PDA

View Full Version : Ask Ethan: Could We Reach The Speed Of Light By Christmas?



Krank
12-24-2016, 07:54 PM
I love Siegel's articles on Astronomy and Physics... this one is entertaining, easy to understand, and fascinating as always (JMO)...


"So, you want to head on an interstellar voyage, and reach your destination as quickly as possible. You might not have a chance of getting there by this Christmas, but if you had the right tools and technology -- and got a little help from Einstein's relativity -- could you get there by next Christmas? And what about reaching the speed of light?"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/12/24/ask-ethan-could-we-reach-the-speed-of-light-by-christmas/#646b20da7f4d

dan_bgblue
12-24-2016, 08:45 PM
I think you will have fun with this discussion. (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1686/why-does-the-relativistic-mass-of-an-object-increase-when-its-speed-approaches)

Krank
12-24-2016, 09:43 PM
I think you will have fun with this discussion. (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1686/why-does-the-relativistic-mass-of-an-object-increase-when-its-speed-approaches)

Coolest thing about a discussion like this one you linked dan, is often how folks struggle to definitively describe things that SEEM as simple as mass and speed.

It can get deep FAST. I thought of Citizen when I saw references to tachyons, lol.

Thanks for the link.

kingcat
12-29-2016, 12:38 PM
Is there such thing as slower than the speed of perfectly still?
At my age that is becoming more relevant.

Just kidding, those are good links above and I dabble a bit myself contemplating such things.

Personallly I believe the barrier which is the speed of light is an intelligent and intentional one however.
Created and maintained from outside the physical universe.

Krank
12-29-2016, 03:17 PM
Is there such thing as slower than the speed of perfectly still? (1)
At my age that is becoming more relevant.

Just kidding, those are good links above and I dabble a bit myself contemplating such things.

Personallly I believe the barrier which is the speed of light is an intelligent and intentional one however (2).
Created and maintained from outside the physical universe (3).

1. Absolute Zero (469.69 degrees, Fahrenheit) is the actual answer to your question... at least, in a sense, lol... it is the temperature wherein subatomic activity STOPS... that's COLD, baby, lol.

2. That is a personal belief. All we know about "Intelligent Design" is that it was CREATED (pun intended, lol) by a human scientist who also happens to be a Christian. However, there is no known validity to it beyond "hope".

3. Having said what I did in point #2, the notion that the Universe was "created" by a force, or something else, "outside the physical Universe" (which may or may NOT be a logical notion, meaning we really do not know if "outside the Universe" is something that is ALSO "physical", as you put it; i.e. the theoretical Multiverse, the theoretical eleven dimensions of reality, etc., are still THOUGHT to be "physical states" of reality, thus the notion of a "Creator" remains what it always has been, in terms of human concepts... it is an idea that homo sapiens thought up, which is not to say it CAN'T be real, just that we know nothing beyond that fact), is STILL one of, literally, ENDLESS possibilities, given our current knowledge of how the Universe began and evolved. In other words, a "creator soul" can STILL POSSIBLY be discovered to be real and that it was that "soul" who started us off with a big bang... but I tend to caution folks NOT to bring their hopes into theories on science because it rarely works out well... that's a reference to your specific reference to the speed of light being "intelligent and intentional", NOT a reference to political Atheism (I'm Agnostic, which is a BIG difference).

kingcat
12-30-2016, 12:07 PM
1. 2. That is a personal belief. All we know about "Intelligent Design" is that it was CREATED (pun intended, lol) by a human scientist who also happens to be a Christian. However, there is no known validity to it beyond "hope".


That's the thing, for me and many, many others it has gone way beyond hope with personal spiritual experiences and encounters in the natural realm.. I believe that those, made more evident by our initial belief, confirm and solidify our great faith. Yet it is easier for non believers (and even many true believers) to pass the witness of many Christians off as wishful thinking or euphoric imaginations.

I swear to you Krank, I have seen evidence of Christ and firsthand inexplicable proof of his work. Yet to a non believer it would seem no more than fantasy or a lie.

It was written that no sign will be given. But that only pertained to signs which would convince the skeptic or high minded, and not to those who by faith, now can see and feel Gods actions and very existence at times in their life. Those instances are admittedly rather rare, but very profound. And how many times does one have to see something spiritual to believe? ;)

Once on this earth God was revealed daily and he demanded nothing of us other than we we not learn of good and evil (because we would die rather than live forever) We believed a liar however who said you wont die like God has told you.
That death was not imagined nor God's anger...but a law of of creation as real as any Einstein ever imagined. Spiritual laws work in much the same way as natural laws and God rarely alters them. Except when it comes to the manipulation of time. Something that is prevalent throughout biblical history. That, in some ways ties my post to this thread. I believe the speed off light is the speed at which things happen. And faster than, faster than such..

Anyway,, that same choice has been presented to us by God in the form of his commandment, and His Son Jesus. So it is actually not just to believe, but to believe that by accepting Christ, you are also once again free from the law and commandments and more subject to spiritual (or other worldly) revelations. Revelations which will shape and mold ones life and actions in a direction more closely to that of Christ who did not fail to keep the law. And that childlike, lifelong procedure is accounted to us as total righteousness even as we struggle with sin

I hope one day you and many others will accept Christ, and then see the works of God revealed in your life. And who knows, He may eventually reveal to someone His miraculous calculations and creations that inspire this very discussion.

And for me, it's easier to explain much by opening the mind to include a creator who exists outside the physical boundaries we research. And as our increasing depth of knowledge proves, is completely possible, if not probable, given the never ending wonder of it all.

And I won't make a habit of this type post my friends.

Krank
12-30-2016, 06:25 PM
Pretty words, king (that is not meant sarcastically at all), but the bottom line is MUCH more simple for me...

I have studied the Bible, was "raised in the Church" in a small Kentucky town, have taken upper level courses on comparative religion, general philosophy of religion, and many other cultural studies that illuminate the history AND faith of those searching for a belief system that suits THEM.

Unfortunately for your wish that I "find god", I have considered such a concept MUCH deeper than MOST folks who know me from general discussion would believe... and I am VERY comfortable with my personal belief system. Agnosticism is something that the vast majority of, primarily, well-meaning Christians rarely understand... and I don't mean the basic definition of it, but that WE who have such a belief system consider it every bit as seriously, deeply, and importantly as ANY Christian does theirs.

I am NOT against Christianity AT ALL, but the reason I stated emphatically that "Intelligent Design" represents a "hope" for certain Christians is because it was constructed, specifically, as a last gasp in a long term losing battle that hard-line Biblical literalist absolutists have been waging, completely in vain, against the factual science of Evolution via the process of Natural Selection for a LONG LONG time.

This "battle" has often been politically mis-labeled as the "War on Christianity by science", but extremists amongst SOME of your flock started it a LONG time ago and simply do NOT want to believe the "2+2=4" REALITY that Darwin's discoveries yielded. They started a war based on the many many inaccuracies of Genesis, by far the least logical, and least provable book in Judeo-Christian belief systems and then, with ZERO evidence to back up their unilateral belief in Genesis, and ZERO logical reason to START the "War on Science", proceeded to emotionally lose control, which is really a social insecurity based upon how profoundly convincing Evolutionary Science truly is.

THAT is the real history, whether folks WISH to believe it or not. Darwin was a very devout Christian and he waited MUCH longer than he could have because of a very strong fear of repercussions, knowing how control-freaky so many in the Church were in his day.

The reason that science has had NO choice but to "fight back" against such unilateralism is that the religious extremists insisted upon attempting to FORCE dogmatic BELIEFS into THE realm where it holds the LEAST merit, i.e. the notion that we can learn MORE about science through unprovable faith-based concepts is, literally, absurd.

I am not writing any of this to change YOUR mind, just to explain WHY this is important, not only to me, but to a LOT of folks who want to keep science ABOUT SCIENCE, and NOT "hope" based upon purposefully designed Biblical circular arguments (e.g.: Q: "Why should I have faith?" A: "Because god says so." Q: "How do you know this?" A: "Because the Bible tells me so." Q: "How do you know the Bible, written by humans, is the Word of god?" A: "The humans were divinely inspired, writing god's will into a form that all people can understand." Q: "How do you know the humans were divinely inspired?" A: "You have to have faith." Q: "Why?" A: "Because god says so.")

Before you imagine that my example is some sort of "gotcha" aimed toward you or any other Christian, again, I am only explaining why I, and many other non-religious folks, have a problem with how organized religion gets it's members and why I will never go toward that "light" again.

I need more than your word about god's word. I need more than ANY person's word that I NEED to believe that they have had a DEFINITIVE NO-DOUBT encounter with a spiritual entity. I need a LOT more than human written words (the Torah, the Bible, etc.) that are based, almost entirely, upon human oral traditions, including the story of Jesus. Since we know that human oral traditions are inherently rife with inaccuracies, embellishments (or the opposite, i.e. missing information), and potentially emotional and/or political and/or many other biases is something I consider to be a given, which is not to say an oral tradition can NEVER be accurate, but it becomes more and more rare for such to be possible, the more that time passes on this Earth.

So what you, and many many other Christians, have tried to convince me of is something that you, literally, canNOT convince me of, almost by definition, because you are insisting that I have faith in humans accurately conveying an ACTUAL encounter with a higher being from THOUSANDS of years ago (in the case of the human writers of the Torah, etc.). You are then asking me to have faith that those same humans could not be writing what they have written, for instance, with the OPPOSITE intent of the high morals that the Bible mostly entails. You are then asking me to have faith in those who have edited the Bible through those thousands of years. You are then asking me to have faith in your faith in those editors to be accurate and pure in their intentions and that those folks having perfect faith in the original writers, who had to have faith in the perfection of the oral traditions, etc. You are also asking me to believe that the Roman emperor, Constantine, had little to no political REASONS for converting to Christianity, bringing the many many sects of early Christianity into ONE organized religion (the advent of Catholicism, ultimately), and insisting that ALL believe as HE believes.

I could go much further with this, but the point is still simple... science is science... faith is faith... one is about facts... one is about ancient philosophy that goes out of it's way to DENY facts, when it's followers choose to, primarily based on false political pretenses.

You see, king, all organized faith-based systems demand a LOT of faith in things that either canNOT be proven OR WON'T be proven via what human thought is ultimately capable of. The mistake that you, and many other are making, is that just because the Physicists and Astronomers cannot answer every question, does not add even ONE LITTLE BIT to the idea that god, therefore, is more likely to be THE explanation of that which we have yet to understand OR that which we may never understand in full. All it means is that they still have questions and that the best way of going about answering those questions is through Scientific Method, which has worked beautifully for longer than civilization OR Christianity OR ANY major religion has even existed.

In other words, I am Agnostic, on a basic level, because the notion that god is a fact before god is proven to have ANY evidence of existing beyond human words that insist upon faith in such a concept, is absurd (to me). It may interest you to know that I feel that same exact insistence, in an opposite direction, by Atheists, is equally absurd.

Thus, despite what you prefer to believe (based upon specific moments in your post), I am actually completely open-minded to the idea that a higher being exists. What I reject is your methodology, which is rigid, illogically defined in a literal sense, and steeped in conformity to far too many beliefs that demand BLIND faith.

If there is ONE thing in this life that I have learned, and have had reinforced innumerable times since I was a child, it's that conformity, without reason, is the enemy of free will and the positive flexing of "intellectual muscles".

And that is never going to change because I have a VERY strong "faith" that such conformity is the ultimate evil.

That last bit is JMO. The rest, not so much, and I am very sorry if any of this post disturbs you or makes you angry. That is not my intent. My only purpose is to behave as I would like any of my friends to behave... and that is to be completely open and honest with you.

I replied to your post because you are one of my faves and I really like you and I wanted you to understand that I, and the vast majority of non-religious folks, are NOT your enemy and are NOT anti-religion. We just want our science to remain just that... SCIENCE and NOT the opposite of science which, unfortunately, political Christians have set their belief systems up to be exactly that.

This is not at all meant to be a conflict-oriented post, nor this last line, but I have to be frank... there is not one word in your post that remotely relates to actual factual science and there is not one word in your post that does anything other than promote a belief system that cares not one iota for anything other than it's OWN set of beliefs. That is not meant to be harsh so I hope you don't take it that way. My hope is to follow science in peace and that religious folks worship in peace and stop meddling in that which does not fit their ancient world view.

Again, science is constantly modernizing, improving itself. Evangelicalism quite strongly attempts to do the opposite, thus the nexus of the old conflict over Natural Selection, et al.

Peace.

kingcat
12-30-2016, 09:49 PM
We're closer than you think

I am a member or follower of no denomination nor religion. But I am a result of being subjected to nearly all religions, including agnostics and 'nontheists".
Interestingly, I fully understand the changes Constantine made to organize religion and have been right in the middle of that argument at times in my life. My wife is a Seventh Day Adventist by the way. I myself have no part with religion of any kind although I was raised in the Church of God. I never handled a snake however :)
What I have felt, seen,and experienced in my latter years verifies the existence of God/Christ and cannot be explained any other way. But the world has spend much thought on explanations for the inexplicable so it serves no purpose other than to someone who believes and myself. I thank God for it though.
It's something I would not lie about, nor am I foolish enough to deceive myself about. So take it for whatever it's worth.

The farther mankind delves into the unknown the more clear it becomes how little he knows and how small he is in the great design of things. That only becomes more obvious as time moves forward and is an infinite fact of life hardly any scientific mind would dispute. That my God created and maintains the strict parameters of our timeline is not a scientific impossibility. And that biblical history is based almost entirely on God's ability to operate within and beyond those parameters gives me great hope you may one day change your mind.

God Bless


By the way, I didn't ask for anything and would only hope for an open mind and that you might one day believe. But being an agnostic with an open mind on such things...well, I know you will. :)
A good scientist will take any theory and apply reason to it and see where it takes them. A look at biblical facts from my perspective might change your mind on quite a few things. if not, no harm done.

Religion can indeed be a cruel thing, and is the enemy of an open mind. We agree on that.

bigsky
12-30-2016, 10:53 PM
If someone can propose "computer simulation" with a jigger full of seriousness, then "creator" deserves far more consideration. One asteroid and all theories go out the window, tho. No one left to theorize or observe and pfft the universe and that guy's cat are gone

kingcat
12-30-2016, 11:05 PM
If someone can propose "computer simulation" with a jigger full of seriousness, then "creator" deserves far more consideration. One asteroid and all theories go out the window, tho. No one left to theorize or observe and pfft the universe and that guy's cat are gone

Only gone at that moment in time some would say. As for where they are gone, that's open to debate.

Strangely, people can readily accept that life exists on other planets and even moons. And that there may be other phenomenon in the expanse of space where unusual forms of life exist. And they can concede that the odds are at least half of that life is far more advanced and/or physically/mentally superior to human beings. But the concept of a creative being is unacceptable, multi universes farfetched, and time travel unachievable..and all because we just know it.

Finite beings will always find it hard to accept there can be an infinite being. But the odds are they are wrong

Krank
12-30-2016, 11:32 PM
Nice conversation, king.

I think we humans have far more in common than how our chosen social, political, and religious "norms" tend to brand us. Of course, "we" (as in humanity, in general) snuggle up to that brand and say PLEASE burn me some MORE so I can go show my scar off to my less insecure friends, lol.

The sometimes seemingly overwhelming desire to "fit in" is the negative side effect of a unique, but primarily positive human quality that has proved vital to our survival and success over the millennia of our species' existence: our complex ability to communicate high level concepts through language and how it fuels deeper, more meaningful realms of socialization.

What we choose to embrace, and why, can be complicated, as are most human endeavors that go beyond "flee or fight" instincts. How it informs our larger portrait of existence, and our place in it (just one of innumerable examples that could be conceived of, but it's pertinent to our overall discussion), and how willing we are to adapt ---and this is the big one for me--- as we take in NEW INFOrmation, is the key to getting beyond that which does not serve us, in terms of how we, as a group on Earth, move forward and choose to understand more, based on how we fold that new info into old wisdom.

Krank
12-31-2016, 12:00 AM
Finite beings will always find it hard to accept there can be an infinite being. But the odds are they are wrong

You need empirical data to define odds.

My guess is that the odds of you finding such data are far more remote than the possibility that humans determine with certainty what exactly sparked the Big Bang.

Like I said, it's a guess, but the point remains... bookies, as an example, set odds based on very specific and defined parameters within which to predict, based on having a LOT of mostly mathematical data.

It's still just a guess, king... and it's the ultimate indefinable, which, IMO, is one of the clever constructs of Judeo-Christian theology... if you can't prove the unprovable, you also can't disprove it, due to the obvious built-in argument for such an entity's existence in the first place.

Being able to always say "it could still exist" then yields a more robust "it likely exists" to a strong believer, which yields the inevitable "doubtless it exists" for the deepest followers. I have seen that evolution in believers often, and it can work out fine for them... not criticizing believer's basic choices and feelings about how and why they believe, yet you can never overcome the aforementioned construct as a conundrum for someone outside those deep and deeper levels of devotion and how they can possibly relate to a "lifestyle believer" if you will, as opposed to folks who go to church "cuz they're s'posed to".

That slippery slope from a thread of a possibility of being able to come close to proving a god-like entity to emphatically stating it to be a foregone conclusion is the sort of major gap that believers who intend to "grow their flock" will always have trouble overcoming with those who insist upon consistency and answerability in how they think about micro and macro views upon existence and the Universe... and like it or not, you can't fill in that gap with anything other than arguments built upon supposition as opposed to evidence that can stand strong OUTside of Biblical stories, and perhaps stand withIN that same religious philosophy.

So, I can like your "spirit" but the world of "spirits" (which is how I personally think about how believers who are serious tend to think, meaning a belief in a soul/mind that can can be separated from the cerebral cortex of a very few animals, particularly humans, and a god-like entity that eternally exists, or so that general theory states, are all a part of the same "spirit world" to me) remains something that is cleverly ill-defined in order to serve the purpose of controlling, and insisting upon conformity by, the individuals in society who can't, won't, or don't see through that cleverness.

Power, influence, social control, and fear of the unknown have fueled WHICH faiths we, as a larger human melange, choose to follow.

JMO.

kingcat
12-31-2016, 09:39 AM
God is spirit I,m certain. It remains unclear what we will become, but we,ll be like Christ.

Sometimes we find it hard to see beyond our own perceived cleverness. Some of the greatest minds of the past were convinced they had "it" right using what they could see, feel, and comprehend as proof. There was time not long ago scientists thought they could see the edge of the universe and its beginning. Now it's pretty much considered infinite. Our minds must expand exponentially in light of what we don't know.

Krank
12-31-2016, 11:17 AM
God is spirit I,m certain. It remains unclear what we will become, but we,ll be like Christ.

Sometimes we find it hard to see beyond our own perceived cleverness. Some of the greatest minds of the past were convinced they had "it" right using what they could see, feel, and comprehend as proof. There was time not long ago scientists thought they could see the edge of the universe and its beginning. Now it's pretty much considered infinite. Our minds must expand exponentially in light of what we don't know.

Actually, seeing the edge of the Universe is, and has been, literally impossible, "for a while", due to the speed of the expansion of the Universe being sooooo fast. In fact, we have a limited amount of time to see what we are currently capable of seeing with the instruments we now have and with those that will come in the future, like the Webb...

speaking of that, the Webb is expected to see closer to the beginning of time than ever before so, as I said, science continues to advance and become capable of seeing more and gathering more information. There is no "backwards" in the evolution of science since learning from mistakes is actually the essence of the overall field, i.e. despite skepticism of what science can accomplish, we always know more and have fewer questions as time moves forward.

Also, just so you know, although there are theories that are interesting that postulate the Universe as possibly infinite, most astronomers would tell you that they believe the Universe to be finite, as that is what the vast majority of evidence suggests. Take it FWIW.

kingcat
12-31-2016, 01:13 PM
I just watched a show on the big telescopes and the general consensus internationally was that the more we reach the more questions arise due to holes in prevailing theory.
Amazing the discoveries being made in the last few years.. Wonders that defy explanation.

I've enjoyed these type threads a lot. And I do believe in science...because I believe it is God's science. :) And if time travel can be proven possible on a quantum level the fact that the past exists poses many, many philosophical questions relative to the future. That is in large part the major claim of biblical history and Gods relationship to us...

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Technology/ABC_ann_itn_timetravel_101028_ms.jpg

Krank
12-31-2016, 02:00 PM
I just watched a show on the big telescopes and the general consensus internationally was that the more we reach the more questions arise due to holes in prevailing theory.
Amazing the discoveries being made in the last few years.. Wonders that defy explanation.

I've enjoyed these type threads a lot. And I do believe in science...because I believe it is God's science. :) And if time travel can be proven possible on a quantum level the fact that the past exists poses many, many philosophical questions relative to the future. That is in large part the major claim of biblical history and Gods relationship to us...

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Technology/ABC_ann_itn_timetravel_101028_ms.jpg

Respectfully, you're confused, IMO.

Holes in prevailing theories are...

1. HIGHLY theoretical at this point.

2. Discovering holes in theories yields better science and greater knowledge. A common refrain from those (not saying YOU, here and now) who resist science if they think science "tries" to have conflict with dogma is that when science discovers new things that make them adapt old ideas, they are described as being "wrong" or knowing "less than they thought", but that is DEFINITIVELY counter-intuitive.

I have repeated more than once in different ways and I will say it again in a different way, lol... knowledge is cumulative in the human experience and that knowledge is constantly honed. It really doesn't matter if they make mistakes or are wrong on certain specific aspects or theories because with that NEW knowledge, the more accurate theory results. You just can't argue that less is more since it is NEVER less, always more.

Sorry to be blunt about that, but it's an old argument between Religion and Science and Religion always gets it wrong because it's too concerned about protecting it's ancient notions and the contemporary politics that rarely, if ever, make total reasonable sense WITH those ancient notions inexorably chained to those politics. Those specific ancient religious notions are too often unilateral and therefore are, by definition practically, open to become chock full of holes... and that is the unfortunate problem.

If there is no evolution of thought, there is no evolution of technology, and there is no adaptation to future issues that can't be predicted by Theology, etc.

Science is certainly fallible, but is not stuck in place like Religion and is, therefore, an infinitely more reliable gauge of what we know, what we can know, and what we MIGHT know in the future.

Also, just so you know, the only place in the Universe wherein the potential for time travel into the past is at an extremely volatile position orbiting certain black holes just before one were to hypothetically enter the event horizon (the point of no return) just before becoming annihilated by the greatest gravitation force in existence. Even if one were able to get close to "escaping" before entering the event horizon, they likely would be burnt to beyond a crisp by the extremely heated matter and energy that accompany the extremely fast orbits that happen just before entering a black hole. There is typically more than just, lol, the Star Trek Enterprise (let's imagine Kirk and Spock in a pickle, shall we? LOL!), getting stretched and heated and churning around that gravitational force. There would be a lot of other matter and super heated gas to complicate matters (i.e. they would likely die FAST, lol).

By far the largest myth entailed in the long history of science fiction novels, short stories, and films is the idea that we can travel to the past. Not gonna happen without an extraordinary discovery, perhaps involving a greater knowledge of multiverses and/or the theoretical eleven dimensions of space and time, etc.

Now, traveling to the future is DEFINITELY in play and definitely possible with the right future technology, which gets back to the original point of this thread... the speed of light and the possibility of approaching that, what it would take based on what we know now, and how feasible that may or may not be. If we were able to get to a certain rate of acceleration, time would change for the traveller while staying the same back on Earth. That is real stuff that we really know.

I have been assuming for years that Science Fiction writers ignore that traveling into the past is, basically impossible and goes against WAY too many physical laws of nature, because they are lazy or they think they're readers/viewers are lazy or both writer and audience are too pollyanna about E.T.'s and Star Trekky stuff. I believe it is a combination of the two notions, personally, but be that as it may...

in the words of Criswell, from Ed Wood's notorious anti-epic, Plan Nine From Outer Space...

"Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future. You are interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable. That is why you are here. And now, for the first time, we are bringing to you the full story of what happened on that fateful day. We are bringing you all the evidence, based only on the secret testimony of the miserable souls who survived this terrifying ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friend, we cannot keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty. Let us reward the innocent. My friend, can your heart stand the shocking facts about grave robbers from outer space?"

kingcat
12-31-2016, 02:28 PM
II think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't making a counter point there and I agree with what you are saying. Holes do not negate all theories, only refine them.

But no problem..

As for the time travel thing.

The huge question for everyone is, does the past actually exist. That is the prerequisite to time travel.

Being positive it does, imo the fact that biblical history is made up of time travelers, jet engine propulsion or the like, and an existing past that must be forgiven etc.. is quite amazing on its own merit. Quite ahead of its time from any perspective

Krank
12-31-2016, 02:34 PM
As for the time travel thing.

The huge question for everyone is, does the past actually exist.

I'll have to ask Ed Wood or Criswell to be sure, lol, but the time stamp on this post of yours that I am quoting would seem to be, at least, "ample" evidence that the past exists... and continues to exist with each letter, word, phrase, and paragraph that I type and go onto the next letter, word, phrase, and paragraph.

If you're still unsure... ask me tomorrow (insert winky icon here).

kingcat
12-31-2016, 03:46 PM
:) Perhaps I should ask rather, do the actions of the past currently exist.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uD03q7YyUrQ/U6ooJO3xJPI/AAAAAAABLZs/Ef60k8Ew12w/s1600/wc+images.jpg
"What a paradoxical enigma"

Krank
12-31-2016, 04:13 PM
:) Perhaps I should ask rather, do the actions of the past currently exist.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uD03q7YyUrQ/U6ooJO3xJPI/AAAAAAABLZs/Ef60k8Ew12w/s1600/wc+images.jpg
"What a paradoxical enigma"

Sure they do... they exist in your brain's memory... with almost every significant thought you have, you are "always" referencing memory, perhaps ESPECIALLY when thinking about the future, because you have to have something to compare it to in order to get some kind of mental handle ON conceiving of your potential place in that future.

There is also "collective memory", but THAT is when it can get cloudy with a chance of meatheads, lol.

kingcat
12-31-2016, 05:23 PM
I maintain that they exist in reality. That's my personal belief
..as does the future

dan_bgblue
01-01-2017, 07:05 PM
JMHO, but I do not think methods of propulsion, regardless of how unbelievable they might seem today, will conquer the light speed "barrier".

kingcat
01-01-2017, 07:23 PM
JMHO, but I do not think methods of propulsion, regardless of how unbelievable they might seem today, will conquer the light speed "barrier".

I don't either Dan.

NASA and others have been conducting tests for a few years on the theory of quantum mechanics simulating quantum particles by using light photons at the point where the laws of relativity visibly seem to bend. So, maybe even light speed can be achieved at the quantum level one day
Regardless, that's some interesting stuff.

https://www.rt.com/news/167752-time-travel-quantum-light/

Krank
01-01-2017, 09:53 PM
JMHO, but I do not think methods of propulsion, regardless of how unbelievable they might seem today, will conquer the light speed "barrier".

Every astronomer and physicist agrees with you, even if they like to float theories about oddball particles like tachyons.

So don't be humble about that opinion. Shout it at the speed of sound!

kingcat
01-01-2017, 11:04 PM
if you cant travel there fast, you must bring it closer to you I guess.

Krank
01-01-2017, 11:27 PM
if you cant travel there fast, you must bring it closer to you I guess.

Problems get bigger as concepts get bigger though...

For what Siegel was primarily getting into, talking about using anti-matter, etc.... it costs a LOT to manufacture even the tiniest amount of the stuff... then you have to be ready to deal with keeping it stable, I suppose, but let's give them credit for having the tech to handle that.... still, the faster you go, the more you need... all of that makes it crazy "impossible".

But the more advanced, and theoretically assured way, is what you describe... the actual, physical altering of time and space AT ONCE... gotta think something THAT massive in scale would make the anti-matter issue kiddie play.

And then there's wormholes... talk about fraught with logistical problems... relying upon a LOT of chance I have always felt.

All three are fascinating to ponder, but getting there seems remote. JMO.

kingcat
01-01-2017, 11:40 PM
And then, suddenly..WOW!!

http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/invisibility-3.jpg