Crystal Ball of Time

[DeletedUser]

To clarify, distance itself is not a factor. It is the space between point A and point B that is the factor. The more space between, the larger the 'possibility' there are particles to block the light particles and influences to distort the light waves. However, possibility does not translate into a corresponding variable associated with distance. There are many large areas in space that are almost devoid of particulates, while others are flooded with them.

A simple example would be atmospheric distortion (imposed by our own atmosphere as we attempt to look up into space), which although covering a relatively short distance, poses a tremendous amount of distortion:

Which is why we developed the Hubble telescope, to exit out of the atmosphere, into space, removing altogether the hardship of atmospheric distortion:

Albeit, as I discussed earlier there is still distortion, but methods such as adaptive optics and speckle interferometry (very fast photo captures) presently exists to remove much of the distortion, and no doubt future technologies will go much further to, hopefully, virtually eliminate signal extinction.

But a good example of the tremendous strides already made are shown here with this contrast of a telescope within the Earth's atmosphere vs the Hubble telescope (removed from our atmosphere):

And we're decades, if not centuries away from FTL travel, so there's plenty of time to advance a field (optics) that is already quite busy making tremendous advances.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is more related to time travel:

If a space ship traveling 4x the speed of light flew from earth to the Sun, and back again, it will have gone back in time by at least 32 minutes judging by the fact that light from the sun hits earth in 8 minutes, and what we are seeing happening on the sun is actually 8 minutes lagged behind... Ima quantum physicist

 

[DeletedUser]

Talked to my physics/algebra teacher. Algebra, but she has a degree in physics and science it seems.

She explained to me that yes, we could see WHAT has happened in the past, but by the time our CBOTT had reached the distance to see the certain distance to see said light (say, the light Moses gave when he parted the Red Sea), Moses' light would have LONG traveled past the distance our CBOTT is now located. We would need to break the light barrier round 10x to get our CBOTT far enough ahead of the light to see it, or even the light from say, fourty years ago when Kennedy was assinated.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is more related to time travel:

If a space ship traveling 4x the speed of light flew from earth to the Sun, and back again, it will have gone back in time by at least 32 minutes judging by the fact that light from the sun hits earth in 8 minutes, and what we are seeing happening on the sun is actually 8 minutes lagged behind... Ima quantum physicist

Umm, no. Just because you go faster than the speed of light does not mean you are traveling back in time if you turn around and go back the way you came. You would merely get ahead of the light. You would reach the Sun in 2 minutes, 6 minutes ahead of the light, thereby allowing you to see 6 minutes into Earth's past. When you return, you will have arrived 4 minutes after you left (2 minutes to Earth, 2 minutes back).

Talked to my physics/algebra teacher. Algebra, but she has a degree in physics and science it seems.

She explained to me that yes, we could see WHAT has happened in the past, but by the time our CBOTT had reached the distance to see the certain distance to see said light (say, the light Moses gave when he parted the Red Sea), Moses' light would have LONG traveled past the distance our CBOTT is now located. We would need to break the light barrier round 10x to get our CBOTT far enough ahead of the light to see it, or even the light from say, fourty years ago when Kennedy was assinated.

Physics is a science. As to travel, yes. The further you wish to see into Earth's history, the further you must travel. The slower you travel, even further the travel. You are essentially "racing" the light, trying to get ahead of the light by so many light years.

Putting aside a whole mess of variables, and assuming zero acceleration / deceleration, and assuming Moses allegedly parted the Red Sea 3500 years ago, we would need to travel 3500 light years ahead of the light coming from earth in order to validate, or invalidate, the event. So, assuming we're moving at twice the speed of light (1:2 ratio), we would take 3500 years to achieve this goal, to reach Point B (traveling a distance of 7000 light years), with another 3500 years to return with the information. Clearly, twice the speed of light is not even remotely feasible for this task, therefore we would need to really jack it up.

10 times the speed of light (1:10 ratio), as your math teacher presents, would significantly cut down on the amount of light years traveled, and on the time it would take. 390 years to reach Point B (a distance of 3890 light years), and 390 years to return. Still not feasible.

So let's jump it up to 100 times the speed of light (1:100 ratio). That translates to 3535 light years traveled in 35 years. Another 35 years to return. Not too bad, that's a standard lifetime.

And how about 1000 times the speed of light (1:1000 ratio)? 3503 light years traveled in 3.5 years, and 3.5 years to return. Now that's definitely doable, but man what a stretch. Countering the accelerate g-forces alone would be a feat. Still, in all of this we're assuming FTL travel in classical space, as opposed to warp travel via perhaps an Alcubierre drive, which theoretically imposes no g-forces.

Bear with me here. The deeper we delve into details, the harder it is to explain without throwing out lots of graphics, which I would have to either find on the net or draw out on my own. So, to save me some effort on this, how about we discuss the social impact of discovering the truth of historical events, as well as what particular events you would like to see clarified.

 

[DeletedUser]

If it's about what I would like to see, is to see every religious event happen. That, and famous killings/assassinations. As I said, the Kennedy assassination would be fun to see if Lee Harvey Oswald was the TRUE killer.

In fact, I would love to see history through the eyes of this machine. See George Washington beat the British. See Mohammed Ali win his boxing matches (in color and without all the yelling and nonsense if your going to say if I can find pictures and videos of it mind all of you). I'd love to see everything!

We could finally figure out so many conspiracies, watch things happen in like 3-D, in color, things that we could never have possibly IMAGINED!!! And imagine if we could get sound too!!! Listening to Lincoln give the Gettysburg Address at the exact place and time!!! It would be amazing to see history if we could do things like the CBOTT could do.

 

[DeletedUser]

Just remember that all this is dependent on line of sight.

If Ali fought under a roof, there would be no image sent out for you to view. All you would be able to see would be the roof. Rumble in the Jungle was open air inside a stadium, but there was still some light fixtures etc hanging over the ring which could block the view.

Similar with Kennedy. Lee Harvey was alleged to have done his shooting from inside a building. You would then have to get an angle from outer space to see into that window, hoping that another building does not block the view. And then you would have to hope that the shooter's face is not covered in shadow.

So some events would be very hard to see and some impossible. It would not be like Deja Vu (movie) where you could switch the angle and zoom in and enter buildings with the view.
The further you move away from the source, the larger distances you have to travel to change the angle of view.

 

[DeletedUser]

If we are to assume only the visible spectrum, then we would be limited by objects impeding our view. But the definition of light, in respect to these discussions, includes all spectrums, all frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (long, radio, microwave, terahertz rad, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma ray) and as such the ability to see "through" objects is indeed a possibility, as is the ability to hear any radio broadcasts.

As to distance, the discussion still seems to be caught up on that point. I wish to spend more time later on that in the hopes of giving more clarity. Suffice it to say, the quaint light reflecting telescopes are the wrong way of looking at this (as shown below: 1. Galileo's telescope, 2. a more modern version of the same 500 year old technology):

The more appropriate way would be to think of a satellite or radio dish, or a better way of seeing it would be a vast array of receivers (examples shown below: 1. radio telescope/dish, 2. the Allen telescope array comprised of 350 dishes), each aimed at the same precise point, and thus capturing the "spread" of light waves/particles.

So, don't get caught up with distance too much, as it is not an obstacle as you argue. It is not as a telescoping lens, where magnification is needed in order to see things from afar, it is a series of receptors spread out over a large sheet of space, each capturing a "pixel frame" of the picture (not actually, but this is how you should visualize it), with all the pixels of one frame saved as a whole to produce a snapshot (picture), and each snapshot set in succession (frames) to produce a movie (motion picture):

Of course, ir.ufis is right in that we will be likely limited to this view for the best reception (due to Earth's atmospheric distortion imposing itself exponentially as the Earth rotates and the viewpoint slips further toward the relative horizon. And yes, that's a Muhammed Ali knockout pic):

The motion picture may very well be in frequencies we cannot see with our naked eye, but that's yet another reason for technology to participate, in converting data received from all spectrums of electromagnetic radiation and producing a "visible spectrum" version of the event(s) viewed. We do this now, to some degree (a sub's sonar blip, a medical x-ray image, etc).

 

[DeletedUser11019]

question
what are those silver looking satalights,,they are clearly old and are transmitters and recievers,,,big transmitters too.

the newer ones are coated with a white powder like paint substance,,,its more advanced than the 70's looking things you have there.

btw..that ali picture is convex..the image captures a larger wide scope

 

[DeletedUser]

Umm, a satellite orbits something.

Those silver-looking things are stationary ground-based antennas and are referred to as radio telescopes. They are to be used in conjunction with 350 other radio telescopes to create an Allen Telescope Array (still under construction). That setup is both modern and very recent. However, to manage costs, they are using Gregorian radio telescopes, circa 2001 (not 1970's as you assumed).

As to the Ali photo, it is a straight overhead photo, no distortion, no convex lens. Regardless, it's irrelevant, as I presented it to illustrate a point.

 

[DeletedUser10480]

The only way to see back in time without a mythical time machine is to spend a rainy weekend afternoon flipping through your baby album.

Looking at different galaxies isn't doing that. It's like seeing things on TiVo.

And George, it doesn't matter what spectrum light is in. It's alllllll the same.

 

[DeletedUser]

It's like seeing things on TiVo.

Now imagine TiVo having recorded an overhead view of the Battle of Normandy and we only having to travel a couple hundred light years away to pick up the recording.

But yes, the theory is sound. The practicality of it all is beyond our generation and the next couple of generations to come.

 

[DeletedUser10480]

Now imagine TiVo having recorded an overhead view of the Battle of Normandy and we only having to travel a couple hundred light years away to pick up the recording.

But yes, the theory is sound. The practicality of it all is beyond our generation and the next couple of generations to come.

But you can't outrace the light already headed away from the battle of Normandy in the first place. Even when you account for the so called "faster than light" attribute given to the universe's spatial expansion you can't do it. You're part of the expansion already. You'll never travel outside of this light cone.

 

[DeletedUser]

George has not posted in this thread, which means you were addressing me, and no, George and I are not the same person. As to spectrums, yes and no. Spectrum is merely a range. In my earlier comment about spectrums (plural), I was addressing the issue of only visible light spectrum being discussed, and expanding that to include the entire electromagnetic spectrum. If you wish to argue semantics, there are the various measurements, such as band spectrum and mass spectrum, and then there are the various sectional spectrums, such as visible light spectrum, microwave spectrum, ultraviolet spectrum. My use of that statement, "all spectrums," was an effort to not confuse the readers.

But you can't outrace the light already headed away from the battle of Normandy in the first place. Even when you account for the so called "faster than light" attribute given to the universe's spatial expansion you can't do it. You're part of the expansion already. You'll never travel outside of this light cone.

Could you expand upon this absolute?

 

[DeletedUser10480]

Yep, The spectrum does not differ. All spectrums obey that law of 'the speed of light'. Infrared, gamma rays, xrays, visible light, microwaves, etc.

None of it matters in this regard.

 

[DeletedUser]

You stated that one cannot travel outside of this "light cone," presenting as your argument us being part of the expansion of the universe. Could you elaborate on that, add a bit more clarification as to how you come about with this definitive statement?

 

[DeletedUser10480]

Yes, I can. And without giving you the links off the top of my head. There's a prominent article written by one of the most preeminent black hole scientist, a woman, in Scientific American approximately 8 years ago. It's not disputed by any reputable scientist since.

Her article iterated that what her colleagues continue to forget is that the big bang didn't 'expand space'. It didn't 'bang'.

The idea behind her illustrations are that as space itself expands there is an exponential factor in what that light cone is. That is, we can (we, being some hypothetical observor in the future----we'll all be dead by the time it matters anyway) - and that space stretches out, 'cheating' the light speed barrier.

Of course, nothing can really cheat it.....

The point being, as time goes by we can eventually see galaxies further and further from us due to the fact that the space has stretched those photon waves to our observor position. In other words, we can look back deeper and deeper as time goes on through our 'TiVo'. (TIVO===MY WORDS, TiVo did not exist at time of her articles).

To my knowledge, her standards are still accepted.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmm, I get the impression you're referring to inverse Compton scattering proposed by Megan Urry, which isn't really relevant here. By all means correct me if I'm thinking of the wrong theory.

 

[DeletedUser10480]

No. But I'm not your google friend.

 

[DeletedUser]

Are you referring to Karen Fox? I know she has written about black holes, and has been published in Scientific American, but I don't remember the exact time frame.

 

[DeletedUser10480]

Are you referring to Karen Fox? I know she has written about black holes, and has been published in Scientific American, but I don't remember the exact time frame.

Could be. But the authorship of my reference in the previous quote really isn't what I considered relevant. It doesn't much matter who...

The point being is that when people think of an explosion.... *imagine a stick of dynamite going off in your front yard* we imagine it 'outside of that locality'.

We're not 'in there'. All your 'stuff'.....(and the varying elements created later through exploding stars like calcium etc) were still THERE.

The point I'm trying to make is that we're not typically disposed to think of things like this in the way that is in accordance with reality. After all, there's no need for us to think of this stuff in our day to day lives. It got our ancestors nothing much. :nowink:

The point is that we were all "Inside there". We were not outside the Big Bang. It was us! Space expanded. There was no explosion booming itself INTO space. No cosmologist believes this.

If you meet a cosmologist just ask him (or her---there are some sexy cosmologists).

They might blink for a minute but they'll tell you the same thing.