Thursday, January 26, 2012



The deeper into space  we look .
the further back in time we see.
What does this say about the relationship between "time" and "space"?
"seeing" depends on light  wch takes time to travel through space.
What we see in the present had it's origin in the (distant) past!

Space or "distance" is defined in terms of  the time it takes light to traverse space
traveling at a specific and constant velocity (C).
since v=c=d/t
therefore: d=ct

Distance is defined by how it is measured.
Thus, a "light year" is the distance light travels in one year of time.

1 light year = 9.4605284 × 1012 kilometers

"seeing" depends on light wch takes time to travel through space

This is the method of ordinary perception.
Is there another way of aquiring information that does not depend upon light transmission?
The phenomenon of "quantum entanglement" suggests that information can be exchanged across any spatial distance instantaneously....without any time lag.

6 comments:

  1. Physicist Russell Targ created the Remote Viewing program at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) during the Cold War, as well as various remote viewing applications and experiments.

    After two decades of research at SRI, they demonstrated that ordinary people visiting their laboratory could learn to accurately describe and experience what was going on at distant places, and that in fact, with practice most people can learn to "remote view."


    See Russell Targ's new book "The Reality of ESP"

    http://www.espresearch.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thirty-Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea will surpass even the Hubble Space Telescope in some ways, giving scientists a new view of some of the oldest stars and galaxies in the universe, as well as planets orbiting nearby stars.
    This instrument will be so powerful it will bring into view galaxies forming at the edge of the observable universe, near the beginning of time (i.e. near zero time)!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This means that any event observed outside of the body has already taken place in the past.
    Indeed all of our visual perceptions can only be of past events
    because it takes time for light (the energy wch carries the information about the occurence)
    to reach us.
    It takes time for light to traverse space!

    For example, our "present" experience of the sun
    is of the sun as it existed 8 minutes ago in the past!
    We are not able to experience the sun
    as it exists in the present
    moment!

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The speed at wch information can be transfered is limited by the speed of light.

    Apart from the time it takes for light (or electromagnetic radiation, which includes radio signals) from a given source to reach the eye....
    there is also a measurable time delay between when a photon strikes the retina and when the information it contains
    reaches the visual cortex and is consciously "perceived"
    Thus although our visual perceptions appear to be occuring "live" and in "present time"
    they are always of past events!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Entanglement

    Our linear way of thinking about time is also inconsistent with another series of recent experiments. In 2002, scientists showed that particles of light "photons" knew – in advance – what their distant twins would do in the future. They tested the communication between pairs of photons. They let one photon finish its journey – it had to decide whether to be either a wave or a particle. Researchers stretched the distance the other photon took to reach its own detector. However, they could add a scrambler to prevent it from collapsing into a particle. Somehow, the first particle knew what the researcher was going to do before it happened – and across distances instantaneously as if there were no space or time between them. They decide not to become particles before their twin even encounters the scrambler. It doesn't matter how we set up the experiment. Our mind and its knowledge is the only thing that determines how they behave. Experiments
    consistently confirm these observer-dependent effects.

    ReplyDelete