We can see the past through space, if we look at a star the star could allready be dead. but we see the light because its millions of years old going through space. This called time....... time exsist between dimenchons and worlds. We can also vist the future by flying in deep space and then come back 1,000 years later.
It is very possible. people dont belive this because there ither dont belive or dont have anything to do while there governemt is lieing.
Full Version: WE CAN SEE THE PAST!
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Extraterrestrial Life & The UFO Phenomenon
QUOTE(eric_13 @ Jun 16 2007, 01:52 PM) [snapback]1727760[/snapback]
We can see the past through space, if we look at a star the star could allready be dead. but we see the light because its millions of years old going through space. This called time....... time exsist between dimenchons and worlds. We can also vist the future by flying in deep space and then come back 1,000 years later.
It is very possible. people dont belive this because there ither dont belive or dont have anything to do while there governemt is lieing.
It is very possible. people dont belive this because there ither dont belive or dont have anything to do while there governemt is lieing.
Time doesn't exist. You can not go back in time because the past is an illusion. When we see the light from a star system what we are seeing is the present. The star in fact may be non-existent but we are seeing the present journey of light. The Earth is as old as the Earth is and yet we experience it in the present. One cannot 'fly' into deep space. At the height of our technological advancement we have not even traversed past our own moon. Think about it.
QUOTE(eric_13 @ Jun 16 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]1727760[/snapback]
We can see the past through space, if we look at a star the star could allready be dead. but we see the light because its millions of years old going through space. This called time....... time exsist between dimenchons and worlds. We can also vist the future by flying in deep space and then come back 1,000 years later.
It is very possible. people dont belive this because there ither dont belive or dont have anything to do while there governemt is lieing.
It is very possible. people dont belive this because there ither dont belive or dont have anything to do while there governemt is lieing.
For that to happen you would need to be able to travel near the speed of light, we're no where near achieving that.
How is the 'governemt' lying? Almost everyone in the world with an understanding of physics knows the basics of what you're talking about. Stop reading conspiracy theories.
Joc is also right. The light we see from distant stars is merely a representation of the past; it only exists in the present.
QUOTE(joc @ Jun 16 2007, 08:02 AM) [snapback]1727769[/snapback]
Time doesn't exist. You can not go back in time because the past is an illusion. When we see the light from a star system what we are seeing is the present. The star in fact may be non-existent but we are seeing the present journey of light. The Earth is as old as the Earth is and yet we experience it in the present. One cannot 'fly' into deep space. At the height of our technological advancement we have not even traversed past our own moon. Think about it.
I don't want to hear about time not existing anymore because time does exist everywhere. Tell me where time does not exist. Tell me why time does not exist. Time does not exist when you have no more time, but time exist. Seconds and hours are a division of time and that time is the rising and setting of the sun. The lunar calendars are not made up. A farmer depends on the harvest and the crops depend on the moon and the moon goes from new to quarter to half to full and back to new in 28 days. The day is from sunrise to the next sunrise. You cannot reach up there and grab the sun and pull it down and say there is no more time. And you cannnot make time not exist by saying there is no time. Time exist for people who want to progress from this point to the next. Time exist for people who want to finish what they start. And when you say the past is an illusion, the present is real and your movement makes the last present the past. When you go from point A to point B, point A does not disappear when you leave it.
Now, it is not possible to reclaim or return to the past when you are alive because it has gone, but your mind is a recorder with a camera and you can replay the past in your mind.
QUOTE(joc @ Jun 16 2007, 09:02 AM) [snapback]1727769[/snapback]
Time doesn't exist. You can not go back in time because the past is an illusion. When we see the light from a star system what we are seeing is the present. The star in fact may be non-existent but we are seeing the present journey of light. The Earth is as old as the Earth is and yet we experience it in the present. One cannot 'fly' into deep space. At the height of our technological advancement we have not even traversed past our own moon. Think about it.
We're actually more advanced than we were when we went to the moon, technologically speaking. So what's the hold-up, already?
QUOTE(joc @ Jun 16 2007, 07:02 AM) [snapback]1727769[/snapback]
Time doesn't exist. You can not go back in time because the past is an illusion. When we see the light from a star system what we are seeing is the present. The star in fact may be non-existent but we are seeing the present journey of light. The Earth is as old as the Earth is and yet we experience it in the present. One cannot 'fly' into deep space. At the height of our technological advancement we have not even traversed past our own moon. Think about it.
Thats pretty much retarded! And he didn't say we can go back in time. And the earth isn't made out of light so what you said makes no sense,
are you trying to say we experience light as a physical reality? If so i would be able to kill you by turning on a flashlight while pointing it at you.
QUOTE(eric_13 @ Jun 16 2007, 01:52 PM) 
We can see the past through space, if we look at a star the star could allready be dead. but we see the light because its millions of years old going through space. This called time....... time exsist between dimenchons and worlds. We can also vist the future by flying in deep space and then come back 1,000 years later.
It is very possible. people dont belive this because there ither dont belive or dont have anything to do while there governemt is lieing.
It is very possible. people dont belive this because there ither dont belive or dont have anything to do while there governemt is lieing.
wow i would of never thought of that
it does sorta make sense though
QUOTE(joc @ Jun 16 2007, 09:02 AM)
Time doesn't exist.
Your post says it was posted at 902 am on Jun 16th.
I'd assert that time does in fact, exist.
QUOTE(greggK @ Jun 17 2007, 12:07 AM)
I don't want to hear about time not existing anymore because time does exist everywhere. Tell me where time does not exist. Tell me why time does not exist. Time does not exist when you have no more time, but time exist. Seconds and hours are a division of time and that time is the rising and setting of the sun. The lunar calendars are not made up. A farmer depends on the harvest and the crops depend on the moon and the moon goes from new to quarter to half to full and back to new in 28 days. The day is from sunrise to the next sunrise. You cannot reach up there and grab the sun and pull it down and say there is no more time. And you cannnot make time not exist by saying there is no time. Time exist for people who want to progress from this point to the next. Time exist for people who want to finish what they start. And when you say the past is an illusion, the present is real and your movement makes the last present the past. When you go from point A to point B, point A does not disappear when you leave it.
Now, it is not possible to reclaim or return to the past when you are alive because it has gone, but your mind is a recorder with a camera and you can replay the past in your mind.
Now, it is not possible to reclaim or return to the past when you are alive because it has gone, but your mind is a recorder with a camera and you can replay the past in your mind.
The statement "time does not exist" poses a difficult quandary.
Time actually exists only in respect to the fact that it is a man-made construct, a system designed to keep track of things.
Time exists in that respect alone.
So, in a way, you're correct, but in another, you're incorrect.
You see, the confusion manifests in your own argument when you say that time does not exist when you have no time, but time exists (?). Which is it?
In a much more profound sense, time does not exist. There is only the present moment!
Being able to replay the past in your mind is a function of the mind's ability to store information, just as a computer file you create can, and does preserve your actions of the past. That has nothing to do with the principal of time not existing as a real thing. When you're looking at the file again, you're seeing registrations of data placed there before, but you're viewing it strictly in the present moment.
When the OP says, we can see the past by looking at the stars, he is absolutely correct.
However, we're seeing what the state of something that was --perhaps millions or billions of years ago--but in your present moment, much as you can look at your diary (if you have one) and read about yourself 20 years ago, say. You're viewing the you that existed then, but it's in the present moment.
Everytime you read a book, technically, you're looking into the past. When you look at that supernova that's 4000 LY distant, you're doing the same thing. In the now, which is all that really exists anywhere, you're seeing the star's "now" of 4000 years ago. That seeing is your "now". The star's "now", in respect to yours, is much different.
See how wild this is?
Look at a movie, read a book, call up a memory...all of it is in the now.
Time doesn't exist at all in that respect.
It is, essentially a constructed measurement system so we may reference processes and events. It is a useful tool for science, but it is a tool. The tool is a reality, but it is not a tangible in that it doesn't describe something in the moment...which is the only thing that actually exists.
It's a philosophical discussion actually. A great mental exercise!
Sorry all, but the Earth is currently under a forced quarantine and we cant go out to play until we learn to get along!
Sounds logical to me
Sounds logical to me
QUOTE(supervike @ Jun 22 2007, 05:08 PM)
Your post says it was posted at 902 am on Jun 16th.
I'd assert that time does in fact, exist.
I'd assert that time does in fact, exist.
I would assert that the system of measurement that we invented exists, but that time as a tangible entity does not.
You see his post was made at 09:02 on 6-16. But that is merely a designation for something that happened. You're looking at the past, certainly when you read it, but you're seeing it in the present moment, which is all that really exists.
Again, mental gymnastics!
QUOTE(MID @ Jun 23 2007, 07:16 PM)
The statement "time does not exist" poses a difficult quandary.
Time actually exists only in respect to the fact that it is a man-made construct, a system designed to keep track of things.
Time exists in that respect alone.
So, in a way, you're correct, but in another, you're incorrect.
You see, the confusion manifests in your own argument when you say that time does not exist when you have no time, but time exists (?). Which is it?
In a much more profound sense, time does not exist. There is only the present moment!
Being able to replay the past in your mind is a function of the mind's ability to store information, just as a computer file you create can, and does preserve your actions of the past. That has nothing to do with the principal of time not existing as a real thing. When you're looking at the file again, you're seeing registrations of data placed there before, but you're viewing it strictly in the present moment.
When the OP says, we can see the past by looking at the stars, he is absolutely correct.
However, we're seeing what the state of something that was --perhaps millions or billions of years ago--but in your present moment, much as you can look at your diary (if you have one) and read about yourself 20 years ago, say. You're viewing the you that existed then, but it's in the present moment.
Everytime you read a book, technically, you're looking into the past. When you look at that supernova that's 4000 LY distant, you're doing the same thing. In the now, which is all that really exists anywhere, you're seeing the star's "now" of 4000 years ago. That seeing is your "now". The star's "now", in respect to yours, is much different.
See how wild this is?
Look at a movie, read a book, call up a memory...all of it is in the now.
Time doesn't exist at all in that respect.
It is, essentially a constructed measurement system so we may reference processes and events. It is a useful tool for science, but it is a tool. The tool is a reality, but it is not a tangible in that it doesn't describe something in the moment...which is the only thing that actually exists.
It's a philosophical discussion actually. A great mental exercise!
Time actually exists only in respect to the fact that it is a man-made construct, a system designed to keep track of things.
Time exists in that respect alone.
So, in a way, you're correct, but in another, you're incorrect.
You see, the confusion manifests in your own argument when you say that time does not exist when you have no time, but time exists (?). Which is it?
In a much more profound sense, time does not exist. There is only the present moment!
Being able to replay the past in your mind is a function of the mind's ability to store information, just as a computer file you create can, and does preserve your actions of the past. That has nothing to do with the principal of time not existing as a real thing. When you're looking at the file again, you're seeing registrations of data placed there before, but you're viewing it strictly in the present moment.
When the OP says, we can see the past by looking at the stars, he is absolutely correct.
However, we're seeing what the state of something that was --perhaps millions or billions of years ago--but in your present moment, much as you can look at your diary (if you have one) and read about yourself 20 years ago, say. You're viewing the you that existed then, but it's in the present moment.
Everytime you read a book, technically, you're looking into the past. When you look at that supernova that's 4000 LY distant, you're doing the same thing. In the now, which is all that really exists anywhere, you're seeing the star's "now" of 4000 years ago. That seeing is your "now". The star's "now", in respect to yours, is much different.
See how wild this is?
Look at a movie, read a book, call up a memory...all of it is in the now.
Time doesn't exist at all in that respect.
It is, essentially a constructed measurement system so we may reference processes and events. It is a useful tool for science, but it is a tool. The tool is a reality, but it is not a tangible in that it doesn't describe something in the moment...which is the only thing that actually exists.
It's a philosophical discussion actually. A great mental exercise!
Great post MID!
QUOTE(eric_13 @ Jun 16 2007, 02:52 PM)
We can see the past through space, if we look at a star the star could allready be dead. but we see the light because its millions of years old going through space. This called time....... time exsist between dimenchons and worlds. We can also vist the future by flying in deep space and then come back 1,000 years later.
It is very possible. people dont belive this because there ither dont belive or dont have anything to do while there governemt is lieing.
It is very possible. people dont belive this because there ither dont belive or dont have anything to do while there governemt is lieing.
Firstly, use a spell checker... or read a damn dictionary.
Secondly, just because we see the light from stars does not mean we can see into the past. The light has been traveling through space for many years and finally reached our eyes. That is not seeing the past!
Thirdly, How can you prove that flying into deep space and coming back 1,000 years later means you can visit the future? That is one of the most bizarre statements I've ever heard.
And lastly, stop trying to believe so badly that you'll believe anything thrown at you. Yes, I believe the government are twisted in some way but they have nothing to do with what you're talking about.
QUOTE(recon_soldier @ Jun 23 2007, 10:47 PM)
Sorry all, but the Earth is currently under a forced quarantine and we cant go out to play until we learn to get along!
Sounds logical to me
Sounds logical to me
There may indeed be a good bit of logic in that statement.
After all, most kids recall being told by their parents, "You can't go out and play until you clean your room," or something to that effect.
I think one of the primary reasons that man hasn't advanced in space exploration to a high level yet (i.e., advanced lunar and manned planetary exploration), as well as in other areas of endeavor, is precisely because we still have chores to do--a clean up--so-to-speak--before we can devote our energies and resources to such affairs completely.
I would postulate than any advanced civilization which has attained the ability to conduct interplanetary exploration is devoid of requirements such as we currently have on Earth.
I suspsect that on an alien planet so advanced, there are no ancient religious faction spewing archaic, violent dogma and exercising their will to pose serious threats to the world and to the safety of peoples in various parts of it. I'd also suspect that there are no regions of their world which are rife with political and religious instability, such as we have.
Thus, this advanced world would not have a need to addrerss such lunacy, and could devote more than a small part of its resources to the advancement of technology and science necessary to accomplish expansive exploratory efforts, and all the benefits which are derived from such efforts, without having to worry about lesser beings on their world killing them.
Yes, I think you might be right.
QUOTE(DukeofNoodleness @ Jun 24 2007, 11:46 AM)
Firstly, use a spell checker... or read a damn dictionary.
Now, let's be nice...
QUOTE
Secondly, just because we see the light from stars does not mean we can see into the past. The light has been traveling through space for many years and finally reached our eyes. That is not seeing the past!
As I said, you are seeing the light in thge now, but in a sense, you are indeed seeing the past...the past of that star, how it was a long time ago. You've got to realize that the now of the star in question is not what you're seeing when you look at its light. You're seeing its then.
We're just seeing it in the now.
It's not a cut-and-dried thing. Rather a brain twister, huh?
QUOTE
Thirdly, How can you prove that flying into deep space and coming back 1,000 years later means you can visit the future? That is one of the most bizarre statements I've ever heard.
I believe, in his way, he is referring to the Special Theory of Relativity and the idea that clocks slow down significantly at substantial fractions of the speed of light. A journey of 1000 years earth time, round trip, at a very substantial fraction of the speed of light (let's say 99.99999%c), would find the traveler returning to Earth 1000 years later (Earth time), but, according to the theory, only having aged about 3 months (ship's time).
Thus, if you think about it, such travel would indeed be traveling into the future for the traveler, as he'd arrive back home after such a journey at such speeds 1000 years later on Earth, but he, as the traveler, would only have aged 3 months. Everyone he knew when he left would be dead for centuries, and the world he came home to would be 1000 years advanced into the future.
I know it sounds rather far-fetched, but that's precisely what Special Relativity states.
QUOTE
I know it sounds rather far-fetched, but that's precisely what Special Relativity states.
Yes, well...since we are unable to even travel at speeds of 50,000 miles per hour...much less the speed of light...it is a moot point.
But interesting nonetheless.
QUOTE(joc @ Jun 24 2007, 01:30 PM)
Yes, well...since we are unable to even travel at speeds of 50,000 miles per hour...much less the speed of light...it is a moot point.
But interesting nonetheless.
But interesting nonetheless.
Correct.
Indeed, we've only gone half that fast with a manned spacecraft...we're aways off from relativistic speeds.
QUOTE(joc @ Jun 24 2007, 11:44 AM)
Great post MID!
Thanks, joc!
QUOTE(MID @ Jun 24 2007, 10:37 PM)
Correct.
Indeed, we've only gone half that fast with a manned spacecraft...we're aways off from relativistic speeds.
Indeed, we've only gone half that fast with a manned spacecraft...we're aways off from relativistic speeds.
I don't even think it is possible for the human mind to grasp such speeds...consider also that the Voyager obtained speeds of over a million miles per hour with the help of solar winds...and yet....a million miles per hour is nothing compared to the speed of light.
One million miles per hour = 1,000,000 mph
Light speed (286,200 miles per second) = 1,030,320,000 mph
One billion miles an hour....the nearest star is 4.5 light years away....40,643,033,020,000 miles
StarTrek is an amazing show...but it just doesn't even come close to ever being reality.
And how advanced would an alien society have to be in order to achieve light speed? I would say they would have to be.....God.....
QUOTE
In a much more profound sense, time does not exist. There is only the present moment!
That's like suggesting that since wherever one goes is "here" then no other place exists. "Here" and "now" are not absolutes.
QUOTE
It is, essentially a constructed measurement system so we may reference processes and events.
It's no different than tick marks on a ruler (which can themselves be used in principle to measure time). Is the concept of space merely a constructed measurement system?
QUOTE
I don't even think it is possible for the human mind to grasp such speeds...consider also that the Voyager obtained speeds of over a million miles per hour with the help of solar winds...and yet....a million miles per hour is nothing compared to the speed of light. . . StarTrek is an amazing show...but it just doesn't even come close to ever being reality.
You're moving that fast right now. Not from the point of view of your own rest frame, of course, but you're never moving from the point of view of your own rest frame. But certainly a frame exists in which at this very moment you're moving at a velocity not far from that of light. Ask a muon.
QUOTE
QUOTE
In a much more profound sense, time does not exist. There is only the present moment!
In a much more profound sense, time does not exist. There is only the present moment!
QUOTE(Startraveler @ Jun 24 2007, 10:53 PM)
That's like suggesting that since wherever one goes is "here" then no other place exists. "Here" and "now" are not absolutes.
It's no different than tick marks on a ruler (which can themselves be used in principle to measure time). Is the concept of space merely a constructed measurement system?
It's no different than tick marks on a ruler (which can themselves be used in principle to measure time). Is the concept of space merely a constructed measurement system?
Where are you? Is it possible for you to be anywhere else? Where? Go there. Now where are you? Where ever you go...there you are.
All concepts are just that...concepts...they are mental perceptions. Now is. Any other 'time' isn't. It is always now. Tic markers record perceptions of memory of now...now is like a flowing stream...it never is where it appears to be...it just is.
QUOTE(joc @ Jun 24 2007, 06:52 PM)
And how advanced would an alien society have to be in order to achieve light speed? I would say they would have to be.....God.....
Might seem that way...indeed.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistingushable form magic."
You're playing semantic games that shed no light on physical reality, joc. More than that, they don't necessarily even hold up. A quantum particle exists in a superposition of position eigenstates. It's "here" and "there" and "there" . . .
QUOTE(Startraveler @ Jun 24 2007, 11:21 PM)
You're playing semantic games that shed no light on physical reality, joc. More than that, they don't necessarily even hold up. A quantum particle exists in a superposition of position eigenstates. It's "here" and "there" and "there" . . .
I'm not playing any games...semantic or otherwise. Physical reality is an exclusively mental phenomena. How can anything be anywhere except where it is...if it is 'there', then the 'there' is where it is now. It is always where it is Now. When are you reading this post? Now? Can you ever read it any time other than Now? You might say that you will read it tomorrow. But tomorrow when you are reading it...is it really tomorrow...or is it Now? It is always Now. Therefore time doesn't exist. The illusion of time passing is created by our minds in order to conceptualize Now. Everything has Now as a primary base. All time is based upon what is Now. But 5 minutes ago from Now doesn't exist...if it does then go back 5 minutes and change this post.
QUOTE(Startraveler @ Jun 24 2007, 06:53 PM)
That's like suggesting that since wherever one goes is "here" then no other place exists. "Here" and "now" are not absolutes.
There is a philosophical argument that would support what you said.
However, the idea that time, a man-made construct, does not exist has no relation to the idea that wherever one goes is "here" and no other place exists.
We are talking about time, not locations. We know that Australia exists concurrent with America, for instance. It's there, now, just as Australia exists now.
In a scientific sense, here and now is indeed absolute...it is all that really exists.
QUOTE
It's no different than tick marks on a ruler (which can themselves be used in principle to measure time). Is the concept of space merely a constructed measurement system?
In a sense, you're also correct. It is a measurement system. However, time is a measurement system which is designed to document an abstract, since there is nothing save the now...a ruler is a physical measurement system of a tangible which can be observed in the now. It's not the same as time.
The relation between the two is this:
The measurement of time defines lengths of events. The measurement of length describes physical distances. Both systems are indeed abstracts, arbitrary (almost) systems used to define things. One defines an abstract; the other describes a tangible.
Fun, isn't it?
Space is a thing...sort of. It exists (although it's mostly nothing). The concept of space is not a measurement system.
QUOTE(Startraveler @ Jun 24 2007, 06:57 PM)
You're moving that fast right now. Not from the point of view of your own rest frame, of course, but you're never moving from the point of view of your own rest frame. But certainly a frame exists in which at this very moment you're moving at a velocity not far from that of light. Ask a muon.
Perhaps, but the only frame that is relevant is his...
QUOTE
You might say that you will read it tomorrow. But tomorrow when you are reading it...is it really tomorrow...or is it Now? It is always Now. Therefore time doesn't exist. The illusion of time passing is created by our minds in order to conceptualize Now. Everything has Now as a primary base. All time is based upon what is Now. But 5 minutes ago from Now doesn't exist...if it does then go back 5 minutes and change this post.
Herein lies the problem with these kinds of discussions. The concepts of time, the passage of time, and the arrow of time are often used interchangeably when they are very different things. I'm inclined to agree that the passage of time is an illusion. But this in no way suggests that time itself doesn't exist, nor does it imply that five minutes ago doesn't exist.
I can receive a signal from five minutes in the past. You can suggest that the instant the signal was emitted no longer exists but suppose I send a signal back to that instant to arrive at the time the original signal was emitted? It may sound like science fiction but a very famous theory in electromagnetism was based on a similiar idea, as is a current interpretation of quantum mechanics. Both are entirely compatible with the laws of physics. My point being that physics, at least, does not necessarily support what you're saying. The past, the present, and the future can all be part of the same four-dimensional "now."
QUOTE
However, the idea that time, a man-made construct, does not exist has no relation to the idea that wherever one goes is "here" and no other place exists.
We are talking about time, not locations. We know that Australia exists concurrent with America, for instance. It's there, now, just as Australia exists now.
We are talking about time, not locations. We know that Australia exists concurrent with America, for instance. It's there, now, just as Australia exists now.
Time itself is a location, in that spatial coordinates are an incomplete description of "where" something is without incorporating time.
QUOTE
However, time is a measurement system which is designed to document an abstract, since there is nothing save the now...a ruler is a physical measurement system of a tangible which can be observed in the now. It's not the same as time.
You could argue that all physical measurement systems document an abstract; I'm not sure how the concept of space is more "tangible" than that of time. Perhaps it's because can see this or that thing across the room and know that some distance separates us. Yet that very idea of seeing something across the room has an implicit time-dependence, as "seeing" takes time (since photons take time to traverse the room)--that is, nothing is ever seen as it is now but rather always as it was. Noticing a separation between yourself and something across the room implies both a spatial separation and a temporal separation, as closing the gap will incorporate both spatial and temporal concepts. It's a well-known relic of special relativity that all distances are also measures of time and vice versa. In fact, in a post-SR world I'm not even sure why we're allowing ourselves to speak of space and time as if they're different things.
QUOTE
Perhaps, but the only frame that is relevant is his...
That's not true. A reference to the earth's frame seems implicit in references to the Voyagers' velocities or the suggestion that mankind will never move that fast. You could easily say that no one will ever move that fast (even someone moving that fast!) if we're limiting ourselves to speaking of the traveler's own frame.
QUOTE
You could argue that all physical measurement systems document an abstract; I'm not sure how the concept of space is more "tangible" than that of time. Perhaps it's because can see this or that thing across the room and know that some distance separates us. Yet that very idea of seeing something across the room has an implicit time-dependence, as "seeing" takes time (since photons take time to traverse the room)--that is, nothing is ever seen as it is now but rather always as it was.
What you stated is what I am talking about. What we view as time isn't time at all...it is a 'memory' of Now...the memory is the illusion. One cannot reach out and touch Now...we can only touch the illusive memory of Now.
QUOTE(recon_soldier @ Jun 24 2007, 10:47 AM)
Sorry all, but the Earth is currently under a forced quarantine and we cant go out to play until we learn to get along!
Sounds logical to me
Sounds logical to me
nice idea, maybe thats right as long as we dont get along with the "play" we wont know what is the real and the unreal real, hehe
QUOTE(eric_13 @ Jun 16 2007, 01:52 PM)
We can see the past through space, if we look at a star the star could allready be dead. but we see the light because its millions of years old going through space. This called time....... time exsist between dimenchons and worlds. We can also vist the future by flying in deep space and then come back 1,000 years later.
It is very possible. people dont belive this because there ither dont belive or dont have anything to do while there governemt is lieing.
It is very possible. people dont belive this because there ither dont belive or dont have anything to do while there governemt is lieing.
Einstein would be so proud of you....
QUOTE(MID @ Jun 24 2007, 05:03 PM)
Now, let's be nice...
As I said, you are seeing the light in thge now, but in a sense, you are indeed seeing the past...the past of that star, how it was a long time ago. You've got to realize that the now of the star in question is not what you're seeing when you look at its light. You're seeing its then.
We're just seeing it in the now.
It's not a cut-and-dried thing. Rather a brain twister, huh?
I believe, in his way, he is referring to the Special Theory of Relativity and the idea that clocks slow down significantly at substantial fractions of the speed of light. A journey of 1000 years earth time, round trip, at a very substantial fraction of the speed of light (let's say 99.99999%c), would find the traveler returning to Earth 1000 years later (Earth time), but, according to the theory, only having aged about 3 months (ship's time).
Thus, if you think about it, such travel would indeed be traveling into the future for the traveler, as he'd arrive back home after such a journey at such speeds 1000 years later on Earth, but he, as the traveler, would only have aged 3 months. Everyone he knew when he left would be dead for centuries, and the world he came home to would be 1000 years advanced into the future.
I know it sounds rather far-fetched, but that's precisely what Special Relativity states.
As I said, you are seeing the light in thge now, but in a sense, you are indeed seeing the past...the past of that star, how it was a long time ago. You've got to realize that the now of the star in question is not what you're seeing when you look at its light. You're seeing its then.
We're just seeing it in the now.
It's not a cut-and-dried thing. Rather a brain twister, huh?
I believe, in his way, he is referring to the Special Theory of Relativity and the idea that clocks slow down significantly at substantial fractions of the speed of light. A journey of 1000 years earth time, round trip, at a very substantial fraction of the speed of light (let's say 99.99999%c), would find the traveler returning to Earth 1000 years later (Earth time), but, according to the theory, only having aged about 3 months (ship's time).
Thus, if you think about it, such travel would indeed be traveling into the future for the traveler, as he'd arrive back home after such a journey at such speeds 1000 years later on Earth, but he, as the traveler, would only have aged 3 months. Everyone he knew when he left would be dead for centuries, and the world he came home to would be 1000 years advanced into the future.
I know it sounds rather far-fetched, but that's precisely what Special Relativity states.
Sorry about yesterday. I was in a real bad mood and seemed aggravated by everything. I kinow what he was referring to by the Special Theory of Relativity, but 1. It was said as if he made it up and 2. Even if it was possible, we'll never manage it.
As for the light from stars, I understand that it's old light and technically, yes you can see the past but you're not exactly seeing INTO the past.
...oh damn I'm sorry I'm just very moody right now.
I'll shut up.
QUOTE(DukeofNoodleness @ Jun 25 2007, 06:17 AM)
Sorry about yesterday. I was in a real bad mood and seemed aggravated by everything. I kinow what he was referring to by the Special Theory of Relativity, but 1. It was said as if he made it up and 2. Even if it was possible, we'll never manage it.
As for the light from stars, I understand that it's old light and technically, yes you can see the past but you're not exactly seeing INTO the past.
...oh damn I'm sorry I'm just very moody right now. I'll shut up.
As for the light from stars, I understand that it's old light and technically, yes you can see the past but you're not exactly seeing INTO the past.
...oh damn I'm sorry I'm just very moody right now.
I'll shut up.DuleofNoodleness...
It's OK. No harm done. No apologies necessary. We all get moody!
I agree that the poster was not to clear in his references. The post was subject to mis-interpretation.
Everything is cool...
QUOTE(MID @ Jun 24 2007, 10:31 AM)
I would assert that the system of measurement that we invented exists, but that time as a tangible entity does not.
You see his post was made at 09:02 on 6-16. But that is merely a designation for something that happened. You're looking at the past, certainly when you read it, but you're seeing it in the present moment, which is all that really exists.
Again, mental gymnastics!
You see his post was made at 09:02 on 6-16. But that is merely a designation for something that happened. You're looking at the past, certainly when you read it, but you're seeing it in the present moment, which is all that really exists.
Again, mental gymnastics!
WAY TO GO! You just blew my mind!! (and I was saving it for something good...) LOL
QUOTE(supervike @ Jun 25 2007, 10:09 PM)
WAY TO GO! You just blew my mind!! (and I was saving it for something good...) LOL
Fun stuff, isn't it?
QUOTE(joc @ Jun 16 2007, 03:02 PM)
Time doesn't exist. You can not go back in time because the past is an illusion. When we see the light from a star system what we are seeing is the present. The star in fact may be non-existent but we are seeing the present journey of light. The Earth is as old as the Earth is and yet we experience it in the present. One cannot 'fly' into deep space. At the height of our technological advancement we have not even traversed past our own moon. Think about it.
You are talking a load of rubbish. The past, and time, are NOT an illusion - Einstein will tell you that.
Any physicist will tell you that when you look into the night sky you are looking into the past. If a star is 2000 light years away you are looking at that star as it was 2000 years ago.
If you looked at the sun - although if you did it'd probably blind you - you are seeing it as it was 8 minutes ago.
QUOTE(Raptor X7 @ Jun 16 2007, 03:19 PM)
For that to happen you would need to be able to travel near the speed of light, we're no where near achieving that.
How is the 'governemt' lying? Almost everyone in the world with an understanding of physics knows the basics of what you're talking about. Stop reading conspiracy theories.
Joc is also right. The light we see from distant stars is merely a representation of the past; it only exists in the present.
How is the 'governemt' lying? Almost everyone in the world with an understanding of physics knows the basics of what you're talking about. Stop reading conspiracy theories.
Joc is also right. The light we see from distant stars is merely a representation of the past; it only exists in the present.
No. You're wrong. You ARE seeing objects in the night sky from the past.
In fact, EVERYTHING you see around you you are seeing from the past. Even looking at your own hand in front of you you are only seeing it as it was in the past - albeit o.ooooooooooooooooooooo2 seconds or whatever it is.
The light that you see you are seeing in the present, but the object that you are looking as is in the past.
The other proof that time exists is the fact that the faster you travel, the slower time passes.
QUOTE(supervike @ Jun 22 2007, 10:08 PM)
Your post says it was posted at 902 am on Jun 16th.
I'd assert that time does in fact, exist.
I'd assert that time does in fact, exist.
You're getting confused.
9:02 am only exists because humans invented it. The clock - such as 1 O'Clock or a quarter past three - is only a way of MEASURING time. But time was around for billions of years before humans came along.
If I say something measures 15 inches it doesn't mean that humans invented length. It only means we invented a means of measuring it.
This thread should be moved to "Mysteries Of Mind, Space & Time" as the content has nothing to do with Extraterrestrials or UFO's. Or maybe to the "Conspiracies & Secret Societies" section... Or should it stay??? Im not sure, where is the kid who started this thread?
Anyways, it is true what you are saying but to visit the future this way would be a one way ticket. And the speed required is impossible to achieve, anyways with our current technology "alien technology, is this why you put it here?. I dont think that there is some kind of conspiracy behind it all that they have this technology to do it if that is what you mean, but why would they want to do it anyways? For someones personal gain? Or are they hoping that they would someday return from the future?
Anyways, it is true what you are saying but to visit the future this way would be a one way ticket. And the speed required is impossible to achieve, anyways with our current technology "alien technology, is this why you put it here?. I dont think that there is some kind of conspiracy behind it all that they have this technology to do it if that is what you mean, but why would they want to do it anyways? For someones personal gain? Or are they hoping that they would someday return from the future?
Well, even though the light of a distant star strike our eyes at this present moment, when we look at a star ten light years away we see that star as it existed ten years ago, so in this sense we are looking back in time.
I think we sometimes confuse the existence of time with the measurement of time. They are two different things. Modern physics considers space as having three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. The Spatial dimensions and the time dimension are unified as spacetime. Space and time cannot be separated...the spacetime continuum. Any point in space must also exist at some moment in time. Therefore, it's time coordinate is as real as it's spatial coordinate.
We may think of time as existing only as the present moment and having no existant past or future, time as a psychological experience, or time as the duration between events. I would say this is our concept of time as measurement. Even thinking of time in this way, I don't think one can state that time does not exist. If one event occurs, then an hour later another event occurs, that interval is what time is. If time did not exist as a tangible entity as interval, then there would be no duration between events.
I think a problem is that we can experience the spatial dimensions easily, but since we have only senses to percieve the present moment, the time dimension is more elusive to envision. We can think of the time dimension as another spatial dimension, but instead of measuring it's 'length' or scale in feet or meters, we measure its 'length' in seconds and minutes.
Also, we must consider the effects of time dilation. If time didn't exist as a physical quality and a real aspect of the physical structure of our universe, then time dilation could not occur. The OP and MID's reply are quite correct.
As for having nothing to do while the government is lying, I stay quite busy while the government is lying.
I think we sometimes confuse the existence of time with the measurement of time. They are two different things. Modern physics considers space as having three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. The Spatial dimensions and the time dimension are unified as spacetime. Space and time cannot be separated...the spacetime continuum. Any point in space must also exist at some moment in time. Therefore, it's time coordinate is as real as it's spatial coordinate.
We may think of time as existing only as the present moment and having no existant past or future, time as a psychological experience, or time as the duration between events. I would say this is our concept of time as measurement. Even thinking of time in this way, I don't think one can state that time does not exist. If one event occurs, then an hour later another event occurs, that interval is what time is. If time did not exist as a tangible entity as interval, then there would be no duration between events.
I think a problem is that we can experience the spatial dimensions easily, but since we have only senses to percieve the present moment, the time dimension is more elusive to envision. We can think of the time dimension as another spatial dimension, but instead of measuring it's 'length' or scale in feet or meters, we measure its 'length' in seconds and minutes.
Also, we must consider the effects of time dilation. If time didn't exist as a physical quality and a real aspect of the physical structure of our universe, then time dilation could not occur. The OP and MID's reply are quite correct.
As for having nothing to do while the government is lying, I stay quite busy while the government is lying.
QUOTE(MID @ Jun 23 2007, 12:16 PM)
The statement "time does not exist" poses a difficult quandary.
Time actually exists only in respect to the fact that it is a man-made construct, a system designed to keep track of things.
Time exists in that respect alone.
So, in a way, you're correct, but in another, you're incorrect.
You see, the confusion manifests in your own argument when you say that time does not exist when you have no time, but time exists (?). Which is it?
In a much more profound sense, time does not exist. There is only the present moment!
Being able to replay the past in your mind is a function of the mind's ability to store information, just as a computer file you create can, and does preserve your actions of the past. That has nothing to do with the principal of time not existing as a real thing. When you're looking at the file again, you're seeing registrations of data placed there before, but you're viewing it strictly in the present moment.
When the OP says, we can see the past by looking at the stars, he is absolutely correct.
However, we're seeing what the state of something that was --perhaps millions or billions of years ago--but in your present moment, much as you can look at your diary (if you have one) and read about yourself 20 years ago, say. You're viewing the you that existed then, but it's in the present moment.
Everytime you read a book, technically, you're looking into the past. When you look at that supernova that's 4000 LY distant, you're doing the same thing. In the now, which is all that really exists anywhere, you're seeing the star's "now" of 4000 years ago. That seeing is your "now". The star's "now", in respect to yours, is much different.
See how wild this is?
Look at a movie, read a book, call up a memory...all of it is in the now.
Time doesn't exist at all in that respect.
It is, essentially a constructed measurement system so we may reference processes and events. It is a useful tool for science, but it is a tool. The tool is a reality, but it is not a tangible in that it doesn't describe something in the moment...which is the only thing that actually exists.
It's a philosophical discussion actually. A great mental exercise!
Time actually exists only in respect to the fact that it is a man-made construct, a system designed to keep track of things.
Time exists in that respect alone.
So, in a way, you're correct, but in another, you're incorrect.
You see, the confusion manifests in your own argument when you say that time does not exist when you have no time, but time exists (?). Which is it?
In a much more profound sense, time does not exist. There is only the present moment!
Being able to replay the past in your mind is a function of the mind's ability to store information, just as a computer file you create can, and does preserve your actions of the past. That has nothing to do with the principal of time not existing as a real thing. When you're looking at the file again, you're seeing registrations of data placed there before, but you're viewing it strictly in the present moment.
When the OP says, we can see the past by looking at the stars, he is absolutely correct.
However, we're seeing what the state of something that was --perhaps millions or billions of years ago--but in your present moment, much as you can look at your diary (if you have one) and read about yourself 20 years ago, say. You're viewing the you that existed then, but it's in the present moment.
Everytime you read a book, technically, you're looking into the past. When you look at that supernova that's 4000 LY distant, you're doing the same thing. In the now, which is all that really exists anywhere, you're seeing the star's "now" of 4000 years ago. That seeing is your "now". The star's "now", in respect to yours, is much different.
See how wild this is?
Look at a movie, read a book, call up a memory...all of it is in the now.
Time doesn't exist at all in that respect.
It is, essentially a constructed measurement system so we may reference processes and events. It is a useful tool for science, but it is a tool. The tool is a reality, but it is not a tangible in that it doesn't describe something in the moment...which is the only thing that actually exists.
It's a philosophical discussion actually. A great mental exercise!
Agreed, it is a great mental exercise, and one that classical astrologers have been conducting for centuries (no pun intended MID). However, MID is correct in the sense that what we call the "present" is indeed the only moment; however, "time" does exist, and must, according to astrophysical laws; i.e., the motion of the Sun, and the planets, which is the reason for time existing as it does.
Yet, there have been those of the past, who have maintained that the past, present, and future are all one, yet with different roads leading along paths as determined by the motions of the planets, and the stars, and, of course, our own experiences of what we call time itself.
Memory, according to some, are experiences stored within ourselves, and not just within what we call our minds, but also within our stellar cells, which all living things have, including himan beings. Time does exist, but is also composed of what we would call the eternal present (from our collective experience) and according to some very interesting theories of physics, such as the Einstein-Rosen bridge, time itself could be bent, in that the past would exist slightly along with the present, and anything conducted between the two would determine "a future."
Time is measured by astronomic motions. Our sense of time is measured by the motion of the Earth around the Sun, which accounts for the seasons we experience on this planet in both hemispheres. Time does exist, however, they are many levels of time itself. I utilize the motions of planets in ephemeris time to forecast events, the weather, etc., according to these laws of time and space.
All in all, yes, a very interesting discussion.
QUOTE(joc @ Jun 16 2007, 04:02 PM)
Time doesn't exist. You can not go back in time because the past is an illusion. When we see the light from a star system what we are seeing is the present. The star in fact may be non-existent but we are seeing the present journey of light. The Earth is as old as the Earth is and yet we experience it in the present. One cannot 'fly' into deep space. At the height of our technological advancement we have not even traversed past our own moon. Think about it.
Time does exist, time is the 4th dimension, when you look at a star in the sky you are in the 4th dimension. When you are reading or anybody else is reading my post you are in the 4th dimension because you are reading a post somebody already made.
WE measure time with seconds, minutes and hours and with little machines called clocks and watches. But not only the present can exist coz then nothing woudl change relatively.
i have been thinking aboutthis for a wile now, its still is not seeing the past, an great example of this would be someone shoots a bullet the bullet can travel 100's ok kilometers, of course the person who shot it could have walked off, but the bullet is still travelling and if someone somhow caught the bullet on a high speed camera they would not see the past they would see the present.
Very interesting replies...
Here is what the great physicists of all time have thought about 'time'.
1687
Issac Newton
The universe has one absolute clock.
-Time and space are independant of the observer.
-Time's arrow points forward; events move ahead from the now.
1905
Albert Einstien
Every observer has his or her clock.
-The universe exists in a space-time manifold.
-Everyone's "now" is different.
-Acceleration affects time.
2003
Peter Lynds
There is no clock; "time" is an illusion.
-Time has no indivisible unit.
-There is no "now," only sequences of events.
You be the judge. However, I must say that science is moving forward. We cannot dwell on old ideas forever.
Here is what the great physicists of all time have thought about 'time'.
1687
Issac Newton
The universe has one absolute clock.
-Time and space are independant of the observer.
-Time's arrow points forward; events move ahead from the now.
1905
Albert Einstien
Every observer has his or her clock.
-The universe exists in a space-time manifold.
-Everyone's "now" is different.
-Acceleration affects time.
2003
Peter Lynds
There is no clock; "time" is an illusion.
-Time has no indivisible unit.
-There is no "now," only sequences of events.
You be the judge. However, I must say that science is moving forward. We cannot dwell on old ideas forever.
QUOTE(Blueguardian @ Jul 1 2007, 04:55 AM)
i have been thinking aboutthis for a wile now, its still is not seeing the past, an great example of this would be someone shoots a bullet the bullet can travel 100's ok kilometers, of course the person who shot it could have walked off, but the bullet is still travelling and if someone somhow caught the bullet on a high speed camera they would not see the past they would see the present.
To see something directly from the past would be impossible because there is no past and everything that exists is now. But the point is that we can see the imprint from the past, that implies in everything we see. Nothing can be experienced when it actually happens, there will always be some delay for everything. The longer the distans, the longer the delay, even our brain must process information from the world around us and that delays it to. The exact now would be impossible to experience, we experience the imprint of the past somewhat.
QUOTE(. @ Jul 1 2007, 04:45 AM)
To see something directly from the past would be impossible because everything that exists is now. But the point is that we can see the imprint from the past, that implies in everything we see. Nothing can be experienced when it actually happens, there will always be some delay for everything. The longer the distans, the longer the delay, even our brain must process information from the world around us and that delays it to. The exact now would be impossible to experience, we experience the imprint of the past somewhat.
Everything that exists is a 'memory' of Now. All that exists is Now. The question of time has always been an interesting one. Put your finger on Now. It can't be done. The closest we can come to Now is Then. It is always Now. It can never be not Now. Therefore everything we perceive is only a memory of Now. Light travels. It travels Now. From whence did it come? It came from Now. It travels to Now. We see it Now. It is always Now.
And Now...it is bedtime.
QUOTE(joc @ Jul 1 2007, 06:57 AM)
Everything that exists is a 'memory' of Now. All that exists is Now. The question of time has always been an interesting one. Put your finger on Now. It can't be done. The closest we can come to Now is Then. It is always Now. It can never be not Now. Therefore everything we perceive is only a memory of Now. Light travels. It travels Now. From whence did it come? It came from Now. It travels to Now. We see it Now. It is always Now.
And Now...it is bedtime.
And Now...it is bedtime.
Yes, what you just said was pretty much my point, but what i also said is that what we "experience" is the imprint of the past, yes i do understand that the imprint is the now also, the past cant exists in the now like i said. But the surrounding we perceive isnt happening at the same time we experience it. But yes we experience in the now because there is only the now, but i hope you know what i mean.
QUOTE(. @ Jul 1 2007, 05:11 AM)
Yes, what you just said was pretty much my point, but what i also said is that what we "experience" is the imprint of the past, yes i do understand that the imprint is the now also, the past cant exists in the now like i said. But the surrounding we perceive isnt happening at the same time we experience it. Yes we experience in the now because there is only the now, but i hope you know what i mean.
Now I do!
We experience in the Now...but we don't experience the Now. You are correct...our perceptions are only a memory of Now.
The point is that there is no 'past' to go back to. Now is and the past isn't. It is only a perception of what is. The star may in fact be defunct....we see the light as it travels in the Now...and even that isn't accurate because by the time our brains reach a perception of the event...the event is already past.
QUOTE(joc @ Jul 1 2007, 01:20 AM)
Now I do!
We experience in the Now...but we don't experience the Now. You are correct...our perceptions are only a memory of Now.
The point is that there is no 'past' to go back to. Now is and the past isn't. It is only a perception of what is. The star may in fact be defunct....we see the light as it travels in the Now...and even that isn't accurate because by the time our brains reach a perception of the event...the event is already past.
We experience in the Now...but we don't experience the Now. You are correct...our perceptions are only a memory of Now.
The point is that there is no 'past' to go back to. Now is and the past isn't. It is only a perception of what is. The star may in fact be defunct....we see the light as it travels in the Now...and even that isn't accurate because by the time our brains reach a perception of the event...the event is already past.
You're absolutely correct, and im really ashamed more people don't see this. It's unfortunate, and it really displays the sad way that we humans perceive 'reality.'
Time is nothing more than a social convention. There is change, but there is no 'time' other than conceptually and therefore no past or future.
The problem is that we use symbols so much during our everyday conduct that we begin to truly believe that our symbols ARE what they represent.
A minute is a unit of measure, just like a foot or a kilometer.
Its a man made idea/symbol and nothing more invented to help us organize the world around us.
When we see the star light yes, in a 'sense' we are looking back in time, but in a 'sense' and nothing more. We are seeing it NOW. We are seeing what it was
but we are seeing it NOW as it was...
i understand what many here are all saying and its easy to fall into that trap
To be quite honest at first I had a very hard time getting my head around it, but i don't think people quite understand the difference between symbols and 'reality'. Every peer i work with knows this... It helps us do our work, and these ideas are obviously incredibly beneficial in making calculations...but that's pretty much it. I remember in university we had a debate on this issue and argued points back and forth for a week before our professor fully explained it to us. As you can imagine we all at the same time sighed "OHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i get it"
maybe he can explain it better than i can lol.
Time is all in your mind.
Sorry to say folks but time is an illusion.
Yeah i fully agree mastermind, it takes some logical thinking skills to understand this whole thing "not that some people dont have it, they just dont see this". To think that there is time "like they see it" is like believing in a theory that cant be proven. And there is no reason for this theory of time to exists in the first place. People can believe in this "time" all they want, but it is just silly when they are trying to prove it with all these theories.
But whether this time exists or not dosent really matter. Im just tired of talking about it
Like string theory, you can put sense to all kinds of things if you have a bunch of smart people that works foward the same goal, but it is still just a theory that most likely isn't true. "It contains some pretty amazing statements just so they can make sense to those things that dosent"
But whether this time exists or not dosent really matter. Im just tired of talking about it
Like string theory, you can put sense to all kinds of things if you have a bunch of smart people that works foward the same goal, but it is still just a theory that most likely isn't true. "It contains some pretty amazing statements just so they can make sense to those things that dosent"
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.