Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Questions for any body? Changing timelines
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="start at edge" data-source="post: 188376" data-attributes="member: 11971"><p>Don’t say that !! .. You’re brilliant at physics.</p><p>You’ll hear most people say “I’m not good at physics”, but in fact all of them are good at physics.</p><p>In fact, if digging deeper and deeper into physics, it eventually turns into pure math. Everything finally turns into math.</p><p>The logic you used to provide your answer is very solid. According to what you compiled to provide your answer, the result chart would look like this:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]8580[/ATTACH]</p><p>It is the most logical answer to come up with. Most people would come up with the same answer, but here is where the strangeness kicks in .. Have a look at how the correct result chart looks like:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]8581[/ATTACH]</p><p>The triggering event (turning the switch ON), the result event (LED getting lit up) and the witness event (the ammeter indicating) happen simultaneously. The only event that takes time, is the actual viewing of the LED light beam. I know, it sounds ridiculously strange, but within this thought-experiment there are also some thought alternate scenarios, which seem to be the right ones to approach in order to get the right answer. It is the typical situation when, at first sight, if a plausible answer is found, nobody bothers anymore to further investigate other scenarios or possibilities. In other words, the scenario you chose, even though it is most logical, is also collapsible by other scenarios, which prove it wrong.</p><p>It would be great if you further had a little patience to follow, because I will break down one of these alternate scenarios:</p><p>If the one thought to be true (yours), then let us assume that 18 seconds after the triggering event (t0) you decide to disconnect (unplug) the ammeter. This results into the ammeter not showing any electricity consumption at any time, which is impossible, because you can not have an LED emitting light without power consumption and it would mean that the LED emitted light for 8 seconds (from 10 to 18) without actually being connected to the power source. The only way to make sense of this, to have things happening as they naturally should, is to accept that those three events happen simultaneously, which means that the speed of light is some sort of zero, compared to the huge speed (probably infinite) at which these events happen.</p><p>Bottom line – it may be true that the speed of light is an upper limit, but a limit in the type of universe we got used to over many years of ignoring (even worse for some people – denying) other alternate possibilities. What this experiment actually tells us, is that something happens to time, so we should seriously reconsider this notion.</p><p>There is another alternate scenario that proves the first one wrong:</p><p>Imagine that you interchange the switch and the ammeter, as shown in image below:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]8582[/ATTACH]</p><p>In this scenario everything happens the same, even though the electrons go first through the ammeter, then through the LED and the last one through the switch, which could be easily be misinterpreted as EFFECT preceding CAUSE, obviously this is not the case. In this scenario, those three events happen also simultaneously.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="start at edge, post: 188376, member: 11971"] Don’t say that !! .. You’re brilliant at physics. You’ll hear most people say “I’m not good at physics”, but in fact all of them are good at physics. In fact, if digging deeper and deeper into physics, it eventually turns into pure math. Everything finally turns into math. The logic you used to provide your answer is very solid. According to what you compiled to provide your answer, the result chart would look like this: [ATTACH type="full" alt="8580"]8580[/ATTACH] It is the most logical answer to come up with. Most people would come up with the same answer, but here is where the strangeness kicks in .. Have a look at how the correct result chart looks like: [ATTACH type="full" alt="8581"]8581[/ATTACH] The triggering event (turning the switch ON), the result event (LED getting lit up) and the witness event (the ammeter indicating) happen simultaneously. The only event that takes time, is the actual viewing of the LED light beam. I know, it sounds ridiculously strange, but within this thought-experiment there are also some thought alternate scenarios, which seem to be the right ones to approach in order to get the right answer. It is the typical situation when, at first sight, if a plausible answer is found, nobody bothers anymore to further investigate other scenarios or possibilities. In other words, the scenario you chose, even though it is most logical, is also collapsible by other scenarios, which prove it wrong. It would be great if you further had a little patience to follow, because I will break down one of these alternate scenarios: If the one thought to be true (yours), then let us assume that 18 seconds after the triggering event (t0) you decide to disconnect (unplug) the ammeter. This results into the ammeter not showing any electricity consumption at any time, which is impossible, because you can not have an LED emitting light without power consumption and it would mean that the LED emitted light for 8 seconds (from 10 to 18) without actually being connected to the power source. The only way to make sense of this, to have things happening as they naturally should, is to accept that those three events happen simultaneously, which means that the speed of light is some sort of zero, compared to the huge speed (probably infinite) at which these events happen. Bottom line – it may be true that the speed of light is an upper limit, but a limit in the type of universe we got used to over many years of ignoring (even worse for some people – denying) other alternate possibilities. What this experiment actually tells us, is that something happens to time, so we should seriously reconsider this notion. There is another alternate scenario that proves the first one wrong: Imagine that you interchange the switch and the ammeter, as shown in image below: [ATTACH type="full" alt="8582"]8582[/ATTACH] In this scenario everything happens the same, even though the electrons go first through the ammeter, then through the LED and the last one through the switch, which could be easily be misinterpreted as EFFECT preceding CAUSE, obviously this is not the case. In this scenario, those three events happen also simultaneously. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
Questions for any body? Changing timelines
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top