It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Ddrneville
so you could have missed the whole time experience thingy
That's the weird thing. You wont miss anything. That's how relativity work.
When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.
Well, when dreaming if I go to the 1500s am I not time traveling? Isn't a dream merely a species of reality? I mean, what defines reality as "real" anyway?
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: charlyv
True, but time travel is often postulated to be travel into an alternate universe. If there are an infinite number of alternate universes or realities -- then in some of them laws of physics may be different. I've had many dreams in which the laws of "this" reality are the same...other times, not so much.
It's been said that if you were to travel into the past, you would split off into an alternate time line, an alternate reality if you will. Well, I contend that a dream may be a peek into an alternate reality or time line of its own.
During brain scans of people awake and sleeping, they can't differentiate between the people dreaming and the people experiencing "this" reality. So awake or sleeping, our brains are acting the same.
The researchers noticed that brain cells in the medial temporal lobe, a region that acts as a bridge between our memory and our ability to recognize things we see, showed similar activity regardless of whether the patients were asleep or awake, including when they were fixing their gaze on images presented to them by Nir and co.
Yep, the same parts of our brains activate when dreaming vs. awake:
originally posted by: Trueman
According to our conception of "time traveler", a time traveler will always try to be unnoticed. That means we can't have evidence of their existence.
originally posted by: 3n19m470
I guess the goal, then, would be to become time manipulators? Semantics I suppose, but then again, "travellers" is pprobably not the right word, since it implies a movement over distance... although, if you wanted to actually experience the future or past on earth, you'd also have to travel a distance since "spaceship earth" is constantly moving through space, in formation with the "solar fleet". Whether this was accomplished simultaneously with time alteration, before, or after, a distance must still be traversed one way or the other, however it is not absolutely necessary if you simply wish to experience the future or past without caring "where" you end up, however pointless it may seem...
originally posted by: charlyv
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: charlyv
The Apollo astronauts haven't jumped timelines, their progress through time, their 'temporal velocity' for part of their journey, has been altered in respect to the temporal velocity of those on Earth.
Like sailing over a rough ocean and being blown off course does not have to mean they are on a different ocean or sea.
But there is the timeline argument itself. There is in this theory a concept that everything that has happened and will happen all exists at once. We may even shift in and out of them all the time and never know it. The granularity is infinite.
And it is a relative thing, as nothing would change for us, but they have experienced a time displacement that may effect them. It may not be drastic, but is it the same?
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: charlyv
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: charlyv
The Apollo astronauts haven't jumped timelines, their progress through time, their 'temporal velocity' for part of their journey, has been altered in respect to the temporal velocity of those on Earth.
Like sailing over a rough ocean and being blown off course does not have to mean they are on a different ocean or sea.
But there is the timeline argument itself. There is in this theory a concept that everything that has happened and will happen all exists at once. We may even shift in and out of them all the time and never know it. The granularity is infinite.
And it is a relative thing, as nothing would change for us, but they have experienced a time displacement that may effect them. It may not be drastic, but is it the same?
The the 'modal realist' take on the many worlds interpretation, that alternate realities calve off at each possible outcome, is different from Minkoski space.
By moving descriptions of time away from mathematical constructs, to philosophical ones, we cannot gain clarity or resolution. For example, our subjective experience of time allows enormous leeway in what time actually can be defined to be.
An objective view of time, one that defines time in terms of numbers and repeatable measurement, is the best path to making practical use of the definition. Philosophical or subjective 'time' leads us into absurdities, infinities and paradoxes.