Quantum Nanotechnology/Is it by Travel?< Quantum Nanotechnology
Is It by Travel?Edit
Let us assume, although that our doctrine is considerably skewed as this would lead to the author’s brainwaves having a couple of screws loose. In that being that the order of progression is incorrect and that I have only extrapolated from causality violation involving a rectilinear mass-less energy form of said distance and applied it to normal causality (cause and effect) situations where relativistic effects are considerably negligible even in situations of walking and resting.
That’s how energy becomes established to grow in time in the order described - from the future to present is incorrect. That order of establishment of energy in time as it progresses from position to position, does not occur in the now, that energy is not established in coming from THE past into THE present by coming to THE future to THE present.
Which, by all accounts would make absolutely perfect sense. But rather by classical interpretations and reasons of thought that energy in being established in time, transpires by growing from THE past to THE present and that the future remains uncertain. Prediction has no bearing here. Then if this is assumed as absolute for nominal cause and effect situations involving all types of experimental bodies that incorporate energy to work and accomplish things - then of a surety I am wrong. And I admit it plain and simple.
But it still leaves our discoveries unaltered, the past present and future are still interdependent to create the now-to evolve limits for energies incorporated in the now by the now. Also whenever energy does become established in whatever degree, in situations where causality (RPS) is not reciprocal, that the now is responsible for the constraints for/of energy being prohibited to the relations of positions (that is they are created by them) which are the degrees of freedom created by definition.
The conclusion where energy then would not be generated from the past - but instead is always in the now, or that it comes from the past only to the present and that in so doing the future does not lead to the present. Hence on one side of the fence we have the modernists who argue that the past leads to the present, while on the other side you have me and my discoveries and these writings. It appears then that we have a double standard resulting in a disagreement, which can be argued as uncomplimentary. However before everyone laughs and walks away, let’s take a closer look at this two-sided coin with the use of an imaginary time traversion machine.
And let us assume that in a straightaway manner, we transcend time to the same place back in time to approximately 1 hour beforehand. Upon emerging into THE past at the same spot we check our surroundings and realize we are indeed in THE past of 1 hour before initiating the event to go back. (We are outdoors of course). Now we desire to return to the present from the past in which we are in-in the now, currently. To return via our machine from the past to the present- we must now journey to the future from the past of which we currently reside in.
When we travel (if you can call it that) to the present from the past we are, in essence traveling also from the past to the present, by travel from the past to the future and the future leads back to the present from which we left. While inversely, we would travel from the now from the present.
While also we would from THE future to THE past. And we emerge into the past it becomes the now.
Thus both interpretations are correct and neither is wrong! Therefore the future does lead to the present while also the past leads to the present.
Now this might appear a tad perplexing but the differentiation comes between leaving and arriving.
While it can be stated that the past leads to the future-it does, provided infinite travel in it is exercised. Reversed toward the Big Bang. And it does not matter whether that travel through time is reciprocal or in a straight-line. The past leads to the now and the future leads to the present.
If you are re-read again.