gts@axiom.UUCP (Guy Schafer) (07/24/86)
I received a head injury the other day and I thought of this:
Get a bunch of detectors of all sorts--electromagnetic (video cameras,
thermal detectors, microwave detectors, etc), calibrated clocks,
sniffers (gas and various fluid detectors), microphones, and whatever
other kind you can think of or invent.
Then pick a spot that is durable (won't move very far over the course
of many years) and is PRECISELY known--note it's longitude, lattitude,
measure it from the poles (magnetic and actual) from geosyncronous
sattilites, even from other planets and the sun.
Then pick a time that is also precisely known--use several methods if
possible.
Then widely publicize and permanently store this information (time, place,
types and accuracy of detectors) in many places--especially where physics
research is being done.
At the time chosen, just listen for messages coming in from the future.
If a message comes in, we know that sometime in the future, the stored info
was retrieved and used to send info back in time using technology now
unknown.
If nothing comes in, we know that during the next x years (where x is the
probable durability of the stored information) technology to send info
back in time will not have been invented.
Comments?
>< ...{ decvax!linus | seismo!harvard }!axiom!gts
"Live by the foma that makes you brave
and kind and healthy and happy."
--The Books of Bokonon. 1:5brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/26/86)
In article <289@axiom.UUCP> gts@axiom.UUCP (Guy Schafer) writes: > > > ... advertise big that you're going to listen for time messages from the > future and see what happens ... > >If a message comes in, we know that sometime in the future, the stored info >was retrieved and used to send info back in time using technology now >unknown. > >If nothing comes in, we know that during the next x years (where x is the >probable durability of the stored information) technology to send info >back in time will not have been invented. > >Comments? Not likely you'll get anything. If there is time travel (backwards) then it is probably highly restricted, and messages to the past are no doubt illegal - certainly for frivolous purposes like this. But most of all, it's a paradox. Not only would your intent to listen go in the history books, but so would the results of your experiment. If the books say you received nothing, then they wouldn't bother to send. If they "will have said" that you received something, then the future exists and there is no free will, so why bother with the experiment?
bhayes@glacier.UUCP (07/27/86)
In article <289@axiom.UUCP> gts@axiom.UUCP (Guy Schafer) writes: >Get a bunch of detectors of all sorts [...] pick a spot [and] >pick a time that is also precisely known [...]. > >At the time chosen, just listen for messages coming in from the future. Good idea. Been done, too. A few years ago a friend of mine got an invitation to a party for time travelers. It was a national mailing [seemed to have been associated with the Church of the Subgenus] and as far as I know no guests of honor showed up.
eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (07/28/86)
> I received a head injury the other day and I thought of this: > > Followed by a descriptions and numerous followup paradoxes. No, but I think you have a great idea for a movie..... From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center com'on do you trust Reply commands with all these different mailers? {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,tektronix,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (07/28/86)
In article <289@axiom.UUCP> gts@axiom.UUCP (Guy Schafer) writes: >If a message comes in, we know that sometime in the future, the stored info >was retrieved and used to send info back in time using technology now >unknown. Or the message is from the present and is a hoax or a joke. How do you verify the source of the message? >If nothing comes in, we know that during the next x years (where x is the >probable durability of the stored information) technology to send info >back in time will not have been invented. Or, we know that with that knowlege comes apathy about what has already trans- pired, such that even if someone has the capability to send a message back, they don't. It seems to me that no matter what the outcome, this experiment would tell you nothing. Long ago I theorized that UFO's could be time travelers from our own people in the future. I can think of no benefit to them of making this known to us, how- ever. In fact, contact (and exchange of information) between future people and the present could be very risky to that future. The paradox inherent in this has been debated before, I'm sure. Dave
timothym@tekigm2.UUCP (07/29/86)
Now this is why I read this net. If any of you who read this don't get it, do yourself a favor and read this original article. It is definately worth reading. I also congratulate the original poster for his ingenuity. I hope someone with the influence to make the idea work will perform the experiment. I just hope that the person doing the test is a public organization, and will share the wealth so to speak. Again, read the original article for full information. -- Tim Margeson (206)253-5240 tektronix!tekigm2!timothym @@ 'Who said that?' PO Box 3500 d/s C1-937 Vancouver, WA. 98668
lyang@sun.uucp (Larry Yang) (07/29/86)
In article <1408@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >In article <289@axiom.UUCP> gts@axiom.UUCP (Guy Schafer) writes: >>If a message comes in, we know that sometime in the future, the stored info >>was retrieved and used to send info back in time using technology now >>unknown. > >Or the message is from the present and is a hoax or a joke. How do you verify >the source of the message? > What could be done is a bunch of scientists secretely set up this equipment for about 60 seconds, then announce to the world the next day that they did this. Thus, in the future when time experiments are being done, they know about this window to shoot for. Of course, they should have heard/recorded something during this session. This way, in order for there to be a joke response, one would have to invent a way to transmit info through time, no? > >Long ago I theorized that UFO's could be time travelers from our own people in >the future. I can think of no benefit to them of making this known to us, how- >ever. In fact, contact (and exchange of information) between future people and >the present could be very risky to that future. The paradox inherent in this >has been debated before, I'm sure. > >Dave How 'bout this theory that I thought of a while ago... Time travellers go back in time to explore the evolution of man and get stranded back there, becoming ancestors to the human race. But then, now we're getting into science fiction and not physics.... -- Larry Yang
brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) (07/30/86)
>Get a bunch of detectors of all sorts--electromagnetic (video cameras, >... >Then pick a spot that is durable (won't move very far over the course >of many years) and is PRECISELY known--note it's longitude, lattitude, >measure it from the poles (magnetic and actual) from geosyncronous >sattilites, even from other planets and the sun. >Then pick a time that is also precisely known--use several methods if >possible. >... >Then widely publicize and permanently store this information (time, place, >... >At the time chosen, just listen for messages coming in from the future. Maybe that's what the pyramids are all about. Or stonehenge.... --Brian
ken@hcrvax.UUCP (07/30/86)
>In article <1408@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >In article <289@axiom.UUCP> gts@axiom.UUCP (Guy Schafer) writes: >>If a message comes in, we know that sometime in the future, the stored info >>was retrieved and used to send info back in time using technology now >>unknown. > >Or the message is from the present and is a hoax or a joke. How do you verify >the source of the message? TO VERIFY MESSAGE: Set up a random number generator (using atomic decay or something equally uncontrollable, NOT a pseudo-random number generating computer program). Run the test on Friday. On Saturday, generate a 200 digit random number, and publish it along with info about the experiment. With any luck you will already know the number, because the time traveller will have sent it back to you on Friday! Mini-flame to skeptics: You shouldn't use the word "impossible" with regard to these ideas. To be classed impossible, something should have been *proven* impossible (like squaring a circle using only compasses and straight-edge). It is not enough that it be "not possible in light of current *theories*." Especially given the incomplete state of the science of physics. - The universe is not only stranger than we suppose, it is stranger that we can suppose. (Edwin Hubble) -- - Ken Scott [decvax,inhn4]!utzoo!hcr!ken "You say I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes."
taylor@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP (Jem Taylor) (07/31/86)
In article <289@axiom.UUCP> gts@axiom.UUCP writes: >If a message comes in, we know that sometime in the future, the stored info >was retrieved and used to send info back in time using technology now >unknown. > >If nothing comes in, we know that during the next x years (where x is the >probable durability of the stored information) technology to send info >back in time will not have been invented. Trouble is, a negative response doesn't prove no time travel - 'they' might fail to reply for reasons like "these primitives shouldn't know" (c.f. the time lords in Dr. Who), they might miss the spot when replying - either too soon or in the wrong place, they might not think it worth the trouble, or they might worry about upsetting the course of history ( though I think that the idea of being able to upset history is preposterous - history is HISTORY at least in any particular fork of possibility ) Good idea though; make sure the message you send 'into the future' is in a language, as yet unknown, that they will understand . . . if it *does* work, of course, the experiment should be very famous in the future and therefore well publicised. Jem. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JANET: ' , ' , ' taylor@uk.ac.glasgow.cs ' ___ , ' USENET: , / | \ , { uk }!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!taylor ' -o| Royal Mail: , ' (J=) ' , J.A.Taylor ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Computer Science <>< 17 Lilybank Gardens ><> Jemima GB-GLASGOW G12 8QQ ><> Puddleduck "who says it doesn't rain on the west coast ?"
jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) (08/01/86)
> Comments?
This is very clever and well thought out. One thing though. The conclusion
that time travel will one day be invented can be drawn if you get an answer.
The converse is not true however. If you DON'T get an answer there are a
number of possible explanations including: Time travel will not be invented;
we don't have the right instrumentation to receive time transmissions (i.e.-
special technology is associated with the receiver as opposed to the sender);
future societies have the technology to talk to us, but chose not to for
social or moral reasons. In fact the old Star Trek reasoning of not contacting
the past must be valid if you assume that future generations must invent time
travel and we have never received a time traveler or message.
Clearly time travel is possible. Why just yesterday I heard on the news that
the Post Office was delivering letters that were mailed in 1940. (Least you
think this funny, it is a time transmission, it's just going the easy way)(-8
Jeff McQuinn just VAXing aroundags@pucc-h (Dave Seaman) (08/01/86)
In article <1992@sequent.UUCP> brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) writes: >>Get a bunch of detectors of all sorts--electromagnetic (video cameras, >>... >>Then pick a spot that is durable (won't move very far over the course >>of many years) and is PRECISELY known--note it's longitude, lattitude, >>measure it from the poles (magnetic and actual) from geosyncronous >>sattilites, even from other planets and the sun. >>Then pick a time that is also precisely known--use several methods if >>possible. >>... >>Then widely publicize and permanently store this information (time, place, >>... >>At the time chosen, just listen for messages coming in from the future. > > Maybe that's what the pyramids are all about. Or stonehenge.... The experiment would be no less valid if you pick a time and place on the spur of the moment and do the listening first, then widely publicize the time and place and store the information after the fact. Of course you must carry through, even if you don't detect anything. Somehow this seems doomed to failure. -- Dave Seaman pur-ee!pucc-h!ags "I wish I had time to explain Dimensional Transcendentalism!"
cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) (08/05/86)
In article <2913@pucc-h> ags@pucc-h.UUCP (Dave Seaman) writes: >In article <1992@sequent.UUCP> brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) writes: >>>Get a bunch of detectors of all sorts--electromagnetic (video cameras, >>>Then pick a spot that is durable (won't move very far over the course >>>Then pick a time that is also precisely known--use several methods if >>>possible. >>>Then widely publicize and permanently store this information (time, place, >>>At the time chosen, just listen for messages coming in from the future. > >The experiment would be no less valid if you pick a time and place on the >spur of the moment and do the listening first, then widely publicize the >time and place and store the information after the fact. Of course you >must carry through, even if you don't detect anything. Somehow this seems >doomed to failure. In fact, the experiment is not valid _unless_ you do the listening before you publicize the time and place. If you do it the other way 'round there's no way to rule out the possibility that somebody is actually sending you a message from the present. -- ===+=== Andre Guirard /@ @\ ihnp4!mmm!cipher /_____\ ( @ @ ) My mission: to explore strange new words. \ _ / To seek out and utilize new applications. `-' To shovel snow that snow plows have shoved before.
marty@ism780c.UUCP (Marty Smith) (08/07/86)
In article <1035@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes: >In article <2913@pucc-h> ags@pucc-h.UUCP (Dave Seaman) writes: >>In article <1992@sequent.UUCP> brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) writes: >>>>Get a bunch of detectors..... >>The experiment would be no less valid if you pick a time and place on the >>spur of the moment and do the listening first, then widely publicize the >>time and place and store the information after the fact. Of course you >>must carry through, even if you don't detect anything. Somehow this seems >>doomed to failure. > >In fact, the experiment is not valid _unless_ you do the listening >before you publicize the time and place. If you do it the other way >'round there's no way to rule out the possibility that somebody is >actually sending you a message from the present. This proves the experiment won't work. CASE A: We are all, in effect, doing the experiment all the time. But we don't hear anything so we don't publicize the time and place. There would be no point to publicizing the time and place if we didn't hear anything, because we can't go back to that time after we publicize the information. We can only go back to the place. CASE B: Suppose I do hear something. I publicize the time and place of the reception, but I do not modify my actions based on the contents of the message. I cannot verify that the message is from the future. But, time passes. I am on my way home from the mental hospital, where they planted me because I kept saying I received a message from the future. I have just been released from this hospital because I'm doing much better now. I walk down a dusty, lonely road, and I come upon an old man, bent over, carrying a heavy load. I assist him, and after walking together for a few miles, we stop to rest. He asks my name. I say, "My name is Martin Smith." His eyes grow wide. "You are the one!" he says. "I sent a message to you! With my device. Here." The old man pulls from his bundle a black box, which he claims he uses to send messages to precise time/space coordinates in the past. I am shaken. I feel insanity crawling up my back. I try to pull it off but cannot. I am falling headlong into mental illness, when the old man pulls out a newspaper from many years ago, the headline of which reads, "Martin Smith Publicizes Time And Place Of Message From The Future." I feel relief fold over me like a warm blanket. It is the old man who is insane. CASE C: I hear the same message as in case B, but this time I act on the contents of the message. The message says: On October 28th, 2029, the stock of IBM will drop from a high of $1024/share to $3. I wait patiently for the next 43 years, and then, during the afternoon of Oct 27th, I call my broker and tell her to sell short every share of IBM she can get her hands on. She says, "What, are you crazy?" I say, "Don't give me a lot of heartburn, just do it." Next day I become the wealthiest man in the universe. But the above won't work. If I publicize the message, then IBM stock won't get up to $1024 on Oct 27th, 2029. It will get up to $1024 the day after I publicize the contents of the message. Then there will be a mass sell off. Certainly, by the time Oct 27th, 2029 rolls around, IBM will be nowhere near $1024. CASE D: Suppose I don't publicize the contents of the message in case C, but keep it a secret for myself. I only publicize the date, time, and place where I received it. Hmmm. Then I would be the only one who knew, or thought I knew, that IBM was going to fall. Hmmm. I scratch my chin. Maybe the experiment will work after all. Okay. I got this message yesterday. It was from the year 2029. I was standing on the corner of Wilshire and Westwood at exactly high noon... Marty Smith