Wanted : Decent Time Travel Claimants

[Twighlight]

I almost miss John Titor. Sure I think his story was ultimately a load of BS.....but he at least put some time and effort into the hoax. Though he was no expert on science, he at least knew vastly more than most of the wannabes that pop up here.

I'd love a REAL time traveller....we all would. But if all we are to get is hoaxes....I'd at least like a DECENT hoax ! Someone who knows their science, and puts a little time and effort into creating a convincing story. Someone who cannot be immediately shot down in flames by Darby or Rainman for some fundamental scientific faux pas.

Above all...someone who is prepared to discuss, openly and scientifically, the basics of their device.....and who does NOT hide behind ' Ah well...I am not a scientist so I can't explain it '.

I'm sure even the moderators would be impressed by a good story.....one that required some real thought and analysis to disprove. Half the 'fun' here ( in the absence of a genuine time traveller ) is shooting down the bullshit. But it's not really that much fun when most of the claimants are so OBVIOUSLY fraudulent right from the first post.

 

[Corcoran]

I'm a time traveller!

I am good friends with an eccentric older gentleman named Emmett Brown (but I call him Doc.) He's a genius and a brilliant scientist. He managed to turn a DeLorean into a time machine. Don't ask me to explain it in detail, but it's something to do with something called a flux capacitor, which makes time travel possible. You simply drive at 88 mph and you'll go to whichever time period you've set.

In my first time travel adventure I accidentally went back to 1955 and almost prevented myself from being born. Luckily, I met up with the 1955 Doc and he devised a way of sending me back to my own time (1985) while I worked on getting my parents together.

So far, I've also travelled to 2015, an alternate 1985 and 1885. Any questions?

There, Twighlight, how's that for you? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[EricCarr1]

How did it feel to have your old man punch Biff in the face?

 

[jumper]

a. m. Twighlight old hand de jumper

Sure... but even a scientist puts time and effort into into creating a convincing story.....one that is ultimately a hoax

Half science is most convincing but almost all of what he knew was really a good conspiracy .... so he was no expert on science.....right from the first post

Someone who would be impressed by "someone who knows their science" ....does he NOT hide behind their science and let the hoaxes get in the way of DECENT thought and analysis

Above all....would he not OBVIOUSLY be impressed by a story from fraudulent claimants and immediately "disprove" one from a genuine time traveller, so ultimately miss

Though for sure a real time traveller would not discuss, openly and scientifically, the basics required for creating their device, he at least would be prepared to vastly more than most explain some fundamental facts of REAL science if one would fun love to get it here

Ah well...I am little jumper ....down in the absence of never

 

[Twighlight]

he at least would be prepared to vastly more than most explain some fundamental facts of REAL science if one would fun love to get it here

It's science that proves every single claim here a hoax. It's precisely how one seperates the hoaxes from the real McCoy. Alas.....I see not the slightest indication of any real time travellers.

By all means present some 'real science'. I was under the impression that science is just....er....science.

 

[Darby]

Though for sure a real time traveller would not discuss, openly and scientifically, the basics required for creating their device

We see this statement over and over and over. And we always end up asking, "Says who?"

Who, other than people on time travel sites - the vast majority of whom are Believers - has authoritatively stated that time travelers would not talk about the science and technology of their gadget(s)?

Look at the Internet. Want to know how to build an atomic bomb? It's Here. Gun assembly or implosion device? Your choice. Regular or a boosted device? We got plans. Want tampers and reflectors? More plans. Want to step up to The Show and build a thermonuclear device? Can do. You're already on the road with the boosted device. Just a couple more steps.

In fact there's everything that you need to fully understand how an atomic bomb is constructed, assembled and detonated. You can't actually build a device with Internet information. U-235, U-238 and Pu-239 are rather difficult to acquire and the engineering and physics necessary to avoid blowing yourself up, getting nothing more than a fizzler or nothing at all but a nuclear meltdown are problematic. In short no one is going to build a nuclear device based on what s/he reads on the Internet any more than someone is going to build a time machine based solely on reading the Internet - not even MIT or Cal Tech.

So absent a very good reason coupled with good evidence most of us don't buy into this - let's face it - quick and easy excuse for tellers of tall tales to avoid answering questions that they obviously don't have the answer(s) to.

 

[Twighlight]

So absent a very good reason coupled with good evidence most of us don't buy into this - let's face it - quick and easy excuse for tellers of tall tales to avoid answering questions that they obviously don't have the answer(s) to.

Well....they really don't even have to give a full tech spec of the time travel device. Even a brief summary of the basic methods would suffice. Just as one could sum up how an atomic bomb works in two sentences.....without any maths or technical design but just stating the basic physics of a chain reaction instigated by neutron emmissions.

That's the least we require......SOMETHING that at least says at the basic level what type of physics is involved.

 

[Darby]

Well....they really don't even have to give a full tech spec of the time travel device. Even a brief summary of the basic methods would suffice.

Exactly. Unless the pilot of the gadget was also a very adept physicist who worked on the design itself it isn't likely that s/he would have possession of sufficient knowledge or detail to actually build it.

What people won't buy is the over used story of "We sent me here to warn you in order to avoid a disaster and, bye the way, we don't care if you believe us."

 

[Skarpz]

Well....they really don't even have to give a full tech spec of the time travel device. Even a brief summary of the basic methods would suffice. Just as one could sum up how an atomic bomb works in two sentences.....without any maths or technical design but just stating the basic physics of a chain reaction instigated by neutron emmissions.

That's the least we require......SOMETHING that at least says at the basic level what type of physics is involved.

I find this interesting to see that only the basics of time travel (that work) need to be shown to be believable. So someone just needs to make a believable statement. Even if it is true or not.

Exactly. Unless the pilot of the gadget was also a very adept physicist who worked on the design itself it isn't likely that s/he would have possession of sufficient knowledge or detail to actually build it.

What people won't buy is the over used story of "We sent me here to warn you in order to avoid a disaster and, bye the way, we don't care if you believe us."

Like Darby said they might not have sufficient knowledge or detail.

It seems that the same story has been overdone many times and it's time for a new time traveler (or claiming to be) to come along with something different.

So if you're out there, please tell.

 

[jumper]

I would present that science is but an impression of facts by a scientist and almost all would be impressed by a convincing one so that slightest indication of any faux pas would be immediately shot down

But a little time, and would pop up a scientist that by convincing "disproves" that first impression and "proves" the faux pas, so that it is precisely their science that disproves that science is just science

I would present that it is by good thought and real analysis of the facts that one seperates genuine from fraudulent science not that the science seperates the hoaxes from the real McCoy, that science cannot but just claim to explain some facts

But I am, but a little one....jumper

 

[Twighlight]

I find this interesting to see that only the basics of time travel (that work) need to be shown to be believable. So someone just needs to make a believable statement. Even if it is true or not.

No....they can't simply say ' My time machine runs on rabbit poo'. They have to at the very least show the scientific basis for which rabbit poo is a viable means of time travel.

It's no different to Darby's analogy with the atomic bomb. A detailed tech spech is not required, or any specific maths equations. A person could simply say " Firing neutrons at Uranium atoms causes them to split, releasing more neutrons, which split other atoms in a chain reaction. Because of E=MC^2...a lot of energy is released ". One could then consider...yes that sounds plausible.

One of the main reasons John Titor's story falls over is that his alleged 'time machine' contains not just one but many 'faux pas'. Not just things that are unlikely, but things that are scientifically impossible. A classic example being Titor's mistake of sending a pic that showed his device bending a beam of light. As Rainman correctly pointed out.....the device OUGHT to have bent not just the laser beam but ALL the other light too. Then add to that the fact that a device with that much gravitational pull would have weighed trillions of tons.........so how the **** did they get it on the back seat of a Chevy without wrecking the suspension ? And how did Titor cope with driving round a vehicle weighing 793 trillion tons !!

Those are the sort of faux pas where you KNOW that a story is bullshit. You don't need a detailed tech spec of Titor's device to KNOW that it's all lies.

On the other hand...someone could provide a basic description where one might go ' Hmmm, that actually might work '. You seem to imply that that would be easy, but I don't think so at all. I have not seen a single time travel device claim here so far where the device as described was one I would consider might be plausible.

But people are welcome to try. My whole point about a ' good hoax ' is that even if the story is BS...the device might at least get one thinking.

 

[jumper]

I see...

Faux pas...false step, a violation of accepted social norms....

so then a scientific faux pas is a violation of accepted scientific norms?

Bullshit...bovine excrement...English vernacular....nonsense. "Bullshit" does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication; with only basic knowledge about a topic, bullshit is often used to make the audience believe that one knows far more about the topic by feigning total certainty or making probable predictions

So someone just needs to make a believable statement. Even if it is bullshit?


jumper

 

[Twighlight]

I would present that it is by good thought and real analysis of the facts that one seperates genuine from fraudulent science not that the science seperates the hoaxes from the real McCoy

Your statements make it a little obvious that you don't comprehend what science actually is.

A scientist may state a person opinion. That is his personal opinion. But science is not anyone's personal opinion. Science is a body of evidence that has been through 'the scientific method' and passed the rigorous tests thereof.

Quantum mechanics, for example, has passed every predictive test to date with 100% accuracy. One cannot ask for more. That quantum mechanics is a valid description of the world is not anyone's 'opinion'.

There is no such thing as 'fraudulent science'. There may be fraudulent 'evidence'....but the whole purpose of the scientific method....peer review, replication of tests, analysis of data by others, etc etc, is to weed out just such fraud or invalid data or conclusions. Ultimately even long standing frauds, such as Piltdown Man, are exposed....by science itself.

 

[eyecare74]

There is no such thing as 'fraudulent science'. There may be fraudulent 'evidence'....but the whole purpose of the scientific method....peer review, replication of tests, analysis of data by others, etc etc, is to weed out just such fraud or invalid data or conclusions. Ultimately even long standing frauds, such as Piltdown Man, are exposed....by science itself.

I agree with you on this point. I also have a question for you though. It seems to me when debating with someone such as yourself I can generally respect and agree with your point of view. However, the difference between fraudulent science vs fraudulent evidence is in general there is no distinction in the mainstream realm. In other words, fraudulent evidence is presented as true science, and it is generally believed within the scientific realm by many main stream scientists. I greatly respect science, but really the only things which pass your definition of true science are mathematics and physics. Most other fields deal with long standing beliefs and theories.

I mean no disrespect when I say your fields of science are simple. They are not simple to do by any means, but it is simple to prove as fact. You may have thousands of complicated equations in your field, but if you follow those equations you will get the correct answer 100% of the time as you say. In other words, here on earth if I have an apple, and you give me another apple, I now have two apples. How those apples came to be in the first place is where the tricky part comes into play.

In topics such as evolution, there are many many flaws and unanswered questions, but it is put forth and generally accepted as fact. It is taught to our children in schools as "how it happened". That is just one such example. The true facts of these matters we will more than likely never know simply because we were not there, and have almost zero recorded history of such events, and until we can replicate these events as you say, they will remain nothing more than theory.

So as I stated I greatly respect science, I would just strongly disagree that everything put forth as science fact is actually a "fact".

 

[Twighlight]

I agree with you on this point. I also have a question for you though. It seems to me when debating with someone such as yourself I can generally respect and agree with your point of view. However, the difference between fraudulent science vs fraudulent evidence is in general there is no distinction in the mainstream realm. In other words, fraudulent evidence is presented as true science, and it is generally believed within the scientific realm by many main stream scientists. I greatly respect science, but really the only things which pass your definition of true science are mathematics and physics. Most other fields deal with long standing beliefs and theories.

Actually I would tend to agree in some respects. It is a LOT harder to fake physics results than to fake something like evidence for evolution. The 'cold fusion' saga, where some scientists claimed to have generated nuclear fission in a test tube, was exposed as bad science quite promptly. On the other hand, the Piltdown Man fraud remained a fraud for 40 years or more, and you will even find reference to Piltdown Man in some mid 20th century science text books.

The reason the Pildown Man fraud remained for so long was the sheer eminence of the scientist who made the 'discovery'. Though in fact some scientists DID claim at the time that Piltdown Man was a fraud....they were largely ignored. Also, the means of testing when the fossil was discovered in 1912 were not as good as those when it was exposed as a hoax in 1953.

But I would make the point that ultimately the very NATURE of science is such that ultimately the truth won.

In topics such as evolution, there are many many flaws and unanswered questions, but it is put forth and generally accepted as fact. It is taught to our children in schools as "how it happened". That is just one such example. The true facts of these matters we will more than likely never know simply because we were not there, and have almost zero recorded history of such events, and until we can replicate these events as you say, they will remain nothing more than theory.

The evidence for evolution is considerable. But what I can never understand is why creationists think that evolution goes against the Bible.

After all, the Bible account starts with the creation of light....or energy one might say...which is spot on for the big bang. The Bible does not say that God snapped his fingers and everything suddenly appeared...but makes it quite clear that it took God TIME to create everything, and God created everything in a specific order that is not too far off how science tells it.

So, given the limited comprehension of people back in Biblical times, the Genesis account is really quite impressive for it's time.

That is an entirely different matter from what SOME evolutionists argue ( especially Richard Dawkins )......that evolution is blind and purposeless. Whilst few in biology challenge evolution itself, there are certainly those who challenge the 'blind' hypothesis. I challenge it myself, as I do not think the evidence rules out 'purpose' at all.

There is a large 'middle ground' between hard boiled creationists and hard boiled evolutionists, where people accept evolution yet still argue that there is 'design'. Some quite eminent biologists fall into that category. It's a view I myself also hold.

 

[RainmanTime]

After all, the Bible account starts with the creation of light....or energy one might say...which is spot on for the big bang. The Bible does not say that God snapped his fingers and everything suddenly appeared...but makes it quite clear that it took God TIME to create everything, and God created everything in a specific order that is not too far off how science tells it.

So, given the limited comprehension of people back in Biblical times, the Genesis account is really quite impressive for it's time.

And if you entertain the concepts described in Genesis from the perspective of the original Hebrew, it becomes even more impressive. It is no secret to regulars here that I am a student of Qabalah, but strictly from a correspondences standpoint with veridical science. The author of the book The Work of the Chariot was even kind enough to send me a complimentary copy of his book. In one of the appendices, he replicates a writing of his mentor who essentially translated Genesis (Torah Bera Shith) along the lines of how modern physics describes the six symmetry breaks that are hallmarks of the current description for how the universe evolved from the Big Bang. Here is a brief summary from his web page:

<font color="red"> "The mentor in the Work of the Chariot Trust speculated further on the correlation between Torah B’reshith 1:1-4 and modern scientific cosmology. He based his exegesis upon a different breakdown of the letter sequence of the first line of Torah B’reshith. This breakdown includes an alternative rendering of the first word of the Torah as “Bara-shith” i.e. “IT created Six,” reflecting the six symmetry breaksA symmetry break is a phase transition, like water freezing into ice if heat is removed from the water-ice system. of modern quantum physics. His detailed exegesis is presented in an appendix in Qabalah: The Mystical Heritage of the Children of Abraham. Some other authors, such as Leonora LeetLeet, Leonora. The Secret Doctrine of the Kabbalah, Inner Traditions, Rochester, Vermont, 1999. The reader is particularly referred to Chapter Nine: "A Synthesis of Sacred Science and Quantum Physics.", have also speculated on the correlation between qabalistic formulations and the components of particle physics." [/COLOR]

I am of the belief that "stories" were used in days of old to pass down information, and not all of the information passed down was necessarily unrelated to science. Indeed, there are many correlations between modern science and Qabalah which seem to suggest "they" understood a lot more about science than we give them credit for. For a very brief example, just consider these correlations:

<font color="blue">Ancient Elements_______Forms of Matter_______Fundamental Forces[/COLOR]
____FIRE________________PLASMA__________ELECTROMAGNETISM
_____AIR_________________GAS_________________WEAK
____WATER_______________LIQUID_______________STRONG
____EARTH________________SOLID_______________GRAVITY

Interesting, no?
RMT

 

[eyecare74]

The evidence for evolution is considerable. But what I can never understand is why creationists think that evolution goes against the Bible.

That's an easy one. The answer to that is the exact same as to why most Americans feel their local 7-11 owner may try and bomb their local school....it's called ignorance, and a lack of fundamental understanding.

I've made mention I grew up in a minister's home, but was always the curious type, so I had problems accepting every little thing I was taught in Sunday school or what have you. While I do hold true certain aspects of my teachings such as a much higher power than myself, I do not by any means believe Adam &amp; Eve were the first human type's on this earth. It is those same scriptures, along with many other ancient texts, that make me believe we are not alone in this big thing we call a universe.

Fundamental Christians have a flaw because they fail to realize that just because God, if you will, created the heavens and earth and everything on it in six days and rested on the seventh...that he (she) just up and stopped after that.

This general subject line however, is where I've always taken issue with you guys on here. As much as I respect the scientific method, and understand why it must be in place, these are things you just simply can not apply solid proven scientific data to. This area comes down to one's beliefs or disbeliefs in certain things. Just as I can not prove I did not evolve from a slime in the ocean by scientific means, I simply choose not to believe so because science can not prove that I did.

If something is proven to be a fact and I disregard it, then I am the fool, but when a theory has yet to be proven it comes down to one's beliefs. I could be wrong...but then again, so could you.

 

[RainmanTime]

Truth be known your concept of time travel has never been proven. Until it is proven you cant judge other people by their stories. Until your concept is proven you cant judge other people at all plain and simple.

Naive, and also wrong.

Darby and Rainman as the judges. These guys are limited to their life experiences and yes may use others as scientific references but they dont test anything to see if it is valid.

Again, you are wrong. But you probably have something very specific in mind when you say "test". You do know, I hope, that validity can be tested in many ways, and only one way is an actual, physical test?

Also as I have shown here before the scientific method has a problem with measuring and testing time travel because to measure time travel you have to have two time lines as a reference point.

Unsubstantiated statement introduced as if it is factual. Please show where you "have to have two time lines as a reference point." Indeed, please show proof that multiple timelines actually exist.

You have to be able to perform test and take measurements with time travel.

We can perform a lot of tests and take a lot of measurements that can validate whether time travel is possible. What do you think Gravity Probe B was measuring? What do you think "frame dragging" refers to?

That is not currently possible with the scientific method

Define your pronouns, please? (i.e. What, specifically, are you referring to when you say "that?). Because if it is your statement about not being able to make measurements and test on time travel, you are incorrect.

This leaves Darby and Rainman out in the cold because that is all they know even though they only practice the scientific method in words but dont practice it in reality.

Bullshit. I practice real science every single day of my life. I make real airplanes fly, and I run real tests that validate design assumptions. The simple fact is that a solid education in the sciences along with sufficient practice of the scientific method in real situations provides a very reliable analytical basis from which one can solidly evaluate a great deal of scientific claims to know if they are "real" or "possible." Again, I use my professional domain as a literal example: I do not necessarily need to actually build an airplane that a junior engineer is proposing (or feature thereof) to know if the concepts will work. In fact, if we had to do that we would be wasting way more $ than the government wastes on social spending. Instead, we can leverage our already-proven knowledge about physics, via analysis, to determine whether proposed systems can operate without violating known laws of physics. The patent office rejects patents every single day on this premise. You do not need to try to build a machine that purports to generate more energy than it consumes, because we know for a fact that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prohibits it.

As I said before until there is a change of methods here you guys will never find your time traveler. Good luck though.

You have clearly shown to have a very narrow view of what constitutes the scientific method, and so I cut you at least some slack because you currently do not know what you do not know. It is just too bad that you take the "I know better than you" attitude, when any science or engineering teacher can easily identify that, no you don't. I see your kind show up all the time as freshman in my ARO 101 class. Some figure out that they do not know what they do not know, and correct their approach to education and do fine in the end. Others, not so much.

RMT

 

[Darby]

Sharpz,

Like Darby said they might not have sufficient knowledge or detail.

...to actually build the gadget.

I looked back and it appears to me that I got a bit off the topic I was trying to discuss.

The discussion was that we have would-be time travelers who should have at least a working knowledge about what it is that they are piloting. Discussing the details they they do have knowledge of won't end up with someone who reads their posts building their own gadget. That's why I used the analogy of nuclear weapons information that you can find out in the open on the Internet. Reading that material isn't going to give you sufficient information to build an atomic bomb. It will give you a good idea about how they work and the complex physics involved. Sure, anyone who has 15 kg of highly refined U-235 can make two hemispheres and slap them together and have some probability of getting a 1 to 100 T (not kt - ton) yield. However, the Internet information won't tell them how to obtain the uranium and refine it, how to handle it without killing themself while assembling it, how to slap the hemispheres together in less than .001 seconds, how to avoid pre-detonation, etc. The "missing" details in making a gun assembly fission bomb versus a time machine based on reading some posts on the Internet would be kid's play by comparison.

As I said above, the information will give you a good idea about how they work and the complex physics involved. If a real time traveler comes onto a site there's a reason for that. They have a message that they want to be heard. First things first, however. Hearing the message is far different than believing the message. They can establish their credibility by answering some technical questions.

But they always offer the lame excuse that it's all hush-hush. Shhhhh...it's a secret. The truth is, obviously, that they don't have the knowledge because they don't have a gadget. When they do actuually talk "physics" it's a bunch of Internet alt-sci bad source hogwash that a student who has taken a high school level physics class can see through. Say it ain't so, Shoeless Joe.

 

[Darby]

However, the difference between fraudulent science vs fraudulent evidence is in general there is no distinction in the mainstream realm. In other words, fraudulent evidence is presented as true science, and it is generally believed within the scientific realm by many main stream scientists

Can you give some concrete examples of what you are refering to (aside from the global warming fraud recently discovered)?