You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
I've been telling people about this for a long time now, and some can't quite wrap their heads around it, the whole idea that you and I actually "live" (as in percieve) in the past all the time.
It's like a star one billion light years away, it'll take the light from that star one billion l/years to reach us, and by then, the star will be one billion light years older. That means that we would actually be seeing the star as it was one billion l/years ago, as opposed to what it actually is like "now". Of course that is relative to it's distance from the one seeing it, but it's similar to the connection between your body and brain.
This is why other life, millions of light years away, might have already gone through the stages of evolution, civilization, war, and extinction. They could have destroyed themselves before we even knew that their primitive forms even existed.
Getting a bit too speculative and fantastical when thinking about multiverses. There are more than enough amazing things within the observable universe that we can examine that are worth our while, than spend too much of our time pontificating about things that can never be proven to exist (alternate universes, hypothetical realities which we can never interact with, God(s), etc.
what about all this new proof that we exist within a simulation?
there are no limits.
and just the fact that we can create fractal equations means something.
within that equation alone, is infinity.
WITHIN A FUCKING EQUATION, LIES INFINITY.
and that exists within our world. it isn't physical but it is measurable. go ahead, please, be my guest. measure from the beginning to the end of a fractal equation. pick one. pick any fractal. up to you.
and you're telling me our universe is limited?
are you telling me only things you can see and touch exist? some people are so fucking thick headed.
I didn't fail you for your beliefs. I failed you for bringing them into this Scientific discussion/topic.
I'll fail you again if there's the assumption that someone choosing to not to post, or to post later when they have more time means they're "simple minded".
Re-read the OP's post and you'll realize I was not the one who brought it into the discussion, just responding to OP.
__________________
FOR SALE: 14'' MR2 MK1 wheels with 90% rubber $130, FD RX7 Transmission $200, Hitch Mount Snowboard/Ski rack w/ THULE clamps, locks $200. PM me for details!
i can give you guys a very simple example of "god".
there were many ancient civilizations that worshipped the sun. they had no idea what it was, or anything. but they could feel the force of the sun. and it was beyond any force they could imagine. it was their god.
you cannot deny the fact that the sun exists.
the sun was their god. the sun is god.
it is just a label. god is something larger than yourself, beyond what your mind can grasp.
now, you must agree the mind is limitless. whatever we grasp, immediately comes into existence something beyond that, something that we cannot grasp (as of yet).
and one day we shall understand what it is. but immediately, as we realise whatever it may be, the existence of something greater, beyond our grasp will have emerged.
that alone is infinity. that alone is ONE of the many definitions of god(s).
if you cannot grasp that concept, well, whatever, just be a rock.
when I read the title I thought we found a new terrorist cell 0_o
Pretty cool that we can discover such things. I kinda got annoyed when they initially thought nothing should exist past 1.2 billion light years and we have been using that standard for a while. I know it is a theoretical best guess, but I think after this discovery its safe to say that nothing is impossible. Im exited to see new explanations on previously assumed theories since im sure this will provide or change quite a bit of data. Posted via RS Mobile
On a semi-related note, on the topic of religion, youtube: "cargo cults" and you'll understand where religion really comes from. Ignorance. I'm not denying some of the positive aspects of religion, but imo, I think our culture and intelligence allows us to move beyond religion.
listen, it's very obvious you're just regurgitating information that you've learn in school or some book. if it's not in the book, it does not exist.
sounds very much like religious fanatics and their holy books. it's very easy for you to just go back to some text book and point at some formula, or say it's not in the book, so it's wrong.
look at the bigger picture, beyond your text books and academia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nates
smaller than a string of energy? smaller than a singulairty?
uh yeah, is it so hard to imagine that there are things smaller than strings of energy?
you know there is a version of you from the past, that did not believe there was something smaller than a molecule.
and then there was a version of you not so long ago that did not believe there was something smaller than an atom.
here's an example...
space. take slice of space. cut it in half, and keep doing it. are you not eventually going to end up with a space smaller than a string of energy? you can keep cutting that space in half. can you not? if not please explain why not. im just talking about a vacuum of space.
or does it not count because it is void of matter and energy? it still exists does it not?
is there not space between strings of energy?
can you measure this space? if its measurable does it not exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nates
again, you are confusing the observable [limited] universe with the universe.
i am not confusing observable universe with universe. they are all under a larger category: existence.
there is no need to categorize them as separate, there is no need and no point.
existence, is existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nates
you are also having a hard time differentiating Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity.
again, separating the two. why?
stephen hawking say the two are contradictory and cannot both exist. yet you can get remarkable pin point accuracy predictions with both.
whatever, who cares!
for the point of this argument, they both exist (perhaps not 100% accurate), under the umbrella in which we reside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nates
understand the two leading theories (string/M and LQG) regarding a unified theory before you start accusing people of being thick headed.
again, you are talking only about the realm of physical existence. I am NOT talking about just the realm you can experience with your five senses. i am talking about all realms of existence. including the one in your mind (or lack there of).
there's FAR more "out" there than just what you can experience with the 5 senses.
also what about the holographic principle/universe? there's more evidence that suggests that it exists than it doesn't.
Black hole information paradox???
the mere idea of these things existing, blows this LQG out of the water in terms of "size".
an infinite amount of anything could exist in any pocket of space at any time man.
and please answer my question about the fractals.
a small example of something fractal like is Penrose tiling... it completely lacks translational symmetry, but it's still self similar... ex. if you keep zooming out same patterns keep emerging at larger and larger scales.
which also raises another thing...
if an unlimited amount of 2d things can exist within 3 dimensions... and an unlimited amount of 3 dimensional things can exist in 4 dimensions... and an unlimited number of 4 dimensional things can exist in 5 dimensions... etc.... yes? starting to understand? an unlimited number of things already exist within an unlimited number of other things.
and you're telling me if science cannot measure or gauge these things, they don't exist?
what about, existence of ideas? are you telling me because you cannot measure things of the mind, they do not exist?
you're obviously a man of science. but science is useless unless you have insight to the unseen and unknown. the bigger picture, beyond current understanding, is what drives science forward. the way you choose to think, or perceive things, limits you to your little bubble of understanding. like an ant walking in circles until someone shows it a new path it never thought was possible.
if it exists in the mind, it will be pursued by science until it exists in the physical world.
remember, science is but a branch UNDER philosophy.
all i gotta say is, to think a certain way or not believe in possibilities beyond what you can understand or measure, is to totally limit your chances of exploring new discoveries (this article being a prime example, people would have defended with their life that such a large object cannot exist, but yet it does).
Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 01-14-2013 at 09:11 PM.
He edited that in after your post. That edit was 1:50pm, your post was before that, at 1:26pm. Nice try though.
No, it was definitely there when I posted. Otherwise I would not have responded in the way I did. Do you not have anything better to do than be a pest?
The original post was the quote box and the short bit about people believing in God. The edit was adding the info on Quasars.
__________________
FOR SALE: 14'' MR2 MK1 wheels with 90% rubber $130, FD RX7 Transmission $200, Hitch Mount Snowboard/Ski rack w/ THULE clamps, locks $200. PM me for details!
I've been telling people about this for a long time now, and some can't quite wrap their heads around it, the whole idea that you and I actually "live" (as in percieve) in the past all the time.
It's like a star one billion light years away, it'll take the light from that star one billion l/years to reach us, and by then, the star will be one billion light years older. That means that we would actually be seeing the star as it was one billion l/years ago, as opposed to what it actually is like "now". Of course that is relative to it's distance from the one seeing it, but it's similar to the connection between your body and brain.
This is why other life, millions of light years away, might have already gone through the stages of evolution, civilization, war, and extinction. They could have destroyed themselves before we even knew that their primitive forms even existed.
By what determines that "WE" are in the past and not in the future? From our perspective, we are in the past. But what if the civilization "there" don't see our planet "now". All they see is emptiness but really we exist here, which they'll discover in x amount of years when our "light" reaches them. So who's the past? Lol.
smaller than a string of energy? smaller than a singulairty?
understand the two leading theories (string/M and LQG) regarding a unified theory before you start accusing people of being thick headed.
as of today a "planck" is considered the smallest distance out there.. i will bet that will get smaller and smaller..
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsx
Wonderful scientific news.
On a semi-related note, on the topic of religion, youtube: "cargo cults" and you'll understand where religion really comes from. Ignorance. I'm not denying some of the positive aspects of religion, but imo, I think our culture and intelligence allows us to move beyond religion.
Nah, and if you think our culture allows us to move forward maybe it does in terms of developing technology, however not so in going in harmony with nature..
listen, it's very obvious you're just regurgitating information that you've learn in school or some book. if it's not in the book, it does not exist.
sounds very much like religious fanatics and their holy books. it's very easy for you to just go back to some text book and point at some formula, or say it's not in the book, so it's wrong.
look at the bigger picture, beyond your text books and academia.
uh yeah, is it so hard to imagine that there are things smaller than strings of energy?
you know there is a version of you from the past, that did not believe there was something smaller than a molecule.
and then there was a version of you not so long ago that did not believe there was something smaller than an atom.
here's an example...
space. take slice of space. cut it in half, and keep doing it. are you not eventually going to end up with a space smaller than a string of energy? you can keep cutting that space in half. can you not? if not please explain why not. im just talking about a vacuum of space.
or does it not count because it is void of matter and energy? it still exists does it not?
is there not space between strings of energy?
can you measure this space? if its measurable does it not exist?
i am not confusing observable universe with universe. they are all under a larger category: existence.
there is no need to categorize them as separate, there is no need and no point.
existence, is existence.
again, separating the two. why?
stephen hawking say the two are contradictory and cannot both exist. yet you can get remarkable pin point accuracy predictions with both.
whatever, who cares!
for the point of this argument, they both exist (perhaps not 100% accurate), under the umbrella in which we reside.
again, you are talking only about the realm of physical existence. I am NOT talking about just the realm you can experience with your five senses. i am talking about all realms of existence. including the one in your mind (or lack there of).
there's FAR more "out" there than just what you can experience with the 5 senses.
also what about the holographic principle/universe? there's more evidence that suggests that it exists than it doesn't.
Black hole information paradox???
the mere idea of these things existing, blows this LQG out of the water in terms of "size".
an infinite amount of anything could exist in any pocket of space at any time man.
and please answer my question about the fractals.
a small example of something fractal like is Penrose tiling... it completely lacks translational symmetry, but it's still self similar... ex. if you keep zooming out same patterns keep emerging at larger and larger scales.
which also raises another thing...
if an unlimited amount of 2d things can exist within 3 dimensions... and an unlimited amount of 3 dimensional things can exist in 4 dimensions... and an unlimited number of 4 dimensional things can exist in 5 dimensions... etc.... yes? starting to understand? an unlimited number of things already exist within an unlimited number of other things.
and you're telling me if science cannot measure or gauge these things, they don't exist?
what about, existence of ideas? are you telling me because you cannot measure things of the mind, they do not exist?
you're obviously a man of science. but science is useless unless you have insight to the unseen and unknown. the bigger picture, beyond current understanding, is what drives science forward. the way you choose to think, or perceive things, limits you to your little bubble of understanding. like an ant walking in circles until someone shows it a new path it never thought was possible.
if it exists in the mind, it will be pursued by science until it exists in the physical world.
remember, science is but a branch UNDER philosophy.
all i gotta say is, to think a certain way or not believe in possibilities beyond what you can understand or measure, is to totally limit your chances of exploring new discoveries (this article being a prime example, people would have defended with their life that such a large object cannot exist, but yet it does).
Nates obviously view the world he is taught and shown. His imagination is not wide enough to even imagine that there are something greater than space itself, which is more space. If his memories were wiped and be placed in a room, his universe would be the room. If people in the room (who have visited outside the room) tell him that there is places outside the room, he wouldn't believe it, he wouldn't even imagine it.
Think beyond your limit, open your imagination.
EDIT - Didn't they recently discovered a new atom or molecule or whatever? I can't find the news but some scientist discovered that there are something smaller that created something.
EDIT AGAIN - Just thought of the perfect example of what Ulic is talking about. Imagine a rope, how it's made of smaller ropes, that are made of threads of string, that are many strings combined together, etc. Now imagine string theory, what if the string of energy is made of tinier strings of energy that have yet to be proven? And then imagine these strings of energy... you get my point.
Now imagine the rope, instead of going smaller, let's get bigger. Using more ropes twirled together to create a thicker and wider rope. Now use that, with many, twirled to make bigger ropes. Get the idea?
as of today a "planck" is considered the smallest distance out there.. i will bet that will get smaller and smaller..
We are not talking about distances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_chin
Nates obviously view the world he is taught and shown. His imagination is not wide enough to even imagine that there are something greater than space itself, which is more space. If his memories were wiped and be placed in a room, his universe would be the room. If people in the room (who have visited outside the room) tell him that there is places outside the room, he wouldn't believe it, he wouldn't even imagine it.
Think beyond your limit, open your imagination.
Quel made the assumption for some reason that I believe the universe is finite, or that I can't comprehend 'more space', both of which are wrong - and now you are following suit.
I believe in string theory, more so M-theory, which is based on the presence of multi-universes existing on membranes. You guys are lost.
The irony in both your posts is larger than the Large Quasar Group itself.
Quel made the assumption for some reason that I believe the universe is finite, or that I can't comprehend 'more space', both of which are wrong - and now you are following suit.
I believe in string theory, more so M-theory, which is based on the presence of multi-universes existing on membranes. You guys are lost.
The irony in both your posts is larger than the Large Quasar Group itself.
EDIT - Didn't they recently discovered a new atom or molecule or whatever? I can't find the news but some scientist discovered that there are something smaller that created something.
EDIT AGAIN - Just thought of the perfect example of what Ulic is talking about. Imagine a rope, how it's made of smaller ropes, that are made of threads of string, that are many strings combined together, etc. Now imagine string theory, what if the string of energy is made of tinier strings of energy that have yet to be proven? And then imagine these strings of energy... you get my point.
Now imagine the rope, instead of going smaller, let's get bigger. Using more ropes twirled together to create a thicker and wider rope. Now use that, with many, twirled to make bigger ropes. Get the idea?
sigh.
They did not discover a "new atom" or "new molecule", they discovered a new elementary particle (Higgs Boson) which is part of the Standard Model.
They are also not 'discovering' smaller 'things', they are 'theorizing'. They have theorized that electrons and quarks are made up of 1-demensional strings - based on that theory, there is nothing 'smaller'.
Oh, and what you both are trying to 'explain' to me with your rope metaphors is in essentially 'limits' in calculus - which does not apply here.
By what determines that "WE" are in the past and not in the future? From our perspective, we are in the past. But what if the civilization "there" don't see our planet "now". All they see is emptiness but really we exist here, which they'll discover in x amount of years when our "light" reaches them. So who's the past? Lol.
Nobody is in the past (physically), anybody out there right now would exist at the same time as us.
The speed of light determines what we see, and when we see it. When something is far enough away, the image it casts through the universe is delayed more and more the farther it is from the potential viewer, due to the speed in which that image can be carried (speed of light).
Our sun could go supernova, yet an observer even a light year away would still see our solar system as it was a light year before. They would not know that all of us had been wiped out by our own sun until a light year after the fact.
A good way of easily imagining this is as follows:
- You are on one end of a road that is a light year in length, and a clone of you is standing at the other end.
- You both start waving at eachother at the same time in reality
While you would both actually be waving at eachother at the exact same time, you wouldn't see him start to wave until a light year after the fact, the same goes for your clone on the other end.
Your body touches the present, our minds watch the past.
Last edited by Yodamaster; 01-14-2013 at 10:06 PM.
are we not? you just said nothing can be "smaller". you can measure that, isnt it a distance? if you can measure something relative to another object... is that not a form of distance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nates
Quel made the assumption for some reason that I believe the universe is finite, or that I can't comprehend 'more space', both of which are wrong - and now you are following suit.
I believe in string theory, more so M-theory, which is based on the presence of multi-universes existing on membranes. You guys are lost.
The irony in both your posts is larger than the Large Quasar Group itself.
All i did was bring up the fact that, this LQG is probably not that big compared to things that most probably also exist (more probable than not).
and you failed me because...??? because you don't think anything bigger can exist???
and we're arguing that there is no limit of size and it is infinite in both directions.
and you're doing nothing but telling us to look at equations and theories (which if we base this article on, the LQG shouldnt exist).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nates
sigh.
They did not discover a "new atom" or "new molecule", they discovered a new elementary particle (Higgs Boson) which is part of the Standard Model.
They are also not 'discovering' smaller 'things', they are 'theorizing'. They have theorized that electrons and quarks are made up of 1-demensional strings - based on that theory, there is nothing 'smaller'.
Oh, and what you both are trying to 'explain' to me with your rope metaphors is in essentially 'limits' in calculus - which does not apply here.
you have not answered anything I have asked you to answer. nor have you tried to explain why it's wrong or why it cannot be brought up in this argument.
we're now just asking you to explain yourself. we have tried to explain ourselves, but you do nothing but say we understand nothing, yet you explain nothing.
like i said, the debate is this:
LQG discovered, bigger than scientifically thought possible. zomg, it's so huge. BUT, things that make the LQG seem like an atom MOST probably exist somewhere in some place.
we are failed for this reasoning. why?
Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 01-14-2013 at 10:05 PM.
uh yeah, is it so hard to imagine that there are things smaller than strings of energy?
in string theory, elementary particles are made up of 1-dimensional strings. what you aren't understanding is in this theory, strings ARE the smallest 'thing'. there is nothing 'smaller' to find.
at this level of Quantum Mechanics, you can't prove anything because you can't test it. you can't find anything smaller by using the LHC, because at this level, it is all about theory and the subsequent mathematics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
take a slice of space. cut it in half, and keep doing it. are you not eventually going to end up with a space smaller than a string of energy? you can keep cutting that space in half. can you not? if not please explain why not. im just talking about a vacuum of space.
not in the 1-dimension. and what you are referring to is limits in calculus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
i am not confusing observable universe with universe. they are all under a larger category: existence.
there is no need to categorize them as separate, there is no need and no point.
existence, is existence.
yes there is - the observable universe consists of matter [from the beginning of cosmological expansion, ie the big bang] that can be observed from earth.
the reason for the differentiation is because physicist can't yet explain 'the universe' so-to-speak, and thus reference 'the observable universe' as 'our' universe. what i mean by that is there could be multiple universes, multiple big bangs, based on multiple theories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
again, separating the two. why?
stephen hawking say the two are contradictory and cannot both exist. yet you can get remarkable pin point accuracy predictions with both.
that is the current holy grail of physics - a unified theory. one where the laws of physics apply to both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
also what about the holographic principle/universe? there's more evidence that suggests that it exists than it doesn't.
Black hole information paradox???
the mere idea of these things existing, blows this LQG out of the water in terms of "size".
an infinite amount of anything could exist in any pocket of space at any time man.
if an unlimited amount of 2d things can exist within 3 dimensions... and an unlimited amount of 3 dimensional things can exist in 4 dimensions... and an unlimited number of 4 dimensional things can exist in 5 dimensions... etc.... yes? starting to understand? an unlimited number of things already exist within an unlimited number of other things.
and you're telling me if science cannot measure or gauge these things, they don't exist?
when did i say anything doesn't exist? i think you assumed i did based on my explanation of the 'observable universe' being finite.
i believe in multiple dimensions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
what about, existence of ideas?
not related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulic Qel-Droma
you're obviously a man of science. but science is useless unless you have insight to the unseen and unknown. the bigger picture, beyond current understanding, is what drives science forward. the way you choose to think, or perceive things, limits you to your little bubble of understanding. like an ant walking in circles until someone shows it a new path it never thought was possible.
if it exists in the mind, it will be pursued by science until it exists in the physical world.
remember, science is but a branch UNDER philosophy.
all i gotta say is, to think a certain way or not believe in possibilities beyond what you can understand or measure, is to totally limit your chances of exploring new discoveries (this article being a prime example, people would have defended with their life that such a large object cannot exist, but yet it does).
i think a lot of what you assume i think is based on a misunderstanding.
i hope my last 3 or 4 posts have cleared things up.
Nobody is in the past (physically), anybody out there right now would exist at the same time as us.
The speed of light determines what we see, and when we see it. When something is far enough away, the image it casts through the universe is delayed more and more the farther it is from the potential viewer, due to the speed in which that image can be carried (speed of light).
Our sun could go supernova, yet an observer even a light year away would still see our solar system as it was a light year before. They would not know that all of us had been wiped out by our own sun until a light year after the fact.
A good way of easily imagining this is as follows:
- You are on one end of a road that is a light year in length, and a clone of you is standing at the other end.
- You both start waving at eachother at the same time in reality
While you would both actually be waving at eachother at the exact same time, you wouldn't see him start to wave until a light year after the fact, the same goes for your clone on the other end.
Your body touches the present, our minds watch the past.
I think we know this.
What I was trying to say is, which side is the past if both sides sees images that are years ago?
But technically, looking at a star that has supernova is looking at a star of the past.
It's like talking into a telephone with lag or delay. Your message reaches the person 10 minutes later, so technically, he heard the message that was 10 minutes in the past.
in string theory, elementary particles are made up of 1-dimensional strings. what you aren't understanding is in this theory, strings ARE the smallest 'thing'. there is nothing 'smaller' to find.
at this level of Quantum Mechanics, you can't prove anything because you can't test it. you can't find anything smaller by using the LHC, because at this level, it is all about theory and the subsequent mathematics.
ok so i can agree with this, if i am in school or whatever, and writing a test, yes, i have to assume that is the smallest thing, if we are basing it on this theory.
but lets... step back for a moment... and look at history as a whole... do you really really really think, given an infinite amount of time, we will not discover ANYTHING smaller, or come up with theories in which smaller things exist? ever??? EVER?!?!
what about 0 dimensional? can something smaller exist in 0 dimensional space than in 1 dimensional space? (serious question).
i mean, you're willing to explore these theories already, and you say you cant prove anything because they're all theories and we dont have any means to test it.
if you're already willing to accept these theories, shouldnt you be willing to explore beyond the theory? it's only logical. step by step, the unknown/possibilities leads the war of knowledge right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nates
yes there is - the observable universe consists of matter [from the beginning of cosmological expansion, ie the big bang] that can be observed from earth.
the reason for the differentiation is because physicist can't yet explain 'the universe' so-to-speak, and thus reference 'the observable universe' as 'our' universe. what i mean by that is there could be multiple universes, multiple big bangs, based on multiple theories.
but... then you're just ignoring what's out there.
yes i understand we cannot "observe" past our observable universe... but we're smart enough to know something exists beyond it. so you're saying because we cannot "test" anything beyond our observable universe... we should ignore it?
that sounds very... almost the inverse of jumping to assumptions... assuming what's out there doesn't matter (WE KNOW IT'S OUT THERE!!!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nates
when did i say anything doesn't exist? i think you assumed i did based on my explanation of the 'observable universe' being finite.
i believe in multiple dimensions.
ok so i made an assumption that you don't believe in an infinite universe of existence.
...so... Why do you disagree with my statement that the LQG may be just ... minuscule compared to objects in all of existence (observable or not).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nates
not related.
this is the one thing that bothers me most. how is it not related? it exists within the boundaries of our universe. in fact i would say this is the most intimate form of existence you know of. it is literally what makes us... us. what makes you you, and me me. and me not you. and you not me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nates
i think a lot of what you assume i think is based on a misunderstanding.
i hope my last 3 or 4 posts have cleared things up.
i see where you are coming from, but i don't see why you disagree with us. the more you explain your point of view, the more I feel we're talking about the same thing. except we're willing to explore the possibilities within and out of widely accepted theories... and you're only willing to take it as far as the theory has been "discovered"/simulated etc...
Last edited by Ulic Qel-Droma; 01-14-2013 at 11:13 PM.
What I was trying to say is, which side is the past if both sides sees images that are years ago?
But technically, looking at a star that has supernova is looking at a star of the past.
It's like talking into a telephone with lag or delay. Your message reaches the person 10 minutes later, so technically, he heard the message that was 10 minutes in the past.
Both sides see the past, doesn't matter where you are in the universe. Light energy does not dictate the progress of time.
You mentioned telephones, it's as if both people said "hello" at the same time, and the signals from both were intentionally delayed by ten seconds. Both people still said hello at the same time, but they didn't hear eachother until ten seconds later, no matter which side they were on.
We do not literally exist in the past, but we all have the natural ability to see it. You can look back in time just by watching the night sky, which is also why light pollution is such a tragedy in cities.
Last edited by Yodamaster; 01-14-2013 at 11:18 PM.
The researchers and the dreamers; one saying "this is what we know now and look at the extent of all our knowledge and how much it explains!" the other saying "If we've learned this much so far, imagine what we think we know now that we'll learn is totally wrong!? Think of all the cool things we'll learn that contradicts what's now fact!"
Fifty years ago String Theory barely existed; who's to say what'll come in the next fifty?
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
