Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35
Like Tree19Likes
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 7 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 2 Post By Chrispen Evan
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 2 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By astromark
  • 1 Post By astromark
  • 4 Post By John Galt

Thread: As the Earth orbits the Milky Way is it possible to recieve transmisions from the future?

  1. #1 As the Earth orbits the Milky Way is it possible to recieve transmisions from the future? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111
    I have a question related to SETI and other radio transmitting and receiving programs. I understand that since around 1900 we have been transmitting electromagnetic signals. This signals travel out into the universe at the speed of light in a sphere and by now might have reached up to 10 million stars.

    As those electromagnetic transmissions of Hitler conducting the Olympics travel into the galaxy I would understand that they would meet some pretty strange objects. Stars, Black holes Pulsars etc.

    In the meantime the earth does not stay in one place. the earth orbits the Sun that inturn orbits the Milky Way. Assuming a future trajectory of the Earth would it be possible to tune and point our receivers so as to hear electromagnetic transmissions from the future.

    For example as an electromagnetic wave bends around a black hole the rippling effect around a black hole may cause the transmission to travel back in time.

    Any suggestions?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111
    Any at all?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    Im sure this might be possible in a star trek episode, where anything from swinging around the sun to scotty caughing while using the transporter is an excuse to explain travelling back in time, but in real life, or in a more grounded sci-fi story, Im guessing it would not be possible.
    But Im not a physcisist, and even a physicist could be eventually proven wrong.

    It would be more likely that we receive messages/transmissions that were originated in the past and had simply travelled for a long time, although it might be of pretty bad quality (halfway between interference and a clear message, assuming the signal is used/interpreted the same way we do, which is projecting into alien cultures our own culture/communication-standards).

    (We may also, assuming there's life in a civilization that uses electromagnetic devices within a certain range, not so much detect actual clear messages as simply detect faint patterns of emission fluctuations with a cycle that corresponds to something, like a planet's rotation. Im asuming.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    There are no characteristics of naturally occuring black holes that would lead to the effect you have described.

    On a more general and practical note, the probability is that most, if not all of the signals that have been transmitted will have been overwhelmed by noise to the point that they are undetectable beyond a few light years. The inhabitants of Kepler 62e will have to wait for the DHL spacecraft to get there before they can see re-runs of I Love Lucy.
    uptonryan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    There are no characteristics of naturally occuring black holes that would lead to the effect you have described.

    On a more general and practical note, the probability is that most, if not all of the signals that have been transmitted will have been overwhelmed by noise to the point that they are undetectable beyond a few light years. The inhabitants of Kepler 62e will have to wait for the DHL spacecraft to get there before they can see re-runs of I Love Lucy.
    Not according to this article

    Are we screwing ourselves by transmitting radio signals into space?

    "As the researchers note, at a transmitting power of 0.8 MW and a frequency of 2,380 MHz, the APR’s powerful signal could be picked up by a “watcher” with a 1 km2 receiving antenna at distances of up to 200,000 light years!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    If you actually read the article you will see that the consensus view is as I have presented it. The answer to the question "are we screwing ourselves by transmitting radio signals into space" is basically a "No, we are not."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    If you actually read the article you will see that the consensus view is as I have presented it. The answer to the question "are we screwing ourselves by transmitting radio signals into space" is basically a "No, we are not."
    200 light years is a rather long distance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,438
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    Betteridge's law of headlines: Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    211
    Interesting question.

    However, Answer...no. Your premise is incorrect. As for the articled referenced...best to skip this and go to YouTube and watch some lectures on Quantum theory, etc. Much more fascinating than Sci-fi.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    200 light years is a rather long distance.
    It is a minute distance. It is less than a eighth of the distance to the nearest black hole. It is 1/500th the diameter of the galaxy. There are a tiny fraction of our galaxies stars in that sphere.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111
    So let me get this right.

    Our transmissions over all this time are not far enough to be heard by a black hole. Even if they were they would be so weak as to be unhearable? How can we expect to hear from ET when even our own transmissions cannot be heard?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    So let me get this right.Our transmissions over all this time are not far enough to be heard by a black hole. Even if they were they would be so weak as to be unhearable? How can we expect to hear from ET when even our own transmissions cannot be heard?
    So far we have haven't. According to the Drake equation there are about a quadrillion ETs or 1,000,000,000,000,000 in The Universe. That number is extremely low for any ETs be anywhere near us.

    As for hearing from an ET...their technologies could be from hundreds to billions of years in advance of ours. They could let themselves be known if there was some purpose but there probably isn't anything special about humans...we've just scratched technology. As Carl Sagan said, we don't try to communicate with every anthill so why would we expect some super advanced intelligence to communicate with us. There would be trillions of more advanced civilizations that would prove more interesting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    So far we have haven't. According to the Drake equation there are about a quadrillion ETs or 1,000,000,000,000,000 in The Universe. That number is extremely low for any ETs be anywhere near us.
    we've worked out the Drake Equation by plugging actual numbers in??? why wasn't i told?

    John Galt and dinky like this.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    211
    I think the Drake equation is on the low side. But who knows? Nobody. If one in a million stars has an ET.... that could be 400,000 in our Galaxy instead of Drake's 10,000. Start taking that 400,000 and multiply it by a 100 billion galaxies and the numbers get crazy but still really spread out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111
    The Drake Equation does not take into account a number of factors. For example having a magnetic field and a low orbit moon. Those factors are shown to be crucial to life, however they are not part of the Drake Equation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    The Drake Equation does not take into account a number of factors. For example having a magnetic field and a low orbit moon. Those factors are shown to be crucial to life, however they are not part of the Drake Equation.
    Are they crucial to life? Especially a moon.

    But wouldn't this be covered in ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life (per star that has planets) ?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    The Drake Equation does not take into account a number of factors. For example having a magnetic field and a low orbit moon. Those factors are shown to be crucial to life, however they are not part of the Drake Equation.
    Are they crucial to life? Especially a moon.

    But wouldn't this be covered in ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life (per star that has planets) ?
    The moon produces tides. That keeps the earths core warm, creates volcanic activity, black smokers and tectonic plates. Without the moon we might be as lifeless as Mars.

    A planet can still support life without a moon. However it is less likely to develop there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,438
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    The moon produces tides. That keeps the earths core warm
    Citation needed.

    Earth tides contribute approximately 0.5% to the heat flow of the Earth.
    uptonryan likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Fossilborealis View Post
    I think the Drake equation is on the low side. But who knows? Nobody. If one in a million stars has an ET.... that could be 400,000 in our Galaxy instead of Drake's 10,000. Start taking that 400,000 and multiply it by a 100 billion galaxies and the numbers get crazy but still really spread out.
    Sorry but you are misapplying the Drake equation in two ways:

    Firstly, it was never intended to be used a method of calculating the number of intelligent alien civilisations, but as a framework to discuss the subject.

    Secondly, if one does use for that purpose, one certainly cannot go around saying - as you have - that the Drake equation says this, or that. All one can say is that one selection of inputs for the equation generates this result. And there are many, order of magnitude, variations for some of the values for functions in the equation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    SETI: A Critical History - Cover

    probably one of the better overviews of the SETI project. imo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    The Drake Equation does not take into account a number of factors. For example having a magnetic field and a low orbit moon. Those factors are shown to be crucial to life, however they are not part of the Drake Equation.
    Are they crucial to life? Especially a moon.

    But wouldn't this be covered in ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life (per star that has planets) ?
    The moon produces tides. That keeps the earths core warm, creates volcanic activity, black smokers and tectonic plates. Without the moon we might be as lifeless as Mars.

    A planet can still support life without a moon. However it is less likely to develop there.
    So your basing your assertions on a sample of 1?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    The Drake Equation does not take into account a number of factors. For example having a magnetic field and a low orbit moon. Those factors are shown to be crucial to life, however they are not part of the Drake Equation.
    Are they crucial to life? Especially a moon.

    But wouldn't this be covered in ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life (per star that has planets) ?
    The moon produces tides. That keeps the earths core warm, creates volcanic activity, black smokers and tectonic plates. Without the moon we might be as lifeless as Mars.

    A planet can still support life without a moon. However it is less likely to develop there.
    So your basing your assertions on a sample of 1?
    I think it is closer to the truth to say that you are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG
    So your basing your assertions on a sample of 1?
    I think it is closer to the truth to say that you are.
    In what way is this true? You are supposing that the moon made a major contribution to the development of life. It has been explained to you that your rationale is faulty - plate tectonics and all the other things do not need the moon in order to function.

    Now, perhaps, the greater tidal ranges produced by a nearby moon helped in the mixing and isolation of prebiotic chemistry within tidal pools. Or, perhaps not. Either way you have speculation that since we have a moon and we have life that the two must be associated. That is using a sample size of one.
    Last edited by John Galt; November 13th, 2013 at 06:27 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG
    So your basing your assertions on a sample of 1?
    I think it is closer to the truth to say that you are.
    In what way is this true? You are supposing that the moon made a major contribution to the development of life. It has been explained to you that your rationale is faulty - plate tectonics and all the other things do not need the moon in order to function.

    Now, perhaps, the greater tidal ranges produced by a nearby moon helped in the mixing and isolation of prebiotic chemistry within tidal pools. Or, perhaps not. Either way you have speculation that since we have a moon and we have life that the two must be associated. That is using a sample size of one.
    Show me a planet where life has developed without a moon. End of story.
    Last edited by John Galt; November 13th, 2013 at 06:30 AM. Reason: Correct imported problem with QUOTE tags.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Show me a planet where life has developed without a moon. End of story.
    And so you're basing your assertions on a sample of 1.

    'End of story'

    idiot.
    PhDemon and astromark like this.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Show me a planet where life has developed without a moon. End of story.
    And so you're basing your assertions on a sample of 1.

    'End of story'

    idiot.
    Person who calls other persons idiot on the internet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    'uptonryan' So you have noticed Earths Moon and formed a opinion that it played a pivotal roll in the development of life here.
    We know that the axial tilt, and our seasons and a great number of other factors like temperatures and atmospheric content, pressure, Free oxygen and liquid water were all part of the complex process that has taken place here. A case study of 1.
    You got called a idiot because you seemed to infer that the case study of 1. is how it must be. We suspect that is not so.
    That it does not need to have followed such a path as it did here is a fair conclusion. You would I might offer show a little respect for the opinions of established contributors.. They may very well know a great deal more of this subject than you do. Keep asking questions and never stop learning and one day you will be the respected voice. Some times learning just requires you to listen.

    The question of this topic was in regard to interception of a message we sent and some how receiving it from the future.
    The quarter of a billion years it takes to complete a revolution of the Galaxy.. Is for humanity too far, too long. As for any message sent.. it would be degraded and corrupted by a great deal of noise and interference., and How can it get to be in the future ? No. Any message sent is in the past.. and lost. At one time I was arguing this same subject of humanity remaining quiet... but soon realized it's a foolish unfounded concern. We are so small, so quiet.. we are not herd.
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    You got called a idiot because you seemed to infer that the case study of 1.
    That is one-nil in my favour. But in reality there is not just one organism alive on earth but billions and billions. So its really billions and billions to nil.

    We suspect that is not so.
    You have suspicions I have evidence.

    You would I might offer show a little respect for the opinions of established contributors.
    What about qualifications? publications in peer reviewed journals? You reference respect however you show me none.

    They may very well know a great deal more of this subject than you do. Keep asking questions and never stop learning and one day you will be the respected voice. Some times learning just requires you to listen.
    I don't care about image I care about the truth.

    The question of this topic was in regard to interception of a message we sent and some how receiving it from the future.
    The quarter of a billion years it takes to complete a revolution of the Galaxy.. Is for humanity too far, too long. As for any message sent.. it would be degraded and corrupted by a great deal of noise and interference., and How can it get to be in the future ? No. Any message sent is in the past.. and lost. At one time I was arguing this same subject of humanity remaining quiet... but soon realized it's a foolish unfounded concern. We are so small, so quiet.. we are not herd.
    Assumptions make an ass of u and me. It is dangerous to assume anything. What is needed is evidence. Wormholes, anomalies in space. Time distortions around black holes. undiscovered physics. All of these possibilities could provide that effect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Even if we assume an average of one sentient species per galaxy, there's still a lot of galaxies out there. However the distance between galaxies is so vast that any distinguishing characteristics of civilization are too far away to ever be detectable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    111
    Unless you travel back in time to the point of the big bang where every point in the universe was connected and the distance small, then travel forward in time again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    You got called a idiot because you seemed to infer that the case study of 1.
    That is one-nil in my favour. But in reality there is not just one organism alive on earth but billions and billions. So its really billions and billions to nil.

    We suspect that is not so.
    You have suspicions I have evidence.

    You would I might offer show a little respect for the opinions of established contributors.
    What about qualifications? publications in peer reviewed journals? You reference respect however you show me none.

    They may very well know a great deal more of this subject than you do. Keep asking questions and never stop learning and one day you will be the respected voice. Some times learning just requires you to listen.
    I don't care about image I care about the truth.

    The question of this topic was in regard to interception of a message we sent and some how receiving it from the future.
    The quarter of a billion years it takes to complete a revolution of the Galaxy.. Is for humanity too far, too long. As for any message sent.. it would be degraded and corrupted by a great deal of noise and interference., and How can it get to be in the future ? No. Any message sent is in the past.. and lost. At one time I was arguing this same subject of humanity remaining quiet... but soon realized it's a foolish unfounded concern. We are so small, so quiet.. we are not herd.
    Assumptions make an ass of u and me. It is dangerous to assume anything. What is needed is evidence. Wormholes, anomalies in space. Time distortions around black holes. undiscovered physics. All of these possibilities could provide that effect.
    ~ AlexG said it betterer. ~ Pffft !
    John Galt likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Contrary to many thoughtful, educated and sensitive people I am a great fan of arrogance, but only when it is justified by exceptional qualities.

    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by astromark View Post
    You got called a idiot because you seemed to infer that the case study of 1.
    That is one-nil in my favour. But in reality there is not just one organism alive on earth but billions and billions. So its really billions and billions to nil.
    I wonder if you have heard of gentleman called Charles Darwin. He made a bit of a name for himself with the concept of descent with modification from a common ancestor. The idea caught on. One consequence of it, if true, is that all those billions of organisms you refer to originate from a single source and a single instance of the genesis of life.

    Now, you can assert all you wish, but it does not alter the fact that we do not know which characteristics of our planet are responsible for the origin of life. Claiming the moon is essential is without foundation. I notice you have still failed to respond to my earlier dismantling of your argument that the moon is responsible for plate tectonics. (One wonders if you lack the moral integrity that is necessary to concede when you are wrong, or the intellectual vigour to argue your case with something other than baseless claims.)

    You might wish to consult the views of experts in this area of abiogenesis before making further ill-informed remarks. The following texts are certainly not comprehensive, but I can attest to their quality: I've selected them from my personal library.

    Donald Brownlee, Stephen Ward 'Rare Earth' Springer-Verlag 2000 ISBN:0-387-95289-6
    Jack Cohen, Ian Stewart 'What Does a Martian Look Like?' John Wiley & Sons 2002 ISBN:0-471-26889-5

    Paul Davies 'Are We Alone?' Harper Collins 1995 ISBN:0-465-00418-0

    Simeon Potter 'Voyage to Mars' Penguin Putnam 2000 ISBN:1-57322-166-X

    Walter Sullivan 'We Are Not Alone' McGraw-Hill 1964 ISBN:64-24113
    J. B. Black 'The Eerie Silence' Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 2010 ISBN:978-0-547-13324-9

    Robert Jastrow, Michael Rampino 'Origins of Life in the Universe' Cambridge University Press 2008 ISBN:978-0-521-53283-9

    Dirk Schulze-Makuch, David Darling 'We Are Not Alone' Oneworld Publications 2010 ISBN:978-1-85168-719-0
    Bruce Jakosky 'The Search for Life on Other Planets' Cambridge University Press 1998 ISBN:0-521-59165-1

    Iris Fry 'The Emergence of Life on Earth' Rutgers University Press 2000 ISBN:0-8135-2740-6
    Chris Impey 'Talking About Life' Cambridge University Press 2010 ISBN:978-0-521-51492-7
    Christian de Duve 'Vital Dust' Harper Collins 1995 ISBN:0-456-09044-3

    J. D. Bernal 'The Origin of Life' Weidenfeld & Nicholson 1967 ISBN:297-17035-X

    Marc W. Kirschner, John C. Gerhart 'The Plausibility of Life' Yale University Press 2005 ISBN:0-300-11977-1

    Paul . Davies, 'The Fifth Miracle' Penguin Books Ltd 1998 ISBN:0-14-028226-2

    Stuart Kauffman 'At Home in the Universe' Penguin Books Ltd 1995 ISBN:0-670-86997-X

    Stephen J. Dick 'The Biological Universe' Cambridge University Press 1996 ISBN:0-521-34326-7

    Wim Kayser 'A Glorious Accident ' W.H.Freeman & Co. 1995 ISBN:0-7167-3144-4

    Christopher Wills, Jeffrey Bada 'Spark of Life' Perseus Publishing# 2000 ISBN:0-7382-0196-0

    Amir Aczel 'Probability 1' Little, Brown and Company 1998 ISBN:0-316-64829-9

    Paul Davis 'Cosmic Jackpot' Houghton Mifflin 2006 ISBN:978-0-618-59226-5


    You have suspicions I have evidence
    Perhaps, but so far you have not presented it. All we have heard from you is ill-informed opinion.

    What about qualifications? publications in peer reviewed journals? You reference respect however you show me none.
    So far you have done nothing to earn any respect, and much to discourage its award.

    I don't care about image I care about the truth
    .It doesn't appear that way, based upon the bizarre claims you make and your apparent inability to concede when you are mistaken.

    Assumptions make an ass of u and me. It is dangerous to assume anything. What is needed is evidence. Wormholes, anomalies in space. Time distortions around black holes. undiscovered physics. All of these possibilities could provide that effect.
    You admit we need evidence, then propose concepts that we know nothing of. You may wish to review the definition of evidence.

    uptonryan, I am at a loss to understand what your goals are on the forum. You are clearly in need of an education, yet apparently ill-prepared to acquire one. You have exuded ill-founded arrogance from the outset and act surprised when people react to what smacks of insolence. I'd like to think you could change and become a productive member of the forum. Why don't you want to?
    KALSTER, Strange, PhDemon and 1 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by uptonryan View Post
    I have a question related to SETI and other radio transmitting and receiving programs. I understand that since around 1900 we have been transmitting electromagnetic signals. This signals travel out into the universe at the speed of light in a sphere and by now might have reached up to 10 million stars.

    As those electromagnetic transmissions of Hitler conducting the Olympics travel into the galaxy I would understand that they would meet some pretty strange objects. Stars, Black holes Pulsars etc.

    In the meantime the earth does not stay in one place. the earth orbits the Sun that inturn orbits the Milky Way. Assuming a future trajectory of the Earth would it be possible to tune and point our receivers so as to hear electromagnetic transmissions from the future.

    For example as an electromagnetic wave bends around a black hole the rippling effect around a black hole may cause the transmission to travel back in time.

    Any suggestions?
    I am not scientific, more of a dreamer. Anything is possible. If you believe in the big bang, our big bang is probably not the only one in existence. The could be infinite big bangs happening right now, out there beyond the reaches of ours. Maybe you're out there somewhere asking the same question right now, except you have green skin. I pretty well believe anything I imagine is happening somewhere, somehow, right now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor astromark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,015
    Asking questions of time travel is not science based. Fictions of time reversals are not supported.
    I can not foresee any way a message from Earth could be found half way around the galactic disk., and if it were to be found it would be as old as it's time distance equation demanded it to be..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,438
    Quote Originally Posted by supanova View Post
    Anything is possible.
    No.

    I pretty well believe anything I imagine is happening somewhere, somehow, right now.
    Most likely also no. Depending, of course, on what you imagine.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 2nd, 2013, 01:00 PM
  2. Do Orbits tend to go circular?
    By bill alsept in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: February 25th, 2013, 01:17 PM
  3. First Human Orbits the Earth! - 50 Years Ago April 12
    By MeteorWayne in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 11th, 2011, 02:08 PM
  4. Orbits
    By Snoogy in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 11th, 2009, 03:52 AM
  5. The Earth in the distant future
    By Alceste2009 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 9th, 2009, 04:08 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •