Jump to content

Twighlight

Members
  • Posts

    802
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Twighlight

  1. The trouble is......she'd have to be talking to someone else with a mobile phone. Clearly there would have to be a second person. That would mean you'd need all the infrastructure, masts, relay stations, etc etc, to exist too. When you look at the video closely.....I'm not sure that 'she' IS actually a she. The way those shoes fit looks very odd indeed, in fact her feet are bigger than those of the guy in front ! And the face, when 'she' turns a little....looks very much a male face. So, there may be a quite simple reason why a male 'extra', asked to play a female part, was covering his face...and probably cracking a joke with someone behind the stage.
  2. Well, paradoxes in travelling to the past are inescapable. If I time travel to yesyterday, then there are two of me.....including one who was not originally there yesterday. If I had successfully travelled back to yesterday, then why didn't the me alive yesterday originally meet the time traveller from today ? People think that timelines get round this....but they don't. If I always have to travel back to a different timeline.....it's really not a problem to arrive back at my own, it just involves another step. I simply travel back to yesterday in a different timeline, wait a day until it is 'today'.....then there is nothing to stop me travelling back to 'yesterday' in my original timeline ( which is now effectively a different timeline ).
  3. Hmm. What happens if I transport my watch back to yesterday ? There are then two watches...made from the same atoms. That's an aspect of time travel to the past that is clearly a paradox. Unless the original watch disappears. If you replace the original atoms with the ones from the future, you then have a nice little loop. As the future watch would not arrive at the same place as the original.....the effect to someone in the past would be the same as if the watch had been teleported somewhere else, it would just disappear and arrive somewhere else. That also hints at a possible link between teleporting and time travel.
  4. I think a lot of people just tried to jump on the Titor bandwaggon.....but not one of them ever created a hoax that was as 'good' ( that's a relative term ) as Titor. Titor was evidently a hoax ( to anyone with a brain ) right from early on.....but he at least made the effort to sound convincing, and put a little time into his props and story. Everyone else is just so much very unconvincing BS. They can't even come up with amazing hoax videos like the superb Haiti UFO hoax. Now THIS is the sort of hoax material I find impressive.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up5jmbSjWkw
  5. He'll have to rescue all the alien/human slave hybrids from Dulce base first. Just as well Roswell is not that far off.......he can then pop in there and start his Messianic campaign.
  6. I'm not clear what the big deal is with STF 1659. It's just a random alignment of stars.....the term 'Stargate cluster' is purely a nickname invented by amateur astronomers and doesn't mean anything more than Orion being literally some 'hunter' in the sky, or the Owl Nebula being literally an owl, or the Tarantula nebula being literally a tarantula.
  7. There is an existing principle that already covers that.......the conservation of mass/energy.
  8. Is that the same Titor who predicted civil war in 2004 ? Just how much leeway do you want to give this guy ? If there is a civil war in 3072......will you then claim Titor got it right ?
  9. Re: Just for fun...let's track Web Bot predictions! Well...a good prediction is one that contains events that nobody could possibly have just guessed from analysing current trends. But that is never what you see from time travel claimants. Again and again they 'predict' either things that have already happened....or things which any idiot can see are likely. It's not like there's any shortage of major news events containing unexpected turns of events. But whenever you read them in the news, the first thought is ' hmm...so where was the prediction of THIS ?' All we ever get is vague doom and gloom, or something along the lines of ' a plane will crash somewhere in the northern hemisphere in the next 3 months'. The latter is actually extremely LIKELY going by past trends.
  10. That's complete nonsense and baloney. These 'predictions' are so vague, and have so little context provided, that they could be applied to almost anything. That is the entire basis of phoney 'predictions' that con the gullible.....they are deliberately so vague and obtuse that the 'believer' can then apply them to such a wide range of events that they seem to be correct solely because the person making the predictions is hedging their bets. I could make a prediction like 'Presidential mishap'. That is sufficiently vague that I could then apply it to almost ANYTHING that goes wrong for Obama......which let's face it is a daily occurence.....and claim I have psychic powers and foresaw it !
  11. Hey....I'll have you know that the Dialectic invariant phase tranducer, when attached to the discombobulative electrotransgenic quantum tunneling microsingularity in a hyperspace eigenstate, transverses the dynamically induced superpositional dipole in such a way as to fuse the 11 dimensional membranes via quantum electrodynamic disparity and leptonic symmetry breaking.......and the end result is a cup of tea ! Of course...my next theory will be all about how boiling a kettle would be much simpler.
  12. Science is science. It is not something you can reduce down to anyone's 'personal opinion'.....it is the cumulative knowledge and wisdom of thousands of people over several hundred years. Science rightly demands proof......evidence. That is because there's all manner of claims that outwardly might appear impressive, but which when properly investigated turn out to have a perfectly mundane explanation and are not impressive at all. There is no other mechanism I know of for determining what is valid and what isn't.
  13. No....you continue to miss the point. You have no way at all of distinguishing between something that is 'prevented' from happening.....and something that would not have happened anyway. That makes the whole excercise utterly pointless. Look....on October 12th at 8.43pm, your house will be demolished by a meteorite. Ah, but now that I have told you about it......the event won't happen ! Damn....I need to stock up on Kryptonite. Saving the world from all these impending disasters is hard work.
  14. Re: Just for fun...let's track Web Bot predictions! Personally I would not be all that impressed. It's all a bit like horse racing. If each of 20 horses in a race had an equal chance of winning, then there'd be betting odds of 20/1 or so for whoever was the ultimate winner. But clearly that is seldom what actually happens and some horses are more likely to win than others.....and one might even have a 'favourite' with betting odds of 2/1 or something. The point being that the betting is thus 'weighted' in favour of certain horses precisely because those placing the bets think they are more likely to win. So even though the rank outsider might actually win......in truth the whole thing is never really a true 20 horse race. And it is no different with predictions. Just as the race betting is initially based on 'previous form' so too are ALL predictions based upon knowledge of existing events......and a projection of them through to a certain outcome. An alien who just landed on Earth would not have the faintest idea what to predict, because he'd have no knowledge of current affairs on which to base any predictions. That is why people predicting events that are likely is really not at all impressive. I predict the Democrats will lose the mid term elections. You may hail me as psychic afterwards. What is really needed is for predictions of things that nobody would ever have guessed using current knowledge. But nobody ever does predict such things. Unexpected things happen all the time, that not one person ever predicted. Instead people do no different to what the horse race gambler does.....and place their predictive 'bets' on the favourites. Well.....it's not really any big deal when the favourite wins the race.
  15. Actually no.....THE best test of prediction without influencing the event itself is one that is entirely possible and simple. Supernovae regularly go off in distant galaxies.....and a few dozen or so are observed every year by astronomers. These are events that have effectively ALREADY HAPPENED.....but their light takes millions of years to reach us. There is no way that predicting such an event is going to prevent it happening Of course, the predictor would have to predict the exact galaxy ( with precise celestial co-ordinates......right ascension and declination ) out of millions, and the exact date and time. Strange how there is no psychic person putting their neck on the line and making such predictions.......and none of our alleged time travellers can tell us any such details either, despite the fact that there are web sites detailing distant supernovae each year.
  16. This is an impossible task.....for the following reasons :- 1) The prediction may not actually be correct. So how does one prevent something that isn't going to happen anyway from not happening ?? 2) A person being told the prediction may be precisely the reason it comes true. You have no way of knowing. 3) You have absolutely no way of distinguishing between a prediction that was incorrect all along.....and one that is 'prevented from happening'. Reason (3), in particular, makes the whole task meaningless. If I predict that aliens will land on the Whitehouse lawn at 2.30pm tomorrow.....and it fails to happen....well, that may be because I told you all, but it may just as well be because the prediction was baloney in the first place. And frankly...it's ABSURD to go looking for other reasons why a prediction fails. Occam's razor dictates that the most plausible reason for failure, and the one that should be given weight above all other explanations, is that the prediction was always false. I am reminded of some wise words by Carl Sagan... "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? "
  17. It's impossible to properly conceptualise time....all the while one sees it as a 'thing' in it's own right. Imagine a rotating sphere. One can imagine a sphere without rotation........but rotation without something to do the rotating is meaningless. And that is precisely the nature of time. So to ask about time 'before' the big bang is somewhat like asking about rotation without the sphere. I think this is a rather good analogy...as it helps one grasp that time is a PROPERTY of things ( just as rotation is ) and not an independant thing in itself. The whole question of what 'caused' the big bang is similar. It's sort of like asking what causes a piece of string to have two ends. The big bang is simply a 4 dimensional 'edge' to spacetime......in other words one could view the entire universe across it's entire history as a single entity ( that is precisely what spacetime is ). Looked at from this perspective....the 'cause' of the universe need not be 'at the beginning'. The beginning is simply an artefact of spacetime.....like the end of a piece of string. What causes a piece of string to have an end ? Some of your points suggest that you are still ( mistakenly ) looking at time as an entity in it's own right.......which is similar to trying to envisage rotation without the sphere to DO the rotating. Time is a meaningless concept without physical objects.
  18. On the contrary.....statistics is the ONLY means by which one would know if a result was 'significant' or not. I'm not saying your 'prediction' is meaningless or irrelevant. But with such a 'one off' like that there is simply no way of knowing. I think the odds of Paul the octopus correctly predicting the World Cup draws was about 1 in 128 or something.......it seems impressive and makes for good newspaper reports, but any scientist would be wary of such results. Any experiment needs to be done under controlled conditions. We don't know, for example, if the 'psychic octopus' was being subtley influenced in some way by its owner. And the ultimate criteria for all this would be repeatability. If, for example, a person is psychic.....they need to be able to CONSISTENTLY get high scores over a large range of experiments. If you got 3 lottery numbers right ( odds of 1 in 1000 ) ten weeks in a row....THEN a scientist might start to be impressed. But however much it might appear 'interesting'....no scientist is going to get interested with odds around 1 in 50. Such odds are just not statistically significant enough.
  19. No, the device isn't 'valuable' at all. You seem to have missed the fact that in order to find one or two 'genuine' pictures of the past ( and one still has the problem of how you'd know what was genuine )......one has to sift through 10^65356 images....and that is more images than could be contained in several billion trillion quadrillion universes worth of hard drives ! You seriously don't seem to comprehend the staggering numbers involved. Even if you had a computer sifting through a billion images a second.....you would 'only' have sorted through 10^25 images in the entire lifetime of the universe so far ! To sort throgh ALL the images...you would need a period of time 10^2600 longer than the universe has already existed. That is a number that is as much larger than the current age of the universe as the total number of atoms in a million billion billion billion universes is larger than 1 !!! I mean.....that makes even 'Deep Thought' in the Hitchhiker's Guide seem positively fast !
  20. Re: Grandfather 'Paradox' Resolved Er.....you've ALREADY changed history just by being there. Ok so you don't shoot him, but what if he has such a shock from you suddenly appearing that he goes infertile ? What if your mere breath of being there disturbs a bacteria in the air, that then gets redirected so it is inhaled by a butterfly, that then flies off and gets eaten by a bird, that then dies from being shot because the bacteria weakened it, and the bird then falls out of a tree and hits a cow, that then goes wild and smashes through a gate right onto a railway line.....where the 10.55 from New York, carrying your Grandad four days after you left to come home, gets derailed killing all on board.
  21. Actually, regarding statistics there's a point worth making. In terms of impressive results....it is MORE impressive to get slightly above average scores on a large number of tests, than it is to score a one-off fluke high score. The best evidence for Zenner cards came not from those who every now and then got all 25 cards in a test correct............but from those who took 1000 such 25 card tests and their average score was marginally above the 5 correct guesses that one would expect. A one off fluke may just BE a one off fluke......whereas getting even just an average 6 out of 25 correct over 1000 tests spreads the results into a definitive 'trend' that is statistically far more significant. Very important to note :- All such tests have to be specified in advance, and the results made distinct and seperate from any others. Otherwise a person could just cherry pick their 'best' results and ignore the bad ones.
  22. You'll have to excuse me for not being overly impressed. As you're including the bonus ball in your count, and there are 49 balls......the chances of getting one ball right are a mere 1 in 7. The chances of getting 2 correct are thus 1 in 56 ( (49/7) * (48/6)). So you have a 1 in 56 chance for the first line and a 1 in 7 chance for the second line. You can't accumulate these odds as they are distinct events. Also, strictly speaking the bonus ball ONLY applies when you have 5 numbers correct. So in terms of how the lottery actually works.......you got 2 lines correct, with about a 1 in 8 chance for each. If this was a Zenner card test for psychic powers, such odds would barely raise an eyebrow. I have myself scored odds of over 1000 to 1 in such a test online.....and even that's not particularly incredible given that 5000 people took the test that day. A true evidence of something remarkable going on would require odds of millions to one. The most remarkable psychic/precognition test I know of, the person tested scored odds of 100 billion to one against chance.....and THAT'S what I call impressive. Certainly from my own perspective...I'd have to see odds well over at least 1000 to one, on a distinct and unique prediction, to be impressed.
  23. I've been sent a number of pseudo-scientific 'theories' over the years. I recall one 'theory' that literally consisted of 100 pages of totally meaningless techno-babble of the ' if you attach the grunge pin to the flugal valve and rotate the hydrodynamic combobulator into the electroquantized decoupler.......' sort. Page after page of waffle, a lot of it containing words that don't even exist..and not a single maths equation. Well....that ended up in the bin. It's a common ploy, for people whose 'theories' don't actually have ANYTHING to say, to pad it out with absolute waffle and babble. The whole of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is just 5 pages....it doesn't NEED 100 pages of waffle. Alas, the world is full of people who seem to think that all they have to do to create a scientific theory is string a few high sounding words together, add a few references to famous scientists, pad in with waffle, tell everyone how Einsten, etc were all wrong but you are correct, and then try to bamboozle the gullible with it.
  24. I've been sent a number of pseudo-scientific 'theories' over the years. I recall one 'theory' that literally consisted of 100 pages of totally meaningless techno-babble of the ' if you attach the grunge pin to the flugal valve and rotate the hydrodynamic combobulator into the electroquantized decoupler.......' sort. Page after page of waffle, a lot of it containing words that don't even exist..and not a single maths equation. Well....that ended up in the bin. It's a common ploy, for people whose 'theories' don't actually have ANYTHING to say, to pad it out with absolute waffle and babble. The whole of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is just 5 pages....it doesn't NEED 100 pages of waffle. Alas, the world is full of people who seem to think that all they have to do to create a scientific theory is string a few high sounding words together, add a few references to famous scientists, pad in with waffle, tell everyone how Einsten, etc were all wrong but you are correct, and then try to bamboozle the gullible with it.
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...