What would you talk about?

Not quite sure where to put this, but this seems like a good place.

Lets say that by some unexplained means you are able to talk to great historical figures for a time. These figures only have the situations of their life by which to go by.

Who would you talk to, and what sorts of issues facing us today would you talk about?

This is something I think about often to see if I'm really being out of line with my thoughts, or if they're completely normal.

Would you talk to Thomas Jefferson about encryption and it's dual status as free speech and a munition?

George Washington about squandering the opportunity to set up a situation that would enable numerous political parties?

Benjamin Franklin and the internet/upcoming regulations of it

Andrew Jackson and the Federal Reserve?

Who would you talk to about Globalization? A lack in transparency? The role of the government? Asset Forfeiture? and endless wars on ideals.

And of course, after you've spoken to this person... what would they say? What would they say if they just heard (and understood) every complaint on this list?

a reply to: Aazadan

That depends.

If I could impart to them knowledge of the future, and by so doing prevent the future in which we live from coming to pass, by forwarning the generations before ours of the errors of their ways, that would be a noble thing to do, I believe. I would also like to show Alan Turing exactly what his passion for code breaking and computing lead to, since he was a pioneer in those feilds, and I am sure he would be interested to know about all the different communications methods, codes, cryptology and so on... He got a raw deal in life, was treated poorly. I think it would be a nice thing to do, for our generation to show appreciation for his efforts by way of apology for that.

a reply to: Aazadan

cool little topic
i like the way your mind works & what's for dinner?

i thought about ancient hebrew scholars & modern day checksum protocols
unintended pun, but i'll take it

..it'd be one awkward dinner party i reckon
most of the people from the past would probably recoil in horror at todays world
/shrug

I actually tried to place myself in your scenario and imagine
what questions I would ask. But each time I did I was INUNDATED
with questions about the future by each historic figure...

...they each threatened me with physical violence if I didn't
answer their questions first, with Mr Franklin being the most
aggressive, throttling me by the neck and forcing me against
a scalding hot stove-pipe until I responded.

Those guys are assholes

a reply to: rival

a reply to: Aazadan

Albert Einstein!

I would ask him about this:

Concepts introduced by the theories of relativity include:

Measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of observers. In particular, space contracts and time dilates.
Spacetime: space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other.
The speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers

Source - Wiki

1. Person A travels at the speed of light. Person B travels at 50% of the speed of light.
Person A, will spend less time traveling, than person B
Ex. Person B travels 1 lightyear, in 2 years. Person A travels 1 lightyear, in less time than a year, compared to Person B

Q 1. How did you measure the speed of light??
Q 2. A - Did you actually see it move? B - Could it be that it just is, and what we call "movemment" is actually, a reaction, a way for the the observer to observe?
Q 3. A - How did you measure time? B - If it is not a constant, like light, why use it as a measurement of movement of light? How could we get the same observations then??

I know i properly got something wrong here, iam not a scientist But that would be my questions.
Oh, and since this is coming from ATS, i would throw one more question in there:

Q 4. Is this all part of a "sun worshipping conspiracy", i see a lot of stuff leading back to the sun/light...!?!

S&F
Peace

a reply to: Aazadan

You don't want me near a time machine.

I would go back in time ask the creator of the time machine how to make more. Thus I would have virtually infinite of shots at travel back to the past. I would start asking questions to all the great men of history - to Washington I would ask if the 2nd amendment applies to futurist machine guns, to Einstein I would ask about his Unified Field Theory, to Buddha I would ask if he approves if the current buddism direction, etc. Then, I would probably go on a vendetta against all those historical figures which made Earth a dark place...

Kind of a cross between Dr Who and the Master...

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Aazadan

You don't want me near a time machine.

I would go back in time ask the creator of the time machine how to make more. Thus I would have virtually infinite of shots at travel back to the past. I would start asking questions to all the great men of history - Washington, Einstein, Buddha, etc. Then, I would probably go on a vendetta against all those historical figures which made Earth a dark place...

Kind of a cross between Dr Who and the Master...

lol

The only problem about that, is, that to see the light, you have to be standing in the dark - so you will get the full perspective So if you remove the "dark" times, we wouldnt be able to see the "light", so clearly. We have to see the light, before we can move towards it. does that makes any sense or is it time to hit the bed??

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Actually, everything starts making sense when one does hit the bed... I hear a classical composer created an entire song from a dream.

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I'm not a physicist but my understanding is that you could take a ship moving at the speed of light, and send a beam of light emanating out from it. From the viewpoint of those on the ship the beam would leave the ship at the speed of light. For those outside the ship however it would appear that the ship and the beam were moving at the same speed.

As far as movement goes there's a paradox you may or may not be aware of.
In the arrow paradox (also known as the fletcher's paradox), Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (durationless) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.

originally posted by: swanne
I would go back in time ask the creator of the time machine how to make more. Thus I would have virtually infinite of shots at travel back to the past. I would start asking questions to all the great men of history - to Washington I would ask if the 2nd amendment applies to futurist machine guns, to Einstein I would ask about his Unified Field Theory, to Buddha I would ask if he approves if the current buddism direction, etc. Then, I would probably go on a vendetta against all those historical figures which made Earth a dark place...

I wasn't trying to imply here that you had one shot so having infinite attempts at time travel really won't matter. You can visit as many people as you would like. If you would go on a vendetta, would that make the world a better place? If we didn't have Hitler we wouldn't have had the Manhattan Project, thus no nuclear energy. We wouldn't have had the Apollo program. We wouldn't have had the Cold War which lead to massive computing improvements. If we didn't have George III we wouldn't have had the United States.

Sometimes you can't recognize or find the good until you've experienced the bad.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Actually, everything starts making sense when one does hit the bed... I hear a classical composer created an entire song from a dream.

I have had many of my best ideas after giving up on a problem for the night and going to bed.

a reply to: swanne

Maybe i should try it then

hmm If my dreams was a song, what song would it be?

Properly something weird, fast and full of emotions..
If i could go back in time, i would ask the creators of that song, what the heck, they where thinking, when they made it?

Ok, time for bed... Let the music play



Peace

Marie antionette,

Id give her something to talk about.......

Id give her something to talk about.....

Talkin bout love......love.........loooooooove !!

a reply to: Aazadan

I'm not a physicist but my understanding is that you could take a ship moving at the speed of light, and send a beam of light emanating out from it. From the viewpoint of those on the ship the beam would leave the ship at the speed of light. For those outside the ship however it would appear that the ship and the beam were moving at the same speed.

Thanks, that was a great answer, and I think I understand it now.

So the light travels at the same speed, for all observers. But all observers are not moving at the same speed, and therefore the difference in time and measurement
So my observation of light, is the same as yours, but still different

As far as movement goes there's a paradox you may or may not be aware of.
In the arrow paradox (also known as the fletcher's paradox), Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (durationless) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.

That makes a lot of sense, and explains the problems i have with the movement of light and time

So what are the conclusions here??

1. We are all observers
2. Light is the "source" of observation
3. We each observe light the same way, but at different speeds (Vibrations?)
4. Time and Space doesnt exit, everything just is, and we need light to observe it

We can take this even further, and begin to ask some more questions - you still have the time machine, right?

What does faith and believe systems have to do with all this??

Religion tells us, that we have to believe, to create.
Science is basicly telling us the same (Quantom Physics)
Law of attraction??

If everything is just 1´s and 0´s, + and -, positive and negative
If we have to stand in the dark, to observe the light - is that how we attract? We position ourself in a way, so we are able to observe the exact opposite - to fully understand it, and move towards it - from there, you will be able to observe something new??

I feel like iam missing something here? who can we ask those questions? Maybe we should go back to point of creation, and ask the creator??

I have had many of my best ideas after giving up on a problem for the night and going to bed.

Back in school, when i was a kid, our class was given some mathematetical questions, one was supossed to be impossible to solve. I thought really long and hard about a solution - I wanted to solve the question so bad, and couldnt stop thinking about it. At night, in my sleep, i actually dreamed the solution!!! I woke up, and tried to remember the solution and tried to draw it, but it was gone offcourse

Now i better go to sleep, and maybe then i will know all the answers?
Maybe only for a short time, but it wouldnt be fun any other way, would it??

Great thread

Who else but CHRIST himself

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

No it does not it gives you the choice, faith to some is truth so err how you even know it is not truth was you there.

originally posted by: Saylesie17
Who else but CHRIST himself

That would be an interesting person to talk to, but is Jesus really the most interesting person to talk to? I could see where he would be to some Christians but inevitably some aspects of current religious teachings likely don't line up with what he was actually preaching. Would you really want to risk hearing that significant portions of your faith are wrong? What if you explain issues of today and his answer is something you disagree with? Could you accept that or would you think something is being lost in translation in trying to describe a technological world? What if something actually is being lost in how you describe it?