[Graybeard]

I think History is inaccurate ... as recorded.

However, my qualification is that if you establish the authors bias to your satisfaction then it is possible to pick the truth from what they do not say.

Eg: If you were reading about the life of Hitler, then it would make all the difference in the world to how you read it if it was written by (a) Adolf or (b) Stalin or (c) Churchill.

Best to read all three and then commit your new view of the past to your new records in memory ... LOL


cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

Interest Penalty

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by sillysally There was this guy on about the same thing on another message board and he said we can change the past with this now knowledge.

Sal ... I think the guy you mention was probably referring to the Quantum Eraser experiment.

Complicated, and to be read with extreme care. An incorrect reading can lead to many 'startling' and 'incredible' conclusions.

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

Austin ... You should be teaching in school. Your ability to render complex thoughts into prose without losing in the process would, for many students, turn the study of science into a pleasure.

cool bananas ... greg

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Sal ... I think the guy you mention was probably referring to the Quantum Eraser experiment. Complicated, and to be read with extreme care. An incorrect reading can lead to many 'startling' and 'incredible' conclusions. cool bananas ... greg

He called it the eternal now moment. I did have some startling and incredible conclusions but not much different from what I expressed today. I just went into more detail about how everyones life is eternal and still existing, even what we consider to be dead people. All they (the dead people) have are those moments they experienced, 80 years is a long long time in now, because it's immeasurable. I also got into parallels with it, /// which is also the ancient spelling for God or winds (holy ghost).

[Profpat]

Indeed History is recorded by the victors, but those who forget history's mistakes are condenmed to repeat it.

BTW Sally a planck length is the smallest unit of measurement in quantum physics and light of course is our greatest speed.

P.S. Isn't your signature historic Greg?

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by Profpat Indeed History is recorded by the victors, but those who forget history's mistakes are condenmed to repeat it. BTW Sally a planck length is the smallest unit of measurement in quantum physics and light of course is our greatest speed.

But I didn't know the history of quantum physics or planck length. Am I doomed cause I concluded something similar? Are you saying quantum physics and planck is a mistake since I repeated something similar? How can I forget something I was never aware of? How can I even know it was a mistake in that sense? Well if you don't agree with planck or fini tiny then come up with your own unmistake.

[Profpat]

Actually Sally I agree with both. How is the healing coming?

[neutralino]

I've not really looked into this thread since it blossomed into existence, so I have a reply to the very first post.

Originally Posted by Graybeard ~~~ Space, Time & Einstein ~~~ If we accept General relativity, and its implications of space and time dilation ... then we must also conclusively accept that the past, present and future exist in this universe at the same moment ...

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here. The word that troubles me is "moment." Discounting the notions of past and future for now, it is not even true that the "present" is the same for every observer. For example, you can't have one guy sitting in the middle of the universe observing everything as the "present" since some of the things he will see are in the past! This is commonly known as the relativity of simultaneity. It's also why we rarely discuss global time, but instead assign light cones to each point in space.

In other words if we could freeze frame our surroundings so that only the present were visible, then the only parts visible would be the parts that were in the same still state as the observer ? Would our arm swinging the baseball bat be visible, or only return to our view once the home run had been hit, would roads be empty of all traffic ?. (Of course this is impossible as Nobody pointed out, if time was frozen, light would be frozen and we would receive no light at all.)

Freezing time does not make much sense to me, as it stands. One can, however, talk about taking a spacial hypersurface of the four dimensional spacetime. (Sorry, that's a bit technical.. it basically means looking at the graph of space versus time, and taking a specific value for the time coordinate; that is slicing the worldsheet of the universe, like cutting a loaf of bread. Each slice will correspond to the state of the universe at a particular moment in time.

Or are there simply billions of Graybeards, perish the thought, all acting in near-unison in parrallel universes and our 'esse' is just a condensed persona of them all ... LOL

Well, I think there would be infinitely many but no, this isn't too crazy!

[Profpat]

Isn't everythind the observer sees and feels in the past, Neutralino. The present is that elusive Here/Now.