1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/introducing-the-paracast/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!
    Dismiss Notice

March 11, 2018 — Robert Schroeder with J. Randall Murphy

Discussion in 'Talk About the Show' started by Gene Steinberg, Mar 11, 2018.



  1. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Occupation:
    Combat Epistomologist
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    So are you claiming that:

    Nothing is Unidentified? Or nothing is Flying? Or nothing is an Object?
     
  2. Gene Steinberg

    Gene Steinberg Forum Super Hero Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,760
    Likes Received:
    5,124
    Occupation:
    Forum Super Hero
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Home Page:
    Look at the definition please.
     
  3. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Occupation:
    Combat Epistomologist
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    I have it around here somewhere. It's actually interesting, even when I disagree with it. The guy is thinking about this, at least.
     
  4. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Occupation:
    Combat Epistomologist
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    Hmmm... maybe?

    Here's what I get of the FTL = time machine equivalence.

    Suppose Khan Noonien Singh leaves a war-ravaged Earth in the year 1996 in a DY-100 class sublight vessel Botany Bay, headed for Alpha Centari. Let's say at sublight speeds, it's going to take him 300 years to get there.

    200 years later, Kirk leaves Spacedock in the Enterprise at Warp 7, and heads to Alpha Centari, a quick 1 day trip. On the way, he detects the Botany Bay, drops out of warp, and scopes the scene out. Instead of messing with Khan, he decides to leave well enough alone, and heads on to Alpha Centuri.

    From Khan's frame of reference, he first sees the Enterprise appear, then disappear, then reappear at Alpha Centari just over a year later (the time it takes the light to go 1/3 the 4LY distance remaining to Alpha Centari. Then, 3-ish years later, he sees the Enterprise leave Spacedock from Earth. It's out of sequence. He sees it here->Alpha Centari->Earth, when Kirk's frame is Earth->Khan->Alpha Centari. So causality from his frame of reference is already all mucked up.

    Now here's where it gets even more squirrely.

    Let's say Khan succeeds on taking over the Enterprise and then, a year later sees it in orbit of Alpha Centari? Who's future is that?

    It gets even more interesting with more observers moving, and adding subspace radio.
     
    technomage likes this.
  5. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Location:
    United States
    That’s not actually a causality paradox; that’s more in the realm of the relativity of simultaneity. Let’s take a simple example:

    You’re at a position 4LYs equidistant from two planetary systems, when you’re informed via instantaneous subspace radio that both planets were simultaneously blown up by the Klingon Empire. You immediately activate the flashing red “alert beacon” at your space station. For you all three events are essentially simultaneous, but it will take four years for you to see the actual planet-busting explosions.

    Spock happens to be on a moon around one of the planets that blew up, and Kirk is on the Enterprise near the other planet that blew up (let’s say that he arrived a moment too late to stop the massacre).

    From Spock’s point of reference, his planet blew up first, then 4 years later your beacon went off, and 8 years after his planet was destroyed he sees the other planet next to the Enterprise blow up. A very young Vulcan without any knowledge of the finite propagation speed of light might deduce that it took four years for you to notice that this planet was gone, or perhaps that your red alert signaled the Klingons to blow up the other more distant planet 8 years after the first one. But Spock knows better – he knows that it takes time for light to travel through space, and in fact all three events were in fact simultaneous.

    Kirk’s reference frame is completely the opposite: his planet blew up first, then the beacon went off after 4 years, and after 8 years he sees Spock’s planet blow up. The sequence is completely reversed!

    Is this a causality violation? No, of course not – simultaneity and the sequence of events depend entirely upon one’s point of reference, via the finite propagation speed of light. You have to synchronize your clocks based on that factor in order to determine the actual sequence of events, which in this case, were all simultaneous. If everyone at each reference point applies that method, then they can all determine that the three events were simultaneous, so any apparent contradiction disappears.

    You have to apply the same method to determine the sequence of events with superluminal warp travel. Once you do that, you see in your example that the Enterprise first left the Earth, then stopped to have a look at Khan’s situation, then moved on to Alpha Centauri. There’s no causality paradox because observers at all three reference points can account for the propagation speed of light, and they’ll all arrive at the same sequence of events.

    I couldn’t understand the next part of your example because you didn’t specify when Khan takes over the Enterprise, but the same method applies – once all of the observers take into account the propagation speed of light, they all arrive at the same timeline of events. The only thing different about superluminal warp travel is that all of the observers would be able to determine that the Enterprise traveled faster than the speed of light between its destinations. But that doesn’t involve a causality violation, it just proves that Kirk has a rockin’ warp drive ship.

    To establish a causality paradox, different observers who take into account the propagation speed of light, have to arrive at different timelines.

    I’m not convinced that’s possible without something like a Tipler cylinder, which isn’t actually physically possible because it has to be infinitely long to create a closed timelike curve.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
    technomage and marduk like this.
  6. blowfish

    blowfish Whittingham

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    836
    Location:
    In space and passing through time.
    Not listen to this episode yet and UFO are real what hell they are who knows. The stories with evidence which not been release is more important to all humanity.
     
  7. Greers Meeting Planner

    Greers Meeting Planner Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2015
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Ok here it is.... Evidence for unidentified flying objects would exist if it could satisfy all of the three criteria in the name:

    Unidentified: this would mean it is not identifiable (and not just to You this would need to be unidentifiable to the human race) beyond anything that we are currently aware of. This would include all military. We cannot reasonably provide evidence of any flying object which is truly unidentifiable.


    Flying: a deliberate act of overcoming the force of gravity to maintain an altitude above ground level

    Object: a material thing that can be seen and touched

    There is no evidence that proves the existence of such things while satisfying all of the three criteria in unison.

    My argument is not flying objects don't exist, they might do. My argument is there is no evidence for their existence, this is different.

    This evidence could be garnered and with it we could truly move the field from one of fringe to one of serious scientific interest.

    Here in lies a big problem. When we say a pilot has seen them: they must exist OR a radar trace was recorded: they must exist and then move on to discuss where they may be from etc etc we start overlaying assumption on top of assumption on top of assumption.

    This is actively helping to keep the UFO field in the 'specialist interest' or 'fiction' section because we don't have a significant enough body of data from instrumented sources and across a range of measures.

    Imagine if the field as a whole could align their collective energies and efforts to such an endeavour, the work that followed it would be exponentitally more productive than what has been done in the 'modern day era' where a case has been made with a lack of evidence.

    Garbage in to the study of UFO's = garbage out and what do we have in this field so far.. a big stinking hot mess of garbage
     
    Existential, pigfarmer and blowfish like this.
  8. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    239
    Location:
    New York
    Yup. We have enough anecdotes; if they were going to solve the problem they would have already. Schroeder at least had a suggestion about what to look for that sounded plausible. Unfortunately he also dipped into the huge collection of stories to support his theories. Tedious. Of course, it was clearly more important to discuss how subspace radio, warp drive and trans-warp conduits work than get back to the topic he was invited to talk about. Uh-huh.
     
  9. Christopher O'Brien

    Christopher O'Brien Back in the Saddle Aginn Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,949
    Likes Received:
    3,529
    Occupation:
    Hard Data Dude
    Location:
    NY-CO-CA-AZ
    Home Page:
    Yabut, the amount of energy required would necessitate harnessing the energy of a star... I highly doubt any species that could do that would be interested in this primitive, violent, misogynist hell-hole of degraded bio-diversity. Unless we're some alien kid's science project, or something banal like that...
     
    marduk likes this.
  10. pigfarmer

    pigfarmer Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2017
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    239
    Location:
    New York
    Unless they've solved the energy issue in some way we don't understand.

    Beyond that - don't hold back Chris, tell us what you really think ..... :)
     
  11. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Occupation:
    Combat Epistomologist
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    That's not what unidentified means. Unidentified and unidentifiable are two different things.

    One is an existential '∃', as in !∃->Identifiable. There does not even in theory exist a way to possibly identify something.

    un·i·den·ti·fi·a·ble
    ˌənīˈden(t)əˌfīəb(ə)l/
    adjective
    1. unable to be identified.

    Unidentified means that it hasn't been identified... yet.

    un·i·den·ti·fied
    ˌənīˈden(t)əˌfīd/
    adjective
    1. not recognized or identified.
    My belly button was unidentified until I knew the word for belly button and knew what it was. Then it was identified.

    Anything you see and don't know what it is is unidentified, at least for that moment in time.

    I am not claiming that everything that is unidentified and flying and an object is extraterrestrial, or exotic, or anything in particular. Just that it hasn't been identified. Yet.

    And besides, if we did determine it was extraterrestrial, it wouldn't be a UFO any more. It would be an IFO. Identified Flying Object.
     
    technomage and wwkirk like this.
  12. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Occupation:
    Combat Epistomologist
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    You know, I get this stuff far easier when it's explained in Star Trek terms. Awesome.

    I've been trying to state this that way, and been struggling:
    Why FTL implies time travel
     
    technomage likes this.
  13. marduk

    marduk quelling chaos since 2352BC

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,456
    Likes Received:
    2,383
    Occupation:
    Combat Epistomologist
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    I dunno man. Imagine what Trump would do with a Kardashev type II civilization's power.

    Hell, he'd make the milky way great again.
     
  14. Greers Meeting Planner

    Greers Meeting Planner Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2015
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    That's how you see the world, others such as myself who don't watch CNN are not programmed to look at the world through the lens of victimhood

    We have no idea what other life forms may or may not find interesting so to assume aliens wouldn't be interested because of "misogyny", lol c'mon dude

    The aliens maybe interested to know that 85% of all consumer purchases in America are made by women. So if men are earning more it means they are handing it over to the women to decided how it gets spent. So who is really in control
     
  15. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Location:
    United States
    As I see it, we're in a very similar position today with regard to gravitational technology, as we were a few hundred years ago with magnetic technology. Back then, we didn't understand how magnetism really worked, we just knew that some rocks, loadstones, exhibited magnetic properties. So if we wanted to make a stronger magnetic field, all we could do is gather up more loadstone. That's pretty much exactly where we are with gravity right now - the only way we know how to make a stronger gravity field is by gathering together more mass-energy in one place.

    But once we stumbled upon the discovery of the electromagnetic inductor (and the fortuitous ferromagnetic property of iron) suddenly we could generate extremely powerful magnetic fields with very little energy, and with very small lightweight devices - no loadstone required.

    I think we're going to have a very similar kind of industrial and scientific revolution when we figure out how gravitation couples to spacetime - the phenomenological dynamics of it. Right now we have no idea - we know that mass-energy and the other components of the stress-energy tensor create gravity, but that's it - our understanding at this point is purely quantitative. Once we understand the underlying coupling dynamics, like we learned the underlying electrodynamics of magnetism, I expect that this idea that it takes huge magnitudes of mass-energy to create gravity, will fall behind us just as the loadstone fell behind us.

    And apparently that's correct. Because if these devices were harnessing energy levels akin to the mass-energy of a celestial body - or even much less like the mass-energy equivalent of a VW Bug automobile as NASA's Harold White has calculated in recent years, then the first accident or field containment failure would've sterilized the entire planet, or perhaps even vaporized it. So to me, these devices are physical proof that a relatively low-energy gravitational field technology isn't just possible - it's inevitable for us, as long as our scientific advancement continues forward.

    And it's also a lot of fun to discuss this stuff in Star Trek terms, so we may have to do that more often, haha. Thanks for that link; I'll take a close look at it and see if it's more convincing than the page I cited earlier. It's easy to get these kinds of diagrams wrong - it's much clearer when you just illustrate these kinds of relative motion scenarios as a simple symmetric spacetime rotation between reference frames like I did with that image I uploaded yesterday,because that's all that the Lorentz transform really is, and you can easily see it that way. And when you compare both reference frames, you can actually see how an event's position in the past is just a perceptual artifact of your reference frame - in it's own reference frame, its time coordinate is actually the same as your own, so you can't actually send a message into the past even if you're moving FTL. But like I said, I'll look at it again to see if that page offers a viable model.
     
    technomage and marduk like this.
  16. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Location:
    United States
    Okay so I read that page and I don't see an actual causality violation there - that looks like another relativity of simultaneity example. Just as we saw in our simple example with Spock and Kirk and our space station equidistant from them both, different observers can report different - and even completely backwards - sequences of events. But once you account for the speed of light, and in the example on that page, for the speed of the spacecraft as well, all observers can properly reconstruct the sequence of events in the proper order, and even determine the time of each event, by making a spacetime diagram like the ones he's drawn up (but hopefully much cleaner and easier to read). The fact is - in his example, nothing actually violates the causality of the sequence. He gave us a hand-waving "you could set things up so that the spacecraft sends a message back in time, although I won't bother to actually show you that" ... but that was the whole point of this article - to show us how "FTL = time travel." All he showed us was "different observers witness the sequence differently," which we've already dealt with using the relativity of simultaneity example that we discussed.

    Here are a couple of glaring empirical problems with the "FTL = casuality violation" hypothesis: 1.) the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light during the Big Bang. Where's the causality violation? 2.) The galaxies beyond the observable universe are moving away from us faster than the speed of light right now. Where's the causality violation? Just because different observers see a sequence of events differently, doesn't mean that any signals actually traveled back in time.

    Let's look at a simple analogy. Let's say that we humans were all blind, and we navigated our world using sonar, like bats. In time we'd develop a physics of sonic relativity that explained that nothing could travel faster than the speed of sound, because you couldn't possibly hear anything approaching faster than the mind-boggling speed of 761 mph.

    But then some clever rascal invents the electromagnetic radio - faster-than-sound (FTS) communication. And our top physicists cry out "that's impossible because FTS = causality violation!" To prove this hypothesis, they propose the following paradox: if FTS communication were possible, that would mean that a distant observer could shout in your direction, and due to the finite propagation speed of sound, it would take you say five minutes to hear him shouting at you. But that rascal with the radio set could be standing right next to him as he shouted at you, and call you up on your radio set and tell you that soon you'd hear him shouting. You'd know about an event before it happened! In fact you could even call him right back and say "tell that guy to stop shouting" before the first word arrived at your position. "Impossible!" the sonar physicists would say, "you've stopped him shouting before his shouts even reached your ears - that's a causality violation!"

    No, it isn't. No signal traveled backward in time, you've simply demonstrated the utility of FTS communication - now you can put your earplugs in before some guy hollers at you.

    I still haven't analyzed Alan Everett's paper that describes an elaborate method of creating a causality violation with two FTL warp ships travelling between two bodies in space undergoing relative motion; perhaps that scenario will have some merit. But I doubt it; I have yet to see a scenario that proves "FTL = causality violation" to my satisfaction, and I doubt that any exist, because everybody seems to be confusing "relative times and positions" with "proper times and positions," which represent a crucial distinction in special relativity in the first place.

    By my thinking it all boils down to this: in every reference frame, time moves in the positive direction, and, no part of any light cone points in the negative time direction - in other words all slopes have a positive value. At the maximum limit of infinite velocity, time simply stops moving at all - so you'd have to travel faster than an infinite velocity to send a signal back in time, which is obviously impossible. So in reality, there's no combination of circumstances where a signal or a vehicle can move backward in time against the flat background metric of Minkowski spacetime, regardless of velocity. As we discussed previously, if you move faster than the speed of light, you can produce an optical mirage that appears to move backward in time, but that's just an illusion - even in that scenario all observations are unfolding in the positive time direction and all photons and material bodies are moving in the positive time direction, so no causality violation occurs.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
    USI Calgary and marduk like this.
  17. USI Calgary

    USI Calgary J. Randall Murphy Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    6,590
    Location:
    Calgary Canada
    Home Page:
    Okay so far. Yes I can see the problems. They involve proving the claim to others.
    That's where you go off the rails.

    Notwithstanding the nature of the subject matter ( which we'll return to later ), you're not using coherent logic. Most people who have had a firsthand experience sufficient for them to know something is real, do know it is real, at least to the extent that they can know most other things are real. So the actual situation with your claim is that unless a case is a proven hoax or there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, then it's you who really doesn't know whether someone else besides you knows something is real. If you assume they don't know, you could be wrong. You cannot be sure. You can't get inside a witnesses mind or travel back in time to where the experience happened.

    Therefore to claim others don't know simply because they can't prove it to you is prejudicial. The best anyone who is fair minded can do is remain undecided. Now returning to the issue of the subject matter. Let's not move the goalposts or use loaded language. I've never claimed I've seen fairies, and I'm in full agreement that the nature of the claim in question needs to be reasonable. Claiming that alien craft are real is perfectly reasonable. Claiming fairies are real is farther out there. However even in fringe cases I wouldn't necessarily dismiss the reality of the experience. I would however doubt the interpretation.

    I've had that discussion before as it relates to life after death. People say they know there is life after death. However logically speaking, that's impossible. Therefore in those cases you can reasonably claim those people don't know. They only think they know. Alien craft are a whole other concept. Conceptually alien craft exist in the same universe and time as we do and are as physical in nature as we are. Therefore where there is sufficient unimpaired perceptual evidence that they are real, backed by independent witnesses, and in some cases instrumented detection, it is reasonable to believe alien craft exist.

    Obviously some people don't think that such evidence is reasonably good evidence. I do. But that's a whole other issue. Ultimately we can argue nothing is real. But that's just sophistry. How far down the field do you want to move the goalposts? Far enough for you to win your point or far enough for it to be reasonable? In my view requiring verifiable scientifically valid material evidence before we can validate every experience, is moving the goalposts farther down the field than is reasonable. If we had to get that level of evidence before believing everything we experience, we might as well forget believing in most of everything.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
    technomage and Thomas R Morrison like this.
  18. USI Calgary

    USI Calgary J. Randall Murphy Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    6,590
    Location:
    Calgary Canada
    Home Page:
    Fabulous post, but I'd like to say ( even if it isn't exactly relevant ) that the difference between time, light, sound, and information makes me want to point out the following: It's one thing to have information about something happening within a temporal environment, and another to change the temporal environment itself. So sure, with FTL communication, we could know in advance we'll see something, e.g. a supernova, but that won't change anything about the supernova itself.

    Time is simply change. When we say time runs slower we simply mean the rate of change is longer compared to what it was before based on an independent frame of reference.
    We only get into big problems with temporal change when we're dealing with situations where time is said to run backward or contrary to the arrow of time. Mathematically there's no reason time can't run backward. But putting the genie back into the bottle, or in this case just a single photon, appears to be an impossible task unless every moment of existence is simply a frame stored in some vast memory bank. Even then we'd only be dealing with copies while the arrow in a lager context continues forward.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2018
    technomage and Thomas R Morrison like this.
  19. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    655
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Location:
    United States
    Thank you Randall. We just recorded a very interesting Physics Frontiers episode about a theory that you might enjoy quite a bit, known as retrocausality. It turns out that a clear and sensible interpretation of quantum mechanics handily resolves the issue of quantum entanglement (and others) if we set the future boundary conditions of a system equal to the past boundary conditions - in other words, if we allow the future to affect the present just as the past affects the present, in isolated quantum systems. This completely solves the mystery of instantaneous action-at-a-distance within the context of special relativity, with its limitation on information/energy traveling at the speed of light or slower. In this fascinating interpretation of quantum mechanics (which is favored in a slightly different but intimately similar way by renowned physicist Yakir Aharonov in his brilliant book Quantum Paradoxes), the "arrow of time" is a purely statistical effect that arises when a complex systems of particles interact, obscuring the underlying retrocausality of isolated quantum systems. So you may be right - at the fundamental level of reality, time may operate in both directions equally.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2018
    technomage and USI Calgary like this.
  20. USI Calgary

    USI Calgary J. Randall Murphy Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    6,590
    Location:
    Calgary Canada
    Home Page:
    Cool. I'll have to check it out.
    Perhaps the key phrase there is "isolated systems". Depending on how we look at things, no system is completely isolated because it's always part of a larger system. There's also the issue about how it's possible for anything to actually affect anything in any temporal sense ( Arrow Paradox ). With respect to reversing time, my comment about putting a just single photon back in the bottle should be sufficient, but it could certainly be expanded on from there ( which I do briefly below ).

    Also there would be no way to observe anything going backward in time because we could not observe photons going backward out of our retinas or detectors and back to the objects they are either emitted or reflected from. Detection can only work if time moves forward. Otherwise there would have to be some third party time frame moving forward and emitting light onto the scene, which in-turn would change the scene, which means that in the larger frame of reference time is still moving forward. So in fundamentally conceptual terms, reversing time isn't possible, and in real-world terms it isn't possible either. The best that can happen is for an illusion of time reversal to happen based on some sort of memory buffer, or to use our imaginations, or express it in some sort of math. But here's the real problem and why it's just impossible in the bigger picture:

    Let's assume we switch a plain light bulb on for one second. In that time about a hundred billion billion photons head out in all directions in a volume the diameter of which is a distance of about 372,564 miles. So to reverse time just for that light bulb for just one second of time means reversing the direction and the effects of a hundred billion billion photons back into the lightbulb to the exact same electrons they were emitted from that are in exactly the same position they were before the light was switched on. That seems impossible enough. But how about getting just one to retrace it's exact path?

    Hmm. That turns out to be more complex than we think because if the lightbulb is say, here on Earth, then in the 2 seconds it takes for the photon to go out and retrace its path back, the lightbulb will have moved along with Earth just a tiny bit. Uh oh, so now not only do we need to get the photon to somehow go back along its original path into the same electron it was emitted from, we need to put that electron exactly back in the same place in space it was when it was emitted, and seeing as that's on Earth, now we have to move the entire Earth back too. See the problem? Everything is connected. Time can't reverse for just one thing.

    Ultimately, if time reverses for one thing, then for it to be consistent and really be moving backward, time has to reverse for everything. There's no escaping this logic that I can see. That is, unless, as previously mentioned, this universe in its entirety is seen as the "isolated system", in which case, from a perspective outside the system, our particular universe ( within the multiverse ) might be stopped, run in reverse, or sped up. We'd be none the wiser either way, and time would still be moving forward in the larger picture.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2018
    technomage likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page