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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   



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.


No confusion necessary.


I say time is a location because a certain distance is related to the time it took to see the light it omitted.

AAC




posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   

IroncladFT

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???


No, I should have extrapolated in my reply as opposed to writing a simple one liner so this is on me. If you are on Earth and looking at a stellar object that is 15 billion light years away and it is at the edge of the universe, that object isn't necessarily 15 billion years old. All stars and solar systems go through cycles of creation, stasis and destruction and then rebirth. In short, the object you are looking at 15 billion light years from earth could be a more recent star formed from the remains of a previous star that has gone nova and exploded, destroying its entire system. Our own solar system being about 4.5 billion years old is thought to be formed from the remnants of a previous star. We are a 3rd generation star system.

www.space.com...


The distance between 2 stellar objects is not indicative of the age of either object, it is a measurement of how long the light from that particular object takes to reach us and it is easily measured due to the constant speed of light in a vacuum.


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


No, you're correct that those 2 planets aren't going to be the same age. If the object you are looking at sitting on the edge of the universe is a surviving first generation star or system then it is likely to have been formed shortly after the big bang making it the hypothetical age we are discussing. The way we would measure that is by spectral analysis of the star to determine its elemental composition. After the big bang, none of the heavy elements were in existence yet. Only hydrogen, some helium isotopes and lithium isotopes were around. The heavier elements didn't come into play until those 1st gen stars exploded and in the conflagration the energy of those explosions split some and fused other atoms together creating the other elements on the periodic table. So... if you were on a planet or orbiting a star 15 billion light years away and were viewing earth, earth would still be 15 billion LY away but is only 4.5 billion years old. Keep in mind this is all hypothetical for the purpose of explanation/discussion because first gen stars were as short lived as they were massive and quickly exploded and reformed as second gen stars and systems so a 15 billion year old star still existing is rather unlikely. Though from Earth we might still be able to see it's light/image due to how long ago it left it host system despite that object no longer existing. If I'm still not being clear enough please let me know or feel free to U2U me and I will do my damndest to try to clarify further for you.



www.sciencemag.org...




www.spacedaily.com...



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:32 PM
link   

AnAbsoluteCreation



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.


No confusion necessary.


I say time is a location because a certain distance is related to the time it took to see the light it omitted.

AAC


I see what you are saying and in a sense I actually agree with you. To put it more in perspective if we are viewing an object that 8 billion LY away for example, as you know we are seeing what that object looked like at the time the light left it. If that object still exists currently, it is not going to be in the same location as galaxies and solar systems are not stationary and move due to the gravitational tug of war between stellar objects among other factors. Thus, we are not just seeing what it looked like 8 billion years ago, we are seeing where it was in space 8 billion years ago. Good timing on this reply because it ties into my response to your question about greys and time travel. Like the 8 billion year old object in my example, even if the greys were from 20,000 years in the future the earth will likewise not be in the same position it currently inhabits therefore the hypothetical time travelling greys would not be just from a future time but also a slightly different area of space. If that were all actually the case it may explain why they are using space craft to travel backwards because to go backwards in time they would also have to move locations in physical space as well as move through time. We could actually figure out where the earth would be at that point if we knew the actual time they originated from just like we can determine the precession of constellations both past and future. I'm not saying I buy into the greys as us from the future but it certainly is a fun thought experiment.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Thus, we are not just seeing what it looked like 8 billion years ago, we are seeing where it was in space 8 billion years ago.


Very true. And we study the light variations and movements over a period of time to learn more about those celestial bodies.




Good timing on this reply because it ties into my response to your question about greys and time travel. Like the 8 billion year old object in my example, even if the greys were from 20,000 years in the future the earth will likewise not be in the same position it currently inhabits therefore the hypothetical time travelling greys would not be just from a future time but also a slightly different area of space.


Great question. But could we ever stumble on some of their footsteps? I have this feeling there is a unknown variable in the possibility. We would not be chasing time as much as we would be looking for a location of this future footprint.


If that were all actually the case it may explain why they are using space craft to travel backwards because to go backwards in time they would also have to move locations in physical space as well as move through time.



Perfect thought possibility.


We could actually figure out where the earth would be at that point if we knew the actual time they originated from just like we can determine the precession of constellations both past and future. I'm not saying I buy into the greys as us from the future but it certainly is a fun thought experiment.


Take the greys out of it then. Let's just look at it like we are searching for future footprints.

It is fascinating for me to consider.

AAC



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 





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.


Oh dear? Bad use of grammar and incorrect use of capitals. I don't think I would want to argue with a chap like yourself.

You're far more intellectual than me.

Please accept my apologies.

Now, can we move on and finish berating your post?



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Off Topic but as invited by the OP.

Ben Saul states that both administrative law and human rights law commonalities in their ‘aim to restrain arbitrary and unreasonable government action and in doing so, help to protect the right of the individual.’*

Discuss with reference to how the protection of human rights has become a basis for expanding the reach of administrative law.
Please note you should focus on developments in administrative law in Australia and you should not use the essay as a platform for discussing whether or not Australia should have a Bill of Rights.

*B. Saul, ‘Australian administrative law: the human rights dimension’ in Groves, M. & H. Lee (eds) Australian Administrative Law: Fundamentals, Principles and Doctrines. 2007. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. pp. 50-76, 51-2.

As you may be able to tell from the question, I'm Australian.

You have 2 days and are limited to 1700 words.


Off you go dear chap...........



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Pistoche
 


I think the OP is saying that your broken glass is what we're looking for and the water in the glass is the universe.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   

AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by Pistoche
 


Great analogy. I guess I didn't see the Big Bang splattering against the concrete wall with the pieces going in opposition directions. 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.

Again, I'm being honest because it looks like I'm missing a piece of the puzzle that's obviously not spoken about much.

Thanks for the reply.

AAC


I think you're implying that if the Big Bang is true that the dense tiny piece of matter (nothingness) that bursted during the Big Bang, must have been in some type of realm already? Are you suggesting the Universe is expanding in something?



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   

CaptainBeno
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 





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.


Oh dear? Bad use of grammar and incorrect use of capitals. I don't think I would want to argue with a chap like yourself.

You're far more intellectual than me.

Please accept my apologies.

Now, can we move on and finish berating your post?


I write on an iPad in bed. Shall I go back and edit your post history?

Oh, yeah... Um... you say so.

AAC



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:17 AM
link   

CaptainBeno
Off Topic but as invited by the OP.

Ben Saul states that both administrative law and human rights law commonalities in their ‘aim to restrain arbitrary and unreasonable government action and in doing so, help to protect the right of the individual.’*

Discuss with reference to how the protection of human rights has become a basis for expanding the reach of administrative law.
Please note you should focus on developments in administrative law in Australia and you should not use the essay as a platform for discussing whether or not Australia should have a Bill of Rights.

*B. Saul, ‘Australian administrative law: the human rights dimension’ in Groves, M. & H. Lee (eds) Australian Administrative Law: Fundamentals, Principles and Doctrines. 2007. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. pp. 50-76, 51-2.

As you may be able to tell from the question, I'm Australian.

You have 2 days and are limited to 1700 words.


Off you go dear chap...........


Sure, I'll bite. That is until our post our deleted for off topic. Might take more three days, I have 17 month old.

Interestingly enough, I think I'm going to be writing your essay homework for first year law school FOR YOU!

Get ready to work, kid.

AAC



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 



Whatever makes you happy.

Kind of creepy.

What ever flicks your switch?



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by game over man
 


Scientist are already theorizing that the old idea that the earth sits (and sinks) into the fabric of space time might be incorrect, and that objects in space actually grow from within space time and push the space time in all directions.

Kind of like if your fist was in a vat of mud and you opened your hand out pushing your growth into existence.

AAC
edit on 7-3-2014 by AnAbsoluteCreation because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   


Interestingly enough, I think I'm going to be writing your essay homework for first year law school FOR YOU!
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


Nope, I'm a commercial pilot.

Just thought it was interesting. Plus my wife is a lawyer, so make it good....



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   

AnAbsoluteCreation
Pardon my question, but objects of light reflect in all directions, so why could we not look forward?


Forward hasn't happened yet, so there are no reflections of it. Or emissions.

Past might not have gotten to you due to the limits of the speed of light, so you CAN "look backwards", at least in the sense that you know what you're seeing right now is something that's already happened. But you can't even "look back" in terms of there being some direction you can gaze in that lets you look backwards in time for local events.

I can look at the north star and know that what I'm seeing is an image of what actually occurred about 438 years ago. But I can't look in the front yard in some direction or angle and see what happened THERE 438 years ago.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Great thread OP! S&F! I really like your outside the box way of thinking. If we could bend light a certain way, maybe we could see a relatively short distance into the future? Maybe everytime we look into the future we see something different?

What if the future exists perfectly as you are seeing it the moment you look at it? Instead of having infinite possibilities of the universe, you would be observing only one possibility as you observe the future. So the exact moment you observe the future, your present would be going into that direction as you observe the future. For example if I were viewing the future, the future would have to be the outcome of the direction my present is presently .ing. And that is all you can see, and I'm guessing you can't see too far into the future, maybe an amount relative to what would be the outcome of your present direction's velocity.

Fundamentally I think you can talk about seeing into the future but you run into the problem of testing it on a human for example, say with a mirror...the mirror displaying the future would be predicting the human's movement, and I don't know how someone could explain that.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


If I said "expansion forward" instead of forward change your perspective?

AAC



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   

game over man
Great thread OP! S&F! I really like your outside the box way of thinking.


Thanks. That's all it was supposed to be.


Fundamentally I think you can talk about seeing into the future but you run into the problem of testing it on a human for example, say with a mirror...the mirror displaying the future would be predicting the human's movement, and I don't know how someone could explain that.


Very true. But running into those thought obstacles are how your thought process are challenged.

AAC



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   

IroncladFT
OK, so again confused.

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?...


Ok. Try this.

Let's take out all the in-between steps and postulate this, to eliminate a lot of the more confusing parts.

You have an empty universe. I wave my magic ring, and presto! Two star systems are created, exactly 10 light years apart, both with industrial civilizations capable of building and using light telescopes.

In star system Alpha, Alice builds a telescope. It's good for looking around at her neighbors, but at night, there's nothing. No stars, nothing. It's just dark.

In star system Bravo, Bob builds a telescope. He's got the same thing. He can look at the next door neighbor's nest for the tentacle action, but there's nothing in the night sky.

Ten years pass.

Suddenly one night, Alice sees a star blink into being. She just saw my creation of the universe 10 years ago, but it took 10 years for the light of Bravo to crawl across the intervening space. Until then, Bravo was outside her observable universe.

That same night, Bob's outside watching the neighbors make new octopuses, and in HIS night sky, he sees a new star appear. It's Alpha. It took 10 years for the light to cross the space between them.

When Alice looks at Bravo, she sees what's happening 10 years ago, because it took the image 10 years to get to her. It's not what's happening "now", if you can postulate a "now". If Bravo blows up "now", she won't know for 10 years, because she can't see it for that long.

But it's the same from Bob's perspective. He sees what's happening at Alpha 10 years ago as well.

In fact, if Bob had a physically impossible telescope that was able to see Alice, right after he saw Alpha appear, he could watch Alice grinding the lenses for her telescope. And the same situation would work the other way. Alice would see Bob making HIS telescope. Even though it happened 10 years before.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:52 AM
link   

AnAbsoluteCreation
reply to post by Bedlam
 


If I said "expansion forward" instead of forward change your perspective?

AAC


Not in the way of observing a future event, no.

Not only hasn't it happened yet, it may be that an infinite set of what might happen exists, and you won't know which universe you're going to be in until "now" selects which it's going to be.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by AnAbsoluteCreation
 


Maybe this helps:

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

—Pierre Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities

en.wikipedia.org...'s_demon
edit on 7-3-2014 by AllIsOne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join