Jump to content

New theories to help you discover time travel


time tunnel
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Theories help explain the world we live in.

Maybe. But it's a false explanation. We can't build a future on fairy tales. I think the heart of the problem is belief systems. We are taught to believe what we are told. So as long as we realize that a belief is nothing more than a fairy tale, then it makes understanding easier to comprehend. Just keep thinking, "Beliefs are not Real!"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should study theories like this to find other ways to time travel.It was on physics.org.You need to put nanotechnology and chemistry with it in the search engine.

We should study theories like what? You appear to have intended to reference something from physics.org but didn't complete the thought in the post.

 

BTW: Ignore einstein's silliness about "theories". He uses "theory" to mean "opinion". As used in science the term "theory" is much more than an opinion. It is a term that is very well defined in science and has rigorous requirements. In science a well researched opinion that falls short of a theory is called a conjecture. On a BBS a not-so-well researched opinion is called BS.

 

From Dr. John Baez's Crackpot Index:

 

"10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should study theories like what? You appear to have intended to reference something from physics.org but didn't complete the thought in the post.

BTW: Ignore einstein's silliness about "theories". He uses "theory" to mean "opinion". As used in science the term "theory" is much more than an opinion. It is a term that is very well defined in science and has rigorous requirements. In science a well researched opinion that falls short of a theory is called a conjecture. On a BBS a not-so-well researched opinion is called BS.

 

From Dr. John Baez's Crackpot Index:

 

"10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it."

 

Wasn't it you that told me in order for a scientific theory to be accepted by the scientific community, it must be falsifiable? So basically a theory has to be false to be a theory.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't it you that told me in order for a scientific theory to be accepted by the scientific community, it must be falsifiable? So basically a theory has to be false to be a theory.

So you have just exhibited the fact (since you like facts so much) that you do not understand what falsifiability is, and how Popper-falsifiability works. Having the ABILITY to be falsified is not the same as actually being falsified. Capiche?

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you have just exhibited the fact (since you like facts so much) that you do not understand what falsifiability is, and how Popper-falsifiability works. Having the ABILITY to be falsified is not the same as actually being falsified. Capiche?

RMT

Nope. Please explain how something that is required to be falsifiable, is not in itself false.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Please explain how something that is required to be falsifiable, is not in itself false.

First, definitions help:

 

WordNet Search - 3.1

 

"capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation"

 

In terms of a scientific theory, this simply means you cannot call the following a theory: "Anything is possible because of parallel timelines." First, one cannot currently define a means to access the fantasy called "parallel timelines", and then second even if you could, you cannot set up an experiment that would PROVE FALSE the conjecture that "anything is possible" in that fantasy known as "parallel timelines."

 

Falsifiable does NOT mean (as you seem to infer) that the theory is defacto false. Only that there must be some measurable prediction of the theory which CAN be put to a test, and the goal of that test is to formally show that it is false. This does not mean that it is false, only that some test must be possible to, once and for all, show how it could be false.

 

The real Einstein's theory of relativity made predictions about light being bent under significant gravitational pull. That permitted his theory to be falsified, because it permitted an experiment to be setup which could collect data that could falsify the theory. Thus was born the experiments and test associated with solar eclipses. People rightly conjectured that Einstein's theories could be falsified if that experiment was done, and during the eclipse the apparent position of the stars near the solar eclipse horizon DID NOT move. If the data was taken, and the stars did NOT show a shift, that would have falsified Einstein's theory of relativity. As it turns out, however, the data was taken and Einstein's prediction was shown to be true. As such, for that test, Einstein's theory was tentatively upheld. Each new test of relativity since then has had the same objective: If you collect evidence from the test that falsifies Einstein's theory, then it is falsified forever. But if the evidence supports Einstein's predictions that come from his theory, it is not yet falsified, which means the theory still stands as viable and still potentially valid.

 

The bottom line is that scientific theories, when properly stated, are never "proven". They are only either falsified, or not falsified, by each test event.

 

Please read up on Karl Popper and how his contribution to science is the concept of Popper-falsifiability.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good example is the religious belief known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Those climate scientists who still think it is valid actually DID put forth their hypothesis in a scientific manner. They conjectured that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to between 3 and 5 degrees Celsius increase in the global temperature anomaly measurement that we track regularly. That was a very specific prediction based on their theory which came from their climate models.

 

Where these climate scientists are NOT being good scientists is that data have now been taken which shows that, since we have doubled CO2 content since the early 20th century when accurate records were first kept for CO2 and temperature, the data coming in has been showing SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER temperature increases. More on the order of 1.5 to 1.7 degrees Celsius. That falsifies their theory, which should cause them to go back and reformulate a better theory. But instead, they are taking the path of religion and browbeating the "non-believers" by calling them "deniers"... and yet they do not accept the fact that their properly formulate scientific theory of AGW has been falsified.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another good example is the religious belief known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Those climate scientists who still think it is valid actually DID put forth their hypothesis in a scientific manner. They conjectured that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would lead to between 3 and 5 degrees Celsius increase in the global temperature anomaly measurement that we track regularly. That was a very specific prediction based on their theory which came from their climate models.

Where these climate scientists are NOT being good scientists is that data have now been taken which shows that, since we have doubled CO2 content since the early 20th century when accurate records were first kept for CO2 and temperature, the data coming in has been showing SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER temperature increases. More on the order of 1.5 to 1.7 degrees Celsius. That falsifies their theory, which should cause them to go back and reformulate a better theory. But instead, they are taking the path of religion and browbeating the "non-believers" by calling them "deniers"... and yet they do not accept the fact that their properly formulate scientific theory of AGW has been falsified.

 

RMT

I agree totally with you on the global warning issue. And I wouldn't surprised to find out that natural checks and balances probably negate mans influence on climate changes. And the geologic record does indicate that historically temperature changes are not mankind's doing.

 

But this falsifiable concept seems to be an ambiguous concept that can be interpreted to fit ones needs.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, definitions help:

WordNet Search - 3.1

 

"capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation"

 

In terms of a scientific theory, this simply means you cannot call the following a theory: "Anything is possible because of parallel timelines." First, one cannot currently define a means to access the fantasy called "parallel timelines", and then second even if you could, you cannot set up an experiment that would PROVE FALSE the conjecture that "anything is possible" in that fantasy known as "parallel timelines."

 

Falsifiable does NOT mean (as you seem to infer) that the theory is defacto false. Only that there must be some measurable prediction of the theory which CAN be put to a test, and the goal of that test is to formally show that it is false. This does not mean that it is false, only that some test must be possible to, once and for all, show how it could be false.

 

The real Einstein's theory of relativity made predictions about light being bent under significant gravitational pull. That permitted his theory to be falsified, because it permitted an experiment to be setup which could collect data that could falsify the theory. Thus was born the experiments and test associated with solar eclipses. People rightly conjectured that Einstein's theories could be falsified if that experiment was done, and during the eclipse the apparent position of the stars near the solar eclipse horizon DID NOT move. If the data was taken, and the stars did NOT show a shift, that would have falsified Einstein's theory of relativity. As it turns out, however, the data was taken and Einstein's prediction was shown to be true. As such, for that test, Einstein's theory was tentatively upheld. Each new test of relativity since then has had the same objective: If you collect evidence from the test that falsifies Einstein's theory, then it is falsified forever. But if the evidence supports Einstein's predictions that come from his theory, it is not yet falsified, which means the theory still stands as viable and still potentially valid.

 

The bottom line is that scientific theories, when properly stated, are never "proven". They are only either falsified, or not falsified, by each test event.

 

Please read up on Karl Popper and how his contribution to science is the concept of Popper-falsifiability.

 

RMT

Does that mean you do not believe in time travel?I believe in time travel and i know how.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this falsifiable concept seems to be an ambiguous concept that can be interpreted to fit ones needs.

Just because something can be proven wrong, does not mean that it is; theories are presumptions, so they can be either correct or incorrect at the same time. Just because a theory isn't wrong, that doesn't make it right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because something can be proven wrong, does not mean that it is; theories are presumptions, so they can be either correct or incorrect at the same time. Just because a theory isn't wrong, that doesn't make it right.

I just look at the whole concept of theories, as a deceptive ruse taught to us in schools, to keep us from looking at the world using facts instead. If the wrong tool is used for the task at hand, failure is guaranteed. And the more I investigate this, the more obvious it becomes that "Tom Foolery" had something to do with the concept of theories.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should study theories like this to find other ways to time travel.Look at Vacuum mechanics a realistic theory of everthing.It was on physics.org.You need to put nanotechnology and chemistry with it in the search engine.

Vacuum quantum mechanics does include chemistry - it has for the past 75+ years. It is called QED, quantum electrodynamics. QED is the quantum theory of electrons and the EM force which is the basis for all chemistry. Chemistry is the science of moving and sharing electrons among a collection of atoms. The other major part of vacuum quantum dynamics is QCD, quantum chromodynamics. QCD is the theory of the strong (nuclear) force, gluons and quarks: how hadrons (principally neutrons and protons plus their anti-particles) are built, how protons and neutrons attract each other and how up and down quarks "flip" resulting in beta radiation (neutrons become protons and vice versa). It has "only" been around for 40+ years though it was strongly implied in the 1940's during the Manhattan Project research.

 

You apparently misunderstood Ray's reply concerning falsifiability of theories. He didn't say one way or the other about his belief in the possibility of time travel. He simply stated, based on his university education in science, that all valid scientific theories must at a minimum be stated in such a manner that it leaves open the possibility of conducting an experiment that can result in part or all of the theory being disproved.

 

Another example:

 

I make the statement, "My theory is that time travelers are among us."

 

Aside from the fact that it isn't a theory in any sense of the word as used in science, it can never be falsified. If I fail to detect a time traveler today there's always tomorrow. The hidden truth may actually be that time travel is either impossible or is never discovered anywhere in the universe but the wording of the sentence precludes ever falsifying the statement. It is an invalid theory by definition.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Please explain how something that is required to be falsifiable, is not in itself false.

THESIS

 

ACID RAIN; The Immediate and Long Term Environmental Effects and The Prognosis for Remedial Processes Through Emission Reductions.

 

Abstract

 

The purpose of the following hypotheses and ensuing experiments are to try to determine the Anthropogenic vs. Biogenic or Natural, and Agnogenic roles in the causation of acidic rainfall, the impacts on the environment both long and short term, and the efficacy of any remedial actions to reduce future incidence and facilitate recovery.

 

I. Acidic rain is caused by interaction of atmospheric concentrations of sulfates and nitrites with atmospheric moisture. (hypothesis)1

 

A.Demonstrate the balanced equations necessary for the formation of sulfuric and nitric acid potentials. (experiments) (methods)1

 

a.SO2

 

b.NO2

 

c.SO3,

 

d.H2SO4

 

e.HNO3

 

B.Preform stoichiometric calculations to determine concentrations necessary for the formation of

 

1.H2SO4

 

A.Collect and correlate data from Government and Academic Archives sources of atmospheric levels of

 

a.SO2

 

b.NO2

 

c.SO3,

 

d.H2SO4

 

e.HNO3

 

2.HNO3.

 

A.Collect and correlate data from Government and Academic Archives sources of atmospheric levels of

 

a.SO2

 

b.NO2

 

c.SO3,

 

d.H2SO4

 

e.HNO3

 

II. Atmospheric concentrations of sulfates and nitrites can be sourced through anthropogenic activities. (hypothesis)1

 

....

 

III. Acidic rain deposition causes a reduction in the pH of affected ground water; lakes, rivers, streams, and ponds. (hypothesis)1

 

.....

 

Einstein;

 

Perhaps this will help you understand the concept of falsifying a theory without the theory necessarily being de facto false .

 

This is a snippet of my biology thesis. (This is paraphrased but to the best as I can recall. It took several weeks to develop the hypotheses and experiments and 40 pages to detail the data and results. Falsifying a theory is NOT easy.)

 

The "I.", " II.", etc. are hypotheses (young theories... there were VII ).

 

In the first one I "claim" acid rain is caused by environmental pollutants reacting with water in the air to form acid.

 

I then formulate experiments that "may" prove my claim false.

 

I start by setting up the balanced equations for the formation of acid from either SO2 or NO2. If, I can not produce a balanced equation then, immediately, my claim is falsified and it's back to the drawing board.

 

If I can, while not proving my claim is yet true, I can move on to the next experiment. I then have to compare how much of each pollutant is present in the atmosphere. I use data from other sources and compare the results to my calculations on just how much SO2 needs to be present and how much of everything else.

 

Again, if there isn't a sufficient amount to cause a reaction to proceed, it is falsified.

 

If there is, we move on again to continue to "try to be wrong".

 

Each step, each new hypothesis, continues toward the "goal" of being wrong.

 

When, after several attempts to prove an idea, or claim, or hypothesis wrong, you still have not shown it to be false, you have a working theory which, again, you and peers, keep trying to show to be false.

 

After many attempts and many sources have failed to show a theory to be false, it becomes accepted as a law but, always, science seeks to disprove itself. A hypothesis, theory, or law is only as good as the latest attempt to show it to be false.

 

A curious way of doing business but, it does have it's merit.

 

At least this is how I remember the scientific method. It has been a long time. Hope I'm not exhibiting senility yet.

 

I hope this helps your understanding.

 

Just incase you or anyone wonders what my results showed, here is a synopsis. The biology course structure had an automatic chemistry minor, It was the mid 80's, Acid rain was all the rage, What better choice could I have made.

 

For the three I mentioned:

 

I. Not falsified

 

The formation of acidic rain from sulfate and nitrate in the atmosphere does happen.

 

II. Not exactly falsified

 

Human sourced pollution was contributory to but certainly not exclusively inculpatory for acid rain. There are far too many natural sources of the target pollutants to be excluded as an equal contributor.

 

III. Not falsified

 

The actual reduction in pH was less than what activists tried to influence the public to believe. You may remember hearing such numbers as 100 times lower or even 1000 times more acidic. They site the H+ concentration to exaggerate the difference and would sometimes use the comparison of rivers and lakes to a neutral pH of 7.0 so, pH of 6.0 is about 1000 times more acidic than a pH of 7.0 (900 actually, if I am still doing the math right; %= [H+] new - [H+] orig / [H+] orig X 100, pH =-log [H+]). Typical activist tactics.

 

The last:

 

VI. Remedial action, such as reducing emissions, should reduce the incidence of acidic rainfall. (I call that one a no-brainer.) Not Falsified

 

The effects of anthropogenic acid rain were localized in the areas (normally eastward) of the pollution source whereas, the effects of acid rain from natural sources were more widespread though less extreme, in most cases, volcanic eruptions excluded.

 

VII. Left to it's own devices, the environment adjusts to and recovers from pH extremes of +/- 2 to 3 pH units from the norm if, the influx of acidic/basic contamination stops.

 

My opinion today;

 

Did man-made pollution exaggerate the incidence of and effects of acid rain? Most likely, Yes, but, I am pleased to see my finding that the environment would recover with no more influence than just reducing the amounts of contaminants was "not falsified". Yet!

 

1. Italicized words are used to point out what's hypothetical and falsifying mechanisms.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gpa

 

You did formulate what appears to me to be a scientific study in the form of a theory. Something I wouldn't do. You have a body of facts to work with from the start. An environmental impact study would be more appropriate. A fact finding study is what was accomplished. But facts that probably were evident from the start. Yet when formulated in the form of a theory, it makes it appear as if you are attempting to disprove the observable facts. Thus making it appear that you have come up with a way to predict the outcome of existing fact. When in fact you are just mirroring the behavior of observations. The thing that also bothers me is that you used real facts in the formulation of your theory. You know this is what I was taught to do as well.

 

But if you look around you might notice some theories in main stream science that are based solely on assumption. I think Black Holes fall into that category. And guys creating predictions based on the interactions of rotating black holes. So by example you may have to create some ridiculous unverifiable false assumption. Since anything based on a false premise would by definition be false. Thus the falsifiable requirement would be fulfilled.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So by example you may have to create some ridiculous unverifiable false assumption.

You could but, that is not the purpose of developing theories. You are still missing the point of being falsifiable. You do not intend to create something that IS ridiculous though, sometimes that does happen. You aren't always trying to understand something observable. Sometimes you are speculating on something unobserved and try to explain why it isn't if, other indications are that, it should. You develop theories to possibly explain it. Sometimes these may be far fetched or even fanciful, also known as SWAG... scientific wild ass guess. As long as there is a way to try to falsify the idea, it's all good.

 

Since anything based on a false premise would by definition be false.

This is true but, again, this is not the purpose of theorizing but, will be the result of falsifying. If your premise IS false, it WILL BE falsified and, the system works.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could but, that is not the purpose of developing theories. You are still missing the point of being falsifiable.

I believe this is what I understand the best. The word "Falsifiable" means: will be false. Yet the way it's being used, the meaning is: having the potential to be possibly false. So it's almost as if the very meaning of the word is being presented in theory form, because it is a false meaning. It almost makes me wonder if a lawyer was involved in creating the concept of theories.

 

But then I have my facts necessary to build a time machine. I could present them in theory form making it appear that I have predicted the outcome of creating a time machine. The only thing wrong is that it really wouldn't be falsifiable. Because in order for it to be false, the observable facts would have to be false. So if it's not falsifiable, it can't be considered as a candidate for a theory. Boy oh boy, this looks like a hot potato. Here! ...... Catch!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "Falsifiable" means: will be false. Yet the way it's being used, the meaning is: having the potential to be possibly false.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect:

 

falsifiable - definition of falsifiable by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

Fal´si`fi`a`ble

 

a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.

 

2.

 

able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, you are incorrect:

falsifiable - definition of falsifiable by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

Fal´si`fi`a`ble

 

a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.

 

2.

 

able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.

 

RMT

I think you just inadvertently made my case. Capable of being falsified doesn't look like potentially or possibly false. It has to be false in order to be falsified. Real facts aren't falsifiable. And facts can't become theories. So basically a theory is a falsehood.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capable of being falsified doesn't look like potentially or possibly false. It has to be false in order to be falsified.

That is absolute nonsense. You are doing your usual thing of arguing for the sake of argument (and to avoid having to admit you are wrong). Your statement above is nonsense because it is anything but factual. Let me prove it with observable facts:

 

1) I can state a theory that aerodynamic forces (drag and lift) vary with the square of velocity and the density of the aerodynamic fluid.

 

2) This statement is falsifiable because it is a SPECIFIC prediction that can be put to a test.

 

3) It does not (as your nonsense argument above states) have to be false to be falsifiable.

 

4) It is a demonstrable fact (has been done over and over again in wind tunnels, and you can do it yourself) that aerodynamic forces do, indeed, vary with the square of velocity and the density of the aerodynamic fluid.

 

5) Even though a great many experiments have, indeed, verified this theory as a fact, the statement of theory itself still remains falsifiable. It can still be falsified by running yet one more experiment.

 

6) If some day you WERE able to run an experiment that collected data that falsified the theory (not saying you can), THEN the theory would be FALSIFIED.

 

Now, I know who I am dealing with here. It is the troll Einstein who has, for all the years I have known him, refused to admit he missed something or got something wrong. He is the troll Einstein who will just continue to argue from nonsense to avoid having to admit someone caught him in an error. Have fun with that, as I won't participate any longer. Suffice it to say, you need to get a grip on the difference between BEING FALSIFIED and BEING FALSIFIABLE. Whether you ever admit it (and I know you will not), you are wrong in your understanding of the basic form of Popper Falsifiability that makes science work.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...