It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientist can look millions of years in past... But what about the future?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Holographicmeat
 


But we've already established that time is a location.

AAC




posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


Matter only exist in the present, all you see when looking at distant stars is an image of the matter as it was. Nothing is "ahead" everything is "now". Because of distance, we can see how things were. We're not looking "at the past" but rather an "image" of the past. The image of the future could be many different things depending on tons of variables. The more variables you know, the more accurate your prediction of the future will be.

One could argue that nothing in the present exist because the present as we see it is always a little in the past (time for light to reach your eyes). The present is merely a “knife-edge” between the past and the future, and it is incapable of containing any duration of time.
edit on 6-3-2014 by MrMaybeNot because: grammar

edit on 6-3-2014 by MrMaybeNot because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


I will also add that if we could somehow see the future as only one image or possibility, it would also mean that free will is an illusion because everything is predetermined.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 03:21 AM
link   

AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by Holographicmeat
 


But we've already established that time is a location.


How exactly has that been established? Maybe I'm the one who's confused now but I didn't see anything even close to that in any journals or peer reviews articles let alone this thread. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, I truly haven't seen that anywhere so if you could explain why you think that or point out where it was stated I'd be very appreciative.


We are traveling in the suns orbit whilst the sun travels through the galaxy. I assume the galaxy is also traveling somewhere. What direction is it traveling? If everything exploded into a brick wall, and everything was traveling in a direction, something has to give or you travel back in the direction You already came.


There are 2 primary factors related to the movement of the galaxies. First is the continued expansion of the known universe. The second is the interaction between our galaxies gravity and that of other galaxies. For example 6 or 7 years ago a website called Viewzone printed an article that hypothesized that our solar system actually originated in the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy. It's completely wrong about our solar system originating there but it is very true that the Milky Way IS "eating" the dwarf galaxy because this galaxy has far less mass than our own, the Milky Way has far stronger gravity. This has destroyed the other galaxy, turning it into a long stream of stars.


In turn the Milky Way is also affected by the gravity of other larger galaxies as well as super massive black holes. Eventually the Milky Way will merge with the Andromeda creating a new massive galaxy. A large portion of this gravity that is attracting the two galaxies together stems from the black holes in their respective centers. These black holes will converge near the center of the newly formed galaxy, transferring orbital energy to stars that will be moved to higher orbits by gravitationally interacting with them, in a process that may take millions of years. When they come within one light year of one another, they will emit gravitational waves that will radiate further orbital energy until they merge completely. Gas taken up by the combined black hole could create a luminous quasar or an active galactic nucleus.

Prior to 2012, there was no way to know whether the possible collision was definitely going to happen or not. researchers came to the conclusion that the collision is definite after using the Hubble Space Telescope between 2002 and 2010 to track the motion of Andromeda. Such collisions are relatively common. Andromeda, for example, is believed to have collided with at least one other galaxy in the past, and several dwarf galaxies such as SagDEG are currently colliding with the Milky Way and being merged into it.

I know that was a long drawn out way of just saying that galactic scale gravity interactions are partially responsible for the movement and can determine the direction of said movement in conjunction with the continued expansion of the known universe.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
If the big bang theory is correct (which it isn't IMO), all matter seen or unseen was made at the exact same time, so there is no such thing as looking into the past. There is no "time" in space. The earth is as old as the furthest star known and UNKNOWN to man as it was all created together right? And since science has NEVER seen a star form, which is odd isn't it? With TRILLIONS of stars in the sky, we see stars die off all the time, yet NOT ONE star has ever been seen forming, just dying. Even NASA admits they can only predict how a star would be created if it happens at all. Suggesting to me the universe was again created at the exact same time and all of it is simply dying off and aging, not regenerating.

Also explain to me how we peons think we actually have the ability to know this stuff as fact without evidence? Science lies DAILY when it comes to where everything comes from. There is NO evidence of a big bang, but even as a POSSIBLE theory, it still makes no sense. The laws that govern our universe never change. How is that if we were created from a big bang in a supposedly expanding universe? The laws would HAVE to change to accommodate an ever changing HUGE universe right? Or as usual are we just guessing it should always remain the same, without actually knowing. Explain how the sun is 98% hydrogen and helium, yet no planet has more than 1% of the same elements? Explain how galaxies and planets spin OPPOSITE of 95% of the entire universe? With what is being taught in science classes, that should NOT be possible is our laws are correct.

I love science, but "educated" people put in their personal beliefs and we as the "uneducated" are supposed to just shut up and believe blindly. Read the actual definition of science and tell me how we can HONESTLY say the things we do in science classes.

So if we were standing on a planet "15 billion light years" from us and looked at the earth, would we be looking to the past, the future, or as i said, looking at something that has no time associated with it as it was made the same day as the planet we were standing on?


edit on 0Thu, 06 Mar 2014 03:47:32 -0600201432014-03-06T03:47:32-06:00Thursdayam06MarchCST by IroncladFT because: spelling



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 



If the Big Bang was true, and an explosion blasted out of a small dense dot, and sent matter bursting into space, wouldn't some parts of the matter be ahead of others in the blast? If so, then why could we not look ahead to some of the matter that blasted out first?

Yes of course some parts would be "ahead" of others, but that in no way implies those parts are some how in the future, that is absolutely absurd. You need to imagine the Big Bang as if it were an expanding spherical ball of energy. Like an explosion of energy (cosmic expansion is a bit different to an explosion but lets not overcomplicate things). If you place an explosive inside a water melon and the bits of the water melon shoot out in all directions, is it logical to say that the pieces of the water melon which are furthest away from the center of the explosion are further ahead in time? No of course not, that is absolutely ridiculous.
edit on 6/3/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 04:13 AM
link   
The other thing that always confused me too was this. Science says there was a big bang. They say we were just a spec of stuff and then boom, that spec exploded creating everything. Isn't that spec the center of everything? So if that is the center of everything, why does science use a spherical model to represent the age of the universe with us in the middle looking outward, or better yet, us looking into the past. The past wouldn't be expanding and wouldn't be the EDGE of the universe, it would be the center of the universe.

No matter where we look into space from earth, are we looking into the past? Wouldn't the big bang have a direction? A nucleus that's over there, or that way if you will? Seems we might be viewing things backwards. Maybe, just maybe JOE BLOW alien is living out on the rim of the universe looking at earth saying, there, RIGHT THERE is where all this was created.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 04:20 AM
link   
I think there is a fundamental lack of understanding present here but that is not such a bad thing. so long as there is a thirst for knowledge and the ability to learn.

As many people have pointed out the reason why it is possible to look back in time when considering the cosmos has all to do with light.

Looking into the future however poses a very different problem. Namely, you are looking for photons that are yet to be emitted.

There have been theories about time being non-linear and events in the future could cascade backwards... but there has never been any observable results of such a phenomenon.

Scientifically speaking it appears that no information can be transmitted faster than light. There was however one experiment that I recall using quantum tunneling... but the results of this test were anything but conclusive.



If however no information can be transmitted faster than light speed then being able to see the future is not possible period.

There is only one way that we will maybe someday in the far far far future be able to see into the future is through the use of hyper sensors and stupendous amounts of computational power. If it were possible to accurately model a location down to the planc scale and then somehow have the computational power to accurately compute this data, it would be possible to extract with a margin of error the future and present it.

However if we were advanced enough to have the above tech there would be no need to see into the future.... we would be able to create the future exactly the way we wanted it anyway.

Peace,

Korg.


edit on 6-3-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 04:26 AM
link   

IroncladFT
If the big bang theory is correct (which it isn't IMO), all matter seen or unseen was made at the exact same time, so there is no such thing as looking into the past. There is no "time" in space. The earth is as old as the furthest star known and UNKNOWN to man as it was all created together right?


No, that's wrong. Universe is approximately 14 billion years give or take. Our Solar System is only 4.5 billion years. Not even all the elements tat exist today were in existence right after the Big Bang. Only hydrogen, helium and some of its isotopes and some Lithium. Everything else came after the formation and death of the first stars. You are looking into the past when you view stellar object simply because of the time it takes for lit to reach your eyes from te object in question. When he look at the sun what were seeing is 8 minutes ago.


And since science has NEVER seen a star form, which is odd isn't it? With TRILLIONS of stars in the sky, we see stars die off all the time, yet NOT ONE star has ever been seen forming, just dying. Even NASA admits they can only predict how a star would be created if it happens at all. Suggesting to me the universe was again created at the exact same time and all of it is simply dying off and aging, not regenerating.


Are you sure about all that?


Astronomers have glimpsed into the birth of a star, and have seen what could be the youngest known star at the very moment it is being born. “It’s very difficult to detect objects in this phase of star formation, because they are very short-lived and they emit very little light,” said Xuepeng Chen, from Yale University and lead author of a new paper. Not yet fully developed into a true star, the object is in the earliest stages of star formation and has just begun pulling in matter from a surrounding envelope of gas and dust. The team detected the faint light emitted by the nearby dust. Read more: www.universetoday.com...



Also explain to me how we peons think we actually have the ability to know this stuff as fact without evidence? Science lies DAILY when it comes to where everything comes from.


We don't have the ability to know things without evidence. It's the difference between a Theory and a hypothesis.


There is NO evidence of a big bang, but even as a POSSIBLE theory, it still makes no sense.


In your opinion, why does it not make sense?
Article pertaining to evidence for Big Bang- www.universetoday.com...


The laws that govern our universe never change. How is that if we were created from a big bang in a supposedly expanding universe? The laws would HAVE to change to accommodate an ever changing HUGE universe right?


If the laws of the universe function the same in a solar system as they do in a galaxy why would they need to change if the universe continues to expand? It's just a matter of scale.


Or as usual are we are just guessing it should always remain the same, without actually knowing. Explain how the sun is 98% hydrogen and helium, yet no planet has more than 1% of the same elements? Explain how galaxies and planets spin OPPOSITE of 95% of the entire universe? With what is being taught in science classes, that should NOT be possible is our laws are correct.


Look up mirror symmetry in relation to your question about the direction of spin in the universe. Yes most spin counter clockwise but there are exceptions. Additionally, the direction sometimes is only perceives, a trick of perspective. Think about it like you're spinning a top. You know you've spun it counter clockwise but it still appears as though its spinning clockwise.

There is more hydrogen in the sun than the is on earth because of its low density and earths weaker gravity. The suns gravity is strong enough to contain the hydrogen

The elemental composition of the sun and any star for that matter is determined from emission and absorption spectra. Each element has a characteristic spectrum.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


I love science, but "educated" people put in their personal beliefs and we as the "uneducated" are supposed to just shut up and believe blindly. Read the actual definition of science and tell me how we can HONESTLY say the things we do in science classes.


Nobody expects anyone to just believe blindly, that's the exact opposite of what scientists expect or want from people. What good is having 99% of the world completely ignorant and not able to understand the science? Europe went through that once and it didn't work out so well for Galileo or Giordano Bruno. Maybe I'm reading too much into it but it kinda looks like you've got some serious contempt for educated people.

What exactly are they saying in science classes that you feel is dishonest?


So if we were standing on a planet "15 billion light years" from us and looked at the earth, would we be looking to the past, the future, or as i said, looking at something that has no time associated with it as it was made the same day as the planet we were standing on?


You're seeing what that planet looked like 15 billion years ago.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   

peter vlar

So if we were standing on a planet "15 billion light years" from us and looked at the earth, would we be looking to the past, the future, or as i said, looking at something that has no time associated with it as it was made the same day as the planet we were standing on?


You're seeing what that planet looked like 15 billion years ago.


OK, so again confused. If I am looking at a planet at the edge of the universe from earth, science says we are looking into the past towards the origin of the universe, basically the immediate reminisce of the big bang theory..approx 15 billion years ago. But your saying if someone is standing on that planet looking back at earth, they too are viewing a planet just as old as the universe too??? So both planets are the same age, even though from one your looking into the past and the other your looking at a place equal to your own? Wouldn't they be looking at a younger planet, since i can't understand how two planets can be the same age 15 billion years apart in distance when trying to view it from science's point of view. I can however understand it if they were both created at the same time and just happen to have a large distance between them.
edit on 0Thu, 06 Mar 2014 04:46:05 -0600201432014-03-06T04:46:05-06:00Thursdayam06MarchCST by IroncladFT because: oops



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Edit- I completely misunderstood a vid I posted and now feet stupid for doing it without any thought behind it. So I erased this post. Thank you for pointing out the obvious Korg.

edit on 362014 by Holographicmeat because: duh

edit on 362014 by Holographicmeat because: added Korgs name



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Holographicmeat
Time travel will never exist or is not possible. That's what Steven Hawking says and he is ALOT smarter than me lol. Watch this vid, it's not very long and seems perfectly logical to me.



That wasn't Stephen Hawking being clever... that was Stephan Hawking being Coy...

That experiment relies on two things to be constant that are not in fact constant... they are variables.

Variable one = The invitation survives long enough to be available at a future time when time travel could have been invented.

Variable two = The information finds it's way to the relevant person(s) that would have the ability and will to attend.

Stephen knew this... and it was his way of being creative for television while also being coy about the whole affair.

Peace,

Korg.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


Our ability to observe the universe relies on varying degrees of light emission, radio emissions, and the like. Given that in order to observe light, it must first have issued forth from a source, and traveled from the point of its initial emission, to the place at which it is observed, you should be able to see why one cannot observe the future, in the same way as one might say we could observe the past.

In fact, when we look at stars that are many light years away, we are not seeing the past technically speaking. What we are seeing, is light which has traveled for a very long time indeed, to reach us. Despite that, the light we see is arriving at our eyes, or being collected by our telescopes, in the present, which in reality is the only thing we actually experience, moment to moment, in this universe. The reason we say that looking at stars and distant sources of recordable emissions is like looking into the past, is because the light we see today, from stars and the like, was created millions, occasionally billions of years ago.

But here is the thing about light. First of all, it is bloody fast. Second of all, once set upon its course, it travels in fairly straight lines. Individual photons blasting through space, can only be observed when the either hit our eyes, or equipment directly, as they would from a star, or when they are reflected toward us, by a planet or something similar, and even then, we really do not see much by way of reflected light, from anything outside our own solar system. Our moon reflects the light of the sun, but if observed from our nearest neighbour star, would not be easy to spot at all.

In short, we only see raw transmission of light, or reflections. But here is the thing. Let us imagine that we are stood at the side of a road, looking at a car go past. We can see it approach, we can see it when it actually passes us, and when it disappears into the horizon. However, if that car were a photon, and we imagine the scenario playing out in the dark, it would be like watching a car go past with ONLY its front headlights working. We would see it approach our position, then loose visual contact with it as it passes us, and only be able to observe the reflections of its headlights off the road ahead of it, and those pale in comparison with the raw glare of being directly in the beam of those headlights.

You cannot look at the back end of a photon. You cannot see light that has not reached your eyes yet.

What you can sometimes do, is build up enough of an understanding of physics that you can make predictions based on statistical models of recorded events in the universe, about what might happen tomorrow, the day after that, or in a few thousand or million years, but these will be prone to problems like an unaccounted for variable messing up one little digit on a page of complicated mathematics, an unexpected occurrence which fell outside the understanding or awareness of mankind, and so on and so forth.....

We can make educated guesses about the future, but observing it is as yet outside even the most bizarre capabilities of science and quantum mechanics.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   

MrMaybeNot
The future is undetermined, kind of like an interference pattern in quantum physics, the possibilities are all there. I guess if we knew every variables in the system we could calculate the future.

redictions can be made.
And there's the rub. In classical Newtonian physics and even in relativistic physics, such predictions can be made. But quantum uncertainty prevents us from knowing all the variables. And in some versions of quantum physics, everything that can happen will happen, in some universe.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Holographicmeat
Edit- I completely misunderstood a vid I posted and now feet stupid for doing it without any thought behind it. So I erased this post. Thank you for pointing out the obvious Korg.

edit on 362014 by Holographicmeat because: duh

edit on 362014 by Holographicmeat because: added Korgs name


You're Welcome




Korg.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
OPs: I think I know what your getting at. Simple answer really
We do study all directions of the night sky, not any one specific direction, so we see things "ahead" and "behind" us


The whole seeing things in the past thing is simply talking about seeing the light from the stars and galaxies (takes awhile for the light to reach earth). That doesn't mean we only look in the direction of the center of the big bang.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by IroncladFT
 


So what's the best replacement theory in your mind if not BBT?



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Not even going to answer this...........

Here's a kitten smoking instead....much more interesting than this thread.....and more informative.




edit on 6-3-2014 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


No one needs you to Answer this... And you're not funny. If you think that my intellect is in question, I would gladly love to debate you on any topic of your choice. If I lose, I will close my account to ATS. Please try me. And no, you can't debate with silly memes.

Then we can see who is worthy of answers.

Furthermore, almost every poster on this thread never even understood my question. They instead tried to educate me on things I already know.

No one fully understands the universe. There are theories that try to explains how things could be. My question was presented just outside of the conventional wisdom. Most people cannot think outside the box of those "theories," which is why not much in terms of exploration on the subject was entertained.

There were a few in this thread that tried to understand what my questions were flirting with, and to those I thank.

Let's ask a question...

Let's say that the popular theory that "greys" are really us humans far in the future, where are they located in this space time?

AAC



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Weird double post.

AAC.
edit on 6-3-2014 by AnAbsoluteCreation because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join