Is yesterday really gone? Lost & Found in Space

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Kaiduorkhon, Aug 9, 2006.

  1. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    A permanent physical record of every past universal event?

    (Maybe Yesterday Isn't Gone? Perhaps There is an Ultimate Justice?)

    Everything visually perceived is an extension of where it originates. Every seeing experience occurs as a result of quantifications of whatever is seen, traveling across space to make contact with the sensory facility of the eye. The incoming light energy is literally an extension of where it came from. Whether we visually see things or not, all physical entities are emitting EM energy at all times. All physical matter in the universe is absorbing and emitting incoming and outgoing energy in the currency of Planck’s quantum h constant.

    If these exchanges of energy were back tracked indefinitely, the record of events that occurred in the past is available to whatever facility is able to carry out the - perhaps endless - back tracking in a real space and time of the past which is permanently recorded in past space-time.

    That’s the physical premise this concept of every event being permanently recorded, is based on. The philosophical and theological implications are that there exists a permanent, quasi holographic record in three and more dimensions, of every event that has ever occurred, and that such record is permanently manifest - at any given moment - in past space-time.

    The theological implications include that this is how ‘God sees, hears and knows all’, having access to all past portions of the ongoing continuum of events in the entire history of all universal events.

    Several people I’ve talked with about this recommended that I post it in a science forum and see what the forumites have to say about it.

    What do you think? (In this scenario, what you think may be permanently projected on the universe also, along with all of your physically manifest actions..)
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Who are these people?

    Given the limited knowledge of the origins of our universe and all the speculation involving that, it wouldn't surprise me. Is that the response you wanted?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    If the universe was so straight forwards then you would suggest that you could trace energy back to it's humble beginnings, however science would state that you would have to apply the Inverse Law into effect which governs the distance of readible energy ontop of which there is the much disputed particle-waveform duality which could suggest multiple universes, which means the yesterday you see, might not of been the same yesterday you observed firsthand.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    The problem is that you can't reconstruct the interactions you're referring to. Take a photon of light entering your eye, for example. When it hits your retina, it is absorbed - the photon simply disappears. There's no record of it every having existed. So, how do you hope to reconstruct it, to see where it came from, for example?
  8. phlogistician Banned Banned

    All of this sounds like a rehash of some guy's book from the early 90's, I forget his name, but I'm fairly sure the book had 'god' in the title, as did a lot of pop-sci at the time.

    The basic idea was that if you could go faster than the speed of light, you could look back in time by focussing on where you'd come from. It then got more ludicrous by saying you could reconstruct dead people from the 'imprint' they left on the Universe, or somesuch nonsense. Guy that wrote this had a PhD, and I recall I was having coffee with some of the staff I worked with at the University, and this book came up, and the general concensus was that they would strip him of any professorial titles and ask him to resign if he worked with us.
  9. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Dear phlogistician:

    "I forget his name, but I'm fairly sure the book had 'god' in the title, as did a lot of pop-sci at the time."
    So, you and your ad hoc, back room secret necrophile society of good ol boys, lynched the forgotten name and title of the guy who was writing 'pop sci'? Did you ever tell him he was presciently busted or did you keep and burn that secret also, along with the title of his story and his name?
  10. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    I agree that's a problem, but the proposed scenario allows for the back tracking of all events.
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    do you recommend a different course of action for purveying nonsense?
  12. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    You're doing fine.
  13. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Hey Dorkon, in reply to your drivel I say "quick a flibber nibber wobble booble photon emission spectrum relativity qwank".

    Which makes as much sense as anything you've posted. You may now return to your mental health facility. Please empty your pockets of any sharp objects beforehand, you know the drill.
  14. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    That was both clever and amusing, a rare combination.

    Who wrote it for you?
  15. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Science Forum Dialogue, continued:
    OK. Take two more anvils & call yourself(s) another doctor in the :AM.
    (Today's winning words are baby Occam's proximity nerfball cheat.)
  16. Rick Valued Senior Member

    About photon reconstruction James R,

    i thought Neurons register pretty much every thing though synaptic connections are weaker and are only formed after repeated bombardment of photons, but neurons can register every information that enters through visual nerve, we remember it conciously if its a repeat, like learning mode for BNNs; either way it is registered, so a reconstruction is possible during REM sleep

    just a thought
  17. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Dear Zion:
    You've got two. Be wrong. Phlogistician and Ophiliote tandemly and all of the other anonymous Ph.D over-riding nights of the invisible university, disagree with you. You're not making any cents.

    Of course every event in the universe adds to the cosmic ledger, that's what they don't like about it. Gonna talk themselves out of the universe, cook the Past, Present & Future books (They have their reasons and plans, the information is unavailable to only human mortal man).

    Thinking is disallowed in the manifestly presiding company.

    Take your spherically nerfball hurling place at the nearest mental institution. Across from the gathering assemblage of gravity and 4-D space-time continuum fighters. So far (above surface) it's Parquette, Caleb, Mark McCutcheon and Miles Mathis - four, Einstein & Robertson zero (Refer Lagrange 1 thru 5 <out on the rifle range>, where 'there is no gravity').

    (Neener neener.) The family of five won't survive if the designated target stays alive. Get widda quack smoking, wobble gobble desperado relativity program (Where quantity - stacking it higher - is the only currency).

    All of this, both clever and amusing, who - and Rocket man Peter Elton Townsend John- wrote for Ophlogistician (are doubled up on second), I don't know is on third, it doesn't make any difference is outfield and I don't give a damn is playing shortstop. Spherically expanding atomic hardballs have never been shinier in Mudville - where there is no call for Newton's gravitation or the curvature of Einstein's space-time.

    (Keep the change, it's more than enough of all they've got. You are not allowed to count - or find - them out. Learn your menial, powerless place in the anonymous university committee's established, ad hoc internet heirarchy. Stand by and rig for more fecal bombardments from the stumblegut leadership sectors all across the secret campus. Spun out FM band on the running ground - never will be found.)
  18. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Hey Dorkon, if it were possible to reconstruct events and people, the first people I'd like to introduce you to would be Heisenberg and Schroedinger, who could explain to you why they couldn't possibly be there, and would then instantly disappear in a puff of logic.
  19. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    I don't recall saying that events or people could be reconstructed - that was the factor you introduced. What I did ask is whether or not past events are theoretically accessible, traced to where they are, from the present.
  20. phlogistician Banned Banned

    And they aren't.
  21. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    Until further notice, yours is not the final word on this issue. I have asked a question. You have made a proclamation.
    Make your case.
  22. Kaiduorkhon Registered Senior Member

    While awaiting your response, you may find the following information - including Schroedinger and Heisenberg - helpful. I lifted some of it directly out of Wikepedia and google, and I ad libbed some of it from standard physics information sources as I recall them since I began study in 1958 to the present. Barbara Lovett Cline's The Men Who Made A New Physics is particularly cogent in the inspiration of my freelance notes. Perhaps you could contribute some finer points to this rough draft macro and especially microcosmic trivia and straigten me out on some chronologically warped space-time observations relating to the extremes of quantum mechanics and relativity in special and general considerations (the question I put forth, preceding the following information, was):

    AreDiscontinuousQuantumMechanics & ContinuousFieldTheoryReallyMutuallyExclusive?

    My offered (however abbreviated) response, was:


    Before & After Field Physics:

    A Brief History

    Timeline of Electromagnetism

    (Re: Google. 'History of electromagnetism')

    Ancient times:

    amber rubbed with fur attracts bits of dust and hairs

    static electricity - spikes on cold, dry days, lightening

    lode stone compass
    1600: English scientist, William Gilbert, publishes "De Magnete"

    1700: Lectures and demonstrations given by various scientists using electricity to attract and entertain audiences

    1747: Ben Franklin (1706-1790)

    two kinds of charges: positive and negative
    Like charges repel, unlike charges attract
    Conservation of Charge: An isolated system has constant total charge.
    1785: Charles Austin de Coulomb (1736-1806)

    Coulomb's Law F = k Q1 Q2 / r^2 ~~~~~~ k = 9 x 10^9 N-m^2/c^2

    The force between two charges Q1 and Q2 is proportional to their product divided by the separation distance r squared. Inverse square law.
    1780: Luigi Galvani (1737-1790) discovers electricity from two different metals causes frog legs to twitch

    1790: Alessandro Volta (1745-1827) finds chemistry acting on two dissimilar metals generates electricity. He later invents the voltaic pile - the battery.

    1820: Hans Christian Oersted (1777-1851) electric current affects compass needle

    1820: Andre Marie Ampere (1775-1836) in Paris finds that wires carrying current produce forces on each other.

    1820: Michael Faraday (1791-1867) at Royal Society in London develops idea of electric field and studies the effect of currents on magnets and magnets inducing electric currents.

    1827 - Thomson, Tait, Riemann, Helmholtz (Refer via Google)

    1860: James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), a Scottish physicist and mathematician, puts the theory of electromagnetism on mathematical basis
    1873: Maxwell publishes "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" in which he summarizes and synthesizes the discoveries of Coloumb, Oersted, Ampere, Faraday, et. al. in four mathematical equations. Maxwell's Equations are used today as the basis of electromagnetic theory. Maxwell makes a prediction about the connections of magnetism and electricity leading directly to the prediction of electromagnetic waves.

    1885: Heinrich Hertz shows Maxwell was correct and generates and detects electromagnetic waves.
    1895: Guglielmo Marconi puts the discovery to practical use by sending messages over long distances by means of radio signals. i.e. the "Wireless".

    Magnetic Fields : History of Electromagnetism
    Until 1820, the only magnetism known was that of iron magnets and of "lodestones", natural magnets of iron-rich ore. It was believed that the inside of the Earth was magnetized in the same fashion, and scientists were greatly puzzled when they found that the direction of the compass needle at any place slowly shifted, decade by decade, suggesting a slow variation of the Earth's magnetic field.

    Electric Generator or Dynamo
    Michael Faraday of England and American Joseph Henry separately built the first laboratory models of electric generator in 1832. Frenchmen, Hippolyte Pixii, France built a hand-driven model of an electric generator in 1833. American, Nikola Tesla built the first alternating-current generator in 1892.

    The history of electronics began to evolve separately from the history of electricity late in the 19th century. The English physicist J.J. Thomson identified the electron by and the American physicist Robert A. Millikan measured its electric charge in 1909.


    1686 - Newton, understandably for his time, hypothesized the idea that everything including light is reducible to tiny, discontinuous, static 'particles' of 'solid matter'.

    1752 Benjamin Franklin - famous stormy kite flight led him to develop many of the terms that we still use today when we talk about electricity: battery, conductor, condenser, charge, discharge, uncharged, negative, minus, plus, electric shock, and electrician. (Enter 'Benjamin Franklin electricity' google.)

    1823 - Faraday discovers the principle of inductance, where a moving magnet generates a flow of electric current in a coil of wire. This experimental observation led to the realization that electricity and magnetism are unified - hence the formulation of the noun 'electromagnetism'. Faraday speculated that Newton's so called particles might actually be tiny charges of electricity; that the electric field ('charged particle') is static (non-expanding) and did not learn of its spatial structure.

    1827 Thomson

    1861 - Maxwell accurately formulates his renowned electromagnetic equations which predict and determine the field is expanding (generated by and emanating) from all (so called) particles at the same speed as light and gravity and generating the same familiar inverse square structure as gravity and light. Maxwell expires while attempting to confirm that his mathematically predicted 'space waves' are (in fact) the identity of light.

    1886 - Hertz fulfills Maxwell's objective; experimentally confirming Maxwell's electromagnetic equations.

    1895 - the discovery of X rays.

    1896 - the discovery of radioactivity

    1897 - J. J. Thompson discovers the electron, proving Faraday's hypothesis that Newton's particles actually are microcosmic charges of electromagnetic energy.

    1898 - the discovery of radium.

    1900 - discovery of black body - discontinuous 'quantized' radiation.

    1905 - Brownian motion, photoelectric effect, The Special Theory - about uniform motion and light, thru

    1916's General Principle, about non-uniform motion and gravity - Einstein states that 'the particle is a localized region of space where the field density is particularly high.'

    1937 - G.P. Thompson experimentally proves and mathematically confirms that electrons, neutrons and protons are constantly expanding charges of electricity without discontinuous boundaries seperating them from surrounding space. (He looks up from his accurate equations and experimental proof, concludes that his experimental proof must be wrong, because, 'obviously, physical reality at large is not expanding'. (Refer, J.W.N. Sullivan, THE LIMITATIONS OF SCIENCE).


    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    In physics, the Dirac equation is a relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation formulated by Paul Dirac in 1928 and provides a description of elementary spin-½ particles, such as electrons, consistent with both the principles of quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity. The equation demands the existence of antiparticles and actually predated their experimental discovery, making the discovery of the positron, the antiparticle of the electron, one of the greatest triumphs of modern theoretical physics. ...the Dirac equation was originally invented to describe the electron... ***

    Cogent freelance excerpts follow; from a dialogue between (the Honorable) Sergey500 and Truly Yours, in his 'What IS space', Hypography Science Forums thread, November, December 2005:

    That Rascal Puff (K. B. Robertson) to Sergey500:

    You don't mention my quote that a positive charge omnidirectionally emits an outgoing electric force, and, a negative charge omnidirectionally absorbs an incoming electric force (paraphrased).

    Indeed. Moreover. Sometimes opposites do attract, and sometimes they repel. Newton says gravity may be an impelling - or a repelling - force (What this record calls, 'The gravitational alternative'). Einstein says gravity is - at least sometimes - a repelling force; adding furthermore that gravity may be both a repelling and an impelling force.

    Truly Yours tends to observe that gravity is usually a repelling force, on or near major gravitational masses, and an impelling (aquatic, terrestrial and atomospheric) tidal force (for example) at greater distances. Summarizing that, since Newton introduced what he fully acknowledged as a mysterious, occult force of gravitation, usually - but not militantly - to be thought of as an impelling force, this record sees no reason why Einstein is disallowed from introducing a repelling force acting parallel to Newton's impelling force... Summing up a tandem repelling and impelling force, with each man offering major contributions to understanding the universe; neither of which men - or forces - are mutually exclusive.

    The dilemma of gravity WITH & WITHOUT PUNCTUATION: often reminds Truly Yours of:

    The superfluously conflicting schools of thought (Circa 1900 thru 1930 and ever since) on Max Planck's - Helmholtz inspired, Rubens confirmed - Quantum Mechanics'.

    The 1897 dated observation of black body radiation led Planck to attempt to observe an invariable increase in entropy, which resulted in null thought and laboratory experiments; leading to Planck's 1900 revision of Boltzmann's alternately continuous and discontinuous statistical interpretaton of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (later paralleled by Heisenberg's Principle of Indeterminacy).

    It is only obscurely known or recognized that, although there are indeed opposing - J.J. Thompson-electron-launched - arguments on this subject, Einstein and Planck were in the same camp, along with Schroedinger, regarding the much misunderstood 'problem' of microcosmic 'continuity' of wave-field theory, and 'discontinuity' of so called 'particles'.

    Leading to an undrained, ever rising swamp of determinacy and indeterminacy, entanglement, water ripple and shotgun pellets rolling sideways and speeding linearly through vertical and horizontal slits, in the ever imposing shadow of assumptive continuous wave eclipsed by the non-prevailing 'ultraviolet catastrophe' and the newly incumbent black body radiation - vocabularized in electrical theory and thermodynamics - introducing the circle of broken lines forming a sought-after curve but still leading to an apparently non discardable discontinuous 'quantum leap', because energy in discontinuous portions cannot be infinitely divided; establishing that radiant energy is not quantitatively infinite - in unequal units, Planck resolved that the frequency of the considered discontinuous wave is directly related to its duration, or more specifically, its length.

    This was unexpected because it defined a seemingly antithetical, self contradicting equality in discontinuous and continuous energy packets - 'quantum', which, literally translated from Latin equals 'what quantity'. It came to pass that, depending on how these units are measured and otherwise evaluated, they alternately manifestat as 'waves', and, as 'particles' - continuity, and discontinuity.

    From this arose a further quandary of defining the dynamics of what was projected, compared to the method or conditions of projection.

    Quantum Mechanics (perhaps better understood as 'quantum dynamics') was not altogether contradictory to the - at that time, much established continuous wave theory - which was often confirmed in delicate laboratory observations as well as more pedestrian observations such as the often exemplified fact that a swinging pendulum loses its momentum in a continuous declination of kinetic energy. Quantum Mechanics contests this.

    Black body radiation occurs in discontinuous packages of microcosmically indivisible energy units of erg seconds, where the individual, indivisible unit is designated as 'h', for the numerically expressed value of:

    .0000000000000000000000000066, or, 6,6 x 1027

    Establishing that ordinary sizes as perceived by human observers were not the end measure of what was occuring in the much smaller realms of physicality and dynamics.

    Max Planck had not excluded the previous standards of observation and measurement, whereas, he certainly had established that the characteristics of the larger physical world were not aligned with those of the smaller physical world, and that the Latin statement, ut infra, ut supra and conversely ('as above, so below'), was a generalisation but not a law.

    Atomic (microcosmic) physics was understood to be in its early stages and the Planck dynamics were a portention that many other unexpected discoveries were due, as the science of observing and measuring microcosmic reality progressed - the evolutions of which were alternately championed and challenged, by Planck, Rutherford, Einstein, Bohr, Shroedinger, and many others, certainly including Heisenberg and his principle of indeterminacy (which is not a sanctuary for your disagreement with and denial of an in situ, permanently standing universal history of every large or small event that has ever occurred in as many dimensions as accomodates them.).
  23. Emmm, y'know.... Theological issues concerning God and so forth aside, having read this, now, several times over - I can't say as how I can see any particular problem with this. In principal. Given that every cosmological model that exists to date concerns ways of understanding observation derived through pretty much the means described - that we plunder the wealth of "stored" visual data, both at our own discretion and within our means to discern, remains simply a matter of course.

    Pick a constellation, any constellation, and between the flick of an eye one can be observing multiple separate events unfurling as they originally occurred at differing points in time (depending on distance) happening contemporary as one observes....

    This is simply astronomy, can't say I'm really picking up all that well where it is you're trying to go with this.

Share This Page