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.

 

Travelling in space = travelling in time ?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   
I was thinking about that because I got an idea about rotating universes :

What if in fact, the universe (galaxies) we can see inside telescope was an illusion ? In fact, we know it's an illusion, because the lights travelled for centuries and even more for the farer deep space objects, and so, these object are in fact not where we seem to observe them, and sometimes, in fact, these object have disapeared for centuries when them light come to us.

But, what if, in fact, these far objects we can see was not foreigns galaxies, but a "ghost" image of our galaxy ?

I know this idea can be disapointing, because it put in answer all our conception of the universe. The universe would be smaller than we think. And, in fact, travelling in space would be equal to travelling in time (like in the Kubrick movie
)...
I know that some scientists are still thinking about this theory. I discussed that with an indian scientist, who told me that he had also this idea, refering to some BAGAVAD-GHITA scripture and explanation of the universe.

And scientific minds on ATS, what do you think about that ?


[edit on 5-8-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]




posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 06:32 AM
link   
What a strange idea.

So the Andromeda galaxy for example, which is way more bigger than our own galaxy, would be a mirrored image of milkyway? The fact is also that this galaxy is closing on our's and colliding with us far in the future, not moving away from us which many other galaxies do. Now, if all the other galaxies would be images of milkyway in it's previous states, wouldn't there be a clear mathematically explainable pattern in the sky? Just a thought.



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Yes, that's why scientist thinks that it's not all galaxies, but maybe the universe is smaller than we think.

But I like this idea, I mean : Nothing's real, universe is an illusion...




Andromeda is the nearest major galaxy to our own Milky Way Galaxy. Our Galaxy is thought to look much like Andromeda. Together these two galaxies dominate the Local Group of galaxies. The diffuse light from Andromeda is caused by the hundreds of billions of stars that compose it. The several distinct stars that surround Andromeda's image are actually stars in our Galaxy that are well in front of the background object. Andromeda is frequently referred to as M31 since it is the 31st object on Messier's list of diffuse sky objects. M31 is so distant it takes about two million years for light to reach us from there. Much about M31 remains unknown, including why the center contains two nuclei.


But maybe, andromeda has disapeared since 1 milion years, we can't know, what we can see from here is not andromeda actually, but andromeda 2 milions years ago...


[edit on 5-8-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]

[edit on 5-8-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
If what the books say is true and the big bang happend close to where we are. Then Space traval would=Space time travel. It would be going back into the past.



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I believe we already had a thread where we came to the conclusion that Time is mearly a way to measure movement Moving in space is thus movement in time as well. How fast you move in space equates to how far you move forward in time. The problem with moving backwards in time comes from the simple fact that there is no opposite of moving. Not the opposite of moving in the sense of no movement or standing still but in the negative of movement.

- Was



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Maybe I'm missunderstanding something here, and you can clear it up for me, but this doesn't seem to make much sense.

When you say "but a "ghost" image of our galaxy" I'm assuming you mean a reflection? But then the question is what causes the light to reflect back to us and also why would some images reflects back sooner and some later (ie. different distances between glaxaies in the universe)?

I think a better definition of what you are calling a "ghost" image is needed because right now this doesn't make any sense.



posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Einstein already beat you to it, but because of your lack of understanding of the real Universe you have gone off on some horrible and moronic tangent. This is why someone going the speed of light will not age as much as a stationary observer.

You thought that was just an illusion too? No....they will not age as much.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
because of your lack of understanding of the real Universe you have gone off on some horrible and moronic tangent.


Parole d'expert*...


*Word of an expert...

[edit on 6-8-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]

You didn't understood anything of what I meant :

I meant that the universe we see is not real but an image...



[edit on 6-8-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]

The problem i got is that my idea would work in an organised universe model, but the model we have actually is chaotic.


[edit on 6-8-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]

But in fact, if you clearly consider about my explanations above, this would mean that :

is totally biased. Because the objects described on this near universe (a few bilions year/lights) have certainly moved, and for some disapears since milions years.

[edit on 6-8-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]

[edit on 6-8-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]

[edit on 6-8-2004 by Nans DESMICHELS]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 05:15 AM
link   


In fact, we know it's an illusion, because the lights travelled for centuries and even more for the farer deep space objects, and so, these object are in fact not where we seem to observe them, and sometimes, in fact, these object have disapeared for centuries when them light come to us.

We are basically looking out from the bottom of a funnel. And, as you said, some of the lights we see no longer have an existing source.




I believe we already had a thread where we came to the conclusion that Time is mearly a way to measure movement Moving in space is thus movement in time as well. How fast you move in space equates to how far you move forward in time.

Hmmm, but as an object moves closer to the speed of light, time slows down around the object as seen from an outside reference point. Or maybe that's what you meant.

I've actually time-travelled while writing this post.


[edit on 6-8-2004 by MindWarrior]



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 05:39 AM
link   
quote
But, what if, in fact, these far objects we can see was not foreigns galaxies, but a "ghost" image of our galaxy ?

Since our observational reference is bound to this galaxy, I don't see any way that we could be looking back in time at our own galaxy.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Yes, my idea was more poetic than scientific. The idea of having an eye on our past and future when we look at stars, I mean...


But scientifics explains that in fact, the universe could be smaller than we think : We could see in fact more objects than there are really, because some of these objects could have been recorded twice or more... You follow me ?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join