i only read the first part (first few lines) so forgive me if I'm off your topic but I think you're right in that if there were enough people to see it along the way it would exist multiple times just because the image would be in many different eyes at once...but I'm not even sure our eyes are capable of processing information or movement going that fast so it might just look like a streak going by

Woooo...calm down. He asked if what he said made any sense...it doesn't so I answered him. Information from the future cannot be tallied. It's as simple as that.

uhm..? theres nothing about information being tallied from the future -- it poses a scenario where there are an infinite number of observers all traveling at different speeds, then when they all relayed the coordinates that they captured the travelining spaceship at it would seem as if the ship was in an infinite number of places at one time. There is nothing non sensical about that thought... it just might not necessarily be true.

Okay, so i can understand what you are saying and all but according to Newtons First Law of Motion, Law of Inertia, objects in motion tend to stay in motion. Light is always in infinitive motion so there for time is dependent on speed but in order to control the flow of time via speed, somehow one would have to speed up or slow down an object.

Because the speed of light is a 'known' barrier of speed, that means that in order to speed up time an object it would have to travel faster then the speed of light or to slow time an object would have to travel slower then the speed of light.

no clue

"Wouldn't that mean if there could be infinite observers placed in all locations at all speeds looking at the same object and that all this information could be tallied it would be possible to see the object in all states that it will ever be in? And i use to word object for lack of a better term, this could be possibly a single atom."


I am not studying this at the university at the moment (I am guessing you aren't studying it either)

but,

Let's say the observers see the object, in all different states. How would this be different than Einstein's train example aggregated with many more observers?? This seems like another way to say what Einstein already said.

i r so confused

To study the 'time' that you're trying to observe, you'd have to do so outside of our own observation of time.. Which doesn't make much sense, but, the object will only mathematically be in separate phases. To observe a single object in all of its stages of being, time, space, travel, motion, force, size, shape and so on, would mean that we'd have to basically see it from start to finish; once you've done that, the study's pointless is it not? It's not so much of a bad idea so to say, it's just somewhat difficult to study other than mathematically, which generally gets denounced rather easily.

Time's not of the observer's manipulation, but, of the observer's sense of motion/time. It's a very complicated thing to comprehend, and I don't quite get it all that well. I do enjoy thinking about it though, if it weren't so late I'd give more input, maybe tomorrow sometime.

yea this idea has alrdy been proposed. not rly much u could do with it though afaik