"The future ain't what it used to be."

Theory and Proof


I've become quite incensed against the condition of the 'time travel community' on the web and in these discussion boards. To my mind there's too much bark and not enough bite, so to speak. Keep in mind that I'm not attacking the spiritual or mental claims of time travel - those are a wholly different ballpark. But there seems to be a large number of people parroting misinformation about physics in general. There are many claims out there that time travel has been achieved, but no proof positive. It's said that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, but I'd be willing to settle for any evidence whatsoever.

I read quite often attacks on those tenets of modern physics, the theories of relativity. Fact is, they are wrong in some aspects. But Newton's theory of gravitation is really wrong, and we still use it for everyday calculations. It still works in the arena where it was designed. Relativity, our best theory about time and space, still works excellently in that area. Quantum effects et al. may mess around with it on smaller scales or in situations it doesn't deal with well, but it works where we need to use it. This means you won't be making a time machine in your living room. Unless you have a cylinder ten times solar mass in your living room, or some negmatter, &c. The fundamental tenets of physics have been proven time and time again, and I have yet to see experimental results which challenge them (for example, relativity) on a basic level (eg 'time dilation does not occur'). We have to go by best assumptions, and until proven otherwise, the best assumption is that almost all of current physics is right. Can anyone challenge this?

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think time travel's impossible. But it won't come from flying in the face of proven theories. Personally, I'd love to get into some discussion about TT possibilities, like what we'd see going around a Tipler cylinder, or how wormhole TT would work. Some real discussion would be great.

At any rate, I expect to get flamed for this post. But I just had to say it: theories require proof. Einstein had a theory; you have a theory. Einstein had proof; where's yours?
Excellent Time02112!!!!!!
I am glad to hear the matrix system form someone elses' mouth for a change and a different source. The wisdom of the ancients. Peace for the Matrix of Knowledge.

...~The Doctor~...
If a hypothesis successfully passes many tests, it becomes known as a theory. A THEORY is a tested explanation of basic natural phenomena. The existence of UFO's is not a theory!
Einstein's equation ( E=mc^2 ) does not state the matter is equivalent to energy. In his equation m = mass not matter. MASS is the quantity of matter in a material. MATTER is the general term for the material things around us; we can define it as whatever occupies space and can be perceived by our senses.
ENERGY is the potential or capacity to move matter. The ideal that a vortex of energy forms matter is invalid unless a new definition of energy is given that can be tested and proven valid.
Well, Time02112, I just have to reply to this one. But why do you repost this extremely lengthy oration, when you already posted it in another thread? It seems like a waste of space.

Anyway, on with the analysis:

"Measurements with intensity meters <...>"
So vortices exist. What does that have to do with my post?

"Theory of Fluctuating Nonholonomic Fields and Applications"
And you're proving... what?

"The vortex; key to future science"
David Ash: http://www.alphaomega.se/english/ash.html
'I see myself as the preparer of the path for Christ's return to the Earth'
'We do not have any information as to exactly when or where it will occur. All we can do is prepare ourselves, listen to our breath, it is the breath which connects us to our higher self, our spiritual origin. We are a soul with a body not a body with a soul.'
Not much physics there...

"In their book "The Vortex. Key to future science", British scientists David Ash and Peter Hewitt revitalize the concept of vortex energy by stating that not an atom but
- an elementary particle is a vortex of energy -"
So, where's the theory? I can state "subatomic particles are actually pickles", but I'd need proof and theory to back it up. If you're going to post stuff like this, at least give some of the math/theory behind it. Some explanation, not just claims.

"The Indian holy man Sri Satya Sai Baba for instance is well known for his ability to materialize objects at will <...>"
Does he want a million dollars? Tell him about James Randi's challenge. Any links or references to the papers that document this man's amazing ability?

"Matter, space and time as aspects of the vortex"
Try replacing the word 'vortex' with 'pickle' at every instance. It serves to put wild claims into perspective.

"Through scientific experiments it is known that each living physical body is surrounded by an energy body that is the blueprint of the physical body. Before a plant starts to grow a leaf, it can be detected in the energy field surrounding the plant. Changes in the physical form can be detected in the energy field first."
References? This is pretty heady stuff to claim with no backup.

"Little known medical tests have shown that people who have been doing a lot of inner work through meditation have developed three or four stranded DNA. And many of the children born nowadays already enter the world with three or four stranded DNA."
Really? Can you show us these little known tests? But DNA works with protein pairs. Not triplets. How would this work?

What do massaging sound waves have to do with anything?

And as for the 'Matrix', it sounds more spiritual than physical. So I obviously can't debunk it with physics.
Time02112, you e-mail box is full. I sent you a request but it got returned. e-mail me when it is empty. Thanks, ( I really liked your post and would like to link it to my Magi Physics page). Peace from the Matrix....

...~The Doctor~...
I don't care who disagrees with who. All I can say is this is the best thread I've seen yet. I'm just a fruit monkey so I'll just watch untill you all reach critical mass----then I'll be smart.
Time02112, I take great offense at your comment "Janus, excuse me, but you believe in a 'GOD' you cannot see, or use your math to prove in the existence of the GOD you pray to, but you are so quick to judge & dismiss claims in other elements your scientific processes cannot describe."
I do no such thing. I am not a hypocrite. I am an atheist, and deny the existence of 'God', and have never attempted to use math to prove its existence. If, by 'god' you are referring to the scientific process, then you are obviously completely ignorant of the basis of science. Science is not based on belief, it is based on proof. And if you don't see the difference between the two, then you're in a worse state than I thought.

"If you wanted proof, first you must come to acknowledge that you will never find it with the current techniques you are using <...>"
Why? All I ask is to see the evidence of your claims. For example, '3-stranded DNA'. This is a physical claim; all that is required to prove it is some DNA with 3 strands. If what you claim is occuring, this should not be tough to obtain.

"you must be willing to accept the idea that there are elements out there that exist beyond what your science is capable of providing answers to, let alone an explanation to describe it."
uh, an answer is an explanation...
Anyway, I'm not saying that science needs to explain it; just that, if you have evidence of something which contradicts science, display it, and disprove the scientific theories! Then science would be debunked, and everyone would have to believe that paranormal events exist. But such has not been forthcoming.

"Janus, you are dealing with components that work well with machines, but the human body is also 'Spiritual' <...>"
You make claims which would be easily verifiable by science, even if they had 'spiritual' origins. 3-strand DNA, PK, transubstantiation. All have physical, measurable effects. Which have never been observed (verifiably).

The hundredth monkey phenomenon has never been studied in lab-type conditions (AFAIK). In the one instance when the observation was made, there are numerous other explanations which present themselves, without resorting to 'collective consciousness'. The monkeys could have swum to the other islands; perhaps the other islands' monkeys already knew how to wash their fruit; etc. There is no proof that any monkeys spontaneously obtained knowledge without being taught.
Besides, it's obvious that this doesn't work in humans anyway. Millions of people know how to ride a bike, but each of us had to learn - we didn't spontaneously obtain the ability. Millions of people can swim, yet some can't. Thousands of people have learned about physics, and yet you obviously haven't the foggiest idea about how it all works. This is a goofy, unproven, unrealistic theory.

I wholly agree with Time~Master's statement about theory. The word 'theory' in science has a different meaning than its popular connotation. This fact is overlooked by many paranormalists.

As for the spiritual side of the story, I have no quarrel with claims of mental TT, or whatever else. It's when people mix the spiritual and physical that it becomes arguable. Anything with a physical effect can be measured and documented. Anything. Thereby one can obtain scientific-grade proof. So if you make claims that have physical repercussions, back them up with proof. Otherwise, they're by nature invalid.
Janus; first I owe you my sincere "Apology" for making an error in judgement as to assume that you believed in God. A grave mistake that I constantly preach to others .."Never assume nothing, for to "Assume" makes an "*Ass out of
*U & *me.

Please forgive me, although we may not see eye to eye on certain views, I do not despise you, or hate you as a person in any way. (nothing personal, no "offense"intended.)

I am confident that your imput is just as important. however, objectional views are part of the process to finding answers.

As you were saying...."Millions of people know how to ride a bike, but each of us had to learn - we didn't spontaneously obtain the ability. Millions of people can swim, yet some can't."

Then how do you explain instinct?
Babies know how to swim, right after birth!

As an infant in the womb is surrounded in a liquid environment of embryonic fluid, it has been demonstrated that infants at birth have a natural instinct to make the transition from one liquid environment in which "Swimming" was not a learned behavior, to another liquid environment where they had to know how to swim, and use different functions of their tiny bodies that they never used prior. And in spite of the confined space they were living in prior to birth, they were able to swim the entire length of an olympic size pool, from one end, to the other, without incident?

Is this evidence of inherit genetic memory?
it had to come from somewhere?

"Everything you know,...is Wrong!
soon we shall all discover the truth."

certain kinds of birds build the same nest over and over through generation after generation.....its in their cellular memory.
Time02112, thanks for the apology. Nor do I despise or hate you in any way either. Your views, however, that's a different matter. I can be irascible at times - I write these posts mostly rather late at night.

"I am confident that your imput is just as important. however, objectional views are part of the process to finding answers."

As for instinct, that's a different matter altogether than the 100th monkey phenomenon. You wouldn't suggest that, when a doctor taps on my knee and my leg jerks, that that is an acquired condition brought on by hundreds of people learning to do it. It's just a reflex. Much of instinct runs parallel to the idea of reflex. When a baby is put in water, their reflex is to close off mouth and nose, so as not to breathe in water, and wildly kick their legs. This makes sense, evolutionally. By not breathing in water, and kicking, the baby has a better chance of:
a) not drowning
b) being noticed and rescued by an adult, and/or
c) propelling itself to safety.
So it makes sense as a reflex. OTOH, adult swimming is a learned ability, and not all adults have it. IMO, the evidence of instances which contradict the 100th monkey phenomenon far outweigh the slight evidence which may support it.

And I'd still like to see any evidence you have access to for those paranormal claims you made earlier. I mean, without evidence, how do you even know they exist? Any reliable reports of 3-strand DNA, etc?