Negative Time Dilation Eternal Photons and other speculation

a reply to: glend

I've also thought long about this. Time as we know it is a count. A reference point using counting and cycles. We use it as reference but yes it's merely a construct in terms of a clock. What is tangible is the Dilation of it. I'm starting to wonder if dilation was the best term that could have been coined to describe it.

If a muon takes 10 seconds to reach the surface from the atmosphere and was travelling at 98% of C. Is it 10 seconds for both a muon and the scientist observing it. If not, that to me is a huge problem (I already know the answer btw)

I'm not running any numbers on this but I'll use approx. If for the muon it only took 1/3 the time because of its velocity, why the discrepancy. Length contraction? So then we observe a lag in time. The muon takes 3 seconds, we measure 9 in real time. Where does that time go if it actually goes anywhere.

I can see this is getting more abstract as I go. This is where a lack of fundamentals in physics really let's me down and is fustrating.

I can say this for certain. Information can travel or move backwards in time. Can be detected or perceived but not as coming from the future when it's happening. It's rather obscure.

Time synchronicity is fascinating. It's all about the timing and it's fluid and spontaneous with no forethought of trying to see it coming.

I'll give you an example of something I've noticed more of recently. As I sit and type this, there is a tv playing in the background. I have lost count of the number of times, there has been a synchronicity. In this case (as I write) it's happened once in the past 10 minutes. The programme on the TV, whether it be news, tv or film - the last line just now was "I will promise you" there was no synchronicity then, if there is for you, I'd fall off my chair. What happens is when there is a line, a word , a sentence or even an idea, I write or think just ahead of it occuring in TV. It has also happened with people in conversation.

I'm not trying to guess what's coming next and am hardly paying attention but it always stops me dead in my tracks. I type something, think something and then out of nowhere the very same word comes up over the tv. It's always before the TV and only within 2-3 seconds. If it was only a seldom occurrence, I'd chalk it up to coincidence but this occurs so often it's spooky.

It's pure synchronicity. I never see it coming though so how could it be a form pre-cognition. If it's a side effect of conceptualising time in reverse, it's so far been nothing but a parlour trick or feels that way.

I hope i.explained the phenomenon I experience in an understandable way. I believe in some aspects of ESP but even now don't think I possess an type of ability in this area. Project Stargate is interesting though. How do you suppose time works with that. Being able to view past future and current events in real time. The viewer being capable of interacting with another time from the eternal present moment.

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

for example, an "Einstein Cross" has been observed in telescopes as multiple images of the same star or galaxy.

What about.. the same object in different places over a period of time. So say, a star at point a and the same star at point b but it doesn't appear as the same object because for one, it's moved and also it's a different life stage.

Can you see where I'm leaning with this? It's pretty far out there, and Ive had some silly theories.

What if due to a space time distortion we could see our own solar system through a telescope. See it's past and it's future. It's plausible.

I also read your reply in detail, thank you for taking the time to contribute in this thread.

originally posted by: Havick007
a reply to: Arbitrageur

for example, an "Einstein Cross" has been observed in telescopes as multiple images of the same star or galaxy.

What about.. the same object in different places over a period of time. So say, a star at point a and the same star at point b but it doesn't appear as the same object because for one, it's moved and also it's a different life stage.

Can you see where I'm leaning with this? It's pretty far out there, and Ive had some silly theories.

So you're thiniing of a star passing through a wormhole and we see the effect? As I quoted Kip Thorne saying, indications at present are that even sending a human through a wormhole may be impossible, and a star doing that would be even more impossible, though as he said the jury is still out and it's hard to prove a negative but if you polled the jury now, they would say it's unlikely.

What if due to a space time distortion we could see our own solar system through a telescope. See it's past and it's future. It's plausible.

As Kip Thorne said, we don't know things well enough to rule out such things completely, but I think saying "it's plausible" is not supportable. We can't show any good calculatins showing how it's plausible, so maybe we can say we can't prove it's impossible, though it's unlikely to be possible.

If wormholes are ever successful at doing some of the theorized things, I suspect it would involve very tiny objects and small wormholes. I was a fan of the Stargate TV series where people could travel to distant planets more easily than we can fly from New York to LA, but I'd be surprised if such a thing was really possible and tend to agree with Kip Thorne that current indications suggest it's not.

I also read your reply in detail, thank you for taking the time to contribute in this thread.

you're welcome.

a reply to: Havick007

I don't accept that our conciousness is confined to our body, So see ESP as thoughts that bubble up from a greater conciousness that isn't confined by time. They are far more subtle than normal thought, so we have to be at lower state to hear them. If you do lot of prayer/meditation it explains why you are nore receptive to them. Years back, I took 3 months of work to meditate. At the end of that period, esp seemed the norm, rather than the exception. It unfortunately dissipated when I returned to work. Because my brain got too noisy for me to hear the far more subtle thought.

a reply to: Havick007

Since a "photon has a rest mass of zero, but has measured momentum, exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can even exert a force:"

A spinning black hole's gravitational field...will attract and draw in photons and plasma from a distance. I am speculating that the majority of photons that will be drawn in, will never reach the event horizon of the rotational black hole; yet they will get caught-up in the accretion disc, and eventually wind-up in one of the two polar jets of the BH (black hole) --- Which they are then expelled at near the speed of light.

a reply to: glend

Have you tried remote viewing or astral projection, which I believe are basically the same things and have the same mechanistic cause. What that is, I don't know. There doesn't seem to much physics work or literature on remote viewing.

But if someone is able to do easily access and interact with different locations in space and time, beit past or future.. in real time. It's amazing and next to clairvoyance, is one of the most credible areas of ESP.

I can't understand how they can gather data on Mars 1 million BCE and that there was a civilisation there. The magnetic field failed. This is all known in the Stargate archives, yet NASA still debates life on Mars theory.

I think there looking for physical evidence of the civilisation and may have found it but yet still, we are kept in the dark. It's fustrating.

a reply to: Erno86

Yes light is drawn in up until the point of the "Photon sphere". Anything past that seemingly dissapears from this point in space and time or moment.

Photon sphere or photon circle is an area or region of space where gravity is so strong that photons are forced to travel in orbits. (It is sometimes called the last photon orbit.)[3] The radius of the photon sphere, which is also the lower bound for any stable orbit, is, for a Schwarzschild black hole

originally posted by: Erno86
A spinning black hole's gravitational field...will attract and draw in photons and plasma from a distance. I am speculating that the majority of photons that will be drawn in, will never reach the event horizon of the rotational black hole; yet they will get caught-up in the accretion disc, and eventually wind-up in one of the two polar jets of the BH (black hole) --- Which they are then expelled at near the speed of light.

a reply to: Havick007
Sure photons can get drawn into a black hole, that's why they call it a black hole, since photons can go in but they can't come out. As Havick points out, photons can even orbit a black hole.

But I don't see any way the infalling photons can become part of the two polar jets. While those jets may not be fully understood theoretically, the particles in the jets get accelerated because they are charged particles or ions like protons, electrons, positrons etc., and since photons have no electric charge that we've ever been able to measure, they would not be affected by the forces creating the jets by accelerating charged particles. Accelerated charged particles in the jets can emit photons, but they wouldn't be the same photons.

originally posted by: Havick007
But if someone is able to do easily access and interact with different locations in space and time, beit past or future.. in real time. It's amazing and next to clairvoyance, is one of the most credible areas of ESP.

Which is not saying much since any evidence for ESP of any kind is highly questionable. I'd really like to believe it, but when you really dig into the evidence you find a lot of studies with bias and problems with methods, non-replication, and so on. So far at least.

Another problem is the lack of any theoretical support by which such mechanisms might operate, which requires data on ESP studies to be viewed skeptically.

esp

Both the anecdotal and laboratory evidence for ESP are usually dismissed by skeptics for one or more of the following:

mistaking ordinary perception for psychic ability;

not giving alternative hypotheses a chance (i.e., not looking for or seriously considering physical causes for apparent psi events; sleep paralysis);

lack of understanding of probability and wishful thinking leading to farfetched interpretation of personal experience of coincidental events (apophenia);

dubious methods such as optional starting and stopping and shotgunning;

sensory leakage;

experimenter effect;

not giving the null hypothesis a chance (assuming that if x happens it is evidence of psi and then when x happens claiming that they now have evidence of psi: the psi assumption);

dubious concepts that smack of special pleading, e.g., displacement, analytical and associative overlay, psi-conducive state, psi-missing, psi-focus assumption, and psychic drift;

pathological science;

trickery by children or mentalists;

cold reading and subjective validation;

selective thinking and confirmation bias;

shoehorning, retrospective clairvoyance, and retrospective falsification;

gullibility and self-deception;

fraud by researchers and cheating by subjects being tested for psychic ability.

a reply to: Havick007

No, I havnt suceeded in doing anything like remote viewing or astral projection. I am uncertain if astral projection is lucid dreaming mixed with shared memorties though the greater consciousness. Yes it definately be nice to go back in time and view what was.

If you ever suceed and find past life on Mars, you have to inform me, ok

a reply to: glend

More recently I've considered that remote viewing and astral projection maybe the same. In remote viewing they talk about accessing a line via the subcontious. The way it was described it sounds similar to the silver tether that keeps the projection connected to the concious body. It even occurs at a similar state of consciousness, that moment between wake and sleep, for deeper forms of CRV.

The CIA Stargate documents archive has a report on the Mars exploration done in 1984. Check out the link below, it will take you straight to the full report and session notes.


CIA.gov (Mars exploration - Project Stargate)

This may seem off-topic but I think there could be a link behind the mechanisms of remote viewing. It transcends time. It's in essence time travel, metaphysically.

a reply to: Havick007
I like your new avatar!

That Mars "remote viewing" doesn't even rise to the level of "pseudoscience" or fake science, it's garbage scientifically, though it might have some value as a science fiction or fantasy story.

If you wanted to run a scientific test you might do something like put "mars" in the sealed envelope without any time reference, then start off the interview asking about the present at different coordinates, which could be compared to photographs, and verified or not. Then if you wanted to have the viewer try to move back in time, do that after setting a verifiable baseline in the present.

But nothing they saw in this experiment can be verified in any way and there's no control, no scientific method. I suspect it's by design that the people involved in this don't devise scientifically verifiable tests, and this review of remote viewing even suggests the reports are unreliable because of some "cheating" going on ("Remote viewing reports were changed..."), but in any case, nothing of any intelligence value was ever obtained by remote viewing as explained here:

Remote Viewing Has Not Been Shown To Have Value In Intelligence Operations


So it's never been reliably demonstrated that remote viewing even works in the present, and even less so for the unbelievable claims you make about it transcending time.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks

So you don't believe that remote viewing is at all credible or a real psychic technique?

I believe it works, the problem is noise and context distortion based on a person's imagination or outside factors that negatively influence the session.

How much of the archive or related literature/commentary on RV have you read, especially the Stargate/Sunstreak/Centerlane documents have you actually read and studied.

What I read was promising and even eluded to it being digitised through signal interception, we are in an electromagnetic web of signals. It was a session that targeted a US installation, the viewer was unaware the target was in the US. It involved a beam splitting apparatus and data processing facilities. It's in the session notes.



I don't have the link to the full report, refer page reference numbers


What i found lacking was the physics behind it, if it is actually a real method of cognition.

Hypothetically, for a moment would you consider it actually works as stated. Could you begin to form an opinion or loose theory on the physics of it or where you would start. Indulge me.. please. I do believe remote viewing works. A major problem with viewing future events is that if one was to witness a disaster(a type that cannot be averted) or one that through human means, for example a terrorist attack. It become difficult to stop or interfere with such an event due to a paradox. If one was to stop event from happening in the future of that linear timeline, how were they able to witness it in the first place. It's breaking the enigma code all over again. (When it was first broken, some ships still fell victim to German attack as the allies did not want to make known they had broken it, otherwise the code breaking was pointless and unesessary to begin with.. ironic, that just occurred to me, the actual irony and why the allies had to sacrifice some ships early on after it had been broken, even civilian ships. Obvious but an irony.) They had to be very strategic and create as they went. So if someone from the an earlier point in time attempted to stop a future disaster or influence something already viewed it would not be possible to have viewed it, it didn't happen. This is just something that plays on my mind. However passing information back in time via the same methodology is all together different. However the person receiving the interaction detects it, as long as it is clear, become prophecy, the same underlying mechanisms could work with precognition if that were true.


Still under the hypothetical, if they attempted to view a date in the past, they would have to know the spacetime co-ordinates. For example the exact place of the earth and our system or others in relation to us. The system has moved, the earth moves etc. If I try to remote view yesterday's events, I'll need to internally know the position of the place on earth in any given moment. We are currently travelling at approx 12 million km/h if I accounted for all motion. Orbit, milky way, milky way movement towards Andromeda, expansion factors. We could be moving much faster actually. I feel as though I'm sitting still compared to the cars outside but I'm pretty fast actually

The question is was getting to is, if it actually works, what is behind the coordinator. Quantum entanglement?

originally posted by: Havick007
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks

So you don't believe that remote viewing is at all credible or a real psychic technique?

I just posted detailed documentation explaining the credibility problem. If you won't read it, understand it or accept it why should my answer or opinion have any impact? The document says there are credibility problems and I accept that as stated, there are credibility problems.

You probably won't read this either, but it has even more details about why you shouldn't trust any documentation you read on the remote viewing program, which I think is your problem, you trust documentation you shouldn't trust. Here's a personal account of someone who was sent to investigate the research and he found the research completely unscientific and uncontrolled, and they were supposed to be on their best behavior since he was evaluating the researchers, so I hate to think how much more unscientific they got when nobody was there to check on them:

Remote Viewing experiments investigation

So Geller couldn't figure out what was in the envelope when the experiment was controlled, with the author of that article watching. So then they bypass the author and send Geller into a room alone with the person who know what Geller was supposed to see, and suddenly Geller can "see" it? Are you f***ing kidding me? Wouldn't someone have to be a complete and utter idiot to not see through that obvious ruse? And you believe a single thing that came from these same researchers? Why?

If they cheated right in front of him, lord only knows how much worse it was when the evaluator wasn't present to evaluate. It was a completely unscientific circus and sorry but I don't have any respect for anybody who can read about that ridiculously unscientific and uncontrolled experiment and then suggest anything written up by the same researchers has any credibility.

Now take Johnny Carson. In contrast to the unprofessional and unscientific remote viewing researchers, he knew how to do a controlled experiment to test Geller's psychic abilities. Watch this to see a controlled experiment:

Uri Geller on the Tonight Show (Full)

Note that Geller "loses" all his psychic abilities in a controlled experiment!!!! Are you starting to get a clue, or still clueless about what is going on here?

The question is was getting to is, if it actually works, what is behind the coordinator. Quantum entanglement?

As you already said, there's no physics for any mechanism to support the claim. I've seen people who don't understand quantum entanglement say quantum entanglement but that's not credible as a cause. Entanglement exists of course, and can do some interesting things, but it can't perform all the magic some promoters of woo would like to ascribe to it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I apologise I didn't read the article in your first reply.

It's a good point regarding the sealed envelope. I was always curious as to why they needed the envelope to begin with rather than just giving co-ordinates etc. Perhaps Ive jumped on the RV bandwagon to hastily.

Note that Geller "loses" all his psychic abilities in a controlled experiment!!!! Are you starting to get a clue, or still clueless about what is going on here?

Im not trying to start a debate on Uri Geller ( Ive never taken much notice of him or his claims of spoon bending etc.) I will say this, what if the controlled environment acts like the measuring device in the double slit. No actually that's just silly.

I've accidentally pushed the thread off topic just abit.

I'll leave the psuedo science or fringe out of this thread I think.

Thanks.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Can a micro-mini black hole be fed with zero rest mass photons, and as a result --- would it emit Hawking radiation as a form of light in the polar jets?

a reply to: Havick007

"Black Hole Starships" --- Isaac Arthur

originally posted by: Havick007
I will say this, what if the controlled environment acts like the measuring device in the double slit. No actually that's just silly.

The double slit measurements can be repeated in controlled environments. Reliably. Over and over again. Uri Geller's antics can't. The problem with the RV researchers, who also tested Geller, is apparently they don't know what a controlled environment is.

And, as James Randi pointed out, he can do all the same tricks as Geller, but he admits he's an illusionist without any psychic powers. He seems to have no doubt how Gellers tricks are performed and can duplicate them, in fact he consulted with Johnny Carson before that show to help Carson control the environment to avoid the trickery illusionists use. If you ever want to look into Uri Geller, this is some interesting reading: The Truth About Uri Geller. Basically it says that Randi kept exposing Geller's psychic claims as not really psychic, and Geller kept suing Randi, and Geller kept losing in court and had to pay Randi's legal fees.

Randi also points out that if you want to avoid being tricked by illusionists or tricksters, just having smart scientists on the testing team is not good enough, you need illusionists on the team because they know what to look for where a scientist may not, though any scientist should have known you don't send Geller and the man with the answer into a room alone together without monitoring their interaction and then call it a controlled experiment when Geller walks out of that room with the answer.

But from the scientists' point of view, they got millions in funding for psi research like remote viewing. If they tightly control everything, and all the results are null results (no psi), the psi research funding will quickly dry up, so it's not unreasonable to infer they have lots of reason to bias their results in favor of getting continued funding, is it?

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Can a micro-mini black hole be fed with zero rest mass photons, and as a result --- would it emit Hawking radiation as a form of light in the polar jets?

The smallest black hole ever found has 3.3 solar masses.

For a dying star more massive than the sun, there's a solid theoretical limit for how much mass the core must have to collapse into a neutron star, called the Chandrasekhar limit, which is about 1.4 solar masses. So far, we don't have such a solid theory for the upper mass limit of a neutron star but best guesses for the upper limit are around 2.5-3 solar masses, and since the lowest mass black hole found so far is 3.3 solar masses, that seems consistent with the guess that above 3 solar masses a black hole can form.

So while all that is still subject to revision based on better observations or theories, I have some reason to believe it.

Hawking radiation is a fairly solid theoretical idea but unlike observations of what we think are black holes, Hawking radiation hasn't ever been confirmed in observation. One idea was if a theory of extra space dimensions was correct, the LHC might create micro black holes which would then immediately evaporate in Hawking radiation and we know what that signature would look like, but as far as I'm aware that has so far not been observed. Without the extra space dimensions theory, with only three dimensions, the energy of the LHC is a million billion times too low to form micro black holes which would require an energy of at least 10^19 GeV compressed into about a Planck length.

So, we've never seen a micro black hole and never completely confirmed Hawking radiation. But, let's say we accept the theory of Hawking radiation as likely to be correct since I don't see many scientists arguing against the theory and the ones that do are typically called "fringe". According to Hawking's theory, a micro black hole formed in the LHC might not have the time to form any bi-polar jets because the lifetime would be extremely short...a tiny fraction of a second. To create the polar jets, the black hole needs to rotate, and something that evaporates nearly instantly wouldn't have enough time to rotate, so my guess is, polar jets would be unlikely. In fact the Hawking radiation particles coming from a rapidly evaporating micro black hole could form what could be called "jets" (not polar jets) and they would probably emit spherically in all directions.

To make a 10^19 GeV micro black hole in three space dimensions (without theorized extra large dimensions), would probably take an accelerator larger than our entire solar system, but after doing that it would only release the 10^19 GeV.

But if a stellar mass black hole ever evaporates down to the size of a micro black hole, you don't want to be around for the last second when the energy released would be like a million fusion bombs going off at once, so even if it had some polar jets before that, the final burst of radiation would overwhelm the polar jets, and again you'd get "jets" not just in 2 polar directions, but in all directions.

What Happens When A Black Hole's Singularity Evaporates?

That final second of a black hole's life, however, will result in a very specific and very large release of energy. When the mass drops down to 228 metric tonnes, that's the signal that exactly one second remains. The event horizon size at the time will be 340 yoctometers, or 3.4 × 10^-22 meters: the size of one wavelength of a photon with an energy greater than any particle the LHC has ever produced. But in that final second, a total of 2.05 × 10^22 Joules of energy, the equivalent of five million megatons of TNT, will be released. It's as though a million nuclear fusion bombs went off all at once in a tiny region of space; that's the final stage of black hole evaporation.

a reply to: Havick007

ESP???

I believe that certain species like deer and horses have acquired ESP cognition --- including humans --- Though I hopefully believe that I also have acquired a low sensory awareness of ESP.

I learned from a couple of psychics --- when I called in on a radio talk show too talk to two guests, many years ago --- I ask them how can I prevent a savvy ol' whitetail buck from sensing me by his ESP abilities? One of the guests advised me that I should "think about swirling colors in my mind."

One most notable ESP experience that I've possibly experienced: Was between my two UAP sightings...one night in November of 1976 --- When I possibly sensed the the presence of a highly intelligent ET alien; somewhere in the sky above us.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

So it's never been reliably demonstrated that remote viewing even works in the present, and even less so for the unbelievable claims you make about it transcending time.

Here is scientific evidence for real-time remote viewing of subatomic particles inside atomic nuclei that is consistent with facts of nuclear physics and the quark model of the nucleon established fifty or more years after the paranormal observations were published:
"ESP of quarks and superstrings" (chapters 1-4)
smphillips.mysite.com...&%20superstrings%201-4.pdf
(chapters 5-6)
smphillips.mysite.com...&%20superstrings%205-6.pdf
This form of remote viewing of the subatomic world has been known to yogis (called in Sanskrit "anima") as a siddhi for thousands of years, so we do not need to rely on the antics of Yuri Geller and the CIA-financed work of SRI to demonstrate the objective nature of remote viewing. This was achieved over a century ago in a series of investigations stretching over 38 years, most of which were completed by 1908 - that is, before the birth of atomic physics (the Rutherford-Bohr model), and the later eras of nuclear physics and particle physics. This unique work was reported in 1984 to a seminar attended by particle physicists at the New Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, organised by a Nobel-Prize winner in physics, where it received a very positive reception. The body of paranormal observations of subatomic particles that has been publicly available for examination since 1908 is far more convincing as evidence for ESP than all the efforts of SRI and - unique amongst such investigations - it is immune to the sceptic's doubts about the possibility of cheating and lucky guessing stemming from poorly-designed protocols because the investigations were conducted at a time when physics knew virtually nothing about the nature of the atom, rendering cheating impossible a priori and untenable as an explanation for the remarkably high level of correlation between the observations and much later discoveries in nuclear and particle physics. This means that no conventional explanation exists for this level of matching.

a reply to: micpsi
As was explained on Yale University's website, there are lessons to be learned in how to distinguish the work of crackpots and charlatans from real science. Let's explore some of those lessons and how we go about distinguishing real science from pseudoscience.

Serious Scientific Lessons from Direct Observation of Atoms through Clairvoyance

How is the student to learn how to distinguish the work of responsible scientists from that of crackpots and charlatans? This is arguably the most important lesson that most students should learn from the study of science...

The ultimate test of an experiment is its repeatability, and that of a theory is its power of prediction...

As science Occult Chemistry fails both crucial tests.

You can read the details in the link, those comments summarize what the details support.

Lessons

From beginning to end Occult Chemistry is a tale of deception and gullibility, so in most ways it is not particularly edifying. Still, it provides some worthwhile lessons.

Recognizing the prevalence in the late 19th century of ideas like Babbitt's and the Occult Chemists' makes one more sympathetic toward Hermann Kolbe and more understanding of his scathing and misguided criticism (1877) of structural organic chemistry in general and of young van't Hoff's ideas in particular.

More importantly, Occult Chemistry provides an object lesson in the necessity of treating surprising reports with healthy skepticism. Most scientists, like other humans, tend to assume the good faith, if not always the good sense, of those who report new phenomena. Students must be aware that reporters can be dishonest like Leadbeater, as well as misled or deceived by Nature, or their fellows, as were Crookes, Lodge, and perhaps Besant. While there may be parts of the human experience where there is no substitute for faith, understanding our physical world is not one of them. Repetition of experiment, formulation and testing of unambiguous predictions, and honest analysis of probabilities are better guides in scientific matters.