Scientific vs. Psychic Time Travel

[Harte]

Scientific vs. Psychic Time Travel

So, Harte, what you'd like is a purely scientific approach to TT, without the astral bit, HDR-stuff and so on? I know this is slightly off-topic, we could move this discussion to a thread of it' own....

H.H.

H.H.,

I would prefer a mixed bag. The problem is there are too few on the board willing to challenge the bad science that appears here. It is impossible to challenge someone else's experience though, so I don't ask for "proof" of any visions of the future someone may have. I'll take Starlord's or Darkbreed's (or others) word that they have had psychic experiences that lead them to believe in time travel. I personally require no such subjective experience. I believe that time travel is possible according to what we know of physics today.

A lot of my (and Zoomer's) objections to the "astral stuff" as you put it involves the way it is stated anyway, not what the person believes. You can tell me all day that you have had this or that experience, and I'll listen intently. Just don't tell me you have "proven" something when you haven't.

You can expect me to challenge and/or inform anyone that posts supposedly scientific information that I suspect is bogus. I could expect Zoomers to do the same. I am once again expressing my desire that he not leave me here alone with all these people who won't challenge these things.

Harte

 

[JediStryker]

Re: Scientific vs. Psychic Time Travel

I would be much more apt to challenge science if I understood it better. I can sometimes find trash science in a hoaxer's post, but a lot of the time I have to rely on the things I do know, which sometimes doesn't amount to much. I would take the time to learn if I had the time to take.

We have some exceptionally intelligent members here who we can trust when it comes to this stuff, so I usually leave it to them to decipher the good from the bad.

I tend to put more stock in the science-based TTers than the astral-based ones, simply because I have nothing to base it on. Science I can sort of grasp in a general way and have seen evidence of science in my everyday life.

 

[StarLord]

Re: Scientific vs. Psychic Time Travel

Harte, Jedi,

Welcome to the club. I felt the exact same way some 32 years ago, when I was in College and first came across this stuff. I thought folks were insane at first, yet the answers that came after made more sense than if it was made up. In the beginning, it all seems like pure unadulterated Bull cookies, and worse than science fiction.

Until you experience it. Until that moment it will remain in that realm of BS for you. For me I went out of my way to disprove it, but I approached it with a open mind. There are a tons of different ways to get there, you just have to find what works for you and accept it as a reality.

In some ways science is exactly the same. Most times (with the exception of accidential discoveries), it's the end result, what ever is being sought, that creates the path of exploration. By conceiving of any particular 'thing', we can make almost anything a reality. Once it's concieved, it enters the realm of possibility, after that point, all the different ways and means are explored and tested until you have acheived your original goal.

Does this make sense? For me, traveling in time would be a waste of time, I am not too interested in that. there is a place you can go and see everything that happened in your past lives. Ok, big deal. Unless I am looking for some causation of a serious problem I have caused by something in a past incarnation, I could care less. It's much the same as watching Star Wars, the first 20 times is awesome, after that, So What?

 

[Heinrich Hundekok]

Re: Scientific vs. Psychic Time Travel

Harte,


I hear you. So, put shortly, what you're saying is something like:

1. If a posted theory is intended to be scientific it should correspond with established physichs - and therefore it is immediately possible to prove or disprove this theory using mathematics to compare it with established science.

2. If a posted theory/experience is based on personal "spiritual" experience it is per definition impossible to prove or disprove, and therefore the poster should not claim to have proven anything nor should others claim this post to be unthrustworthy.

Is this correct?

Edit:

Oh, and by the way - This also means no fuzzy inbetweens. You take a stand, one or the other. Math/physics based or personal subjectively.


H.H.

 

[Harte]

Re: Scientific vs. Psychic Time Travel

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Heinrich Hundekok\")</div>

Harte,


I hear you. So, put shortly, what you're saying is something like:

1. If a posted theory is intended to be scientific it should correspond with established physichs - and therefore it is immediately possible to prove or disprove this theory using mathematics to compare it with established science.

2. If a posted theory/experience is based on personal \"spiritual\" experience it is per definition impossible to prove or disprove, and therefore the poster should not claim to have proven anything nor should others claim this post to be unthrustworthy.

Is this correct?

Edit:

Oh, and by the way - This also means no fuzzy inbetweens. You take a stand, one or the other. Math/physics based or personal subjectively.


H.H.[/b]

H.H.,

Not exactly, but #2 is correct.

I do not feel competent to judge some scientific posts. But any scientific proposition is by definition subject to analysis and scrutiny. A time travel theory must comply with known physical laws, yes, but not with all physics theory. Some theories in any science turn out to be wrong, after all. Also, there are unexplored areas of physics and mathematics. There exist today many theories in science that are not immediately provable or disprovable by mathematics or by experiment. An example would be quantum mechanics itself. Just because mathematics applies to a theory and it all ties up nicely, that doesn't mean it's true. Mathematics applies to many, many non-existent things. Mathematics has always been and will always be much, much larger than science, and it creates it's own constructs to play with.


But when someone posts what appears to be a scientific theory here that has been tested and found wanting in the past ( like this http://www.timetravelforum.net/showthread.php?t=1621) then I will have to respond.

Harte

 

[artsouth]

Re: Scientific vs. Psychic Time Travel

harte,... has anyone on this forum,taken in to account that maybe the science that was nessisary to create time travel, has yet to be discovered? so in turn unless we can break it down ...to primitve science ,that they are automaticaly a hoaxer? do you conncour?......

 

[Harte]

Re: Scientific vs. Psychic Time Travel

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"artsouth\")</div>

harte,... has anyone on this forum,taken in to account that maybe the science that was nessisary to create time travel, has yet to be discovered? so in turn unless we can break it down ...to primitve science ,that they are automaticaly a hoaxer? do you conncour?......[/b]

I have no doubt that the science necessay for time travel has yet to be developed. I am also quite sure that when it is developed, if a traveller comes into this time, he will be able to explain some of how this "new" science fits in with ours.

Relativity matches up well with Newtonian physics at everyday velocities and normal gravity. Quantum chemistry simply explains what it was that was happening in the urns of alchemists. "New" science always builds on old science. Newton recognized this with his statement about standing on the shoulders of giants, if you recall.

At any stage in science's development, all the way back before the rennaisance, there have always been things that we know not to be true. There have been many things that people believed were not true but turned out to be true. Any time traveller could submit a time travel theory to me violating something I believed not to be true and I could at least find his theory to be possible. Any theory that violates what science knows not to be true is absolutely suspect and one that I would call a hoax. But, I will grant you, there are very few things that are actually known to be true or false.

Harte

 

[John]

Re: Scientific vs. Psychic Time Travel

But how could a modern day person go to 1100's and explain a quark or an atom? How could we explain a light bulb and how it works to a neanderthal who only has fire to show? This is where we get into many disagreements on the physics of and with the TT'ers. Harte is correct there are basic principles, that are either true or false, according to what we know. But where do categorize the physics of a time traveller if we cannot understand the new principles or understandings, that we currently cannot test or have no means to understand? We could easily chalk it off as "Voodoo physics". But I don't think that there is any acidic test for determining possibility, with very high level uncomprehensible physics (as in the caveman), from our current view point.

 

[JediStryker]

Re: Scientific vs. Psychic Time Travel

I think that there is a different perception that many people have today than those who existed in the 1100's, though. We live in a world where new technology, ideas, and sciences are not surprising anymore. I think that at this point in time we're much more receptive to new ideas when they can realistically mesh with what we do know. Top that with the fact that most of the people here are here because they have a basic hope/belief that time travel is not only possible but will be achieved.

Yes, there are going to be sciences and stuff that we can't comprehend initially, but I think that if we were to get a real TTer who was willing to seriously and thoroughly explain him/herself, that we could open a line of communication on a scientific level.

That wouldn't be with me, of course.

 

[John]

Re: Scientific vs. Psychic Time Travel

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"JediStryker\")</div>

Yes, there are going to be sciences and stuff that we can't comprehend initially, but I think that if we were to get a real TTer who was willing to seriously and thoroughly explain him/herself, that we could open a line of communication on a scientific level.[/b]

OT: Isn't it weird that a majority, if not all, of our suposed tt'ers have been male? I guess that females, generally, do not like to hoax or time travel... :huh: