Jump to content

Who believes that time travel is possible?


Corcoran
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm just trying to say that that isn't the case, some of my sources are people I know in person and that I know I can trust.

I am sure you can trust them to tell you what they experienced. But it is in getting that confused with trusting how they interpret what they experienced where things go awry. Trusting that they are telling you what they experienced is totally different from believing what they say is behind the experience, right?

 

To play devil's advocate, even if what was believed to be an OBE (out-of-body experience) really was just a trick of the mind, surely that would at least show that a person's mental capabilities are much more advanced than is generally presumed?

How, exactly, would it show that? You see, this is where a lack of scientific thinking CAN INDEED lead to you believing something is true when it is patently false. Speaking strictly from the way the scientific method is employed, all that the above shows is that the human mind can be tricked (and quite easily, as we all know). It certainly does not show any sort of "advanced mental capabilities" at all! And as I say, your presumption that it does tends to show your naivete with respect to science. (Do not take that as an insult, as you have even admitted as much)

 

Or, to put it another way, isn't it possible, that spiritual and metaphysical phenomena could override the rules of physics?

Extremely low possibility, so low as to be zero. The reason is because physics explains causality, right down to the eletrons flowing around your brain that CAUSE such hallucinations that people experience and intepret as a "spiritual experience." The bottom line is that you PHYSICALLY experienced something, and therefore there MUST be a PHYSICAL explanation behind it!

 

I am not sure you are fully comprehending what Twighlight has been trying to point out about physical vs. non-physical...

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am sure you can trust them to tell you what they experienced. But it is in getting that confused with trusting how they interpret what they experienced where things go awry. Trusting that they are telling you what they experienced is totally different from believing what they say is behind the experience, right?

Yes, you're correct about that. I simply got the impression that Darby was questioning the integrity of my sources. Perhaps they are misinterpreting what they have experienced, but I am just trying to point out to Darby that I do know some of my sources to be trustworthy, as, like I said, I got the impression (perhaps wrongly, but still) that he was questioning their integrity.

 

It certainly does not show any sort of "advanced mental capabilities" at all!

What I meant was that if the human mind is capable of imagining or hallucinating an experience where they go out of their body (or appear to) without having taken any kind of drug which would result in hallucinations of this kind - well, I personally would find that very impressive. Regardless of the fact that the mind is being tricked into perceiving it as an OBE, I would still think it remarkable that the mind can come up with such an extraordinary hallucination, so that would suggest to me, that there is some source of hidden, untapped power in the human mind which people are not aware of.

 

I am not sure you are fully comprehending what Twighlight has been trying to point out about physical vs. non-physical...

Maybe not, like I said, science isn't my strong point.

 

The reason is because physics explains causality, right down to the eletrons flowing around your brain that CAUSE such hallucinations that people experience

Which electrons would cause these hallucinations and how/why would this happen?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant was that if the human mind is capable of imagining or hallucinating an experience where they go out of their body (or appear to) without having taken any kind of drug which would result in hallucinations of this kind - well, I personally would find that very impressive. Regardless of the fact that the mind is being tricked into perceiving it as an OBE, I would still think it remarkable that the mind can come up with such an extraordinary hallucination, so that would suggest to me, that there is some source of hidden, untapped power in the human mind which people are not aware of.

 

You are being 'tricked' every moment of your waking life.

 

That room you see in front of you.....is actually activity in the back of your brain. The brain does a splendid job of 'projecting' your vision as if what you see is external to you.

 

One of the biggest mistakes people make is to assume there is a one-to-one correlation between their conscious experience and the 'external world'. In fact there is none at all ! From an evolutionary viewpoint...consciousness does not NEED to experience THE external world ( and it cannot anyway )......all it needs is a self-consistent model of it.

 

One of the hardest things to explain to people is that the sky is NOT blue. The colour blue is something the brain made up...to represent an external wavelength. There is no blue outside of consciousness. The same applies to all our senses. Though there IS a 'correlation' between what we experience and the external stimulus....what we actually experience is NOT the external world but a totally made up sensation that exists within a MODEL of the external world ( our consciouness ).

 

The brain does this so well that we can go an entire lifetime under the illusion that all our senses are direct one-to-one experiences of what is 'out there'. They are not.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which electrons would cause these hallucinations and how/why would this happen?

The same electrons that create ALL of your sensations associated with being. See Twighlight's recent response above to fully understand what we are getting at.

 

You are taking an awful lot for granted. And this is all a result of having a slanted (non-scientific) view of what constitutes scientific evidence for seemingly "amazing" (paranormal) phenomena. You may very well be in a position to determine "what you believe" and "how what you believe makes you feel", but you are in no position to be able to determine what is "real" (truthful) and what is not, mostly because you do not have a fuller appreciation of how science works (what many call the Philsophy of Science). You should look into it... not a lot of equations, but rather LOTS of language and logic for what forms the foundations of the scientific method.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I would ask, would the laws of physics apply to spiritual phenomena?

 

But that's half the problem. Define 'spiritual phenomena'. It's a term so vague as to be meaningless.

 

The problem spiritual 'stuff' has is that there's no evidence it actually exists. How does one define something nobody has ever weighed or measured or captured in a lab ? I mean....what's the difference between something that behaves as if it doesn't exist.......and something that DOESN'T exist ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never had much success meditating. But once every few months or so I have extremely vivid dreams as real as being there. Some of them seem to be prophetic and later come true to the exact detail, the most memorable one was finding an old senile lady in my back garden which later came true.

 

There have also been some vivid dreams where I have found myself in the past during my childhood where I of course instantly started thinking about how I could use my knowledge of the future to enrich myself. But I awoke back in the present day before I could enact those plans, but they did leave quite an impression on me as sudenly finding yourself inside a weedy little childs body is an interesting experience.

 

Reading the story of Queen Jane the Nine Day Queen I found myself getting unusually emotionally affected and over the next several weeks had several dreams that I was her. I wondered whether that was a past life, eventhough it is quite cleche to claim to be an historical figure. One of my last thoughts before I woke up from one of those dreams was to make my mark on history by inventing hot air balloons and electricity etc.

 

I also once dreampt I was in the iron age.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should look into it... not a lot of equations, but rather LOTS of language and logic for what forms the foundations of the scientific method.

Perhaps I will...lots of language, you say? I'm good with language. Words are right up my street.

 

It's only words...and words are all I have...to take your heart away.

 

One of my Bee Gees fan moments there. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, what do you mean by "consciously leave their bodies while unconscious?" That's a paradox and that's not what I said at all. What I said, was that people can leave their bodies whilst asleep but that is NOT astral projection, because their mind is unconscious at that time.

Yes, I know. But you see the problem, don't you? I did, and the "misinterpretation" was intentional. We generally call the line of response reductio ad absurdum. In one post you put forward astral projection and yet another (nameless) New Agey form of "let's leave the body," Who arbitrarily decided that conscious leaving of the body is somehow significantly different than unconsciously leaving the body or that consciousness or unconsciousness is a requirement at all? Maybe semi-consciousness after a night at the pub is required? Moreover, if the person is unconscious, and the "spirit" is otherwise invisible, who precisely determines that the person's spirit went on walk-about? Unconscious is...well...unconscious and invisible is invisible.

 

This isn't mindless chiding or derision. The questions beg answer given that this is a big money industry, New Age marketing - CD's, DVD's, books, magazines, guest lecture tour, consultation fees, ghost hunting, TV, radio, spam. readings, etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wondering how many people here actually believe that time travel could be possible./quote]

 

It is possible. I know exactly how to do it. It's just incredibly difficult, and nowhere near our capabilities, for maybe thousands of years.

 

However, I trust those who have related their experiences to me.

You're too trusting. When time travel and especially where astral projection is concerned, it's best not to trust anyone until there's concrete proof.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of the fact that the mind is being tricked into perceiving it as an OBE, I would still think it remarkable that the mind can come up with such an extraordinary hallucination, so that would suggest to me, that there is some source of hidden, untapped power in the human mind which people are not aware of.

 

It really does require a knowledge of the science to be able to comprehend what it possible and what isn't in this arena.

 

Some scientists speculate ( and it IS just speculation ) that the curious role of 'the observer' in quantum phenomenon might allow something analogous to psychic phenomenon to occur. But it's just as true that that is why many scientists are not happy with what is known as the 'Copenhagen interpretation' of quantum mechanics. It is actually a fundamental reason why the 'many worlds' interpretation has gained popularity......as it eliminates the curious effect whereby the observer seems to 'decide' what quantum probabilities occur. Personally I don't like the many worlds interpretation...which incidentally is where 'timelines' originate.....as it seems absurd that a whole new universe be created simply for an event involving one atom.

 

So, quantum physics holds out a 'possibility' of strange phenomenon. The problem is....that possibility is not backed up by direct observational evidence. Not only that, but as I said in an earlier post......the type of particles needed to create such things as 'astral bodies' would contain self-contradictory properties.

 

I don't think one can 100% rule out psychic phenomenon. But the nature of science is such that it is up to such phenomenon to prove they are real.....not for science to prove they are not. Decades of study have resulted in not one single scientifically verifiable case. Indeed, some former 'believers' such as Dr Susan Blackmore, who studied psychic phenomenon herself, are now hardened sceptics. The reason being that the evidence just is not there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twilight,

 

Some scientists speculate ( and it IS just speculation ) that the curious role of 'the observer' in quantum phenomenon might allow something analogous to psychic phenomenon to occur.

That's true as far as "some scientists" go. But quantum physics is in general deterministic in the sense that the probabilities indicated in the math and expermintal verification rule the absurd outcomes unless you extend the time required to observe the obsurd outcome to 10^60+ years. Sure, on the atomic level somewhere in the universe you might find an electron or two doing the "impossible". But throw 10^23 atoms together and you won't see otherwise impossible results over the course of the life of the universe. One mole of atoms won't, all together, suddenly quantum tunnel through your bedroom wall.

 

You are correct that the observer plays a very different role in quantum physics relative to classical physics. But the quantum interpretation makes more sense than the classical interpretation. You can't actually observe an event at the atomic or subatomic level without disturbing the system. At the very least you have to shine a photon on the system and to see the system in focus the photon's wavelength has to be less than the wavelength of the object under observation. Extremely tiny systems mean extremely high energy photons, i.e. using bowling balls to observe B-B's. Short wavelength means high energy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I noticed my post received a zero response, and instead you go on scientifically explaining why certain things just can not happen because mainstream science says so.

 

I say I have observed multiple (50+) times, with amazing accuracy I might add, an individual "see" if you will, activities, people, locations,...etc; literally thousands of miles away. This is not something where an individual can just explain away.

 

The problem lies within the fact that mainstream science looks at things which they have no answer for as pseudo-science. It does not help that new age type people make all of these bold and crazy claims that they perform miracles or predict the future. It gives "real" areas of study a bad name.

 

This is why in previous post on matters such as this, I have stated my "belief" that the entire universe is connected by a universal energy. What you may choose to call this energy or power source is totally up to you.

 

I do not believe in the "Paranormal" on a personal level, I "believe" it can all be explained scientifically, but it is simply not understood with our current technology.

 

If an individual who works for the government can sit down, clear their mind, sit stationary for 25min to around and hour, then describe in detail exactly where somebody or something is...and then you can go find it exactly where they say...well, that speaks for itself.

 

You do not need science to explain something like that. You just except it for what it is. You can ramble on for as long as you like about how it does not make scientific sense, but when you see this happen numerous "repeatable" times you start to realize it's real...you just can't explain it.

 

This is why I have said I do not feel a person can predict the future. I do not feel my futre is written. I do not feel the future even exists, nor do I feel the past exists. We live in the current here and now. It is my belief that your past is nothing more than a memory, and your future is what you choose to make it.

 

In all the years I have worked for the government, I have never met one of these individuals who claim to predict the future, nor see events in the past. It has always been real time, and they advise or explain what they saw for that period of time.

 

I know a good trick when I see one, and I'm pretty good knowing when somebody is full of crap. I just don't see us putting actual lives on the line over a circus trick. So if you can explain it away be my guest.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But quantum physics is in general deterministic in the sense that the probabilities indicated in the math and expermintal verification rule the absurd outcomes

That should read: But quantum physics is in general deterministic in the sense that the probabilities indicated in the math and expermintal verification rule out the absurd outcomes

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say I have observed multiple (50+) times, with amazing accuracy I might add, an individual "see" if you will, activities, people, locations,...etc; literally thousands of miles away. This is not something where an individual can just explain away.

 

Actually I'm afraid it is.

 

The problem with remote viewing tests is that there is often no real method of accurately determining the accuracy of what is seen. It's not like Zenner cards, where there is a quite specific hit or a miss.

 

Let's say the 'target' is a railway station in some Siberian town. Hmm....so i draw two straight lines...and immediately the tester jumps on that as ' oh, you got the railway tracks'. But of course, two straight lines might just as well have been a chimney stack, or part of the fuselage of an airplane, or a bridge, or whatever.

 

There's no decisive methodology for determining accuracy. That is why, a few years back I recall there was a quite well known psi test website ( i forget the name ) that did such tests online.......and the hit or miss criteria were simple things like was there water in the pic, or was it hot or cold, etc. I quite often scored 'accurately', having received no mental impression at all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But quantum physics is in general deterministic in the sense that the probabilities indicated in the math and expermintal verification rule out the absurd outcomes

 

Ah, but that is where Professor Paul Davies steps in with his notion of humans affecting quantum states way back in history by the act of observation now. Clearly, an event happening right now in the immediate vicinity is unlikely to jump to some highly improbable state, whereas a small tweek billions of years ago could have major effects.

 

Davies raises an interesting point, that is worth raising. Just how far back in time does the observer effect go ?

 

Where Davies makes a bit of a mistake in logic is that even if the effect WERE real, the results would now be billions of light years away and not HERE. So you'd actually need other observers billions of light years away.....to create Davies effect for our galaxy.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but that is where Professor Paul Davies steps in with his notion of humans affecting quantum states way back in history by the act of observation now.

Bohm (early 1950's), de Broglie (mid 1920's) and others brought forward theories challenging the Copenhagen Interpretation before Davies was born.

 

None of that challenges or changes the general notion of determinancy in QM as a statistical science. A small tweek billions of years ago isn't any more likely to result in an improbable state than a small tweek ten minutes ago. The tweek is irrelevent to an unexpected and highly unlikely state. That would require classical determinancy - which is incorrect. My truck, even uf we wait 10 trillion years, will not quantum jump into a state of being a carton of cream cheese...no matter what the tweeks were.

 

Can it happen? In principle yes it can. All that has to occur is for each and every atom in my truck to simultenaously undergo quantum nucleosynthesis and change from iron, steel, plastic and aluminum atoms to complex carbyhydrate molecules. The probability since the Big Bang event that one atom of anything has undergone such a quantum jump in state is all but zero.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can it happen? In principle yes it can. All that has to occur is for each and every atom in my truck to simultenaously undergo quantum nucleosynthesis and change from iron, steel, plastic and aluminum atoms to complex carbyhydrate molecules. The probability since the Big Bang event that one atom of anything has undergone such a quantum jump in state is all but zero.

 

Well...I'd dispute that, if one is using a purely Copenhagen Interpretation quantum physics.

 

The entire basis of the 'observer effect' is the appearance of the collapse of the wave funtion being down to the observer. As Schrodinger raised with his cat, until the observer actually makes the observation there is a state of superposition.....the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. The whole point of Schrodinger's Cat is not simply to demonstrate indeterminacy in the Copenhagen model.....but that a quantum effect ( a single particle, in this thought experiment ) CAN have a classical determinacy outcome. That was the whole point of the thought experiment.

 

So if quantum indeterminacy of a single particle ( whether it decays or not ) can have such a major classical impact as whether a cat is alive or dead......I'd say Davies does have a point.

 

Of course your truck won't convert into a carton of cream cheese....because that is ( as you say ) highly improbable. Schrodingers Cat, on the other hand, is between two equally probably outcomes. So Davies is not suggesting that by observing the universe we might suddenly get square planets or something outrageous.....but that the act of making PROBABLE outcomes more likely could cumulatively make a big difference.

 

There's a term for what Davies describes.......bootstrapping, analogous to lifting oneself up by one's own boot straps. Sounds crazy, but it's really just a cosmic extension of Schrodinger's Cat..in which one can affect the outcome in the past, and hence determine the present. Actually I think Wheeler got there before Davies, with his 'self conscious universe' that implies pretty much the same thing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bohm (early 1950's), de Broglie (mid 1920's) and others brought forward theories challenging the Copenhagen Interpretation before Davies was born.

 

The only other serious contender these days is the 'many worlds' interpretation. Depending on who one listens to, either many worlds or Copenhagen are the most widely accepted versions.

 

I do not like the many worlds version at all. It seems to me even more outrageous than your truck converting into a carton of cream cheese.

 

I myself tried to come up with a many worlds version that did not require whole new universes to be created for every probablistic outcome for any particle. After all, as the effects spread out at the speed of light, most of the universe does not 'know' yet that any change has occured here. But of course...eventually it will do, and you cannot have some particle millions of light years away responding to two or more different outcomes and still have just one universe. So the many worlds theorem does indeed imply entire new universes.

 

There seems to me something very outrageous indeed about any theory that requires entire new universes.....zillions of them....every millisecond just in order to get round the observer effect.

 

You then get down to the REAL problem with many worlds......just exactly what constitutes an 'event' ? The whole thing runs into Zeno's paradox......and also the curious Quantum Zeno Effect ( the act of observing can not only affect the outcome...but also prevent an outcome from occuring...forcing 'no change' ). One is left having to define some period of time that seperates one 'event' from another....this MUST be the case as one surely cannot get discrete new universes from some purely analogue progression.

 

This would imply a basic unit of time, probably defined by the Plank limit. But even then, one has the problem that the Plank limit is so small that one could have different time 'frames' even within a single atom. To my mind the problems for many worlds just become insurmountable. It seems to me more to be a scientific 'cop out'.....for scientists who refuse to accept the full implications of the Copenhagen model.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I believe time travel is possible. The question is how much evidence do we need to establish proof? For example, if I say the economy is getting worse. However, someone else says we are in a recovery. Who is right, and who is wrong?

 

Can I use this as evidence?

 

Taken from http://apnews.myway.com//article/20100818/D9HM3KHG0.html

 

Democrats are keenly aware that they face strong headwinds; 60 percent of people say the country's headed in the wrong direction. And it's hard to overstate the importance of the economy to voters; 91 percent of Americans say it's a top problem, with unemployment close behind.

 

 

 

A whopping 81 percent of people now call the economy poor or very poor, up from 72 percent in June, and just 12 percent say it has improved in the past month, compared with 19 percent in June. Both are record measurements since AP-GfK started asking those questions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Greetings, from a Time Travel nihilist. I doubt I'll make any friends here since most of you seem to believe in time travel and as I know that it doesn't exist, we certainly won't have common ground to begin from. I read these posts for a couple months before I felt I should reply and perhaps I still shouldn't but what the heck. It would appear the moderators here are skeptical also and challenge posters claims of TT as such claims should be. I too am prepared to have my opinion analyzed, considered, criticized, critiqued, examined, investigated, and judged by my peers on this site but it can not and will not be altered because of one simple fact that everyone, for whatever reason, ignores or refuses to consider perhaps because it would shake their very foundations in physics, something I have no problem doing because I am not restrained by a rigid mindset. Yes, I am bound by the Laws of Physics but not by archaic ideas whose time is well past. Remember we once thought the world was flat or that man couldn't survive at speeds above 25 mph, that the sound barrier couldn't be broken. All were proved wrong. So will Einstein's 'special theory of relativity' be. What was he smoking in that pipe?

 

TIME my friends is a human concept. Not a Law, not a theory, not a hypothesis. It serves to define the occurrence of an event, something that is meaningful and crucial to us but of no consequence to the Universe. Our finite existence compels us to consider time as relevant but we are the only thing on this planet that does so. Additionally, the simplest way to prove time doesn't exist is the fact that everything in the Universe is either energy or matter. Time has no substance. It is not a particle. It is not a wave. It does not have mass. It does not have a charge. Therefore, IT CAN NOT EXIST. It isn't something you can travel in like air or water or even space because empty space really isn't 'empty'.

 

In the most basic sense we do time travel but only in one direction, forward, and at a self defined speed of one second per second. You cannot travel into the past because there is nothing there to MOVE into. You cannot travel into the future any further than your present because the future occurs as you experience it, as your present, and since we have defined the passage of time to be one second per second you cannot accelerate it to experience it any faster. This allows me to segue to the special relativity theory. It doesn't matter how fast you are traveling. We have defined the rate at which time passes. A year is a year is a year and it is the same measurement at the speed of light as it is at 65 mph. If and when we are able to reach the speed of light or as close as we do and someone's twin comes back 1 year older just as the twin that remains behind this abstract premise will be disproved.

 

Sorry if I've burst anyone's bubble. Time Travel is still one of the favorite concepts of sci-fi. It does make for some interesting plot lines and I will continue to enjoy movies with the concept but it is just a movie.

 

I look forward to the assessment of my post by others that disagree or agree and would be intrigued if I am proven wrong (In part, possibly. In total, not likely.). Perhaps someone will reply yesterday and really prove me wrong. Thanks to the site owners for providing a place to express these opinions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TIME my friends is a human concept. Not a Law, not a theory, not a hypothesis. It serves to define the occurrence of an event, something that is meaningful and crucial to us but of no consequence to the Universe. Our finite existence compels us to consider time as relevant but we are the only thing on this planet that does so. Additionally, the simplest way to prove time doesn't exist is the fact that everything in the Universe is either energy or matter. Time has no substance. It is not a particle. It is not a wave. It does not have mass. It does not have a charge. Therefore, IT CAN NOT EXIST. It isn't something you can travel in like air or water or even space because empty space really isn't 'empty'.

 

Hmm. You are both right and wrong.

 

From a physics perspective, 'exist' means to interact. A particle that did not interact in any way with our universe, might interact ( and exist ) relative to particles in some other universe.....but relative to our universe such a particle does not 'exist'.

 

Clearly, time is not composed of interacting particles, so in that sense one can argue that 'time does not exist'. A universe with nothing in it would be a timeless universe.

 

However, that is not the same as saying that time is an illusion. Rather, it means that we should CORRECTLY define time not as a 'thing' but as a process.

 

So, we talk about people 'growing old'. Clearly, growing old is not a 'thing' that one can poke and prod and shove into an atomic accelerator and watch bits fly off. It is not a 'thing'....it is a process that happens to things.

 

But it does not end there....and this is the TRUE bizzareness of our universe. Particles 'exist' because they interact with each other. But that interaction ( the exchange of virtual particles ) requires TIME in order to occur.

 

People often imagine that without time, the universe would just stay stuck in a frozen state. NOT TRUE. Without time.....nothing would exist at all ! Absolute zilch. Physical existence is meaningless without time. That is why the term 'spacetime' was devised.....and people often use it without grasping that it's not just a handy buzz word but actually expresses the true nature of reality. Space and time ( or more correctly, energy and time ) are inextricably linked. Time is not simply something superimposed on space.....but is an intrinsic part of it.

 

Thus, time is by no means an illusion, or something that our brains made up. It is a process built into the very fabric of the universe....and without which nothing would exist at all.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gpa,

 

Time has no substance. It is not a particle. It is not a wave. It does not have mass. It does not have a charge. Therefore, IT CAN NOT EXIST.

Though I somewnat agree with you there is a bit of a flaw in the above logic. Define what "energy" is as an object of substance.

 

I'm not indicating in any way that energy does not exist, but as to having some substantial existence I know of no one who has ever held a handful of energy, seen energy or in any other way "saw" energy. Likewise, no one has had a handful of "mass". Matter, yes. Mass, as defined in physics, no. Mass is a property of a substance, not the substance itself. Same-same for space.

 

Dismissing time as being unreal because it has no substance does not logically follow from your thesis.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debunkers come to this forum to make fun of time travel. They remind me of Terry Jones the man who wants to burn a quran. He freely admits that he has never read one. However, he wants to burn them and says they are evil from the devil.

 

How would he know? It would be one thing if he read one cover to cover. Then he could give his opinion.

 

Debunkers are all about hate and destroying that with which they do not agree. For example, moving threads to the HOAX section that talk about time travel because they claim it is nonsense. I have found that no amount of evidence can convince one. Yeah, they always ask for proof, but no amount of proof can ever be the amount necessary.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...