Covered in dust

[Guest]

Titles:
Are here for your convenience to grant ease-of-use scan-reading, rather than perhaps a pretentious presentation design, otherwise all you'd have to read is a wall of text, and people tend to not read it and then get angry because they misunderstood or missed out a crucial point.

Sarcasm:
There is some sarcasm in this post, and I know how people have a tendency to take things literally on this forum.

Pre-face:
Right, hello there everybody. As a pre-face I haven't used this account for some time [look at the number of posts], and can't remember what I've previously said. I have said stuff previously, but, from what I vaguely recall, mostly involved theoretical stuff, dreams and an argument on flying planes/pentagon conspiracy theories. Lot of dust on this account.

Statement:
I am not a traveller. Well, I am, but... not. Not... a conventional one. Actually, I am not sure what I'd classify as. Well, basically, I am not going to be claiming I have a mechanical time-machine that was made in the year 2055AD or stuff [I mean seriously, how do you service/MOT such a device anyway? Who gives the driving/flying lessons? Uhm, power supply? Hello, basic issues?!]. So, I *won't* be giving future predictions, lottery numbers, bizarre zany messages, suggestions on theoretical particle physics of 2256, politics, doomsday [or is it 'domesday'?], etc etc stuff. I won't even be selling crazy binary watches [I mean, surely they should be *quantum* watches at least? Like Qubits that tell the time in every timezone's alternate dimension?].

Target audience:
What I have read that has caught my eye is a lot of people have been talking about 'serious deja vu', and descriptions of what sound like 'alternate realities'. These are probably the kind of people I'd best get along with as they will probably know where I am coming from [because, in short, I am having the same experience], and we might be able to piece together what on earth [time?] is going on.

Secondary audience:
Anyone with an interest in theoretical understanding of time. My understanding might not be accurate, I am not a scientist, I am not a historian [I mean, in order to time-travel you have to know your henry the VIII, right? I mean, historians, and not scientists/inventors, are the prime time-travelling choice, right?], heck, I might even be wrong - but I've been studying everything that occurs to me for some time, and *might* be able to give some apparent ground-rules on time.

Anti-audience:
Anyone who needs precise details [ie predictions, scientific formulae, einstein hair-do] before they believe or verify [I am not here to convince, or [in a terminator voice] 'here to save da future']. I am going to be honest here - I cannot provide any precise details of anything. I mean, if I could, do you'd honestly think I'd waste time on a forum or go out and build a cool timey-wimey time machine and have [time] races with myself/go out and personally save the world myself?

[main post]: -

Common belief of deja vu:
The common belief of deja vu is that it's simply a chemical reaction or 'brain malfunction'. If you've never had a proper disconcerting 'deja vu', this will be all it is to you [in the same way the people of old who never left their country thought the world was flat]. That's your personal paradigm [and please don't enforce yours onto mine - we won't ever agree, unless you experience a disconcerting deja vu too]: this is why my intended audience are those who have experienced a disconcerting 'deja vu', as they will know where I am coming from. My personal experience of it is otherwise.

What 'deja vu' is like:
It's a hard one to define. Very hard - you'll understand when I explain a few of the paradoxes below. Basically, it's like a familiarity with the present, that is so 'familiar', you get an idea (a 'glimpse') of what is going to happen next (it can be any, undecidable 'future' point in time, from a split-second to perhaps years in advance (the latter takes a long time and is harder to confirm, for obvious reasons)). However, after experimenting, I find the 'glimpses' are in two forms - 'fixed' (the glimpse will cause that event to occur, eg, self-fulfilling prophecy), and 'choice' where you can see perhaps (even more nightmarishly) a 'chain' of 'glimpses' of alternate courses/action (your alternate future [self? selves?] took) and their effect.

Theoretical Time Concepts: -

Pre-face:
I've taken time out to study the 'deja vus' profusely, using it to experiment with time itself (cause and effect, butterfly, self-fulfilling, etc), how it impacts other people, their reactions, etc, and understanding it's nature in a way I could hopefully explain to another person. But after years of it occurring, there are certain things still beyond my grasp [I could not, for example, explain or answer, at this point, the grandfather paradox]. But I will explain what I know.

'Fixed' points in time:
To quote doctor who. Points that cause themselves. However, it works best if you have an example. Here's a prime one:

Future version of me [somehow?] sends back information (via the 'glimpse') to my current (his [my future's] past self) explaining something I would have trouble grasping without [my future self's] help. As a result of finally understanding it [with future help], I am now in a position [of the same understanding of my 'future' self who is(?) now me(?!)] to send information back to my past self...

If that turned your brain to mush, don't worry, because I deal with this a lot of the time, and even I have trouble properly grasping it...

The causation prediction paradox #1:
These basically are points where, it (hard to explain) prevents itself from occurring. But doesn't. If you get me... again, another example required...

I see a 'glimpse' in the future on a course of action you are going to do. If I tell you [the prediction] - I interrupt the sequences of events that would lead to your doing of the action [ergo, rendering said prediction null]. If I keep silent, the event may still occur, but I can no longer prove the prediction to you or anyone else.

This is the most frequent, and most annoying. Haven't found a workaround that works yet (if I take time out to tell anyone or write it down, my disruption to the timeline is great enough that the action gets interrupted, eg, said person sees what I am doing, and asks, breaking their original chain of actions).

The causation prediction paradox #2:
It's like the fixed points in time. But worse. It's only occurred once. Again, an example.

I see a 'glimpse' in the future on a course of action you are going to do. I tell you about it, which, ultimately, causes you to respond in a way that causes you to do that course of action that was predicted in the first place. But if I kept silent, you would have never done it, and ergo, I wouldn't have foreseen it to cause it.

A prime, non-time based example (that you can do yourself), would be to tell a person they are predictable - their response, by default, would be to disprove this prediction (which, as you've noticed, is predictable response to take), typically by performing something they classify as 'random' or something contrary to the prediction.

Alternate dimension glimpses:
Probably the worse thing to contend with for 3 seconds (makes 3 seconds seem like forever - and don't ask me why it seems to be 3 seconds, just is). It's like a recursive function. Basically, the 'glimpses' chain up - I glimpse myself glimpsing an event and performing an action in response, and in that glimpsed event, I was glimpsing myself glimpsing the same event (but glimpsing myself doing a different action based on a glimpse).

It's easier to imagine it as a recursive tree of sorts. I think an example would help clear it up...

I reach a fork in a path (one I have never taken before). I 'glimpse' myself 'glimpsing' coming to this fork before, and going right, so in an effort to avoid being predictable, I decide going forwards, but I 'glimpse' myself deciding on going forwards, and so decide to go left (triggering another 'glimpse'). At this point, it basically goes 'ape' - I see a glimpse of every possible choice alternate versions of myself took (chaining up) - one went right, one going forwards [in response], one going left [in response], one freaking out and standing still [in response], one who went around in a circle (same as standing still) [in response], one who walked backwards (one right, one left, one forwards, one back the way he came, one doing that circle again...)...

...and what is worse, all the information streams from all these sources (and more!) are simultaneously flooding into my mind, which causes an information overload. It grates my sanity, but does have some fringe benefits - I get an overview of what is going on, can see what (out of the selection) is the 'best' choice, or save myself wasting time if none of them are good. It's also kinda helpful with writing/debugging code (as you can learn from your alternate/future selves mistakes). The downside is it causes apathy - if you've done it before, why bother again?

Analogically how it might work:
I kinda like steven hawking's comments of time being like a tape. Except, I might add, mine feels like it's stuck in an infinite loop (like one of those horrible, continuously replaying pop songs you get sick of after a while). However, that is too simplistic (as it doesn't explain the 'alternate dimension deja vus').

The way I see it (again, simplified), is it's like multiple train track - so you can switch tracks, and tracks split up, but your direction/destination is largely the same. And, to be more accurate, some tracks have loop-the-loops and cross-over. And super-impose over each other. And the end leads back to the beginning. And there aren't any stations or proper refreshments. And the tea is overpriced. Especially that. And the commuters are mostly angry.

(Technologically) how it might work:
Again, I stress I am not a scientist. But this seems common sense to me. Unlike conventional time-travelling methods, this doesn't involve a machine. Why? Well, it should be obvious - bodies, vehicles, objects all contain mass, and, ergo, would take ridiculously exponential amounts of power to move (example - how much fuel does it take a car to travel a few miles?). So, somehow, or someone (prime example of a 'fixed' point occurring here...) came up with the idea to send information back in time - simply because it has the smallest mass requirements, and ergo, far lower energy requirements.

Smart move. And it gets smarter. As mr laser-beam transmitting guy states, you need a receiving device that exists back in the past to receive the information with. And we do. You're using it now to read this post with (not your PC/laptop, silly) - your body. One thing that has existed since eons of time is the human body. So what better way to transmit and receive, but via the human brain back in time, to the human brain.

So I bet (even smarter bit this, 'fixed' point in time again), someone would use the human brain as a receiving device for design plans. For a physically moving time-machine that can collect and absorb power that was readily available in any time/version of earth. Like... I don't know... maybe kinda like the [electrically] humming, [electromagnetically, directed and controlled, I'd imagine] hovering UFOs that stick around in lightning storms (see the NASA UFO video for that) using special capacitors to store large amounts of electrical energy with?

Just a thought. : )

[Oh, and I dig your huge skepticism towards this (paradox #1 by the way). Some user you don't know babbles on about experiences that seem crazy and produces theories and ideas that are difficult to grasp. If it's reassuring to you - I am not asking you to believe anything (maybe entertain the ideas as something hypothetical?)].

Questions:-
And, yeah, I take questions. I don't have a lot of information on offer. But I'll try to answer them if I can - and strongly encourage questions. I ask conflict is kept to a minimum if possible though. If you ask for any predictions, I can't answer them (the 'ability' does not seem to be controllable), however I can probably logically reason out a guess.

Thanks for reading this.

 

[Guest]

Additionally, I am curious, could someone link me to John Titor's original post(s)? Ironically, I've never actually read them.

 

[Twighlight]

And, yeah, I take questions. I don't have a lot of information on offer. But I'll try to answer them if I can - and strongly encourage questions.

What's to ask questions about ? Despite an entire page of waffle you haven't actually said a single thing of substance.

So I bet (even smarter bit this, 'fixed' point in time again), someone would use the human brain as a receiving device for design plans.

Yes, well, it's quite clear you are 'not a scientist' ( Howcome this is the first thing that every aspiring time traveller here says ? ). Science is not based on bets but on evidence. Where is your evidence either that anyone is sending signals...or that the human brain is a receiver ?

 

[Twighlight]

I would add also that so many time travel claims are loaded with post hoc reasoning. That inludes Titor as well.

If you are going to arrive at a conclusion......let us call the conclusion 'X'.....then to arive at X you pass through points A, B, C, D etc first......where A,B,C and D are all specific conditions and criteria that have to be met to allow X. Indeed, each of A, B, C, etc is an X in itself. One has a sequence like this....

X = A > B > C > D

X relies on A, B, C, and D being true
D relies on A, B, and C being true..............and so on.

Now, you cannot even BEGIN to start talking about X being true, until you have first established that A, B, C, and D are also true.

Otherwise what you have is not a theory, but a house of cards !

So for example...before you can even begin to hypothesise that human brains may receive time signals from the future, you need to first establish that anyone is even sending such signals. And before you can establish if anyone is even sending such signals....you need to establish that signals of any sort can even be sent through time. And so on...

SO many of the time travel stories that I read here just jump straight from point A to point X, and start making outlandish claims on the basis of no verification of the intermediary points. And it is THAT sequence of intermediary criteria that differentiates true science from pseudo-science.

 

[userdimmack]

I am not such a stickler for scientific rigour, perhaps because I have not been here long enough. I found your post interesting but it was towards the end where you piqued my interest.

"Smart move. And it gets smarter. As mr laser-beam transmitting guy states, you need a receiving device that exists back in the past to receive the information with. And we do. You're using it now to read this post with (not your PC/laptop, silly) - your body. One thing that has existed since eons of time is the human body. So what better way to transmit and receive, but via the human brain back in time, to the human brain."

That is brilliant and I would encourage you to develop this idea further. Every tool we need in life is provided to us, sometimes you just need to learn how to use it, we couldn't always walk upright could we.

 

[Twighlight]

That is brilliant

No it isn't. It's pure speculation and not even an original idea. It has absolutely no basis in known scientific fact.....and is purely a contrived idea that in fact a number of fiction authors have used. Hey....just because there's warp drive in Star Trek does not mean warp drive will ever be real !

I am not such a stickler for scientific rigour

No I gathered that already. The thing is....scientific rigour is the ONLY method we have for determining if something is genuine or bullshit.

 

[Guest]

What's to ask questions about ? Despite an entire page of waffle you haven't actually said a single thing of substance.

Hypothetical theories. Challenges. You do not need a page of anything in order to be able to ask questions.

Yes, well, it's quite clear you are 'not a scientist'

So you agree I am telling the truth.

Howcome this is the first thing that every aspiring time traveller here says ?

It's a form of honesty in an effort for you to believe what they are saying. But to expand...

...this is a common sense thing to say, in any situation - hypothetical or otherwise. Say we have a traveller from 3000AD - their idea of science (or a science degree, qualification etc etc) would be entirely different of your idea of science, and quoting their qualification to you wouldn't serve any purpose (and as far as you are aware, they are making it up).

Inversely, if the traveller was from current time, there is no current science-based field able to do 'common belief' time-travel (aside from fields in local distortion pockets in mass, mostly theoretical). So science doesn't necessary equal to time travel.

If you were looking for a true-blue time traveller, I'd go with a mechanic, inventor or engineer. Someone who can actually build the time travel device.

Science is not based on bets but on evidence.

It's also fallacious to assume all things are presented scientifically ['bet' is a slang term, commonly used]. And fallacious to assume a non-scientist to be able to present to scientific criterion (if we went full whack, it isn't just evidence, but reproducible evidence that convinces a body of like-minded peers beyond reasonable doubt said conclusion is both valid and sound).

Besides, not all science is based on evidence. The H-B particle is based on a hypothetical (that is unproven, no evidence, just mathematics) idea that the science community decided (I don't know why) to invest millions upon millions of euros on in an effort to prove. So don't give me all that hoo-har of 'needs evidence to be scientific'. If that's the case, then you better tell CERN to stop, having based their works on hypothetical ideas.

Besides...

Anti-audience:
Anyone who needs precise details [ie predictions, scientific formulae, einstein hair-do] before they believe or verify [...]

Anti-audience. The very audience it opposes. I am not here for a medal, approval, or some cult-like following (or whatever it is the fraudulant claimants are after... fame maybe?).

Where is your evidence either that anyone is sending signals...or that the human brain is a receiver ?

It's a standing theory (not evidence based, not proven, it'd be better placed as speculation as to why).

But I'll clarify the speculation, so you can see where I am coming from; I'll present it in 'strings' [of thought].

String 1:
The human brain, by default, is an interpreter of signals (audio, visual, touch, taste, smell), including internally generated ones (dreams, imagination); it recieves those signals (so it's capable of receiving something).

String 1.1:
Short-term thought life-span is roughly 3 seconds.

String 2:
Magnets are capable of affecting the brain.
( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article1832267.ece )

String 2.1:
Technology in the future is more advanced (moore's law).

String 3:
Neurons generate bio-electricity.

String 3.1:
Neurons can wire themselves to better suit the person (liars have more white than grey - which forms more connections, and makes lying easier, for example)

String 4:
Electric currents can cause magnetism.

String 5:
Information can be transmitted electromagnetically.

String 5.1:
Information is very low mass.

String 5.1.1:
Very low mass objects can be accelerated easily.

String 5.1.1.1 [assumption]:
Any fast enough travelling object will eventually see time (for itself) slow down, stop, and even ultimately reverse.

And now to pull all the strings together. Inside the brain, the neurons wire themselves naturally such they form a loop (probabilities would have to allow this to occur at least once), and fire endlessly (seen how epilepsy fits cause all the neurons to 'fire'? Like that, but more controlled). The endless loop happens to meet the requirements for electromagnetism, which means it can transmit. The speed of the firing (like a microphone-speaker feedback loop) also means it's accelerated to a fast enough speed - perhaps fast enough - that it's transmitted backwards. Into the earlier version of the brain (perhaps again, triggering the loop).

That's the naturally occurring version. For an artificial, all you'd have to do is modify that and make it externally based (as the same model should work in theory) in technology. Except, at the moment, technology isn't advanced enough.

This obviously won't be to your scientific tastes. But bear in mind, I cannot see inside how my brain works when I get glimpses. And I don't use anything to cause it. All I can talk about in the theoretical problems such a system of time travelling poses.

[I'll answer your other posts seperately]

 

[Guest]

you need to first establish that anyone is even sending such signals. And before you can establish if anyone is even sending such signals....you need to establish that signals of any sort can even be sent through time. And so on...

A lot of the post hoc is already answered from my point of view, but would be nigh on impossible to convince you such a thing has occurred.

Let us say I predict what will occur in your life; unique enough it can't possibly be a fluke. If such a thing occurs, we can infer (inferred reasoning is used here) that somehow, the events in the future arrived in the past. In order for that to occur, we must at the very base have a transmitter and receiver; or else no information can pass from future to past.

If we have a transmitter but no receiver, it leaves from future B, but past A can't hear it (like a wireless router trying to transmit to a laptop without a wireless card).

If we have a receiver A, but no transmitter B, the receiver listens but there is nothing to listen to. Like our laptop trying to connect to a wireless router that isn't there.

So the very basic, in any time travel system, a transmitter/receiver is inferred. Even with physical time-travel simply has a past physical earth to receive the future time-traveller. Otherwise, he's still in the same timezone.

I merely propose 'signals' are the method as it's the least far-fetched and most likely occurrence (if you can bend a stream of data easier than a person, then it's more likely information, rather than a person, can be sent). I don't propose it's the 'only' method or the 'actual' method in use (just it's my theory).

I can only offer results from tests you might propose, or questions you might ask that I could experiment to try to find the answers to.

 

[Guest]

That is brilliant and I would encourage you to develop this idea further. Every tool we need in life is provided to us, sometimes you just need to learn how to use it, we couldn't always walk upright could we.

I cannot take credit.

In one instance I studied a man who claimed to use an electromagnetic device to see into the future [he stuck it to his brain, it was some sort of battery powered electromagnetic coil] (he, many, many years ago, spoke of an economic collapse in the US before it occurred). It was on TV, and it's a pity I cannot recall the show (I had done what twighlight does with many, and dismissed him as a bit of a quack going for attention - I figured the US economy would hold). Only years later did I realise he was right. I don't ask you to believe that, though - the technology behind it was enough to propel thought - what if it, like the large hadron collider does to particles, sped up the electricity of his thoughts to a speed fast enough to even temporarily bend time [in his perception]?

However, in my case [no need to believe, just treat it as a hypothetical scenario] I found the deja vu I passed off for years as 'chemical', actually predicted some very odd things. But I don't use any technology (I don't even know how it occurs); so it has to be something available in all cases - the human brain is the only thing.

And believe me, you don't want to be able to predict. You know when you watch a favourite movie so many times it goes beyond 'that point'? Where you can no longer stand to watch it; you can see every cliché? It's like that. Twilight the disillusioned atheist disappointed and let down by life's experiences of countless people lying to him, and I am no more than another one of those quack time-travelling cronies he's gotta disprove in an effort to get at them; and no, this isn't one of those 'time-traveller' psychological profiles that all of them make.

I'll do something obtuse and make your day twighlight (I know this is in the same post to you dimmack), because it involves my failure, much to your pleasure. I purchased two (british lotto) lottery tickets (wednesdays draw) in a disillusioned hope I might somehow split enough alternate universes (see 'quantum suicide' wiki page) to know the right numbers, and help someone with the possible proceeds, but it is going to fail [2 and 1 respectively, apparently].

The numbers I chose were;
4, 6, 8, 12, 25, 33
3, 11, 23, 26, 37, 42

Yeah, yeah, it's easier to predict failure, I know. But that's not the point.

What is the point? I'm bored. I just want to see your reaction to someone who openly admits a failure.

 

[Guest]

It's pure speculation and not even an original idea.

If you know my point is pure speculation, why do you ask for evidence (which I even state in the anti-audience I would not be able to give).

And yes, it's not an original idea. But, it never was stated as such.

just because there's warp drive in Star Trek does not mean warp drive will ever be real

Prediction paradox #2 (self-fulfilling prophecy).

There was also compact, personal communicators in star trek (TOS) which transpired the cell-phone; the compact, personal communicator.

There are efforts in fields to work on teleportation (I think a qubit up to 100 metres, but, I don't keep up with that stuff). Whilst not able to teleport people, it's probably the beginning stages of development. If not people, then information teleportation would probably be a good use for it.

As for warp drive; out of our technological reach, at the moment, but people are working on the theoretical side of such things. Currently, not possible, but FTL or FAL (fast as light) travel will be required if we plan to colonise distant planets, and ergo, gain momentum in it's own time.

 

[ddsilver]

Let's just imagine that I have a time machine, and I hop in and cruise on back to see Isaac Newton.

Are we going to be able to communicate perfectly? No. Are we going to be able to communicate? Yes, Newton and I both speak something within the realm of English that can still find common ground. Are our respective concepts of "what science is" going to be compatible? YES!

A lot of people fail on the semantics of what Newton being discredited (if you can even say he has been discredited at all) means. It doesn't mean that everything Newton ever said was BS. And it doesn't mean that Isaac Newton wouldn't recognize or appreciate scientific method. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So, your assertion that someone from the year 3000 is going to have a totally different "concept" of science than me doesn't wash. Ibn al-Haytham was pursuing a scientific method over 1000 years ago. That's one of the great things about science, it translates easily across language and cultural barriers.

 

[Twighlight]

It doesn't mean that everything Newton ever said was BS. And it doesn't mean that Isaac Newton wouldn't recognize or appreciate scientific method. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So, your assertion that someone from the year 3000 is going to have a totally different "concept" of science than me doesn't wash.

Couldn't agree more. The scientific method is the same the world over, whatever language, and the core concepts of the scientific method would be recognisable by Newton or some scientist in 3000 AD :-

1) Define the exact context and area one seeks to enquire about
2) Observe the nature of the phenomenon.....gather empirical data
3) Create hypothesese that explain that data
4) Any hypothesis MUST be falsifiable. Something that could never be disproven isn't science.
5) Devise experiments that test those hypotheses
6) Gather the data results into a form that can be published
7) Publication and the peer review process ( better known as full disclosure )
8) Testing of the results...which MUST be repeatable

A scientist does not just come up with a theory and immediately shout 'Eureka !'. It took 4 years for experimental evidence to confirm one of the predictions from Einstein's general relativity......the bending of light by massive objects. It was not until the 70s.....60 years after Einstein published, that experiments confirmed the slowing of time with increased speed. And another of general relativity's predictions, frame dragging around black holes, was only finally confirmed in 2009...94 years after Einstein published. Einstein also predicted gravitational waves.....which ( because they are so weak ) have yet to be confirmed to this day.

This exact same process will exist in 3000 AD. The reason being that this method is the very epitomy of objective research. It is not dependant on any one person's 'point of view' or personal bias. If someone makes a claim, then the core of the scientific method is a shout of 'Prove it !'.....and a method by which everyone can generally accept that proof has been established.

 

[Guest]

A lot of people fail on the semantics of what Newton being discredited (if you can even say he has been discredited at all) means.

I am not entirely sure how this was even relevant, given after all, I never disputed or even mentioned Issac previously (unless I was quoting him). I don't recall quoting him except on a piece of paper using it as a backup for a resolution to the grandfather paradox. I don't think you can read paper... can you? : )

- Appended

Yes, Newton and I both speak something within the realm of English that can still find common ground.

I never stated english, or indeed, languages were an issue. Irrelevant point.

Are our respective concepts of "what science is" going to be compatible? YES!

That's only on the basis of 100 year advance (3000AD, if you add up correctly, is 1000 years - so going back to roman times would be more fitting), and fails the address the real problem, which is...

and [time travellers] quoting their qualification to you wouldn't serve any purpose (and as far as you are aware, they are making it up).

So nice Strawman there. Common with debunkers?

However, lets take up your set-up, and say I, hypothetical time traveller, go back in time to meet Issac Newton and tell him time travel is possible. We'll throw in the added weight he has given us the benefit of the doubt (which is non-scientific, might I add, burden of proof). We'll even go with the humorous mockery I am fully qualified in every scientific field imaginable.

The conversation would probably require I explain how to time travel [or even tell him tales of the future]. Problem; time isn't a heavily discussed subject in 1700s [theology is though], nor is electricity available, nor computers. Unfortunately, about this time period witch-hunts are occurring, and what I would say would sound both mad and like witchcraft (computers allow me to talk with anyone, anywhere - TV allows you to watch people... uhm... uh oh).

Let's say I even had a full schematic for Issac Newton of a hypothetical time machine. Is he really going to invest time and resources into trying to build something he doesn't know is going to work, that is largely theoretical [to him] in nature and would be extremely expensive to build [given even 21st century materials aren't readily available]?

Would he trust me enough to 'go to the future' with me? Or would I come off as a delusional saying crazy who he thinks is probably going to murder him and rob him of his money? Issac's a busy man - he has better things to do, like figuring out physics, than listen to a crazy man with drawings, or 'photos of magic' [remember, he's also a theologian...].

Besides...

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[Guest]

This exact same process will exist in 3000 AD.

I'd imagine in 3000AD the methodology employed would have significantly changed; to denote otherwise would to ignore the pattern of improvement over history, and to imply the field of science does not change or expand. The methodology we employ now, would probably be extremely outdated (for any number of possible reasons, like, not precise enough, too complicated, EG too much involvement of personal opinion via lobbying of peers and not enough objective analysis, and/or incompatible with newer fields - or even for reasons we cannot foresee [observer effect taken into account, for example]).

Whilst it is easy to think it is precise now, and ergo, needs no improvement, this is actually circular reasoning, and highly flawed thing. For example, what are the standards of the peer review process? How is bias eliminated? Is the elimination 100% guaranteed in every case? If not, why not? Is that not unscientific?

Hypothetically, lets assume I hold evidence that gives full credence to a more accurate theory than the current, and generally accepted one, but my peer review board are all in favour of the old theory [although this is neither known by myself or anyone else - just them] with only partial evidence for it [let us say, because they advocated the old theory in the first place]. No matter how many times I try, what would guarantee the evidence - and not, say, my peers - would win out? Bear in mind I am unaware of their bias and are therefore unable to appeal - I merely assume my evidence or theory is somehow flawed (even if it's true).

The current system is good, but we cannot ignore the possibility it retains flaws (to think there aren't any flaws, would, again, fly in the face of history, and run contrary to the term 'human error'); so we cannot assume it's perfect.

In-fact, I wonder if the scientific method has, actually, passed it's own test? A thought to ponder on there.

A scientist does not just come up with a theory and immediately shout 'Eureka !'. It took 4 years for experimental evidence to confirm one of the predictions from Einstein's general relativity

Those are two different things treated the same.

A scientist can come up with a theory that works straight off the bat.

But it takes the scientific community another 4 years to realise that.

[Rhyming completely unintended]

To clarify; the scientific community needs the scientist [to get ideas], but the scientist doesn't need the scientific community [for the ideas to work]. Those we retroactively call scientists in the past typically didn't often have a scientific community to be a part of (typically as a result of false churches oppressing them).

I hope these posts stir some thoughts up. Science cannot be simply defended as always being right [what? how dare I challenge the church on it being wrong?!] - it should stand up under scrutiny by itself - it scrutinises everything else but not itself [is that truly being objective]? It shouldn't need people defending it - it should be able to protect itself.

And would you like the resolution for the grandfather paradox? The answer was staring me in the face, and it's actually surprisingly simple, and coincides with one of Newton's laws. : )

You'll kick yourself when you hear it. I'm surprised I didn't think of the answer sooner.

 

[Guest]

Before I take the liberty of replying to others...

but it is going to fail [2 and 1 respectively, apparently].

The numbers I chose were;
4, 6, 8, 12, 25, 33
3, 11, 23, 26, 37, 42

Sorry for the ambiguity (paradox #1 causation if not), but the 2 and 1 respectively means, in context:
2 [correct numbers] and 1 [correct number] respectively [to each group of 6 numbers divided by line, that is, 2 for the first, and 1 for the second].

The lottery results, as thus
https://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/p/results/lotto.ftl
[08, 10, 26, 34, 48, 49, (BB)06]

Which, if you compare to the numbers I provided, in the first bank, 6 and 8 match on the list. Thus 2 correct numbers. In the second bank, 26 matches, and thus, 1 correct number. I wrote how many correct numbers - and in the right order, you'll notice, on the 6th, 3 days before the drawing on the 9th (weds draw). Therefore proving, beyond reasonable doubt, a form of vague time travel is indeed possible. Like I said, specifics are very hard to discern.

As a warning, now would be the time to note the results. On saturday they redraw the numbers, and ergo, it will be lost.

Oh, and I know you're thinking it seems like coincidence Twi. That's a bog standard excuse. But actually, it runs contrary to supplied evidence. The prediction is accurate (actually, try running it yourself - take two banks of 6 numbers, and tell me how many of them would be correct [even better, do it for saturdays drawing!]... and get it dead on for both banks. Statistically, you would have to do it multiple times to get it right - I got it right first time around, under circumstances I did not have influence over, demonstrative to peers).

Onwards with the responses...

 

[Darby]

Additionally, I am curious, could someone link me to John Titor's original post(s)? Ironically, I've never actually read them.

Titor Thread FAQ at Anomalies.net

 

[Darby]

String 5.1.1.1 [assumption]:
Any fast enough travelling object will eventually see time (for itself) slow down, stop, and even ultimately reverse.

The assumption is incorrect and has been demonstrated to be incorrect for almost 100 years. A moving observer will not observe any change in the rate of its clocks (proper time). The observer will notice that clocks carried by other objects not traveling at his velocity will run at rates different than his clock.

The observer will not observe time to come to a stop and eventually reverse. Doing so requires accelerating to and beyond the speed of light. This isn't a simple conjecture. Special Relativity and the constraints that it places on velocity is proven every day at, for instance, particle accelerators. In the 1930's a tiny accelerator that could sit on a table in a lab could accelerate substomic particles to very close to the speed of light. Today, almost 80 years later, it takes an accelerator several miles in circumpherence and the total electrical power necessary for a city of 500,000 people to eke out a slight increase on velocity and increase the inertia of the particle thousands of times. It's not a matter of increasing the power of the accelerator to attain light velocity because the inertia of the particle will always increase exponentially as a function of the linear increase in power input.

 

[ddsilver]

Ok, allegory isn't your strong suit, Rusty.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, science is science is science. Has been since, well, let's give Ibn Alhazen the credit for solidifying scientific method, that would have been around 965 CE, or roughly 1045 years ago. No, I don't speak Arabic, but I imagine that Alhazen and I would have similiar principles for pursuing scientific method. These principles have been laid out.

And, btw, your English vernacular is great for a guy from whenever you are. That's the one thing I love about TTs, they always are hip to the lingo, daddy-o. They can pick up what you're putting down. They savvy your patter. They can totally dig what you're bringing to the table, y'know?

 

[Darby]

Whilst it is easy to think it is precise now, and ergo, needs no improvement, this is actually circular reasoning, and highly flawed thing. For example, what are the standards of the peer review process? How is bias eliminated? Is the elimination 100% guaranteed in every case? If not, why not? Is that not unscientific?

You can't eliminate researcher bias in science. People are people. This is the entire idea behind peer review and why, fortunately, mathematics can model a theory. The math doesn't lie. It either tells a correct story or it doesn't. True, the math can model, in addition to reality, scenarios not known to be real (at least at the time when initially reviewed). General Relativity is such a case. It correctly models our reality to a very high degree of accuracy. It also predicts scenarios that can't be substantiated today (time travel for instance). But it is so accurate that we do not dismiss out of hand the seemingly unreal scenarios. We do demand evidence however.

Another excellent example of peer reviewed math predicting something not known to be correct at the time was Dirac's particle symmetry equations. The math predicted protons and electrons with the same mass but opposite charge - antiparticles. It wasn't ignored and it was correct...but needed evidence.

A bit of a digress but the point is that the math review can overcome bias.

 

[Guest]

Titor Thread FAQ at Anomalies.net

Thank you.

Doing so requires accelerating to and beyond the speed of light. This isn't a simple conjecture.

This I understand.

To put my situation in context, in the form of an analogy;
Imagine you discovered a time machine. You don't know how it works. You have no idea how to operate it. You just know, from time to time, it can somehow deposit a small amount of [vague] information from the future. Personally, you know it's true. Trying to prove it to others is a bit more difficult.


That is the situation (minus an actual, physical, time machine) I find myself in. If you read the prior post on the lottery numbers (I didn't win - it's vague - I specify, unhelpfully, how many numbers would be correct in which bank), it's dated the 6th. 9th is weds (weds draw). So in effect, I posted information 3 days before it actually took effect. Posts can't be edited after an hour of their writing - so I can't 'fix' anything. I might have to supply a new drawing link though, as the saturday's drawing will occur today.

It's probably not impressive as winning the lottery. It's not a lot, but you have to admit, I predicted something.

But the point is, I can never tell you why. I don't honestly know why it happens. It just does. I can offer you insights into experiments with paradoxes and stuff. I can actually resolve the GF paradox - and it doesn't use alternate timelines, and uses newtonian physics.