New theories to help you discover time travel

[Gpa]

So by example you may have to create some ridiculous unverifiable false assumption.

You could but, that is not the purpose of developing theories. You are still missing the point of being falsifiable. You do not intend to create something that IS ridiculous though, sometimes that does happen. You aren't always trying to understand something observable. Sometimes you are speculating on something unobserved and try to explain why it isn't if, other indications are that, it should. You develop theories to possibly explain it. Sometimes these may be far fetched or even fanciful, also known as SWAG... scientific wild ass guess. As long as there is a way to try to falsify the idea, it's all good.

Since anything based on a false premise would by definition be false.

This is true but, again, this is not the purpose of theorizing but, will be the result of falsifying. If your premise IS false, it WILL BE falsified and, the system works.

 

[Einstein]

You could but, that is not the purpose of developing theories. You are still missing the point of being falsifiable.

I believe this is what I understand the best. The word "Falsifiable" means: will be false. Yet the way it's being used, the meaning is: having the potential to be possibly false. So it's almost as if the very meaning of the word is being presented in theory form, because it is a false meaning. It almost makes me wonder if a lawyer was involved in creating the concept of theories.
But then I have my facts necessary to build a time machine. I could present them in theory form making it appear that I have predicted the outcome of creating a time machine. The only thing wrong is that it really wouldn't be falsifiable. Because in order for it to be false, the observable facts would have to be false. So if it's not falsifiable, it can't be considered as a candidate for a theory. Boy oh boy, this looks like a hot potato. Here! ...... Catch!

 

[RainmanTime]

The word "Falsifiable" means: will be false. Yet the way it's being used, the meaning is: having the potential to be possibly false.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect:
falsifiable - definition of falsifiable by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Fal´si`fi`a`ble

a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.

2.

able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect:falsifiable - definition of falsifiable by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Fal´si`fi`a`ble

a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.

2.

able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.

RMT

I think you just inadvertently made my case. Capable of being falsified doesn't look like potentially or possibly false. It has to be false in order to be falsified. Real facts aren't falsifiable. And facts can't become theories. So basically a theory is a falsehood.

 

[RainmanTime]

Capable of being falsified doesn't look like potentially or possibly false. It has to be false in order to be falsified.

That is absolute nonsense. You are doing your usual thing of arguing for the sake of argument (and to avoid having to admit you are wrong). Your statement above is nonsense because it is anything but factual. Let me prove it with observable facts:
1) I can state a theory that aerodynamic forces (drag and lift) vary with the square of velocity and the density of the aerodynamic fluid.

2) This statement is falsifiable because it is a SPECIFIC prediction that can be put to a test.

3) It does not (as your nonsense argument above states) have to be false to be falsifiable.

4) It is a demonstrable fact (has been done over and over again in wind tunnels, and you can do it yourself) that aerodynamic forces do, indeed, vary with the square of velocity and the density of the aerodynamic fluid.

5) Even though a great many experiments have, indeed, verified this theory as a fact, the statement of theory itself still remains falsifiable. It can still be falsified by running yet one more experiment.

6) If some day you WERE able to run an experiment that collected data that falsified the theory (not saying you can), THEN the theory would be FALSIFIED.

Now, I know who I am dealing with here. It is the troll Einstein who has, for all the years I have known him, refused to admit he missed something or got something wrong. He is the troll Einstein who will just continue to argue from nonsense to avoid having to admit someone caught him in an error. Have fun with that, as I won't participate any longer. Suffice it to say, you need to get a grip on the difference between BEING FALSIFIED and BEING FALSIFIABLE. Whether you ever admit it (and I know you will not), you are wrong in your understanding of the basic form of Popper Falsifiability that makes science work.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Oh, I almost forgot one thing:

Real facts aren't falsifiable.

Absolutism is a terribly debilitating affliction. It just eats away at its victims without them ever knowing it.RMT

 

[PaulaJedi]

I personally believe a theory is a first step. It then needs to be proven.

 

[Einstein]

I disagree completely. Reality does not spring from belief. Make believe has no place in science.

 

[PaulaJedi]

I disagree completely. Reality does not spring from belief. Make believe has no place in science.

It starts with belief before proof, does it not? Or are you suggesting it should start with skepticism?

 

[Einstein]

It starts with belief before proof, does it not? Or are you suggesting it should start with skepticism?

No! It starts with observation and discovery. We don't get to make up the rules.

 

[PaulaJedi]

No! It starts with observation and discovery. We don't get to make up the rules.

When you are born, you automatically "believe" your mother loves you until proven otherwise.

 

[Einstein]

When you are born, you automatically "believe" your mother loves you until proven otherwise.

If you are suggesting that time travel is something as intangible as love then how would we go about harnessing that type of time travel? And of course unless we all can experience it, it would be lumped into something that could only be described as belief. I think you are crossing a line between sanity and insanity.

 

[Classicalfan626]

@Einstein - Are you suggesting that PaulaJedi may be going insane? I doubt that's true. She might be right; you never know. Now please, let's keep this forum as civil as possible.

 

[Einstein]

@Einstein - Are you suggesting that PaulaJedi may be going insane? I doubt that's true. She might be right; you never know. Now please, let's keep this forum as civil as possible.

Not at all. There is a line between what is real and what is not real. The word belief is very very blurry concerning that line. It can be used to refer to something factual and real or something that is fictional and unreal. Personally I think the word should be stricken from our language. In doing so I think the left would be severely disabled in there propaganda war on us all.

 

[PaulaJedi]

If you are suggesting that time travel is something as intangible as love then how would we go about harnessing that type of time travel? And of course unless we all can experience it, it would be lumped into something that could only be described as belief. I think you are crossing a line between sanity and insanity.

It wasn't a relation to time travel. I was disputing the need for proof to believe....in anything.