posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 11:32 PM
There hasn't been much interest in this thread, sadly. I've thought about going back to basics and presenting some of the more understandable pieces
of evidence in a new way. Mabye I should try and post this as a new thread (once I've clocked up 20 posts), or maybe you might like to? What do you
Are we already experiencing Time Travel?
Of course most established physicists flatly deny this. This attitude however is based not on any scientific evidence whatsoever, but purely on the
belief that the only type of time travel that will ever be possible, if any, is travel into the future. The reason for such an assumption is little
more than an unwillingness to accept the nasty consequence of time travel in the other direction, i.e. into the past. That consequence is the indeed
very disturbing "reverse causality" it would imply, in other words, events happening before they would be caused. The implications of this would be
so horrendous that the mere possibility is simply ignored or ruled out. But can such simple, plain old bias still be called "science"? Just because
scientists "don't like" something, it can't be true?
Because they can at best only accept the possibility of time travel into the future, and because, to our knowledge, experiments re this have not been
conducted, it follows, if you believe their logic, that time travel has never occurred. But has it?
Ask yourself the following question: What would scientists from the future do to test theories of time travel? According to Einstein, we know that
time itself is relative. Experiments until now however have concentrated mainly on "time dilation" and finding proof of this. Time dilation, the
slowing of time in clocks travelling at high velocity, has been proven many times. Today, it's an accepted fact. Satellite scientists even have to
factor this in for the correct operation of GPS systems these days. But what about not just the slowing of time, but of the complete transfer of
matter? What would such experiments look like?
They would require huge amounts of energy. Just like the huge amounts of energy already available in the world's most powerful particle colliders and
accellerators today. But what would actually happen, for example, to a particle of matter, that were transferred in time? Where exactly would it
re-appear, be it in the future or in the past? Not in the same location, so much is certain.
This goes to the heart of our current lack of understanding of this entire area of future science. The problem is, established science simply doesn't
have a clue. It's because the mechanism of transfer is not understood and experiments to test theories haven't even been conceived. At least, not
So getting back to the initial question, what would future scientists trying to work out where temporally transferred particles re-appear try and do?
They'd have to make sure the transfers to another time, whether to the past or to the future, were at least observed and recorded at this other point
in time. It's therefore no good transferring single particles. If they just appeared somewhere backwards or forwards in time, they wouldn't even be
noticed. So those designing experiments would have to try and transfer more matter, perhaps blobs of plasma. Surely, something like that would attract
attention in the past or in the future and be noticed, wherever such blobs of plasma re-appeared. Once the bare basics of transfer are understood,
they could even try to cause transfers that would definitely be recorded because of their particular characteristics or even patterns.
The other question was, WHERE would such a transfer re-appear? One theory states that it would appear at the same point relative to the Sun, or
perhaps more correctly, at the same point relative to the gravity focus of the Solar System, the Barycentre. That would mean that it would appear in
empty space, at the point in Earth's orbit where the transfer were initiated, relative to this constantly moving Barycentre, but in an earlier or
future time. We would only notice such a transfer into the past if such a ball of plasma were to enter the atmosphere, as Earth passed by in a
different year, at a point where Earth in a previous or future year intersects that same point relative to the Barycentre defined by the time and date
of the transfer. But what would this look like? It would look just like an asteroid entering the atmosphere or like an "Earth impact" and almost
certainly simply be explained away by astronomers as just that. "Yet another meteorite". Could we ever tell the difference however? Yes, we possibly
Is there any evidence of such events already having occurred? There is ample evidence.
Con't in next post re 5000 word limit...