It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Have Scientists Discovered a Way of Peering Into the Future?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 12:06 PM
reply to post by alienesque

but they the first people who would want one
second line

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 12:07 PM

Originally posted by merka
reply to post by czacza1

Unless there's any actual scientific information on this, I'd say that its totally bogus.

I highly doubt that the Emeritus researcher at Princeton University in the USA has a habit of churning out bogus!

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by LatentElement

Because according to ole A.E.'s works - Time travels forward ... however does not flow backwards.

This is entirely mistaken.

It may be fair to say that the causal principal requires massive objects to remain on shell in the positive, or forward looking time-domain, but this says nothing about the possible domain of conciousness ...

The dimension of time in Einstien's model is no different than any of the other three physical dimensions of, height, width, or length. Just like in elementary school math lessons, that axis or line runs for an infinate distance in both the positive and negative directions ...

So, if we posit that conciousness has no mass, then the possibility that it can move around on the time-line in either direction is entirely consistent with Einstien's model. As a brief aside here, whether conciousness remains stationary and the time axis slides around, or whether it is conciousness itself which moves around on a stationary time-axis is a rather arbitrary distinction which for technical reasons we needn't get into here.

This is the reason why world-class university professors, whose reputations, incididently, mean everything to the continuance of their gainful employment as professors, and not as, say chimney sweeps, for instance, say things such as, "There's plenty of evidence that time may run backwards," when they know they will be quoted in a newspaper article which thousands, millions, or perhaps even their boss ( the DEAN ) will read ...

Hope this helps.

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:02 PM

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
"Whut d'ye ken it tis, Jock?"
"Ah dinnae, lad, lookes abit maagical tae me, eh?"
"Aye, aye, it'll be the naery gud workin's o' th' witchcraft, ah'll wager, like th' inter-nets an' thems tele-ma-phones."
"Weel, let's get tae smashin' it, then!"

Your Scottish is abysmal.

Dae ye no ken yer whits fae yer whuts an yer guids fae yer guds?

Ye'll hae yer erse skelpit in a meenute fae aw thay muckle nae guid Glesgie neds wi thur boatles o bucky.


posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:27 PM
First, I have the utmost admiration and respect for Albert Einstein and in that vein, I would ask; if and when you refer to the venerable mathematician in reference, please show some class and make an effort to spell his name right. I think you'll agree he earned that much.
That's very interesting - mixing Philosophy and Metaphysics with Classical Physics. Sorry, I must be way out of the loop. What is this branch of science called?
Yep, high school taught us time in three dimensions and those nice little graphs depicting the History of the world on a "time line". 3D.
If Albert could hear you say his model of time is no different that those, he'd be very insulted.
Just curious ...
Have you heard of the 'fourth" dimension? Because if you want to discuss relativity, and specifically the theory of Special Relativity which addresses the 'visiting the past' issue, the "model" is four dimensional.
Do yourself a great service:
Please have, at the minimum, a basic, rudimentary working knowledge of natural science, theorem and principles before you attempt to defend a theory. Or, as my Dad used to say, "It's better to say nothing and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Some FYI's for ya:
The 'Casual Principal' is more commonly associated with Philosophy. Unless you mean 'Casualty' as in the relationship between causes and effects. That is a fundamental in many of the sciences.
As to how it relates to this discussion - in general and special relativity, simply put, the effect must come further down the timeline from the cause, Even if the 'spacetime' is curved.
Sorry, my friend, but again the prevailing theory states time moves forward..
Consciousness is not a factor in relativity - That's a philosophical concept.
And, any Professor or theorist worth his salt wouldn't just vaguely refer to other works as facts. especially if those facts are in part or wholly the precedences for which their own work is based upon.
Facts not in evidence are speculations.
Politicians use generalizations and broad references when they know it may be quoted in the media, it's not a practice used by credible scientists.

May I suggest? "Einstein's Theory of Relativity" - by Max Born.
It's written very well. He addresses the subject conceptually, as well as mathematical physics.
Good luck!

Just had to add:
Love the Scottish accents! Too funny.
The only one I know is:
"Aye .. Tis as lung as me arrm, itis. Ant as tick as me rrist"

[edit on 2/15/2009 by LatentElement]

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:32 AM
reply to post by czacza1

I'm with you on this, czacza1, Star!
And welcome back!
At least the part about humanity sharing somewhat of a collective mindset.
The end of the article is right-society keeps us seperated from eachother, physically, yet we share a common consciousness, and 'feel' for one another on some levels.

Like a catastrophe, or tragedy, we all share the grief. I prefer the Native American belief of 'all creatures kin' and the 'Sacred Hoop of Life' type stuff. And the whole DeJaVu thing, and certain select individuals who posess an ability to 'see' future events.

Wow... I had a feeling I was gonna post this before...
just kiddin

[edit on 2/16/2009 by FRIGHTENER]

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:55 AM
reply to post by FRIGHTENER

thanks a lot. the idea is really usefull for the explanation of many paranormal mysteries. I was just reading the great book of Jim Tucker "Life before life". he is writing about the evidence of a memories from previous life which are given by the small kids. and know I belive that it could be all explained.

thanks again and take care

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 02:58 AM
reply to post by LatentElement

"Or, as my Dad used to say, "It's better to say nothing and appear ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." "

well, that is a pitty that you do not even know what the quote came from. and it is not your dad's one.

and about the spacetime - it is curved. there is no much doubt about it!!!!!

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 03:16 AM
reply to post by merka

They...! meaning the Goverments have been able to see into the future for many years not only that, they can move forward into time...Please have a look at this video Al Bielek - The Philadelphia Experiment Montauk Project there are a few videos on this subject ttp://

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 03:52 AM
reply to post by czacza1

Oh, please. I never implied he authored the phrase, just that he used to say it.
You do know how crediting an author is expressed, right?
See my signature quotes below.
Now, If I'd done that, then I would deserve your criticism and would be offering profuse apologies.
But, I guess you NEVER repeat things others have said. Everything you utter is original work, is it?
So, when you can't defeat my comprehension of relative theory, which I'm sure is considerably beyond your limited grasp - the rhetoric moves to implying plagiarism. I understand. You have to say something negative to make you feel that you've bested someone.
And, my rebuttal is simply this - See first quote on signature below.

Einstein's theory proved that spacetime is curved. That was his explanation to the inconsistency of Newton's theory of gravity. Curved doesn't mean backwards, Professor Czacza1, it means curved.
Pop quiz for you Professor - (I'll even be gracious and not make it math questions)
a) Where, in practical application, was the inconsistency in Newton's theory that puzzled the scientists of the day? (Circa early 1900's) And
b) An experiment was conducted after WWII, that proved Einstein's theory - what was the experiment and what did it prove?
Of course, you don't have to pick up this gauntlet I've thrown down ... just walk away. Or, would slither be more descriptive of your mode of travel?
Keep in mind: if you enter into a battle of wits with me, you're unarmed.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:09 AM

Originally posted by shihulud
Your Scottish is abysmal.

Dae ye no ken yer whits fae yer whuts an yer guids fae yer guds?

Ye'll hae yer erse skelpit in a meenute fae aw thay muckle nae guid Glesgie neds wi thur boatles o bucky.


I bow before your superior Scottishry!

And, for the record, I couldn't understand a word.

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by LatentElement

well, frankly I have no idea of what of the aspects of Einstein's teories you are talking about. for example the one of the conclusions form his theory is that the world has to get bigger or opposite. and this was proved by the Arozina astronomer - Mr Slipher. I wonder if you know about it. he is example of the guy who never was awarded for this and even most od scientist does not know about him. all fame came on Hubble. was that the guy you were refering to? if so than you are wrong. Slipher was the first one. unfortunatetly I do not remember the time he did so.

and for the first one, I belive you are talking about the Michelson and Morley experiment founded by the Bell. it was as I remember the 1887. they have received for this a Nobel in early 1900.

but I do not opened this thread to make a quiz, my friend. I do not want to show that I found the Graal. and I did made a comment on your previous post only because you made a nasty one to one of the members. the idea of this forum I belive is not to make competition but discussion.

do not take it so seriously. and have a nice day

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:09 AM
reply to post by czacza1

Thank you. Now I understand. I was puzzled as to why you cited only the saying and not the science.
Forgive my ... intensity in addressing your reply. And his. I have said many times on here I profess no expertise in any particular field. If someone sees fault in my knowledge or anything I present in a post, then I hope they enlighten me with the facts I am missing. - Mostly so I don’t look that foolish again.
And if I think their facts are amiss, I’ll speak up. Sort of check and balance.
Except his post wasn’t just a critique. He open with, “that is entirely mistaken” (Same as saying I am mistaken) and then spouted out that stuff about a 3D graph is the same as Einstein’s model for a 4 dimensional concept ... and consciousness traveling in time. Well ... It's the same thing as claiming I have lied and know nothing, isn’t it? And what he said was the real and true explanation of the concept. I just couldn’t let that slide. It then becomes a matter of pride and honor,and yes - that I do take seriously. - I would have take anyone to task on that so they’d better be ready to debate and to defend their position with facts and logic – may the best member win. Remember the credo here is ....Deny Ignorance, right?
So, ... Then I read your post and it seemed I was embattled by two of you.

Anyway, no worries. Sorry we got off on the wrong foot and thanks for reaching out. I’ll take you off my foe list, Bro.

By the way, I hadn’t heard of Slipher so I looked him up. You’re right. I thought it was Hubble because that’s who they say made the discovery. But, it was slipher who really did all the work in discovering the spectrum ‘redshifting’ that the Expansion Theory is based on. He’s buried in Flagstaff. Interesting stuff. His brother was an astronomer too, although not so famous. “Looking up” must run in the family.

Oh, and it was Mercury. The planet, Mercury. That’s what puzzled the scientists. When “plugged in” to Newton’s theory its orbit was a little less than it should have been.. And it was photographing an eclipse in 1919 and comparing it to night sky photos that showed gravity did indeed bend light, as Einstein predicted.
See ya in the threads!

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:21 AM
I love finding a new study about amazing potential of the human brain that just can't be grasped at the moment.

It also makes me a bit upset with mainstream scientists who see these results and react with something to the order of "neat" and sweep it under the rug instead of building on it.

These should be earth shattering results about what we presently know about time as well as the mind!!! As a man of science myself I just can't understand how someone wouldn't want to find some way to build off of this.

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by LatentElement

sorry. Now I noticed - "where"!!!! I was again thinking about the "who". well, I am not english native speaker so you have to excuse me from time to time.

best wishes and see you soon

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:31 PM
reply to post by Zachman225

exactly. the pity is that the possibilities given with such a model should be exciting for most of scientists but they are not (Ior I am blind).

the whole idea is not new, but at least we have got small (for sure there is a lot more needed to treat it as any evidence) light on the issue. and this is the time for the guys with balls to come up with something really BIG...

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:44 PM
reply to post by LatentElement

Couple things I thought might help here. One, your criticism of the other member's science is based on a perceptual difference. You, obviously, subscribe to the perspective that all aspects of consciousness are biologically based; the member you criticized appears to take the view that, as consciousness is not very well understood scientifically, it may or may not be purely biological, and therefore may have attributes that defy the causality of objects containing mass. I think you do your obvious intellect a disservice when you subscribe to absolutes that are unproven and based upon a philosophical view of reality, rather than entertaining all possible angles until such a time as one perspective is indeed proven correct.

Of second note, gravity bending light is...a tricky subject. The Hubble telescope has provided some reason to doubt that what was perceived in your quoted instance, and thought to "fix" the problem, is correct or constant. It fits the model, and fits the philosophical perception upon which the model was ultimately shaped, but it is not, by any means, flawless. Just as Special Relativity is far from the end of the line, far from the be all and end all answer. A number of recent advances in physics have given cause to believe that SR is, in it's own ways, as limited as Newton's model, ie, hindered by what you might call a perceptual bias.

As for this particular subject...there is a lot of circumstantial scientific evidence that the powers of human perception are more complex and powerful than the conventional model predicts. However, while what is detailed is not known to be impossible, I would like to see more information before I would believe it is indeed possible and, in fact, in use. Nonetheless, definitely a subject worth a thread, if for no more reason than sparking thought and debate as to the mechanics of this purported device, and the implications thereof, if true.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by saturnine_sweet

Thank you for your post, and I do respect your effort to present an alternate view.
I agree with you on some things. Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (STR) isn’t an all the encompassing equation. Nor is his General Theory of Relativity.
Although the human brain has a physical, tangible existence, the mind within has unlimited potential. Yes, I think that includes ‘out of body’ or remote viewing – even through time- and other possibilities.
I appreciate your compliment, but the only thing I think obvious is what little I know when there is so much more to learn. I realize your only view into my thoughts are the posts you read here. But, let me I assure you I do have an imagination and often contemplate fact less philosophical ideas.
I am aware STR and GTR cannot account for everything we observe in the physical universe.
STR does provide a viable formula to explain, the physical theory of measuring one object’s frame of reference along with it state of motion to that of another object, respectively. Einstein’s theories attempt to explain the physical world and are not interrelated with, and have no relevance to Philosophical, Psychological, Medical or Para-Psychological theories or conjecture.
The point is he was a physicist. As in Physics.
"Physics - 1589, "natural science," from physic (q.v.) in sense of "natural science." Specific sense of "science treating of properties of matter and energy" is from 1715". – Etymology from
You see, my disagreement with the member was his liberal mixing of branches of science and citing STR as a valid referenced theory for a Philosophical point of view. And Einstein’s theories explained, in essence, the reason a consciousness could time travel.
Also,that STR could be represented as an elementary school math lesson with a simple line going forever both ways. Forgive me but, anyone who took physical science in high school should know that overly simplistic view is not an accurate representation of STR. And his supposition a consciousness can move along that “line” is consistent with Einstein’s model is an errant notion because it’s based on his hitherto mentioned and false assumption of a straight timeline in said model.
As I’ve said, I believe our human consciousness has no physical bounds; and therefore I submit: they would not be constrained by, or need to follow any rules set by a theory attributed to the physical laws. It doesn’t matter where the line goes.
The difference between perception and interpretation is simply a matter of semantics. Physics doesn’t afford you that luxury because the primary expression is the math. A balanced equation must be equal on both sides. That concept is not subject to perception.
As to the device. Did you also see The Web Bot Project?
Here is the link to one of ATS’s thread about it.
The Web Bot Project
I do think that there is a ‘collective’ conscience that is mankind. That it is on a level we have yet to observe or quantify, but maybe on the verge of doing so. Nevertheless, if you think of the sheer number of people - though not realized by the individual - with their mental energies in sync, I wonder what tapping into that potential may hold for us. Good things, I hope.

Thank you for the reading. Hope your day is a fun one – L.E.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 01:50 AM
Very good find OP. Very interesting.

And for those who think it may all be rubbish, you just never know.

Such are the perils of retrocausality, the idea that the present can affect the past, and the future can affect the present. Strange as it sounds, retrocausality is perfectly permissible within the known laws of nature. It has been debated for decades, mostly in the realm of philosophy and quantum physics. Trouble is, nobody has done the experiment to show it happens in the real world, so the door remains wide open for a demonstration.

It might even happen soon. Researchers are on the verge of experiments that will finally hold retrocausality's feet to the fire by attempting to send a signal to the past. What's more, they need not invoke black holes, wormholes, extra dimensions or other exotic implements of time travel. It should all be doable with the help of a state-of-the-art optics workbench and the bizarre yet familiar tricks of quantum particles. If retrocausality is confirmed - and that is a huge if - it would overturn our most cherished notions about the nature of cause and effect and how the universe works.

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 02:12 AM
But unfortunately we don't have a box for predicting the future that we can sell to the CIA.

Why would you do such a thing?
Sell it to the most evil scoundrels on the face of the earth?
What is the motivation behind this guy I wonder?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in