Suppose our galaxy is falling. Of course in our Universe, knowing which way is up or down is something that we wouldn't really know for sure because all directions could be up and down...
So, imagine for a second that our galaxy is actually falling. Scientist agree that the Universe appears to be expanding giving them the impression that it either has a boundary (which is, I would think the Universe is its' own boundary or creates its' own boundry) or is limitless.
If our galaxy was actually falling, it would give the illusion that the Universe is expanding when it could very well be that the Universe itself does neither, expand or collapse.
The big bang suggest that all things shed away from it's singular source... but in which direction would this be? Not just strait out but shed in every direction only leaving the obvious and theoretically sound assumption that the Universe has a center.
If we are going further away from the center, to look one direction it appears to be expanding, to look the other direction it appears to be collapsing.
Scientist agree that that looking out into space is literally looking into the past. However, if we look the other direction, they say it is impossible to be looking into the future because the future doesn't yet exist.
But who is really to say that "seemingly" new super nova that just shed its' skin is not the future and we are not from the time past?
Some logic tells me that because we can see that galaxies do collide and Andromeda is coming closer to us or us to Andromeda that this is not the past but this really is our future.
So how is it that we know that Andromeda is on course to collide with us in the Milky Way yet they say that looking out into space is essentially or some say literally, looking into the past...
Are you ready to meet the future or are you certain that it was all in the past? Seems to me that I could be wrong in that you can see into the future and the future does already exist and what does not exist anymore is the past.
As per my understanding this is what I think why can't we see the future. Take a simple analogy, you are traveling to a place not known to you. You will know about it only when you actually go there (consider it as future or looking ahead). Similarly we can know our future or look ahead when either we have already covered it (in that case it won't be future at all) or we know by our knowledge what lies ahead. But we have not yet explored what lies beyond the boundaries of the universe in which it is expanding and hence we cannot know the future. Hence in such case to say that we cannot see the future because it does not exist could be wrong instead, we can say "we cannot see future because right NOW we cannot see it".
There is one more reason why I feel we cannot see future because it will violate the concept of causality which says that there cannot be an effect until the cause happens. Hence if we see in future we will be seeing the resultant effect before the cause takes place in present.
You may say it is just a concept and not a law and hence it can be proved wrong but to prove it wrong one has to travel faster then the speed of light because the cause and effect are separated only by the fourth dimension i.e. time. So when I ask you to travel faster then light I am basically asking you to travel in time (in forward direction of-course).
I don't how did I sound like but this is what my understanding is. Could be right could be wrong!
I dunno... I could look ten yards ahead and call it the future. Travel there and every step call it the present. If I got bit by a snake hiding in a hole or something, that is something else.
I do think there is a very small increment of time that elapses between future and present. Sorta like just before you get into an accident.
You see it coming, your just too late to do anything about it. Maybe we are just too slow.
That's what I want to say you know about what lies 10yards ahead because you can see it but that is not the case when we talk about seeing ahead in time. To do that even for a second we need to travel more then 300000km in a second. Isn't that irony?? Ya we are slow!
by JeremysStuff5 years ago
I had originally posted this as a question in the "Answers" section, but it was taken down because it "invoked a conversation rather than a Q&A.... So that's why I brought it here! I want you guys to...
by Disappearinghead4 years ago
So after two years visiting this forum I think that both the fundamentalist evangelical Christian and the atheist agree on one thing. That is the existence of God cannot be proven. Therefore how can it be a logical...
by twingwiri6 years ago
As a fellow human being,i want to ask if we could exist without a belief of something o one greater than ourselves.I believe if there was no God we'd have to invent Him.
by Austinstar5 years ago
Most people I talk to have a concept of the universe as a fixed amount of space with some sort of boundary surrounding it. Some people believe God lives beyond this "boundary".Please explain why you believe...
by SparklingJewel8 years ago
So this is what I was remembering having read. If we can't discuss what was considered 1998's biggest scientific breakthrough on the science forum, where does it belong? www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077857 and just Google...
by Emile R3 years ago
I've put this into the philosophy forum because I'm interested in what those who ponder the meaning of the cosmos would consider the ramifications of the answer to be.We talk of the Space-Time Continuum. We know the...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.