973-Eht-Namuh-973.com The Oracle Forum

Is your future already decided.?

New theory of time suggests that the past, present AND future co-exist in the universe.
The old adage that 'time is like a river' suggesting that we move through it like a ship sailing on water, may be
wrong. A new theory claims that time does not move forward, but rather. everything in time is ever-present.
According to the theory, if we were to 'look down' upon the universe, we would see time spread out in all
directions, just as we see space at the moment.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of philosophy has presented a new theory of time.
Dr Bradford Skow says the idea that time flows like a river is not necessarily correct. Instead he claims space-time
is a "block universe" where the present, past and future all exist together.

Research attempts to answer questions that remain about the 'arrow of time' which is the concept that time is
symmetric' and everything moves forwards. They say at the time of the Big Bang not one but two universes
formed-both moving equally in each direction through time , but opposite to each other.

Greetings Hope,

Ah yes, Quantum physics, my most researched subject, and my college major.

This theory particularly seems most relevant to me. I have made a post in the past titled: does time really exist? On that thread, BeN1 shared a link to an article on this theory suggesting that the universe started with a BOUNCE, and not a BANG. This theory shows that when the universe was formed, it burst out in two different realities of time. One going forward, or what we perceive as forward, and the other going backwards, or what we perceive as backwards. This theory can be semi proven with another theory that shows time has no direction. This makes sense, if time really doesn't have any direction, then the human measurement system of time is completely wrong. The past is still going on as the future is happening. The present is someones past, as it is someones future. This all coexists with the concept of two realities forming in the beginning of the universe.

But this can all be further researched through quantum mechanics, as further investigation and technology is being done. Time cannot be altered, but though a completely different reality of the subconscious mind, we can somehow access this through the quantum realm and travel through time. But again this is all just a matter of theory, and things like the theory of relativity still need investigation, as the equation makes sense, but how can this be accessed?

As a conclusion, the science of physics is becoming more quantum. Meaning the investigation of time and space dwells on subatomic particles, because it is the subject where science advances most. But the only problem with this is that quantum physics is very theoretical, everything makes sense but scientists don't know how to prove these.

I will gladly add more replies and posts to this thread as it is a subject that needs full attention and research. Good topic to bring up, as REALITY IS NOT ALWAYS WHAT IT SEEMS. . .

I do not mean to derail the conversation, as this is tangential, but the information posted here made me think of a strange phenomenon involving the speed of light:

Each time that the speed of light was measured, we have obtained a different result. Now, of course, the results varied only by marginal amounts, so it was easy for the scientific community to chalk this up to a fault of our instruments: our methods of measuring just aren't perfectly accurate. However, by taking an average of several readings, we can arrive at a fairly accurate approximation of the actual speed of light.

But here's the interesting part...

If it were exclusively the lack of perfect precision of our instruments causing the variation between readings, then one would expect a scatter plot of these measurements to roughly cluster around the mean. Though that happens to an extent, the plotted measurements also display a pattern of a slow but consistent increase over the past several decades. While this is a bold proposition, it suggests that the speed of light may not actually be constant, but instead slowly increases with time.

Apologies for bringing him up in all of my recent posts, but I liked Terence McKenna's take on this. He said that perhaps instead of thinking of the speed of light and other universal constants as unchanging, we ought to consider them something like "habits", which the universe develops and follows for vast periods of time, but which are still to some degree susceptible to change.

In light (pun intended) of the Theory of Relativity, this suggestion of a changing speed of light grows even more interesting.

Regards,
Svalbard