Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travelers
The Time Traveler Test
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Peregrini" data-source="post: 53761" data-attributes="member: 2670"><p>PamelaM</p><p></p><p>I did say; "For arguments sake we shall say that takes 5 minutes". How about if I use JT's numbers then, for accuracy. He said his machine travels ~10 years per hour. That works out to ~1.0138... days per second. So, my mistake. It will take 5 seconds. Not 5 minutes.</p><p></p><p>I wonder if stopping off in 2000 to visit his family and post on the internet was on JT's mission protocol?</p><p></p><p>No, just 5 days.</p><p>Please remember, this is a suggestion, not a requirement chiseled in stone. If an alleged time traveler doesn't want to take this test, that won't automatically refute their assertion. There are plenty of other ways to do that.</p><p> </p><p>tr;</p><p>It really bothers you that you can't confute my argument, doesn't it?</p><p>You immediately begin with a personal comment.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>I'm not sure what "event" you are talking about here. The shoe experiment?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>This?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>But, basing your position on a purely hypothetical supposition that gives an understanding that the hypothetical supposition is real and exists is not on a false foundation? You are so quick to belittle someone elses position while never offering any substance for your own.</p><p>In that I am not a physicist, I have no problem standing on the foundations built and supported by real physicists. Who's foundation do you stand on? JT's? Oh, that's right...the Everett-Wheeler MWI. I have noticed that is a theory not a Law. There is a huge difference.</p><p> </p><p>In his book, A Brief History of the Multiverse, author and cosmologist, Paul Davies, offers a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific</p><p> "For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."</p><p> — Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse</p><p> </p><p>"As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here… In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is."</p><p> — George Ellis, Scientific American, Does the Multiverse Really Exist?</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse" target="_blank">Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Really? Care to name one way...or do I have to buy your book to see it?</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Believing or not believing in time travel has nothing to do with being able to propose a test for an alleged time traveler. I do not believe time travel into the past is or ever will be possible but that doesn't stop me from enjoying time travel movies or books. I enjoy seeing how authors avoid or work through paradoxes. In The Time Machine 2002 re-make the writers do a good job of keeping the traveler from causing a paradox. I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Peregrini, post: 53761, member: 2670"] PamelaM I did say; "For arguments sake we shall say that takes 5 minutes". How about if I use JT's numbers then, for accuracy. He said his machine travels ~10 years per hour. That works out to ~1.0138... days per second. So, my mistake. It will take 5 seconds. Not 5 minutes. I wonder if stopping off in 2000 to visit his family and post on the internet was on JT's mission protocol? No, just 5 days. Please remember, this is a suggestion, not a requirement chiseled in stone. If an alleged time traveler doesn't want to take this test, that won't automatically refute their assertion. There are plenty of other ways to do that. tr; It really bothers you that you can't confute my argument, doesn't it? You immediately begin with a personal comment. I'm not sure what "event" you are talking about here. The shoe experiment? This? But, basing your position on a purely hypothetical supposition that gives an understanding that the hypothetical supposition is real and exists is not on a false foundation? You are so quick to belittle someone elses position while never offering any substance for your own. In that I am not a physicist, I have no problem standing on the foundations built and supported by real physicists. Who's foundation do you stand on? JT's? Oh, that's right...the Everett-Wheeler MWI. I have noticed that is a theory not a Law. There is a huge difference. In his book, A Brief History of the Multiverse, author and cosmologist, Paul Davies, offers a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific "For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith." — Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse "As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here… In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is." — George Ellis, Scientific American, Does the Multiverse Really Exist? [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse"]Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] Really? Care to name one way...or do I have to buy your book to see it? Believing or not believing in time travel has nothing to do with being able to propose a test for an alleged time traveler. I do not believe time travel into the past is or ever will be possible but that doesn't stop me from enjoying time travel movies or books. I enjoy seeing how authors avoid or work through paradoxes. In The Time Machine 2002 re-make the writers do a good job of keeping the traveler from causing a paradox. I won't spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travelers
The Time Traveler Test
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top