Wanted : Decent Time Travel Claimants

they will remain nothing more than theory.
Click to expand...

We're back to that term again - theory. It's used on the Internet as if it is a negative. That something in science is "a theory" does not mean that is it a simple opinion. That's not how the term is used in science.

On sites like this people start off something along the lines of, "I have a theory about..." and then they go on to express an opinion that is not supported by any stated professional or academic qualifications, underlying math, experimental verification or peer review. In that case it is just an opinion. Everyone's entitled to one but such opinions do not rise to the level of a theory.
 
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.
Click to expand...


I've often had a good dig at those who take the Noah story quite literally. The logistics of getting two of every kind from every location on Earth....not to mention the sheer amount of water required to raise the oceans to the 13,000 foot height of Mt Ararat....make the story quite obviously NOT literal.

BUT.....in recent years, some quite remarkable new evidence has emerged concerning the ice ages. It turns out that the 'end' of the last ice age occured in two phases.....14,000 and 11,000 years ago, with a return of ice in between. New evidence shows that the 14,000 years ago end of ice age occured VERY rapidly indeed. Possibly as little as 2 years ! We're talking about a HUGE climate change, and sea level rise of 300 feet or more....in just 2 years.

Flood stories are very common across diverse cultures. Hell, if people had witnessed sea level rising 300 feet in 2 years they'd sure as hell remember that and pass it down in stories !!
 
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 & 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.
Click to expand...


Yes....I also had quite a religious background, and actually I am thankful for it as in addition to developing an enquiring mind ( which ultimately rejected a lot of the religious background ) I did gain a sense of something deeper in a search for 'meaning' to the world.

Contrary to the proclamations of people like Professor Richard Dawkins ( who is very much in a class of his own..even being regarded as a bit OTT by some fellow hard boiled evolutionists )....I see absolutely nothing in science that rules out 'teleology'....meaning and purpose...and DESIGN.

What astonishes me is that sceptics are SO busy trying to dismiss some ethereal 'God' who certainly IS hard to prove......that the most OBVIOUS explanation for the Bible is missed...visitation by an advanced civilization.

Genesis speaks of 'the sons of God' marrying the daughters of men. The result being a race of 'giants'. This is not some airy fairy ethereal beings...but real live flesh and blood beings. Those verses very seldom get commented on....but to me they are some of the most important in the Bible.

The entire Bible takes on a very different perspective if you view it as an account of contact with an advanced civilization...not unlike in 2001 Space Odyssey.....who probably have time travel under their belt as well.
 
Twilight,

I see absolutely nothing in science that rules out 'teleology'....meaning and purpose...and DESIGN.
Click to expand...

Here I agree with you. We humans look out at the vastness of the universe and are forced by the wiring of our minds to see it as such. But I can easily imagine a creator who is not so limited. A universe with laws of physics that are to some degree fathomable by its inhabitants can be created by such a being. Its order is based on certain physical laws but at its core is governed by a creator.

I believe in God. But I can also see the evidence as it is presented to us. God created a world for us that we can understand - at least to some degree - that functions according to the principles of physical laws. We might wail and cry over the details, such as death and suffering and decry His apparent unconcern, But time and space for such a being is not what we believe it to be. Suffer for a moment or for 90 years. That's nothing compared to infinity. We can see within some limits the plan. It is His decision not to reveal the fine details. I see a God who is consistent with his laws and who doesn't interfere to any signifigant degree with the day-to-day goings on with a finite universe. I can live with that and see no inconsistency.
 
aside from the global warming fraud recently discovered
Click to expand...

lol, dang Darby, were you one of the global warming scientists? Think that's what they did, leave out evidence they didn't like. Tell me why the Dallas Cowboy's are not the best team in football (aside from the last 10 years or so..don't count that)...Come on now.

quoting Twighlight from a different thread:

THAT is how science works. ALL theories and ideas are complete bullshit until DEMONSTRATED otherwise.
Click to expand...

Oh hell, I don't know...If you insist, I'll take one from your particular liking...let's say umm..the theory of Newtonian Mechanics. I'm pretty sure it was taken for the rule for many many years. How ever has since been proven to be inaccurate at extremely high speeds at short distances.

I'm sure I could give plenty more, but you like to nit pick even when you get my point. I was referring to Bio-Science in general, where we simply have no record or way to prove something 100%, it will simply remain a theory...i.e. what caused the dino's to be wiped out, what specifically caused the last ice age, things like that man. There are lots and lots of theories, but can not be proven 100%, and thus will remain a theory.
 
Think that's what they did, leave out evidence they didn't like. Tell me why the Dallas Cowboy's are not the best team in football (aside from the last 10 years or so..don't count that)...Come on now.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why you are protesting, here. There is plenty of evidence that they did exactly this. Have you looked into the Yamal tree ring proxy data issue? It seems clear that Dr. Keith Briffa cherry-picked those trees that matched his desired outcome (to show warming, not neutrality or even cooling). He has offered no real explanation for why he exluded the majority of tree ring samples and ended up with such a small sample size when much more was available. There is plenty on the net to read about this issue. HERE is just one article from which you can find others. The supposition (which appears to have been confirmed by others who went back and included the entire Yamal data set) has been that including the entire data set caused the tree ring proxy to diverge from the real temperature measurements from the past century. IOW, if he included the entire dataset it would demonstrate that there is something wrong with using tree ring data as an accurate proxy for temperature. Rather than be honest, he cherry picked the data to pretend there is no problem with tree ring data as a proxy.

And then, are you aware of the many problems Anthony Watts has found with how NASA GISS "homogenizes" raw temperature data? Many scientists have questioned exactly how areas where the raw data clearly shows cooling trends that the "homogenization process" can always cause those areas to show warming.

Oh hell, I don't know...If you insist, I'll take one from your particular liking...let's say umm..the theory of Newtonian Mechanics. I'm pretty sure it was taken for the rule for many many years. How ever has since been proven to be inaccurate at extremely high speeds at short distances.

I'm sure I could give plenty more, but you like to nit pick even when you get my point.
Click to expand...

Well, I am certainly failing to get your point about Newtonian Mechanics. Could you spell it out clearly, please? Newtonian mechanics was demonstrated (over and over with actual kinematics data) to be correct for the realm of applicability which could be tested. And then Einstein came along and showed that while, yes, Newtonian mechanics is certainly true at sub-relativistic speeds, that it is really a limiting case of a larger theory, which he put forward.

Your statement about 100% is trite. No theory is 100%. Ever. That is because even the theories which have not yet been falsified, still have the potential to be falsified. So again, help me understand your point because I am not seeing it.

RMT
 
Sorry RMT, I was responding to Darby a few posts up where he ask for something other than global warming. I was basically saying he could not cherry pick what he wanted me to answer with, but just to please him I gave an example of a long held theory which was proven false under certain instances.

sorry for any confusion.
 
No theory is 100%. Ever. That is because even the theories which have not yet been falsified, still have the potential to be falsified.
Click to expand...

That was my exact point. I am sorry if i misjudged what Darby was asking, but it seemed he was challenging my statement in which I stated:

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
Click to expand...

Now maybe I could have clarified the term "fraudulent" better in that I was meaning false in a "mistaken" way...not "fraudulent" as in intentionally misleading.

Yes I am very aware there is an EXTREME difference between one's opinion and a scientific theory. However, there is a big difference in scientific theories across the scientific fields. In other words it is a whole lot easier for a paleontologist to challenge a previous colleague on their theory, than say a modern day scientist challenging Einstein.

I think the reason this occurs is because in things such as math and physics, you are dealing with cold hard evidence you can touch and you can apply strict formula's to so the scientific method works beautifully. However, no scientists can re-create the extinction of dinosaurs in their labs, nor do they have a written record of what actually transpired. They are reliant on geographical findings, fossil records, ancient weather patterns, satellite imagery etc.

I was simply stating that there is also a big difference between scientific fact and scientific theory, but in mainstream science they are interchanged quite freely when dealing with general public perception and information. Hell, even in my own field we have no clue what makes antidepressants work. Sure we know it blocks the the re-uptake of serotonin in the brain or norepinephrine or both, but the actual mechanism by which it works all we have are theories. Grant it, some are more accepted than others, but nobody knows for sure.

This is all way off the subject of time travel though, and what Twighlight was originally stating. I think the reason it has been so hard for a person to just simply claim they are a time traveler is because they are going up against scientific fact. Things which have been proven simply can not be true. It's like me stating if I have two apples (yeah I like apples, I know), and I go buy two more that I now have five apples. It simply can not be true no matter how you look at it or spin it. I could say I might have five apples, but that would imply I left facts out along the way. So I have a feeling that if, and that's a big IF, a time traveler would ever come along and post on here, you would have little trouble knowing he was legitimate.
 
I think the reason this occurs is because in things such as math and physics, you are dealing with cold hard evidence you can touch and you can apply strict formula's to so the scientific method works beautifully. However, no scientists can re-create the extinction of dinosaurs in their labs, nor do they have a written record of what actually transpired.
Click to expand...

Well, part of the problem here is one is history that simply adopts scientific principles to help it understand past events. Science (the capital S) is about quantifying physical phenomena such that predictions can be made. A paleontologist is trying to understand the events surrounding some past occurrence and they use science as their tool. A physicist is trying to quantify phenomena that govern how the universe works. Big difference.

Hell, even in my own field we have no clue what makes antidepressants work. Sure we know it blocks the the re-uptake of serotonin in the brain or norepinephrine or both, but the actual mechanism by which it works all we have are theories. Grant it, some are more accepted than others, but nobody knows for sure.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and in some people it DOES NOT WORK AT ALL...people like me! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif This is similar to your citation of Newtonian vs. Relativistic mechanics. Both deal with a realm of applicability. In my case, SSRIs had absolutely no effect on mood/depression/etc. The only impact was to make me constantly yawn. After going thru 4 different SSRIs with the same lack of effect (the yawning was consistent) I told the Doc to just forget it. I'm not into shotgun Dx. I've dealt with these issues all my life, and I tend to think they are a result of my Asperger's, and have nothing to do with brain chemistry.

But yes, now we are really OT, so I will shaddap.

RMT
 
I was simply stating that there is also a big difference between scientific fact and scientific theory, but in mainstream science they are interchanged quite freely when dealing with general public perception and information.
Click to expand...

Now you're starting to make some sense.

There's a huge diffrence, and we discuss it frequently here, between a pop-sci article intended for the general public and a paper in a professional journal. It's generally not the scientist who writes the pop-sci article. It's an amateur (in the area of science) who writes the article. They tend to get facts completely wrong, use jargon inappropriately because they don't know the difference and they sensationalize. They dummy down articles to make them more understandable for the general public and in the end the article in many cases has little fact left. But tha's not the fault of the scientist. That's modern journalism in a nut-shell.

BTW: I wasn't cherry picking with the global warming limitation. We have several threads already going on the subject. It's pretty much agreed here that it was a politically motivated situation and not much in the way of science. Just as we've talked about the failings of Duke University's old school of parapsychology where only "believers" were admitted to the program, departments of environmental studies suffer from the same bad scientific approach - only "believers" need apply. In each case the results of any study is preordained.

I asked because you made a rather general statement about "mainstream science". We've seen that one before as well. And we've asked the same question - what, specifically, in mainstream science is bunk?

And you still miss the point of scientific research and theory. No one in modern science ever suggests that a theory is 100% provable. Every scientific theory is defined as an approximation of reality. The more generally the theory can be applied to the widest possible field the better the theory. Special and General Relativity are two such theories. Newtonian mechanics is another. And we know precisely where each one breaks down because they are rigorously expressed in such a way that their domains of applicability are obvious. We have expressions in Special Relativity such as "In the limit as v ---> c, m----> infinity" and in General Relativity approaching the singularity of a black hole "In the limit as r----> 0, m----> infinity. Infinite mass is gibberish thus we know that Special Relativity breaks down in the case of massive particles at the speed of light and General Relativity breaks down as massive particles approach a BH singularity. Newtonian physics technically breaks down at any velocity. We know all of that. But those three theories are among the four theories that are so accurate in their description of reality over the course of the past three hundred years (within the limits of their domains) that they will be around forever. The fourth theory is Quantum Mechanics.
 
I can buy all of that Darby, and it was very well put btw. However, we can just agree to disagree on certain paranormal suject matter.
 
Oh hell, I don't know...If you insist, I'll take one from your particular liking...let's say umm..the theory of Newtonian Mechanics. I'm pretty sure it was taken for the rule for many many years. How ever has since been proven to be inaccurate at extremely high speeds at short distances.

I'm sure I could give plenty more, but you like to nit pick even when you get my point. I was referring to Bio-Science in general, where we simply have no record or way to prove something 100%, it will simply remain a theory...i.e. what caused the dino's to be wiped out, what specifically caused the last ice age, things like that man. There are lots and lots of theories, but can not be proven 100%, and thus will remain a theory.
Click to expand...


In no way is Newton comparable with evolution.

Scientists never turned round and said ' Ah...Newton is all a complete load of rubbish, let's abandon it '. Instead they recognised that Newton is a subset of a wider theory and has limitations. But for most purposes, Newton is perfectly adequate.......and got the Cassini mission to Saturn in 7 years with just a 1 second error in position.

Same goes for Kepler's laws. They work very well indeed, until one has to factor in things like the quite small precession in the orbit of Mercury. Relativity is a more 'complete' description of gravitational mechanics......but that does not mean Kepler was simply abandoned.

With both Kepler and Newton, it can be seen that the theories are not so much wrong as 'incomplete'. I'm old enough to remember slide rules...which were perfectly adequate for the task at hand and accurate enough until electronic calculators came along. Slide rules were not 'wrong'....they were just not 100% acurate.

And the same goes for evolution. The overall evidence that evolution DID occur is overwhelming...even if the fine details may change. And no...the fate of the dinosaurs is not unknowable. There are certain specific and distinct possibilities and science is all about finding evidence to support one and rule out the others. In exactly the same way....various contenders agains relativity have recently been ruled out due to observations of radio waves by the Cassini mission. That has strengthened the case for relativity even further.

In all cases in science, it's a case of what theory best fits the facts. I've no doubt the fate of the dinosaurs WILL be pinned down quite precisely as new evidence emerges. The asteroid impact theory looks to be on the way out ( or at least...not the whole story ) as it's emerged that the dinosaurs were already in decline several million years before the impact. The new theory has it that the dinosaurs....having survived 150 million years....were just incredibly unlucky and hit by a whole series of mishaps, and the asteroid impact was not the sole cause but really just the 'last straw' that tipped the balance. That is good science....and provides a far more 'complete' picture of things.
 
In no way is Newton comparable with evolution
Click to expand...

Not really sure how you were meaning this? I respect Newton a whole lot more than Darwin.

Now the rest of the post I agree. I don't recall saying that within a theory all of the facts are wrong. Obviously in order to get to a true scientific theory, one must have pretty darn rock solid facts to surround it. I believe this is what Darby was referring to when discussing the difference between an opinion and scientific theory.

What my premise was, is that as you said "they were just not 100% accurate" in their theory. Thus when something is not 100% accurate it will remain a theory.

They problem lies within the media promoting a theory to be a fact. Yes, there may be many facts within that theory, but there are also just a few "what if's" if you will. Sometimes, those little "what if's" though, change everything. The term re-write history comes to mind.

Now with the evolution thing, and this is definitely not on topic, I just don't know. I obviously have some prejudice in the matter from my child hood, but I just don't know man. It's one of those areas that I was speaking about. There are a lot of holes to be filled, and there is just so many things unanswered in that over all theory. Like you posted earlier about the 'sons of God', I've always believed that was a reference to higher beings, not gods, but another life form. I think it goes along with the reason our life span is so short compared to ancient text (obviously that is if you believe our years were similar to theirs) I just don't know though, you can make a new thread if you want to talk about this subject, because it's long and I have a lot of "opinions" (lol) about it.

Now with the Dinosaurs, I pretty much agree with the current thinking which is along the lines of what you stated.

Like I've said numerous times, I pretty much stay on the same page as you fellas, I just might not always agree on the fine details. I don't know why I'm that way, I always have been. Maybe it's just the kid left inside of me that likes to hope. It also makes me good at what I do though, because if I give up on somebody or something, they might stop hoping and trying as well.
 
Back
Top