Jump to content

Time Travel verses the Paranormal


Recommended Posts

Its ok I know you are really going to have to rack your brain for this one. Take your time.

Passive-aggressive.

 

What if I were to claim that I am feeling offended by you, Pamela? Would the moderator notice?

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kerr,

 

As promised, I wanted to address a couple of your thoughts from two posts all at the same time:

 

Science must be applied when it can be thus applied, however, there are instances where Science has not reached a level of answering all the questions relative to all the experiences, so to develop an understanding of the dynamics of those experiences, what to do ?

 

Ignore the experiences Science can't yet address and pretend they don't happen ?

Of course not. But by the exact same token, you do not jump to a conclusion that cannot be supported. Acknowledging you have had an experience is one thing. Concluding it was one thing (that you might wish to believe) over some other thing (that might be more mundane) is a whole different story. That is precisely why the scientific method is not flawed: It does NOT try to explain things that cannot be repeatibly demonstrated. Science is patient.

 

Now let's collect two other things you said together and address them both at the same time.

 

However, my wife swears that she saw a man dressed in black watching her while she was washing some dishes. He was leaning against the entertainment center, and my wife thought it was me. When she turned to face the man directly, in essence, to say something to me, she realized it wasn't me, and the man simply vanished into thin air.

 

We now have a problem. Is my wife fibbing ? Is she suffering from some sort of mental disability that reuslts with hallucinations, or was that man really there ?

 

and then this one:

 

As an example ;

 

When I was younger, our family would travel to visit close friends in the San Fernando Valley. One night, the subject of a near-by "haunted house" came up and being skeptical, I demanded to go and see this "haunted house".

 

We walked up the road, and stood in front of the supposed "haunted house" and I laughed, as the home looked normal to me. As we were walking away, my friends were a few steps ahead of me, when something seemed to push me down onto the ground from behind, with the definite feeling of hands being placed onto my back and being shoved.

 

I was angry, and turned to look to see who it was that did it, but in looking, there wasn't anybody "seen" that could have pushed me. All my friends were in front of me, and the lay-out of the street was such that no one could have pushed me and run away fast enough to hide.

 

So...

 

Tell me what "scientific method" you have to explain what happened relative to my experience ?

Agreed that science cannot explain all things at the current TIME, but no one has ever made that claim. The scientific method is how one attempts to go about explaining something but never subscribes that all things can be explained. In TIME, some things may be able to be explained, if enough data it taken, and especially if some event can be repeated enough to take definitive data.

 

Science sets up hypothesi, and tests them. And one hypothesis that must be considered in both of your situations cited above is this: That the sensory apparatus of the human body may report things erroneously. We know this is a fact, and I can cite one simple one: The schlieren effect on a hot day in the desert that makes one see what one believes to be water on the ground, off in the distance. Science has been able to prove what causes this illusion. It is the changing density of the air refracting the light passing through it. In fact, we use changes in air density resulting from the schlieren effect to visualize shock waves in a supersonic wind tunnel. It is a form of interferometry. But before one understands that science can explain this illusion of the eyes, someone less scientific may actually believe they are actually seeing water. They could jump to that conclusion.

 

Let us be clear: I am NOT saying "science can prove your wife or your sensory apparati were reporting defectively." Because clearly there is not enough experimental data to make that conclusion summarily. But this MUST be one hypothesis of the many that would be tested, were a scientific approach to be taken. Please read the following article:

 

Can We Trust What We See?

 

So there are two options with respect to your wife's and your experiences:

 

1) Admit that one cannot explain it ("prove what happened") given the amount of data present. In other words, to use a scientific phrase, "the null hypothesis is still in force until more data comes in that helps us explain what is going on."

 

or

 

2) Rather than coming to no conclusion, decide that I wish to believe that what my senses are reporting to me as having happened, actually did happen as I believe it happened.

 

Do you see the difference? This is how and why science is not only a discipline (because it is taking a disciplined approach), but also self-correcting. The scientific method remains mum on "declaring any conclusions" about your experiences until sufficient data is in hand to validate coming to any conclusion.

 

Even myself, as a practitioner of science, may "hold some form of belief" if I were to have a similar experience. Indeed, I believe in God. But I cannot show evidence of a God that will satisfy the inquiry of the scientific method. And some "scientists" do believe that mankind is the primary cause of global warming. My distinction is that I will clearly delineate when I am exhibiting a "belief" vs. a "scientific conclusion."

 

It is nothing more than the difference between saying "I believe something happened to me" as opposed to "science can prove that a ghost really did push me down". I know you understand this distinction, Kerr. So now have I made myself clear? And BTW, this is the exact same distinction that Darby has been pointing out all along. There is a right way to do science, and if you wish to subscribe to a personal belief, that is fine...just don't call it science! :)

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think as you are so fondly of saying that you should take all the emotions out of it and simply answer the question.

 

If you can.

And yet more passive-aggressive.

 

I am stating, for the record, that you are offending me, Pamela. Have you read the TOS? Or do you believe that you cannot be offensive to anyone?

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you wish to abandon the scientific method and jump to a conclusion, that is where "believing" takes the place of "knowing." It is OK to do, just make sure you know and admit that you are doing it (i.e. don't try to sneak it by). And also know that if you decide to do this, you are no longer properly practicing the scientific method. You have decided to give up on science and just believe whatever it is you wish to believe.

 

That is the clarification that needs to be made...and I could quote a couple more of your earlier quotes above, eyecare, to make this clear. The clarifiction is the distinction between the proper scientific method, and whether or not we, as individuals, properly apply it.

Thank goodness...finally :)

 

Of course it is what I believe. How many times have I said I will never force my beliefs on anybody. I have never said I applied the scientific method in coming to the conclusion that god is real. What I stated was I would share my beliefs with any who ask. These are personal experiences that we are talking about, not some random bunch of numbers.

 

This argument goes both ways however, and that has been my point. That mainstream science says "there is no god. there was no creation. there is no paranormal, etc..."

 

These statements are made as facts, when in reality it should be stated as "we believe there is no...xyz, because science has yet to support it" That is ok as you said, just don't state it as fact.

 

To say I have given up on science is not correct however. The scientific method in and of itself is a marvelous thing. It is the man who practices it who is flawed. However as you say, it is self correcting and somebody will come along eventually and fix your mistake.

 

As to my intention you ask about earlier, I will answer now so it will be very clear how I practice my beliefs.

 

My intention, and my practice is using the very science we speak of and help people. When somebody says why do I feel this way, why do I have these thoughts, why do I....etc" I explain how an imbalance of chemicals in the brain leads to various, or past traumatic events, ...etc" Along the way however I always speak of meditation and relaxation, and it is there I explain my simple beliefs, and what works for "me". I am not preaching about god, I am not telling somebody they will go to hell, I am not saying I can see the future. I am saying breathe, sit back, relax, clear your mind, and find yourself.

 

My intention is to help people, to promote a healthy and happy life, and If I can help just one person smile and feel good today it makes my day.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it is what I believe. How many times have I said I will never force my beliefs on anybody. I have never said I applied the scientific method in coming to the conclusion that god is real. What I stated was I would share my beliefs with any who ask. These are personal experiences that we are talking about, not some random bunch of numbers.

Understood, and agree.

 

This argument goes both ways however, and that has been my point. That mainstream science says "there is no god. there was no creation. there is no paranormal, etc..."

 

These statements are made as facts, when in reality it should be stated as "we believe there is no...xyz, because science has yet to support it" That is ok as you said, just don't state it as fact.

Strongly agree! :D Any scientist who says "there is no god" is also just expressing their belief, and yes there are scientists who believe this who will also try to say that lack of evidence, is evidence (i.e. we cannot give evidence for God, therefore no God can exist). That is sloppy reasoning, and unscientific just as much as "I had an experience that felt like X happened, so I believe X happened and it was paranormal."

 

To say I have given up on science is not correct however. The scientific method in and of itself is a marvelous thing. It is the man who practices it who is flawed. However as you say, it is self correcting and somebody will come along eventually and fix your mistake.

Again, strongly agree!

 

My intention is to help people, to promote a healthy and happy life, and If I can help just one person smile and feel good today it makes my day.

That is a great intention. Good going, and I wish you abundance and joy in achieving your intention!

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is nothing more than the difference between saying "I believe something happened to me" as opposed to "science can prove that a ghost really did push me down". I know you understand this distinction, Kerr. So now have I made myself clear?

I understand the distinction, however, what you have done is lessen the experience.

 

By saying " I believe something happened to me " places the experience into a category of "belief", and not as an absolute occurance.

 

I don't "believe" something happened to me, I "know" something happened to me.

 

The question then becomes "What did happen ? " not a question of " Did something happen ? "

 

Do you understand the distinction ?

 

Concluding it was one thing (that you might wish to believe) over some other thing (that might be more mundane) is a whole different story. That is precisely why the scientific method is not flawed: It does NOT try to explain things that cannot be repeatibly demonstrated. Science is patient.

Here, you did the same thing. You lessened the experience. "Wishing to believe"...sorry, there is no "wishing to believe" involved.

 

I never said it was a ghost that pushed me. I mentioned that we went to look at a house that was said to be haunted. I also said something seemed to push me down onto the ground from behind, with the definite feeling of hands being placed onto my back and being shoved.

 

You assumed from the information given, that I concluded it was a ghost ? Where did I say that ?

 

Also there seems to be an assumption that steps were not taken to try and discover what happened, that I merely shrugged my shoulders, believed it was a ghost, and went on my merry way.

 

Working in the home inprovement field, and having some experience with actually working in the field, I am reminded of the customer that came into the store to make a purchase. What it was, I don't remember. However, in asking questions, to determine what product was best suited for his needs ( could be likened to a scientific process ) discovered he planned on working on an area within his main electrical box, between the meter and the electrical feed from the powerpoles.

 

I asked him if he notified the electrical company to turn the power off, and he said that he didn't.

 

I tried to warn him that he was making a mistake. He became rude and lorded over this simpleton of a clerk in a store that he was an "Electrical Engineer ", and knew what he was doing.

 

Being customer friendly, I didn't press the issue, and several days passed when the "Electrical Engineer " came into the store to talk to me. He apologized for being rude and during the conversation, he admitted he made a mistake.

 

As he went to use a screwdriver to detach the wires between the meter and the power feed, the screwdriver was sucked out of his hands, and melted into a pool of metal and plastic. That he wasn't killed was a blessing, by luck or by divine intervention, either way, could have turned out very different.

 

That he is an educated electrical engineer, great, but at the same time, just because he sits behind a desk all day, drawing up a variety of electrical plans and projects, without actually working with electricity, he is missing some potentially vital "experiences".

 

And because of his pride, refused to listen to some "low-wage earner in a two-bit hardware store", and almost killed himself. But when he was wrong, he had the capacity to not only admit he made a mistake ( as opposed to throwing in facts and figures in an attempt to razzle dazzle ); But also was able to apologize for his attitude whilst inflated by his ego.

 

 

" While my book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is entirely a work of imagination, my conviction is that all I said in it will come to pass. " ~ Jules Verne

Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand the distinction, however, what you have done is lessen the experience.

 

By saying " I believe something happened to me " places the experience into a category of "belief", and not as an absolute occurance.

 

I don't "believe" something happened to me, I "know" something happened to me.

 

The question then becomes "What did happen ? " not a question of " Did something happen ? "

 

Do you understand the distinction ?

I certainly do understand, and apologize for not wording it better. It was not my intent to lessen the experience or even try to deny that something did happen to you. That you experienced "something". I was attempting to make the same distinction that you have made, and you have done it more clearly:

 

1) That something happened to you, that you had an experience: Yes, of course. You were there, and I trust that you are relating the facts as you experienced them. (Side note: We can also recognize that with all people reporting experiences this may not be the case... in other words, using a UFO example, there MAY be some people who do not truthfully report what happened, in the hopes they can write a book, go on the UFO speaking circuit, what have you. And to be excruciatingly clear, I am NOT suggesting YOU are doing this with your experience)

 

2) That you, nor anyone else at this juncture, can accurately and truthfully identify WHAT it was that you experienced... that is the part I am talking about.

 

Here, you did the same thing. You lessened the experience. "Wishing to believe"...sorry, there is no "wishing to believe" involved.

 

I never said it was a ghost that pushed me. I mentioned that we went to look at a house that was said to be haunted. I also said something seemed to push me down onto the ground from behind, with the definite feeling of hands being placed onto my back and being shoved.

 

You assumed from the information given, that I concluded it was a ghost ? Where did I say that ?

You did not say it. And I was not assuming that you did say it. Rather, I was using as an example to contrast the scientific approach. Again, I apologize as it was not my intent to deny that you experienced some event. I was only pointing out that some people (you did not, as far as what you told me) can and will jump to a conclusion. My point was that to do so is not scientific and not in accordance with a scientific method of investigation. Look back at my recent replies to eyecare, and you can see a better example of what I was pointing out. The words eyecare did use were certainly indicating a rush to judgment/conclusion when he said:

 

and just like UFO's, most likely never will pass a repeatability test, but because it does not conform to your standards of testing only proves it is either unearthly or beyond mans (science) understanding.

The words "most likely never will pass a repeatability test" and "proves it is either unearthly or beyond mans (science) understanding" both sound like taking that extra step from "I had an experience" to "I now draw conclusions about that experience." He has shown no evidence to support these conclusions, so we would brand them as a personal belief, but not any form of scientific conclusion. Indeed, in the second case the assumption of "beyond the means of (science) understanding" can be falsified if one day a set of experimental measurements DOES lead to an explanation for some UFO experiences. So the conclusion is not supported, while we can still agree that someone had an experience.

 

I hope I have made myself clear, and again I apologize for not making it clear earlier and leaving the impression I was denying that you had an experience. But now, having admitted that, can you also admit that, while you had an experience, if you cannot explain what it was then one of the potential explanations which cannot (yet) be discounted is: It is possible my eyes (or that of your wife's) were being presented with an illusion. This was the reason for sharing the study in the link I provided. I am not saying it is a fact, but that it has not been discounted as a possibility. We cannot simply assume that all of your senses (or your wife's) were working flawlessly.

 

Are we in agreement?

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL...Yes, we are in agreement. I didn't get the opportunity to convey everything I had in mind, as my wife was demanding that I spend some time with her.

 

What I also attempted to include in my post, was that for an aerospace engineer, as experienced and educated as he may be, is not an experienced investigator in the field of the paranormal.

 

The investigator of the field of the paranormal that investigates cases from within the depths of the library or an office on the 40th Floor of an executive suite, will be lacking in the experiences of those who are actually IN the field doing the "grunt" work.

 

As an example :

 

Working for a door installation company, the "project engineers" are great at working up the details of a job from their offices. Going off blue-prints, they use their education and experience of mathematics to determine the specific details relative to the labor, expenses, and materials required to complete the project.

 

However, since they rarely visit the actual job site, it turns out that the doors don't fit into the elevators nor can be carried up the numerous flights of stairs to the upper floors of the building.

 

So, the field workers end up having to remove the windows of the designated rooms and using a construction elevator to lift the doors "up to" the upper floors of the building, and bringing them in through the openings of the windows.

 

Despite the knowledge of the project engineers, and the skill with working off the blue prints, physically visting the work site and experiencing the physical details in person would have prevented some costly mistakes, both in additonal expenses ( renting the construction elevator ) and labor.

 

However skilled you may be with aerospace engineering, does not replace the education of actually going out into the field for a length of time and experiencing events first hand.

 

With regards to paranormal events, until you actually spend time "in the field" doing investigative work in the trenches, as it were, really, all you have is what you are reading in books and what you see on paper.

 

In the case of my wife and what she saw, I don't know what it was she saw, other than what she said happened. That she saw a man standing there, I have to believe she is telling the truth and did indeed see such a man.

 

Now, what dynamics are involved in the event, I have no idea. I can't say that it was a "ghost", however, honestly can't say it wasn't a ghost, either -- but, must simply say, I don't know.

 

Whether the greatest scientific mind in the world, or just plain old me, since I don't have the data to make a decision regarding her experience, all I can say is -- I don't know.

 

Same with the event of something "feeling" like hands on my back and being shoved, that it was a ghost, since I was a kid at the time, and only did a simple investigation, again, can only say relative to what happened -- I don't know.

 

I think we once disussed the game of old called "Telephone", where one person is told something, then that information is passed down the line amongst a group of people, then the last person recites what was told. In most cases, the difference between what was told to the first person, compared to what the last person recites is enough to actually become a form of entertainment.

 

Sure, there are numerous instances of fraud, and fakes, and/or alternative explainations to numerous events. However, there are enough experiences that makes it not necessarily so ALL the time, relative to ALL of the experiences.

 

 

" While my book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is entirely a work of imagination, my conviction is that all I said in it will come to pass. " ~ Jules Verne

Link to post
Share on other sites

eyecare,

 

but because it does not conform to your standards of testing only proves it is either unearthly or beyond mans (science) understanding.

Correct. But I'll add that it isn't "my" standards, it is "our" standards of testing. It is the actual tax paying public that funds these projects. Spending money for to-date failed experiments becomes a matter of public policy and not a subject of the whim of alt-sci opinion. If some group of totally private investors want to continue to the research then it is not my problem - they can spend their money anyway that they see fit. However if it is public funds behind the project then "my" standards have to be applied.

 

There is absolutely no evidence at all that tends to confirm these alt-sci theories. All that I ask is that "you" stop asking me to fund further research absent clear and compelling evidence that my dollars are being spent wisely. Otherwise spent your own dollars: dig into your own bank account and make a real dollar contribution to the research.

 

Are you willing to do that? That is, to spend real dollars from your own private funds to further the effort. If so, how much money are you personally willing to contribute?

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never said I applied the scientific method in coming to the conclusion that god is real.

That isn't and has never been the question. No honest scientist will discount the possibility that God is real.

 

But they are scientists. They deal with the realm of what can be observed and put to the test of the scientific method. In so doing they don't discount the possibility that there is an entity that created our universe. But from their investigations they do conclude that whomever was responsible for creating our universe did so by allowing for a creation event that was subject to logic, rational thought and understanding and that in its deepest details (God) is hidden from our ability to investigate them. In other words, we have a universe that is logical, allows for God but doesn't allow for us to find God in the details. No problem. God has a sense of humor as well as a sense of mystery and mysticism "He" wants us to fathom the mystery of what he created but in doing so he doesn't allow us to know "the rest of the story". I can live with that.

 

 

Just another damned cowboy with a college education.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was wondering what would happen to a dedicated scientist who strickly follows the scientific method and he sees a ufo land in his backyard and then it disappears on him leaving absolutley no evidence behind at all. Does he close his eyes and repeat over and over "I refuse to believe what I just saw its not scientifically possible!! No I refuse to believe!! NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!"

 

And then he runs into a wall and hits his head and blacks out and then when he wakes up is relieved because he now thinks it was a dream and he is ok now because he doesn't have to apply the scientific method?

you totally rool dood! :D

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course not. But by the exact same token, you do not jump to a conclusion that cannot be supported. Acknowledging you have had an experience is one thing. Concluding it was one thing (that you might wish to believe) over some other thing (that might be more mundane) is a whole different story. That is precisely why the scientific method is not flawed: It does NOT try to explain things that cannot be repeatibly demonstrated. Science is patient.

that just made science very unappealing to me. then again, im a balls to the wall type 'o fella.

 

this world is like bizzaro-land to me, i swear.

 

my theory is that god didnt make the tower of babel, he made egos. and thats the true test. how does man overcome their egos, in unison, to achieve a goal? methinks martin luther king had a shot at it, but some prick with an ego had to ruin it. bullocks i say!

 

seriously, i can lay out a perfect plan all day, every day, but folks dont want to play follow the leader. they dont want to walk 40 days and nights through the desert for their cookie, but they sure do want that cookie...

 

...and then try to eat said cookie with their toenail.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are correct that for a time traveler to merely be reciting events that happened and be 100 % accurate is an assumption on my part. That any time traveler actually has the ability to change events is also an assumption.

Yes it could be called an assumption because when you look at events from different temporal perspectives you have to be able to prove that both time lines did in fact exist and that the time traveler used time travel to alter the events in one time line to create another time line. But, even without having two temporal perspectives to study it is already known that we can make decisions and choose our course of actions for the future even without time travel. So that tends to prove that there is some likely hood that events in time can be changed if time travel could occur. Now whether or not that would create a new dimension is still debatable. I tend to believe in the many worlds theory. Every course of action we make is already a new dimension so what ever a time traveler did would not be new except for the time travel itself. Any course of events changed would leave no memories of the alternate time line for those that were effected. They would only remember their current time line.

 

I wasn't necessarily thinking of any time traveler proclaiming anything on a large scale, such as approaching the Cable News Network, or the National Braodcasting Network, but more within the scope of a site like TTI. IF the time traveler said that on April 15th, at 3:30 P.M. in some small town ( ands/he names it ), that an accident would occur, with critical details, I would assume that no one here would 1) Believe it ( "He is off his rocker" ) 2) Will wait until the story breaks on April 16th. After the fact, all details are met, too late to change anything.

 

Just as you said, even if you believed the time traveler from the start, and called the Police of the particular city where the accident was said to take place, do you think the Police would respond to your information ? Or even the Fire Department ( EMS )? What do you say when they ask you ; " How do you know this ? "

 

IF the time traveler said that the Polish airplane was going to crash, as it did, with details, same situation as the above accident event ; 1) No one would believe it 2) Would there be time enough to do anything about it ? 3) Who "here" would ( could ) actually contact the proper authorities to alert them that said plane is "going to" crash ? More than likely, no one. So, the crash happens just as the time traveler said it would.

 

S/he would be 2 for 2. And I am certain that there are enough events that take place around the globe, that the said time traveler could do this for multiple events, without causing any changes, simply because of human nature.

 

To open the door and state that a time traveler registers here on TTI and provides a list of events that are to take place, but when they don't, throws down the multiple time-line excuse, anybody can proclaim themselves to be a time traveler.

 

As soon as they say "prediction", then their credibility of being as they themselves claim to be; a "time traveler from such and such a year " ; becomes subject to scrutiny. They made the choice to register here at TTI, and as I have mentioned previously, know what they would be in for...to have a time travel claimant run off in a huff, offended because they were treated badly, seems a bit non-time-travelerish.

 

There is a difference, at least the way I see it, between Edgar Cayce, using " clairvoyance ", then having Edgar Cayce knocking at my door on April 23rd, 2010.

 

As an example, someone make's the claim that they are tapping into an old communications pipeline to send messages back into the past. Now, you tell me where the alternative time-line variation percentage equation comes into play with this scenario ? S/he is tapping into a pipeline and using it to transmit information...so this information is not only traveling in the pipeline back to whenever s/he first posted, but is jumping across different time-lines, as well ?

 

As some have pointed out again and agian, there has to be some method of establishing one's self AS a time traveler that can be proven. Otherwise, all we have are Science Fiction "stories". As interesting as these stories may ( or not )be -- does not satisfy the criteria some of us have in wanting to know if indeed there are time travelers.

 

The dynamics of " clairvoyance " and whether science can prove that anyone actually is capable of being clairvoyant, seems to be a different subject all-together.

 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

"He who is persuaded against his will; is of the same opinion still." ~ Samuel Langhorne Clemens

As for a time traveler coming forward with events the very act of looking at the future can change it but the larger the event the more likely hood it will happen such as a earth quakes, tsunamis things like that are more likely to happen even if a time traveler knows about it. Changing the time line might effect people but the whole planet is another story all together. And really even if someone did come forward people come forward with that kind of stuff every day. So why would a time traveler being any more special. He/She wouldn't. So there would really be no need to come forward. Even if the event happened people would still blow it off so still no travel could still be proven. To tell the truth anything a time traveler does can be explained away pretty much as other things. So I dont see TTI finding its TT anytime soon if ever because the scientific method does not seem to have a foot hold on time travel because it is mutli-dimensional. Time travel is like a rubic cube. Every time you turn it you see something different. The scientific method cant deal with that. It cant prove or disprove time travel. But just because the scientific method cant handle it does not mean it cant be done. The scientific method cant handle dark energy or dark matter right now either because its properities are not very measurable except for the gravity it has. Much like time travel is hard to measure except for the current time line only. So for now time travel is outside of the realm of normal experiences so time travel itself is considered a paranormal event.

 

Or by the way. Speaking of approaching news organizations I will leave you with a link to FOXNews.com with a article.

 

Freaky Physics Proves Parallel Universes Exist

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/?test=faces

 

 

Who would know if the time line was changed? Who would stop me?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the cake smelling at your face

 

I can see their faces running at your places

 

Please run out back to the badger

 

And hide out with the hasher

 

Please lie deep down low until it blows over

 

I'm sorry, my mind just broke

 

:confused:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
It cant prove or disprove time travel.

Whether there are multiple time-lines or not, to state that science can't prove or disprove time travel is too broad of a proclaimation. To be able to prove or disprove any number of individual time travel claims is entirely different. With regards to the claims of being a time traveler, I stand with Rainman and Darby on that issue, and agree with them that those CAN BE either proven or disproven through science.

 

IF someone makes the claim of coming from the future, then in such a case, it IS up to the claimant to prove their claim. IF they describe their machine, and it is physically impossible, as per the Laws of Physics, Aerodynamics, etc, etc ; THEN there is a problem of fact verses fiction.

 

IF they provide a list of "predictions"...and those don't come to pass, or as Rainman said, start trying to proclaim success as they attempt to "fit square peg's in a round hole"; then throw down some sort of time-line variance percentage factorization as a reason why their predictions didnt come to pass...then some of us apply our own variance percentage factorization to the claim...and the scale starts with a Zero and runs to None.

 

Relative to ghosts, as I said, with some instances, I simply don't know. But this isn't so with every single instance, there are hundreds, if not thousands of supposed ghost stories that science has been able to de-bunk.

 

There is a reason as to why there is a Time Travel Claims section...whether the odds are any time traveler actually bothers to reveal themselves, isn't really relative to the creation of that Forum.

 

There is also a reason as to why there is a Paranormal Forum, as well. To the thinking person, there is a definitive difference between someone physically using a construct to traverse time and space verses someone sitting at a table with Tarot cards and claiming to be able to "see" into the future.

 

When I said that Science doesn't have ALL the answers to ALL of the experiences ; in no way is meant to detract from the value of science/engineering nor alleviate the necessity for educated and experienced scientists/engineers that maintain a rational perspective, and not be swayed by emotional responses.

 

As it is, I am with Rainman, Darby and a few others...that no "real" time travelers has come to TTI ( or have revealed themselves to date ), and the claims thus far have been "scientifically" disproven. That a time traveler might or might not arrive at some point in the future, to that possibility, I simply don't know.

 

The probabilities of one showing up and posting here at TTI, are against such an occurance, but one can always hope. Until then, every and all claimants of time travel should know that they will be expected to pony up some proof that can be validated, or be relagated to the science fiction category.

 

 

" While my book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is entirely a work of imagination, my conviction is that all I said in it will come to pass. " ~ Jules Verne

Link to post
Share on other sites
As an example :

 

Working for a door installation company, the "project engineers" are great at working up the details of a job from their offices. Going off blue-prints, they use their education and experience of mathematics to determine the specific details relative to the labor, expenses, and materials required to complete the project.

 

However, since they rarely visit the actual job site, it turns out that the doors don't fit into the elevators nor can be carried up the numerous flights of stairs to the upper floors of the building.

 

So, the field workers end up having to remove the windows of the designated rooms and using a construction elevator to lift the doors "up to" the upper floors of the building, and bringing them in through the openings of the windows.

 

Despite the knowledge of the project engineers, and the skill with working off the blue prints, physically visting the work site and experiencing the physical details in person would have prevented some costly mistakes, both in additonal expenses ( renting the construction elevator ) and labor.

 

However skilled you may be with aerospace engineering, does not replace the education of actually going out into the field for a length of time and experiencing events first hand.

Indeed, just as one can apply the scientific method incorrectly, there is nothing to stop someone from applying the "laws" of engineering incorrectly. I know many engineers who behave as you have decribed here. In fact, I recall telling you about some of the problems I experienced, first-hand, with the engineering for my steel building in Colorado. The drawings called for a specific dimension between the steel beams used for posts and lintel for the windows. That dimension appeared to be incorrect.

 

But now let us talk about failure in the build process, because that happens just as often as failures in the engineering. The builder I had contracted decided to build-out ALL of the post & lintle structures for all 6 windows in my building before ever bothering to try and fit a window into them. It was only after all 6 framings were complete that he tried to fit a window and found the opening too large. Not too smart, huh? Prudence would cause one to build one of a repetitive structure first, to get the experience and make sure you are doing it correctly. Had he done that he may have been able to CALL THE ENGINEER on the first window installation and the engineer could have either corrected the drawings (which were NOT in error), or explain to the builder that the openings were correctly sized, and it was in the assembly of the window itself that additional steel standoff pieces are attached to the window, which are then used for holding the steel flashing that forms the window sill on the inside and outside of the window. But as it is, I had to settle for a screwed-up installation. Why? Not because the engineering was incorrect, but because the builder ASSUMED he knew how to build the windows, and did NOT call the engineer. So now I have six windows that are "buttressed" with wood 2x4s on the side and the top in order to make them fit into the steel structure. Pretty crappy, if you ask me. And all the builder had to do was call the engineer, whose name and number where right there on the drawings he was building to.

 

In my mind, any engineer who merely churns-out drawings, but never goes to see, work, and validate the final installation and operation of that which s/he has designed, is only a "partial engineer." How successful of a flight control engineer do you think I would be if I never visited, touched, tested or even flew the real airplane?

 

AAMOF, I have been spending more and more time in Palmdale over the last few months... visiting an airplane that contains quite fair amount of my designs. I have been doing what is called "integration"...where we assemble all the parts, subsystems, components, interfaces, software, hardware into what looks like an airplane ready to fly. But it shan't be deemed "ready to fly" until it passes all of its tests and checks. The aircraft I am speaking of is the X-47B... one of the few vehicles I work on that I can actually talk about, because it is a "white world" project. Keep an eye on the news... we should be ready for its first flight within 3-4 months from now, if all goes as planned. And if all does NOT go as planned, we fix the engineering, fix the vehicle, re-test and try again.

 

Collecting actual data on the actual "field site" is yet another aspect of the scientific method. Perhaps the most important, for it is in collecting data where we can compare it to what our theory predicts should be the case. And when theory does not match the real world data, there is obviously still more work to do. Sometimes the theory is wrong, but other times we find the theory is right and the people charge to assemble the engineer's work got it wrong.

 

Thanks for pointing this out, Kerr.

 

RMT

 

 

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anytime someone posts material that raises questions, then whomever has questions about what they have read, before coming to a conclusion, should use the Private Message feature here at TTI and ask for clarification of intent.

 

We all express ourselves differently, and because anyone might assume there is intent of ill-will, should ask the author if this was indeed so. In most cases, there isn't any intent of ill-will, but only an attempt to enlighten and educate from a different perspective.

 

Other than out-right and blatent offensive material, everyone who feels slighted should say so directly, and privately to the person they feel offended by, and to try and find why and where the other person is coming from before assuming the worst about anyone.

 

 

" While my book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is entirely a work of imagination, my conviction is that all I said in it will come to pass. " ~ Jules Verne

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops, when I said "you", didnt really mean "you = Rainman ". If it came out that way, I apologize.

 

I agree with everything you said in the latest post. Once upon a time, I had a customer who wanted to buy a well-pump to be used in Germany. Knowing that the electrical system is different in Europe than here in the U.S., I had to call the manufacturer to determine if the Well-Pump the customer had in mind to buy would be capable of working in a European system.

 

In this case, I didn't call the installers, nor the salespeople...but knew the "only" one capable of answering the question would be the person who designed the Well-Pump, the engineer.

 

In the case of the problem that you encountered in Colorado, it seems that there was failure at several points in the process. With what happened to you, seems that the same would have happened to others, as well. I am surprised that you didn't refuse the windows, and demand the appropriate sized windows to be ordered, as would be your right.

 

My wife is currently working for a window installer ( imagine that ! ), and many people would be surprised at how many times the installers go out to install the windows, to discover the windows don't fit. And as installers, they "will" try to install the windows, regardless of how, unless the customer discovers the problem and refuses to accept the in-appropriate windows.

 

 

" While my book Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea is entirely a work of imagination, my conviction is that all I said in it will come to pass. " ~ Jules Verne

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't give up on science because of one person.

im not giving up on it because of any one person. ray says that science is patient. well, we humans are not. we only have a very limited time on this earth, and to science, that equates to the bat of an eyelash.

 

Your post kind of worried me I was hoping you were ok.

im always ok, no need to worry. i was just attempting to make a point. that point is that sometimes society works in reverse. there was a low-brow attempt at being witty somewhere in there too. guess it got lost in the translation.

 

;)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...I posted this once but somehow it got erased.

 

Back to the subject "timetravel verses the paranormal"

 

If edgar cayce being a psychic sometimes got predictions wrong because he saw something in a wrong timeline or things changed because of something he said he was still considered a psychic.

 

Then why would a timetraveler no longer be considered a time traveler if he came from another timeline or things changed because of something he said?

 

I was wondering what the use of time travel would really be then? Or would it be enough to continue it because of the right predictions over the wrong ones? Such as in edgar cayce?

 

I guess we will find out when the time comes.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Cosmo locked and unlocked this topic
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...