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.

 

Satellites see into the future?

page: 1
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Cosmonaut Sergei Vasilyevich Avdeyev spent 747 days traveling at 17,000 on the Mir space station and traveled .2 seconds into the future. If this is actually true then why can't the satellites that have been in space for years and years see into the future??? Please someone explain to me if this is possible or not.




posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I must add, that if a response is given that it is possible , then how fast, and for how long would a satellite have to travel to be able to see 24 hours into the future ?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by djbj597922
 


this is just her say, but i hear that the government already has this technology and can forsee into the future by an estimated 1 day and 44 minutes and some odd seconds. thus the reason bank robbers are always caught within a days time!
take what you want out of it, just figured i would put my two cents in



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Well there was that weird post that was labeled a hoax after the plane flew into the Texas building. The guy supposedly said the government could see into the future using satellites.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Astronauts do not travel into the future. They return to Earth a tiny bit younger than they would have been if they stayed on the surface. This is because they are in a different frame of reference while in orbit.

From our point of view, the clock on the satellite is running slower than ours. This does not mean that the satellite can see what we are about to do because what we are about to do has not happened yet.

[edit on 5/9/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Astronauts do not travel into the future. They return to Earth a tiny bit younger than they would have been if they stayed on the surface. This is because they are in a different frame of reference while in orbit.

From our point of view, the clock on the satellite is running slower than ours. This does not mean that the satellite can see what we are about to do because what we are about to do has not happened yet.

[edit on 5/9/2010 by Phage]


Time is only linear to us because that is the only way we can precieve it. Therefore I believe a satellite could see into the future. Time itself is not linear.

[edit on 9-5-2010 by djbj597922]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by djbj597922
 

Well then why did you ask if it was possible, you believe it is.

Your Tralfalmadorian view may be correct ... or it may not. But if it is, it means we're stuck in a rut. Everything that will happen already has. It's all predetermined. I don't buy it.

[edit on 5/9/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by djbj597922

Time is only linear to us because that is the only way we can precieve it. Therefore I believe a satellite could see into the future. Time itself is not linear.



I dont buy that, If it linear, then it is one dimentional and we would have to hop dimenions to recieve the future signal


Mind boggling stuff



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by djbj597922
 

Well then why did you ask if it was possible, you believe it is.

Your Tralfalmadorian view may be correct ... or it may not. But if it is, it means we're stuck in a rut. Everything that will happen already has. It's all predetermined. I don't buy it.

[edit on 5/9/2010 by Phage]


The reason I ask is because I like to hear other peoples views and ideas. However, that doesn't mean I don't have my own views. I just like to hear others.

If you believe that the future can't be changed then you are right about being stuck in a rut. However, IMO I believe the future can be changed. I believe that parallel realities exist and are the result of time itself having been changed. Of course that is just my belief.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by djbj597922
 

Well then why did you ask if it was possible, you believe it is.

Your Tralfalmadorian view may be correct ... or it may not. But if it is, it means we're stuck in a rut. Everything that will happen already has. It's all predetermined. I don't buy it.

[edit on 5/9/2010 by Phage]



Everything has already happened ......you just won't experience it all in this life time.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by djbj597922
 

If that's the case, if the future is nothing more than a "jump" to a different reality, how could a satellite "see" which of the possible paths has been taken?

There is no difference between saying that the future has not yet happened than saying we jump to one of an infinite number of possible futures.

If the future already exists and can be seen, it must be predetermined.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by djbj597922
 

If that's the case, if the future is nothing more than a "jump" to a different reality, how could a satellite "see" which of the possible paths has been taken?

There is no difference between saying that the future has not yet happened than saying we jump to one of an infinite number of possible futures.

If the future already exists and can be seen, it must be predetermined.


I believe we live in this reality and can see our own future. I believe our satellites can see our realities future not other realities futures. The future does exist with the past and the present IMO. However I think it is possible to change the future if you know whats coming.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by djbj597922
I believe we live in this reality and can see our own future. I believe our satellites can see our realities future not other realities futures.


Ever seen the series flashforward? I think that if we could see our 'own' future then we would be smart enough to avoid certain situations. If we avoid a particualr situation, then we didn't see our 'own' future.

Next time you meet an astronaut, ask him if he saw the future. His answer most likely will be 'I am in the future'. However his future is our present and any information he gives us is useless because we already know about it.


Originally posted by GW8UK
I dont buy that, If it linear, then it is one dimentional and we would have to hop dimenions to recieve the future signal



Errr, linearity does not imply a single dimension.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   


Errr, linearity does not imply a single dimension.


So space could be described as linear?



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GW8UK
So space could be described as linear?


The reason we can describe time as linear or non-linear is because we can trace a timeline. I don't think there is such thing as a spaceline but anyone feel free to correct this.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by djbj597922
 


I wanna see supporting evidence of the calculations that prove he went into some "future".



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
It's quite a simple and common sense approach to the problem if you ask me...

When you ask someone what time it is, they check their watch and reply 12:00pm. What the mean to say is, the sun's position is straight up in the sky. At 1:00pm the sun's position will be more angled towards a westerly direction. At whatever "time" sunset occurs that day, the sun is on the horizon, etc. etc. etc.

Point is, you don't measure time, you measure the position of the sun and rate of the planets rotation against an arbitrary numerical value system we label as 'time'. We divide this thing called 'time' from years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes and then seconds, yet none of those terms are indicative of a dimension of travel as proposed by Einstein called "time". They are terms used to indicate the position of our planet around our star and the Earth's rate of rotation.

When we pretend the satellites have "proven time dilation", what we really mean to say is that we already know that gravity is variable upon a body in orbit as it whips around the planet compared to a body that is stationary on the planet under a constant pull of gravity. When clock A on Earth is measured against clock B in orbit, what we're seeing is the variable effects of gravity as clock B moves in and out of weak and dense gravitational fields. A mountain is more gravitational dense than a flat grassland.

Humans have never measured anything called time, such a concept is an abstract tool that we use on a daily basis to break up events that occur into meaningful 'chunks' so to speak. We can use this tool to more readily indicate when a person should meet another person to discuss the days activities. Or to describe how long it's been since an event passed. Like, we can say three months ago, or we can say the event was three moon ago, both are accurate indicators of when the event occurred, but both only measure two things, the lunar cycle and solar cycle to describe "when" an event last occurred.

There is only one true aspect to the universe, we all live *now*, eternally always living *now*. There is no past as you can't reverse entropy for the entire universe and there is no future as those events have not been caused yet. How can you time travel when you need more energy than the entire universe contains to reverse entropy for the entire universe? How can you "jump" towards something that doesn't exist yet? It's like trying to walk across a gorge blindly believing that a bridge exists. You won't get from one side to the other until that bridge has been built and no amount of wishful thinking will cause that bridge to magically appear.

This is how our universe works folks. It's just one big simple *now*.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by djbj597922
 

If that's the case, if the future is nothing more than a "jump" to a different reality, how could a satellite "see" which of the possible paths has been taken?

There is no difference between saying that the future has not yet happened than saying we jump to one of an infinite number of possible futures.

If the future already exists and can be seen, it must be predetermined.


Unless you think of the future in terms of "quantum theory" For 2 or 3 years I was really into deterministic thinking, as it made much more sense, when using a Newtonian model for reality. I still say the whole free will thing has many problems with it, and that I now am thinking the future is determined, but with infinite possibilities, so that creates the illusion of "free will" but I think if the satellites could see a day into it, there would be a lot of NASA guys betting on sports and getting rich!



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by AABacon
 


I agree with you that the universe is deterministic to a point, but I disagree that it contains infinite possibilities all existing at once as none of those possibilities have occurred yet and thus there is no path for the universe to follow one possibility over another.

Take a pool table as an example. The balls are all racked, but the white ball will be hit only at one place and at one angle and from this one spot, where the balls land when they come to rest is determined by that initial cause.

Yet, let's suppose the eight ball is a sentient ball. It can now decide for itself whether it wants to land in the corner pocket or miss it altogether. This is where the illusion of free will truly comes from. An ability to recall past experiences and make judgments upon current events. Or even to abstractly think of what might happen if an outcome is allowed to occur and then weighing that into the decision making process.

To sum it up, the universe is determined by it prime causation, and free will exists in an illusory capacity in so much that we can decide an outcome based on prior experience.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Is time a creative process or not? Or just a function of deterministic mechanics?

Is the future/present being created in the present instant moving into the [fixed?] past? Or is it dead, mindless perfunctory reflexes?
Is there a raw unfinished edge that thus far has had abundant resources to spin continuities of threads?

I would probably vote for time as a creative process, if for no other reason than it makes me feel better, less suffocated.

Hmm, maybe the security of dead mechanics where everything is pre-charted is less risky than constantly having to make it up as you go along?

[edit on 11-5-2010 by slank]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join