Galactic Doppelgänger theories?

[think]

I am just realizing that within the center of the galaxy is the "black-hole" that would bend light about it so that pointing a scope or some magnifying device at the event horizon would led to the scope seeing itself in a mirror? the light is bent about and around to create the "loop" in space at a point to point relation that concurs with itself.

Is that enough of a theory to start a topic here?

This Doppelgänger effect is possible "they say - in science fiction" if the sun were more adept to bend light, that it could create an earth on the opposite side of the sun, but looking at this in a galactic sense what if there were exact Doppelgängers for everything in the galaxy/universe and we were just so foolish we did not know or is it that we now know?

What if there were more to the quantum thing beyond the Doppelgängers and such that there were three-way or four-way symmetric links of ourselves in copy form, beyond known dimensions and such? Then who would be the real McCoy?

 

[scotthm]

...if the sun were more adept to bend light, that it could create an earth on the opposite side of the sun

The Earth is not made of light, so the most that could be created is an image of the one and only Earth.

---------------

 

[sojourner]

Yeah, these are images, not copies of the original.

 

[think]

I am pretty sure there is a point here image yes but where or when?

I agree also that there is a difference between science fact and fiction. What applies here would be the fact that we could look in on ourselves at a different point in time either around the sun or around the core of the galaxy. and then as in the "movie" the two different experiences or light objects where we are the same "image" that is being observed by the ones we observe sends through the 'portal' window some volunteer to find out why they do things there ... as we see the image yet not as it is here right now? This seems it is a mirror without the glass or mirror ---

 

[sojourner]

Sigh, its an image. Yes, you could look back in time potentially. IF (REALLY big IF, as in "not in the next 100 years") you had the optics. But it's still just an image of the past. No visiting going on. Not in this forum at least.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I'm slightly alarmed that someone would confuse an image of something for a bona fide duplicate of it. Maybe you should see a doctor, think, as I worry you have lost your grip on reality.

 

[Gepard]

I'm slightly alarmed that someone would confuse an image of something for a bona fide duplicate of it. Maybe you should see a doctor, think, as I worry you have lost your grip on reality.

I hereby nominate this post for "understatement of the year."

 

[Shatnertage]

Wouldn't you just see 7 minutes (or however long it takes for light to get from Sun to Earth) back in time?

 

[RoJoHen]

^8 minutes.

And I think it would depend on how bendy the light is.

 

[Gepard]

I believe think is also misunderstanding how gravitational lensing works. Evey reference I can find shows the effect distorting the image of an object on the far side of the lens, rather like looking through a glass of water. Lensing doesn't bend our own image around 180 degrees and show it to us.

 

[RoJoHen]

The lensing isn't strong enough to bend our own image around 180 degrees and show it to us.

Not yet...but it will be.

 

[think]

Well yeah, there is lots misunderstood about everything...

Sigh, its an image. Yes, you could look back in time potentially. IF (REALLY big IF, as in "not in the next 100 years") you had the optics. But it's still just an image of the past. No visiting going on. Not in this forum at least.

And it is still just an image of the moon, until we land on it, right? I can assume that none of us (in this forum) have landed on the moon?

I'm slightly alarmed that someone would confuse an image of something for a bona fide duplicate of it. Maybe you should see a doctor, think, as I worry you have lost your grip on reality.

I hereby nominate this post for "understatement of the year."

@Robert and Gep: yes I am in treatment that all things ale me is also an understatement.

we know the scenarios of time travel yes..

looks at clock = now is zero time travel; no movement
looks at clock greater then now(tomorrow) slower then zero movement movement away from clock
looks at clock less then now (yesterday) greater then zero movement moving toward clock?

is this correct I will stop here?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Although I think get the basic idea of what you're saying in regard to the clocks, it is stated in a very confusing way.

Let's say I have one clock, rather than three. If I look at it right now, it shows the current time and date (today.) If I could somehow peer into a moment exactly 24 hours ago, it would show the time and date from that period (yesterday.) Likewise, if I could peer 24 hours into the future, it would show the time and date from that period (tomorrow.) Were I to watch the clock from yesterday, then yes, I would see it moving toward the time on the "present" clock. Likewise, if I look at the clock in the future, I would see its time counting up, away from the "present" clock.

But this is also assuming a fixed frame of reference in which you do not continue to move forward with the "present" clock. If you did continue to move forward, then you would see no temporal "distance" changes between the three clocks. They would always remain exactly 24 hours apart from each other.

The future clock introduces causality problems since, if you can see what's going to happen 24 hours from now, you could use that knowledge to impact the present. There are no such problems looking at the past, so long as you cannot interact with the past beyond viewing it.

But I'm not sure what the point of all this is. If time travel is at all possible, then it is just that you can travel into the past, which will then create a divergent timeline with an irrevocably-altered future due to your presence in the past.

 

[Butters]

But I'm not sure what the point of all this is. If time travel is at all possible, then it is just that you can travel into the past, which will then create a divergent timeline with an irrevocably-altered future due to your presence in the past.

If you could travel to the past, your future self would have already been there. If you've not found a note from your future self revealing what lottery numbers you need, you can be confident that time travel just isn't gonna happen for you.

 

[think]

I knew that was going to be confusing, hence I stopped there.. [wait is this the part of the trekbbs forum that despises the smiley face ...sorry]

consider?​

The superimposition of multiple realities at just the image level(-sorry mmm no don't think you're quite there yet so...

consider?​

(back-stepping some)

With the basic multiple realities and given the probability that they exist? This is just assuming we exist.
(This is a giant assumption since it was/is/will never really proven across the board to be true, false, either, neither or both, that "we" exist; in that we will just got with the "both" assumption of existence.)

/(stepping on someone-lol-)/

-//And also (as I look at the lensing formula) I hate to have to disprove the relativity idea based on the three+ object gravity definition from the future but.. = so what.//-

/(done stepping on someone-lol-)/


As this implies any reality, can and does exist, in the actual sense given that time is limitless and far beyond infinite.

what would this imply over all...

//I need a shower, no,. well yes, but I shall return after said shower //same bat time same bat channel woot//

 

[sojourner]

You should have stopped earlier. None of this is going to be possible until we can build a pyramid to space.

 

[Shatnertage]

With magnets.

 

[Gepard]

And free energy. Powered by lizard-men from Nibiru.

 

[Psion]

Think, I'm curious about what you ... er ... think about Gene Ray's Time Cube?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Think, I'm curious about what you ... er ... think about Gene Ray's Time Cube?

I think we're never going to hear from him again now.