Ghosts, Time Travel, and Space / Inter-dimensional Neural Communication...

[Lean'n'mean]

or some Time....

Or somewhere in time but not in space, like a thought.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

two things, not in motion, retracting at a uniform velocity from each other, would not be able to detect motion... Something like this... I have to look it up. Its been a while.

How can two things 'retract' from each other ?.... & if they were 'retracting' from each other at a uniform velocity, wouldn't that mean that they were in motion ?

 

[philosophygirl78]

I am sure there are many individuals that study sincerely regarding physics and the possibilities of endless results regarding things such as this "twin paradox" problem. But one part of common sense always comes to mind for me, when looking at such a problem. Until it is actually made a fact, we will not know for sure what the outcome will be. I merely say this as looking back when aviation had not yet made it through the sound barrier, there was a great concern that a aircraft going faster than the sound barrier would simply blow up, that maybe passing through that barrier would not be possible. Of the many people helpful to solving both the mathematics but also the physical part of what the design of the aircraft to be able to pass through the air molecules was, Howard Hughes. His design of having the rivets on the wings and body of the aircraft being flush/recessed smooth to help aid less drag on the aircraft surfaces, helped make it possible for an aircraft to pass through the sound barrier. Of course to have a craft pass through the speed of light is a much greater problem but, we also now have a greater ability of finding resolves to problems due to our own technical advances as humans and scientist as well. It may well be that when we do pass through the "light barrier" we discover something we had no clue even factually existed...another dimension where all the spooky things reside?!?

Physics deals Only with facts and common sense... Most of the things you have touched on have been explored and are currently being tested by the natural laws (as a species) have proven so far. Anything contemplated outside this paradigm is simply speculation or perhaps imagination, which Does add some value toward future premises for testing.

As for a spooky dimension, who knows? One thing is true: If there 1, there are millions.... Which is a fascinating and romantic idea... I would love for it to be true.

What we have been discussing with regard to Einstein's spooky science on this and other threads has to do with a recent study that found two objects impacting each other 'at a distance', disproving Einstein's spooky theory. Which is HUGE in the field of quantum studies.

 

[philosophygirl78]

How can two things 'retract' from each other ?.... & if they were 'retracting' from each other at a uniform velocity, wouldn't that mean that they were in motion ?

Ok.. Recede is a better word... And no way, if the velocity is par for par, the absolute motion would not be detectable. The surface from where the measurement would take place would not be determined by the relative motion (ie the speed or distance they travel), but by its relation to the absolute space. Which such measurement could only occur after the fact. Hence, not detectable in motion... There's more layers of course, but that's the jist. Again, this was 20 years ago lol. I will look it up later today... Now, I'm curious.

 

[philosophygirl78]

Well no, 'cause when I get back I wouldn't have eaten it yet..

But would you be full????

 

[HudsonHawk]

I recall a while back, someone in school using the doppler shift factor with the principle of relativity to solve the twin paradox. If I recall correctly, two things, not in motion, retracting at a uniform velocity from each other, would not be able to detect motion... Something like this... I have to look it up. Its been a while.

IIRC, the Doppler Shift is an effect of and a way of demonstrating inertial reference, and of course my comments were grossly simplistic. Physics is always more complicated than can be explained in a paragraph or two. But the concept is that you can't have two objects together, separate, and then meet again without having a common frame of reference at some point, at least at the beginning and end points. If you just had two objects moving away from each other, it's impossible for them to ever meet again and there is no paradox. So in order to create the paradox in the first place, one of the twins has to remain influenced by that frame of reference throughout, meaning the other twin is the one "moving". It's the moving twin whose time "slows down". At least that's how I remember it being explained. It's been a while for me as well.

 

[philosophygirl78]

Oh, believe me, I would.

Me too.

 

[HudsonHawk]

There are some possible indications we have had advanced aliens already here on our planet. The topic does come up once in awhile in our home. My Husband points out how his own Great Grandfather lived from the time period of the Civil War here then to see the Landing on the Moon....think of how much advancements had taken place in the amount of time of just one person's lifespan! Perhaps even thinking of the television show, Star Trek. Recall the use of what we could say, "cell phones" for them to communicate with. Many things have advanced just since the 1960's. Touch screen computers and even ones you do not even have to do anything more than to talk into. It may well be that soon, someone will break through in science and math to a level we had no clue about today? The same as breaking through the sound barrier...that being able to figure out how to go faster than light speed and then how to figure out controlling navigation at such a speed. Navigation currently depends on light for distance speed and travel. Beyond the light speed, for us now, we have no way to calculate distance or travel or accurate time for the journey.

Perhaps some science fiction will become science fact and we will see the answers to many questions and mysteries we ponder today? Who would really want to take off in a space ship and find out what light travel is all about? From what we do know, in theory, a person out and about on a space journey would return to an earth where everyone would be older or long dead and gone, if light speed came into the mix!

In one of the Star Trek movies, I forget which, they travel back to "present day", where Scotty is asked to show the "primitive" engineers some advanced technology or another. When McCoy reminds him of the Prime Directive, Scotty responds "how do we know he isn't the one who invented it?"

 

[philosophygirl78]

In one of the Star Trek movies, I forget which, they travel back to "present day", where Scotty is asked to show the "primitive" engineers some advanced technology or another. When McCoy reminds him of the Prime Directive, Scotty responds "how do we know he isn't the one who invented it?"

Oh my!!! What if we are having this conversation because we have already had it? Or if we are having it in conjunction with several other 'now's'..... *gulps* *looks around slowly*

 

[philosophygirl78]

Or somewhere in time but not in space, like a thought.

I do enjoy your thoughts @Lean'n'mean

 

[Lean'n'mean]

But would you be full????

No. If one travels to a point in the future, does something & then returns to the time they left from, anything they did in the future has not yet happened.

 

[JimWagner]

No. If one travels to a point in the future, does something & then returns to the time they left from, anything they did in the future has not yet happened.

But is the "you" who returned from the future to the present, presumably just after you left the present, the same "you" you would have been if you hadn't timetraveled? Did you lose all your memories of being in the future and is the current "you" the same age as before you left or older by the amount of time you spend in the future and thus retains those future memories?

And where did I leave my aspirin?

 

[philosophygirl78]

No. If one travels to a point in the future, does something & then returns to the time they left from, anything they did in the future has not yet happened.

So you 'can't take it with you'...? I guess that could suck.... Or open a whole new can of worms (possibilities)... Ha!!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well no, 'cause when I get back I wouldn't have eaten it yet..

Which raises another question: could a time traveler bring objects from the past or future back to their present? I'd think this would be possible if the time traveler's personal timeline is viewed apart from the "primary" timeline -- If Joe Blow travels from 1940 to 2016, picks up a cell phone, and travels back to 1940 with it, those events would occur sequentially along his own personal timeline -- the trip from 1940 to 2016 to 1940 would all be moving from Joe Blow's personal present into his personal future, rather than present/future/past. I'd think this would hold true for any object that he carried back with him.

But -- Joe could not use this 2016 device to change his present, because we know from our present, in which Joe's present is our past, that no such thing happened. So if he brought such a device into his own time, nothing could happen beyond his fiddling with it and tossing it into a drawer to be forgotten, or losing it down the sewer, or his dog eating it, or something otherwise happening to ensure that it has no impact on Joe's present.

But what if Joe Blow Jr. from 2016 travels back to 1940 and buys a gross of leather jackets and returns to 2016 with the idea of selling them as "mint NOS originals" on EBay. We don't know what's in Joe's personal future because our present hasn't reached that point yet along the primary timeline. Possibly Joe will make a fortune. Or more likely, he'll be ridiculed as a faker and a fraud on some Internet forum, and nobody will buy his stuff at all. But either way neither Joe nor we will know until we reach that point on the timeline. A time traveler from 2017 would know, but he could do nothing to alter the outcome of those events, because so far as he's concerned, from his own home point on the timeline, the events have already happened. The jackets will either sell or not sell, and he can only observe.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

What if we are having this conversation because we have already had it?

Perpetual Deja vu, yep sounds right.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Which raises another question: could a time traveler bring objects from the past or future back to their present?

Prehaps, bringing objects from the past shouldn't pose a problem if they would have survived until the present, however, returning objects from the futur, to a time in which they do not yet exist may be impossible, unless the same laws of physics that prevent the traveler from aging, also protect the object he is bringing back.

 

[JimWagner]

In the 1989 movie Millennium Kris Kristofferson's character keeps meeting Cheryl Ladd's character, a time traveler from 1000 years in the future. The problem is that she time travels several times and pops into his life in a non-limear manner. In other words, the first time he meets her (in his reference) is not the first time she has meet him (in hers). And the first time she meets him (in her reference) is not the first time he has met her (in his). Very confusing and probably one of the reasons the movie was never popular.

 

[philosophygirl78]

Prehaps, bringing objects from the past shouldn't pose a problem if they would have survived until the present, however, returning objects from the futur, to a time in which they do not yet exist may be impossible, unless the same laws of physics that prevent the traveler from aging, also protect the object he is bringing back.

Ah.... Perhaps not across time, but across dimensions (different points in space with relative time), it could be.....

 

[Lean'n'mean]

But is the "you" who returned from the future to the present, presumably just after you left the present, the same "you" you would have been if you hadn't timetraveled? Did you lose all your memories of being in the future

Possibly but if you took a few selfies whilst in the future to remind yourself when you return to the present, that you did indeed travel to the future............nope hold on, wouldn't work, the selfies wouldn't yet have been taken when you return to the present.........Let's try this, if you return from the future at the exact same time you left, then you shouldn't have any memories of traveling to the future, since you haven't yet left but if you return a little later than your departure, then you should remember that you had left to travel into the future a little earlier.........................................maybe.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Ah.... Perhaps not across time, but across dimensions (different points in space with relative time), it could be.....

Look, we're still in the developement stage here, don't start making things more complicated than they already are.