What may be a future achievable reality?
Jason Needham
I tried asking the question I am about to post on another group and
quite frankly was reprimanded for all sorts of things and I am hoping
here the response will be quite different.
First off I want to frame the question as being from someone with
limited knowledge of physics, so I wish to pre-apologize if it seems
childish.
What I was trying to get an opinion on is simply without getting to
critical of what is theoretically possible, but also consider what may
be particle. Is there a good guess what "information" may be sent
from the future?
To restate the preceding for clarification as I find it difficult to
put into words what I am thinking: For example many years from now
with unimaginable advances in science, energy and the like may there
be a cut off point even given a nearly inexhaustible energy source and
knowledge base that the "practical" best case scenario may be sending
a few photons or some other not so noticeable "information" across
time?
My thoughts are mankind will eventually solve all problems as related
to physics provided we live long enough as a species. Based on my
belief of mankind's successes, we could have or should have already
seen proof of time travel. I am asking that maybe waiting for an
ancestor to appear with the following day's lottery results are more
than what "practical" may allow for, maybe science should be looking
for more subtle clues. I think a guess can be made if we vision some
point many of the bugs being worked out what may be the first
materials the scientists may try to transport.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> What I was trying to get an opinion on is simply without getting to
> critical of what is theoretically possible, but also consider what may
> be particle. Is there a good guess what "information" may be sent
> from the future?
If information is sent from the future and recieved in the past, it will
be received before it has been sent.
Do you consider it possible for cause to come AFTER an effect?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
Jason Needham
wrote:
>In alt.sci.time-travel, Jason Needham <jasonn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> What I was trying to get an opinion on is simply without getting to
>> critical of what is theoretically possible, but also consider what may
>> be particle. Is there a good guess what "information" may be sent
>> from the future?
>
>If information is sent from the future and recieved in the past, it will
>be received before it has been sent.
>
>Do you consider it possible for cause to come AFTER an effect?
Bertrand,
Thank you for your response. I do a lot of reading and among other
things, paradoxes as you asked are difficult for me to grasp. Simple
concepts such as traveling to a location of a given distance away,
probably to everyone be me seems relatively cut and dry. When I
consider the clock of someone traveling at great speed that slows
down, it seems to me that relative to a stationary observer, the
traveler moving at great speed has also decreased his distance to the
given location. It is my understanding (or lack that of) in that
example that makes me pause to consider if time as well must
exclusively be as assumed linear and directional. Visualizing time at
least for me presupposes directional linearization of it normal state
and anything else unnatural as making it dimensionally unique of its
counterparts.
I can't think of any mental experiments that would disqualify some
hours of Wednesday occurring before Tuesday that was affected by
actions that had taken place on Monday.
Yes, as I understand it, without as some described multiple universes
playing out every possible quantum probability there can be a single
universe that effect can predate cause by simply questioning if time
must have an arrow and it must be sequential.
(Horrible attempt at explanation, if it's too disjointed don't try too
hard and I'll try again to put my thoughts more coherently, just let
me know)
Thanks,
Jason