd understand that. My bad.

I can't see how this follows. What are you basing this on.

I'm basing this on Feynman's simple explanation for why light always takes the 'shortest' possible path through spacetime. It's simply because all other paths encounter destructive interference, and the 'shortest' path is the only one that survives.

To relate this to time travel, consider that someone could travel back in time to kill Hitler. But this also means that someone else could travel back in time to stop them from killing Hitler, and still another person could travel back in time to stop the second person from stopping the first person... and so on and so on. All of these different scenarios cancel each other out, just like the photons do. So you end up with a reality in which there's a direct linear relationship between cause and effect. One in which 'X' can affect 'Y', but it can't travel backwards through time to affect 'W'.

I fail to see how invoking consciousness makes any difference. If your consciousness can 'reach' back in time to change something, then my consciousness can also 'reach' back in time to change something. In fact it doesn't even require multiple consciousnesses, even one consciousness could continually reach back in time to change something. So once again we get relegated to only being able to affect the here and now, because all other efforts to change things cancel each other out. In fact time only has meaning in a reality where cause and effect are linear, eliminate locality and you end up with nothing.

This doesn't mean that I don't accept the possibility that reality is somehow a byproduct of consciousness, but what it does mean is that even consciousness has to exist in a reality that's limited to a linear series of cause and effect.

 

[partinobodycular]

So what do you think about the Eucharistic Miracles of Buenos Aires?

Sorry, I was busy. So much to do. So little time.

How do you explain the White Blood Cells there?

Again... sorry, but you're going to have to be more specific. Which reference to white blood cells are we talking about? Zugibe's, Linoli's, Lawrence's, Walker's? And can you document these claims somewhere other than in statements by Dr. Castanon or in Youtube! videos.

Hopefully you'll understand my reticence, because if I allow just any old statement off of the internet or Youtube! to be used as evidence then I'm in a no win situation. Because on the internet hyperbole, misrepresentation, and outright lies are just about impossible to refute.

So can you be more specific please?

 

[carloagal]

Sorry, I was busy. So much to do. So little time.



Again... sorry, but you're going to have to be more specific. Which reference to white blood cells are we talking about? Zugibe's, Linoli's, Lawrence's, Walker's? And can you document these claims somewhere other than in statements by Dr. Castanon or in Youtube! videos.

Hopefully you'll understand my reticence, because if I allow just any old statement off of the internet or Youtube! to be used as evidence then I'm in a no win situation. Because on the internet hyperbole, misrepresentation, and outright lies are just about impossible to refute.

So can you be more specific please?

Doctor Robert Lawrence when he was examining the tissue said that it was infiltrating of white blood cells. Robert Lawrence was interviewed by Ron Tesoriero in his documentary on YouTube and in the picture I give you

 

[carloagal]

Mi dispiace ero occupato. Così tanto da fare. Così poco tempo.



Ancora una volta... scusa, ma dovrai essere più specifico. Di quale riferimento ai globuli bianchi stiamo parlando? Di Zugibe, di Linoli, di Lawrence, di Walker? E puoi documentare queste affermazioni altrove che nelle dichiarazioni del Dr. Castanon o su Youtube! video.

Spero che comprenderete la mia reticenza, perché se permetto basta una qualsiasi vecchia affermazione presa da Internet o da Youtube! da usare come prova, allora mi trovo in una situazione senza vittoria. Perché su Internet le iperboli, le false dichiarazioni e le vere e proprie bugie sono praticamente impossibili da confutare.

Quindi puoi essere più specifico, per favore?

I can start a conversation with you if you want.

 

[SelfSim]

The point was 'Time' is a human made concept, an abstract idea about time. The abstract idea itself is not an objectively real thing and therefor cannot be verified scientifically. So human ideas about what time represents, what it is are not the objective truth independent of humans.

i) Time is operationally defined and therefore the concept generates abundantly consistent objective evidence. Science's time is therefore objectively real.
ii) 'Objective truth independent of humans' is a belief, and is therefore not objectively real.

Therefore how western science understands 'time' is no more correct as far as what the nature of 'time' ultimately is than how an indigenous peoples or Monks in the mountains may understand what 'time' is.

Thats the point, its circular reasoning. Its true because we say its true. But in reality humans don't agree what time is or represents. There are many ideas about what time represents in the world. Some natives have no idea of westernised concept of time. They have no clocks.

Time is more about experiences or symbols and places. There are no schedules, time restraints ect. They may bring up spirits from the past to alter their future ect. Who says they are wrong. They have sucessfully lived this way for millenia, more time than westernised science has existed.

The best way to understand time is through the only way we can know time which is our conscious experience of time. Now it seems strange to me that when trying to understand 'time' that we devise some 3rd party measure beyond our experience rather than actually using the experience itself for what it is warts and all.

Because there are spectulative ideas within experience doesn't mean there are no valid experiences we can draw upon which may give us a deeper insight into what time is, how it effects us, how we actually live it out rather than trying to rationalize it by some quantified assumption about what time is.

The way the nature of time is established in science, is not the same as the way some monk dreams up. The stark dissimilarites in those respective methods distinguishes 'objectivity' from your 'Monkly understanding'.

 

[Bradskii]

Of course the sample was the same. Doctor Castanon and Ron Tesoriero did a very good job of chain of custody.

Why is my quote in Italian? Anyway, I'd need confirmation of that claim.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Perché la mia citazione è in italiano? Anyway, I'd need confirmation of that claim.

It would seem Carlo is communicating with us in Italian via machine translation. (I did that you your question to illustrate.)

 

[stevevw]

In a flat spacetime photons only travel in straight lines. More generally they follow geodesics of the curved spacetime. Feynman's analysis still applies.

Yet didn't you present a paper arguing that it may be slightly curved to counter the anomelies with the CMB.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yet didn't you present a paper arguing that it may be slightly curved to counter the anomelies with the CMB.

What's that to do with photons traveling on geodesics?

 

[Kylie]

lol sorry, I really thought you meant a literal foot. So yes we can't put 'inches' in a test tube. Thats the point, its a human concept to break the world up into segments as a measure. We actually changed the measure from 'inches' to metric many years ago. If inches were a set reality in space and time how is it we just changed the way we measured things.

Indigenous peoples don't use centimetre or kilometre. They measure the world in landmarks and symbolic representations.

Well, since I was clearly talking about distance back in post 419, I don't know how you concluded that I was talking about an actual foot.

But my point remains. If time is not real because we can't put it into a test tube (as per your argument in post 400, then neither is distance. Yet I'm sure you'll agree that there is some distance between you and me.

But 'the actual distance' is just one aspect of understanding the space between two objects. Its not the only way to understand distance. THis is the point I was trying to make as far as what is reality, what is fundemental reality. Is it the quantified world we measure by devising some method of measurement according to a set of certain criteria we may assume about the world.

Or is there more to it like how we actually experience distance and time, space and time. In fact QM may even point to the possibility of breaching time as we know it such as with time travel or entanglement where information can be transfered in an instant, at the same time without any actual traversing across space and time.

And just how a foot (as in twelve inches, to clarify) is a measure of distance, a second is a measure of time. Again, if you are going to claim that time isn't real, then distance isn't real, and our universe is therefore dimensionless. Do you want to make that argument?

No I am saying the idea of north besides magnetic north which is different because its based on the electromagnetic field. But the idea of north, south, east and west and longtitude and latitude are just a made up grid reference.

They could have put south as north or east as west and still would have a similar point ref just the other way around. We could divide the earth up with other grids however humans choose depending on what 'humans' decide they want to measure will influence how they see the world.

No, it is not just "made up," because it is based on an objectively true fact about our planet. Magnetic north is where the axis of our planet's magnetic field passes through the surface of the Earth in the northern hemisphere.

Yes but the point was who is what is the correct time between them at the point in which they are asked at the same time. They will all say different times. So at any specific point in time we would have to say that5 there can be many 'times' on a clock that are correct at the same time in the overall or global sense.

Even though we can check each time and verify it with local settings in the global sense which is more fundemental n single 'time' is correct. I think this relates to Wigners Friend experiement that found there is no objective reality because fundementally two people can have a different objective reality at the same time.

But they can correct for these things and determine what the other person is experiencing.

The point is there could be different universe that keep getting birthed and rebirthed in a multiverse. Ours may come to an end while another different one may pop up with similar physics some time or could have completely different physics and space and time. Ours is not so special within a multiverse of unlimited variations.

And there COULD BE a universe where you have evidence for your claims instead of hypotheticals for which you provide zero evidence, but it ain't this universe.

The Janus Point is just the latest in a line of ideas like the Multiverse, Big Bounce ect to try and explain how our universe came to be. So none can really be verified scientifically but they are based on the data.

The problem is as the article says "physics breaks down at the singularity, leading to a mix of speculations on what little we can tease out of the physics that still makes sense". So the science is taking us back to a point where it cannot apply and yet it leaves unexplained what happens up to that point.

Therefore because the physics breaks down whatever idea is going to explain things is going to be counter intuitive because it requires new physics, new dimensions that don't conform to what we understand through time and space.

So what?

Inventing something which doesn't break down at the Big Bang doesn't mean squat if you can't show that it applies to our universe.

This is a bit similar to the other ones and in fact they are all pretty much the same in proposing some universe before our universe meaning our universe was not the beginning but a carryover from another universe or event such as a Big Crunch that created another singularity or like Bubble universes as a result of quantum foam.

The point is if our universe is the result of a multiverse or a rebirthed universe then the universe before ours also contains space and time but not necessarily the same. But still having time in its own way to be able to start and end and then be rebirthed ad infinitum.

"...as a result of quantum foam."

Do you even know what that means, or are you just repeating buzzwords?

The point is if our universe is infinite then what does that do to time.

You do know that "spatial" and "temporal" are very different things, right? Infinite in space does not equate to infinite in time.

 

[Kylie]

I guess thats what we came up with to help understand the experience of past, present and future.

An interesting thing is that the past as memories can become the present. You can relive that experience like it becomes your new past experience that replaces the original one, or changes how you percieve the past.

That seems to suggest that we can measure time gone by through years which is one way to understand time as far as volume is concerned. But we can also understand time through conscious experience. A past event can be transported to the future at an instant making it real again for the present.

This seems to mean in some ways 'time' is non local. It is not restricted to measures in set quantities that flow in one direction from past to present. Our conscious experience is not restricted by the measure of time and space in the classical sense.

But this all depends on you being able to show that the laws of nature in this other universe allow for something that we would call the past, present, and future.

But, boy, I tell you, I'd love to see this.

Please, show us how you determine the laws of nature for a universe that is not ours.

 

[stevevw]

Well, since I was clearly talking about distance back in post 419, I don't know how you concluded that I was talking about an actual foot.

But my point remains. If time is not real because we can't put it into a test tube (as per your argument in post 400, then neither is distance. Yet I'm sure you'll agree that there is some distance between you and me.

Yes the space between objects is real but the measuring idea that humans come up with be it inches, metres or cubits is not. It may be measured in metres in one culture, feet in another and some other method in other cultures like symbols ie (it takes 3 setting suns to reach the destination).

And just how a foot (as in twelve inches, to clarify) is a measure of distance, a second is a measure of time. Again, if you are going to claim that time isn't real, then distance isn't real, and our universe is therefore dimensionless. Do you want to make that argument?

Your missing the point. Its not that there is some space between things or that theres an interval between evens happening. Its that the measure for this is a human idea. It can be different according to the culture or the location you are in.

No, it is not just "made up," because it is based on an objectively true fact about our planet. Magnetic north is where the axis of our planet's magnetic field passes through the surface of the Earth in the northern hemisphere.

And what if we were on another planet.

But they can correct for these things and determine what the other person is experiencing.

Thats the point, the other person is having a different experience of time at that specific moment. We can know that it may be 5 pm at a single point but be be not quite 5 pm for someone travelling at supersonic speed for the same point. Time slows down at speed and will come to a complete stop as we reach the speed of light.

And there COULD BE a universe where you have evidence for your claims instead of hypotheticals for which you provide zero evidence, but it ain't this universe.

The point is this is what the physics predicts, the same physics we use on planet earth, the same physics used for the BB and inflation theory.

So what?

Inventing something which doesn't break down at the Big Bang doesn't mean squat if you can't show that it applies to our universe.

It does belong to our universe, well is associated with the birth of our universe. Its the physics of trying to work out how the theory of the BB and inflation came about. Trying to work out the physics for how inflation happened which is after the BB.

Our physics breaks down at this point and thats why for example a multiverse is proposed because one of the outcomes of inflation is a multiverse and one of the outcomes of a multiverse is that physical constants will be different in different universes.

That means in the greater scheme of things if theres different physics then theres different representations of what time is. In fact even time within inflation was different as the the physics breaks down and inflrmation travels faster than the speed of light.

"...as a result of quantum foam."

Do you even know what that means, or are you just repeating buzzwords?

Of course, this is a well known idea that stems from QM. Wheeler came up with the term, the same Wheeler who proposes 'it from bit' and the Participatory universe where observers create reality. Quantum foam are virtual particles and a predicted outcome that empty space isn't really empty. Empty space is bubbling with tiny subatomic particles appearing and disappearing. The same idea that is used for bubble and multi universes.

You do know that "spatial" and "temporal" are very different things, right? Infinite in space does not equate to infinite in time.

I would have thought infinite space goes hand in hand with infinite time. Space will keep going and a particle moving through that space will keep going.

What about 'worm holes' where something can travel between one point in the universe to another by cutting out the time to travel that distance. Instead of taking 1,000's of years it may only take minutes. Worm holes was also coined by John Wheeler and are predicted by the math.

QM also predicts time travel so how does this fit with the classical understanding of time. It points to time being more fluid than how we think of time in the macro world.

 

[stevevw]

But this all depends on you being able to show that the laws of nature in this other universe allow for something that we would call the past, present, and future.

But, boy, I tell you, I'd love to see this.

Please, show us how you determine the laws of nature for a universe that is not ours.

We don't need to prove that there are other universes with different physics by going there. Its possible within our own physics, the theorectical maths. Like I said Inflation theory predicts a multiverse and a multiverse contains many varying universes with varying physical constants.

It is important to state from the start that the existence (or not) of the multiverse is a consequence of our present understanding of the fundamental laws of physics—it didn't come from the minds of whimsical physicists reading too many sci-fi books.

The multiverse: How we're tackling the challenges facing the theory

The idea of a multiverse consisting of "parallel universes" is a popular science fiction trope, recently explored in the Oscar-winning movie "Everything Everywhere All At Once." However, it is within the realm of scientific possibility.

phys.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes the space between objects is real but the measuring idea that humans come up with be it inches, metres or cubits is not. It may be measured in metres in one culture, feet in another and some other method in other cultures like symbols ie (it takes 3 setting suns to reach the destination).

What's your point? No physics is dependent on the choice of units.

 

[SelfSim]

No, it is not just "made up," because it is based on an objectively true fact about our planet. Magnetic north is where the axis of our planet's magnetic field passes through the surface of the Earth in the northern hemisphere.

And what if we were on another planet.

The usefulness of the concept of Earth's true magnetic north is extensively evidenced. It is therefore held as being objectively real (ie: demonstrable) in the context of this planet. Science makes it a property of the testable model, (ie: the object), it calls 'planet Earth'.
'Another planet' is not 'planet Earth' .. it is a different model with different properties.

Science's purpose is to be useful. It isn't concerned with justifying people's beliefs about proving things exist independently from its process (like: 'true magnetic north').

 

[Kylie]

We don't need to prove that there are other universes with different physics by going there. Its possible within our own physics, the theorectical maths. Like I said Inflation theory predicts a multiverse and a multiverse contains many varying universes with varying physical constants.

It is important to state from the start that the existence (or not) of the multiverse is a consequence of our present understanding of the fundamental laws of physics—it didn't come from the minds of whimsical physicists reading too many sci-fi books.

The multiverse: How we're tackling the challenges facing the theory

The idea of a multiverse consisting of "parallel universes" is a popular science fiction trope, recently explored in the Oscar-winning movie "Everything Everywhere All At Once." However, it is within the realm of scientific possibility.

phys.org

So you think you can use the laws of nature of our universe to determine the laws of nature of a completely separate universe.

How about you look at Elon Musk and use him to determine how a shoemaker in India lives, huh?

 

[Kylie]

Yes the space between objects is real but the measuring idea that humans come up with be it inches, metres or cubits is not. It may be measured in metres in one culture, feet in another and some other method in other cultures like symbols ie (it takes 3 setting suns to reach the destination).

So we agree. Distance (a dimension in our universe) is real. So tell me, why should we not also consider that time (also a dimension in our universe) is also real?

Your missing the point. Its not that there is some space between things or that theres an interval between evens happening. Its that the measure for this is a human idea. It can be different according to the culture or the location you are in.

No. Just no.

Distance is not subjective simply because there are different units of measurement. The distance between my front door and the shop down the street is the same, regardless of whether you measure it in feet or meters. There are clear equations to allow for a conversion between different measuring systems.

And what if we were on another planet.

If that has a magnetic field, then we can use that to determine magnetic north. If it does not have a magnetic field, then there is no magnetic north. However, we can use the axis of rotation of the planet to find true north.

Thats the point, the other person is having a different experience of time at that specific moment. We can know that it may be 5 pm at a single point but be be not quite 5 pm for someone travelling at supersonic speed for the same point. Time slows down at speed and will come to a complete stop as we reach the speed of light.

How can you claim that time is subjective and then base your argument on two different experiences at the same specific moment? The same specific moment can't exist if time is subjective as you say. Your argument does not work.

The point is this is what the physics predicts, the same physics we use on planet earth, the same physics used for the BB and inflation theory.

You have made the claim, but you have not shown a shred of evidence. All available scientific information shows that the laws of physics that you claim to be using break down and become meaningless at the Big Bang.

It does belong to our universe, well is associated with the birth of our universe. Its the physics of trying to work out how the theory of the BB and inflation came about. Trying to work out the physics for how inflation happened which is after the BB.

So let me get this straight...

You claim that an entirely different universe is associated with our universe? How do they interact then? Youi make grandiose claims, but offer no supporting arguments. Just more claims.

Our physics breaks down at this point and thats why for example a multiverse is proposed because one of the outcomes of inflation is a multiverse and one of the outcomes of a multiverse is that physical constants will be different in different universes.

Just a moment ago, you were saying that the physics predicts time before the Big Bang, now you say physics breaks down at the Big Bang. Make up your mind please.

That means in the greater scheme of things if theres different physics then theres different representations of what time is. In fact even time within inflation was different as the the physics breaks down and inflrmation travels faster than the speed of light.

If the physics is different, how do you know there's even time at all?

Of course, this is a well known idea that stems from QM. Wheeler came up with the term, the same Wheeler who proposes 'it from bit' and the Participatory universe where observers create reality. Quantum foam are virtual particles and a predicted outcome that empty space isn't really empty. Empty space is bubbling with tiny subatomic particles appearing and disappearing. The same idea that is used for bubble and multi universes.

I'm sure you can find any number of websites that will tell you that. I see nothing that indicates you have an understanding of what it means.

I would have thought infinite space goes hand in hand with infinite time. Space will keep going and a particle moving through that space will keep going.

So just your armchair scientist assumptions then?

What about 'worm holes' where something can travel between one point in the universe to another by cutting out the time to travel that distance. Instead of taking 1,000's of years it may only take minutes. Worm holes was also coined by John Wheeler and are predicted by the math.

And how does that involve time travel? Joining two different points in space is not the same as two different points in time.

And in any case, the two different points are within the same universe. Even if wormholes do exist in reality, that doesn't prove that time existed before the Big Bang.

QM also predicts time travel so how does this fit with the classical understanding of time. It points to time being more fluid than how we think of time in the macro world.

Source please.

 

[stevevw]

So you think you can use the laws of nature of our universe to determine the laws of nature of a completely separate universe.

How about you look at Elon Musk and use him to determine how a shoemaker in India lives, huh?

Like I said its based on our current theory of physics for 'our universe and not other universes' and what we observe today which predicts a multiverse. If our current theories of inflation and the CMB and QM are right then we also have to accept the logical predictions based on those ideas which includes a multiverse.

When we look out at the Universe today, it simultaneously tells us two stories about itself. One of those stories is written on the face of what the Universe looks like today, and includes the stars and galaxies we have, how they’re clustered and how they move, and what ingredients they’re made of. This is a relatively straightforward story, and one that we’ve learned simply by observing the Universe we see.

But the other story is how the Universe came to be the way it is today, and that’s a story that requires a little more work to uncover. Sure, we can look at objects at great distances, and that tells us what the Universe was like in the distant past: when the light that’s arriving today was first emitted. But we need to combine that with our theories of the Universe — the laws of physics within the framework of the Big Bang — to interpret what occurred in the past. When we do that, we see extraordinary evidence that our hot Big Bang was preceded and set up by a prior phase: cosmic inflation. But in order for inflation to give us a Universe consistent with what we observe, there’s an unsettling appendage that comes along for the ride: a multiverse. Here’s why physicists overwhelmingly claim that a multiverse must exist.

Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?

If you want to get the Universe we see, a multiverse comes along for the ride.

www.forbes.com

 

[stevevw]

So we agree. Distance (a dimension in our universe) is real. So tell me, why should we not also consider that time (also a dimension in our universe) is also real?

I am not saying the experience of time or distance is not real. We can experience ourselves moving through the objective world. I am saying the many different ideas by cultures to interpret those experiences are subjective which shows we don't really understand its nature, what time really represents in a universal sense. If anything the many different human made ideas about time tells us its more fluid than any idea that tries to quantify time according to one specific concept.

No. Just no.

What do you mean. So who is correct, the Western idea of time or the Indigenous understanding. Are you saying Indigenous people or any other cultures experience of time is wrong compared to the West.

Distance is not subjective simply because there are different units of measurement. The distance between my front door and the shop down the street is the same, regardless of whether you measure it in feet or meters. There are clear equations to allow for a conversion between different measuring systems.

All these measures, feet, meters, cubics are quantified measures, breaking up the world into incriment measures. But not all cultures measure time in quantified incriments. They have more transcedent beliefs about what the west calls time. Its more symbolic and spiritual and is not limited by quantified incriments and there is many variations of how the experience of time is expressed by cultures within the transcendent and qualititative understandings of tense, past tense and future tense.

If that has a magnetic field, then we can use that to determine magnetic north. If it does not have a magnetic field, then there is no magnetic north. However, we can use the axis of rotation of the planet to find true north.

Some planets have completely different or even opposite magnetic poles, some have several or they are contually changing. Ours could flip at some point and then magnetic north would be in the opposite position.

As for using the planets axis planets have difference axes so they won't be like earths. Even if we used the circumference and grided up the planet to map out points to north, south, east and west who says how we do it on earth is the true orientation. Aliens may choose to make what we call north in the south. Its all relative when it comes to the cosmos.

How can you claim that time is subjective and then base your argument on two different experiences at the same specific moment? The same specific moment can't exist if time is subjective as you say. Your argument does not work.

Say for example if a person was flying in a supersonic jet and passed over the same point as someone on the ground and they compared the time. The person above in the jet would experience time slower than the person on the ground. If they compared the time they would have two different times.

You have made the claim, but you have not shown a shred of evidence. All available scientific information shows that the laws of physics that you claim to be using break down and become meaningless at the Big Bang.

I'm talking about after the BB when Inflation happened which is based on quantum physics. The same physics predicts multiverses. If there are no multiverses then there is no inflation theory. What happened to time between the BB and inflation or even during inflation when things travelled faster than the speed of light. What happens to time at the edge of our existing universe that is said to be travelling faster than the speed of light.

So let me get this straight...

You claim that an entirely different universe is associated with our universe? How do they interact then? Youi make grandiose claims, but offer no supporting arguments. Just more claims.

No its based on existing physics. It predicts a multiverse. If you want to dispute that then you need to take it up with all the scientists who support Inflation theory. Who support interpretations of QM such as the Many worlds interpretation which is the preferred interpretation by most mainstream physicists.

Just a moment ago, you were saying that the physics predicts time before the Big Bang, now you say physics breaks down at the Big Bang. Make up your mind please.

It is because the physics breaks down at the BB that other universes are proposed. QM breaks down classical physics. The BB and Inflation theory are based on quantum physics. So it is proposed that our universe was birthed through quantum fluctuations which is based on our current understanding of QM and the cosmos.

If the physics is different, how do you know there's even time at all?

There may not be time in some universes or time may flow differently, maybe slower, faster or in the opposite direction. This is based on QM especially the Many Worlds or Paralelle Uinverse theory.

The idea that the QM wave function doesn't collapse but will keep branching off into new possibilities, in this case universes. The idea that our universe is not special and just one variation of a possible infinite possible varying universes due to superpositioning. All of which has been verified scientifically. So if the physics and interpretation are correct then a multiverse is a valid prediction.

I'm sure you can find any number of websites that will tell you that. I see nothing that indicates you have an understanding of what it means.

Its basic quantum physics. Its not some crazy persons idea, its verified science. QM is one of the most supported theories in science. The idea that particles can be waves or particles, Quantum superposition, uncertainty principle, Virtual particle, the Casimir effect and entanglement.

The Casimir effect: a force from nothing

The Casimir effect: a force from nothing – Physics World

The force could affect everything from micromachines to unified theories of nature

physicsworld.com

Quantum nothingness might have birthed the Universe
Modern physics tells us there is no such thing as nothingness. Out of the vacuum of space, particles come and go. Our entire Universe might even have emerged out of it.

Quantum nothingness might have birthed the Universe

Matter in space can arise out of what we perceive as nothing. But there is no such thing as a void in the Universe.

bigthink.com

So just your armchair scientist assumptions then?

No these are mainstream scientific assumptions and theories. I am just repeating what mainstream science says.

And how does that involve time travel? Joining two different points in space is not the same as two different points in time.

Instead of taking 1,000 years to get from point to point in classical spacetime information could travel between these two points in minutes or in some cases with quantum entanglement send information instantly. Thats a breach of time (how long it takes for something to travel between two points in space. It would breach the speed of light for one.

And in any case, the two different points are within the same universe. Even if wormholes do exist in reality, that doesn't prove that time existed before the Big Bang.

The point of saying time may exist before the BB was to show that 'Time' as we understand it is not necessarily what 'time' represents fundementally. We just happen to give it a quantified interpretation to help us navigate our plane of reference as we are physical beings. But as I have shown 'time' can be more fluid fundementally.

Wormholes, Black Holes come from the same QM as Multiverses, the Big Bounce or Bubble Universes which posit that our universe is just a rebirthed previous universe within an infinite number of universes where 'time' also existed in some form. So before our universe time existed in at least one other universe if not many.

Source please.

Quantum mechanics of time travel

Quantum mechanics of time travel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Physicists Prove Time Travel Possible by Sending Particles of Light into the Past
How relativity works Einstein's theory of relativity is made up of two parts – general relativity and special relativity. Special relativity posits that space and time are aspects of the same thing, known as the space-time continuum, and that time can slow down or speed up, depending on how fast you are moving, relative to something else. Gravity can also bend time, and Einstein's theory of general relativity suggests that it would be possible to travel backwards in time by following a space-time path, i.e. a closed timeline curve that returns to the starting point in space, but arrives at an earlier time.

Physicists Prove Time Travel Possible by Sending Particles of Light into the Past

Scientists from the University of Queensland have used photons (single particles of light) to simulate quantum particles travelling through time. Their research, entitled "Experimental simulation of closed time like curves", is published in the latest issue of Nature Communications.

www.linkedin.com

https://pk.linkedin.com/in/sultan-z-151050a1?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse_publisher-author-card
Quantum Time Travel

Alternate View Column AV-45

John G. Cramer Analog Alternate View Column 45 Quantum Time Travel

www.npl.washington.edu

Mathematics Reveals Time Travel Is Logically Possible, But Not How To Do It

Mathematics Reveals Time Travel Is Logically Possible, But Not How To Do It

Mathematics Reveals Time Travel Is Logically Possible, But Not How To Do It

www.iflscience.com