Mmm nice post Farsight, a light-hearted point would be that we're all time-travels, after all, we're moving forward in time right
"People believe in the possibility of time travel despite the total lack of supporting evidence" Is there any evidence to absolutely rule out the possibility of time travel? No, so there is a possibility that it's possible, in the same way it's entirely possible there is a god, in the same way it's entirely possible that that god is the flying spaghetti monster. You have failed to make the distinction between believing in, and appreciating the possibility of said ridiculous idea.
Homeopathy has been scientifically proven not to work, yet people believe it works. There is little to know evidence regarding time travel, and some people may believe it works, and the majority of open-minded skeptics appreciate the possibility but are not arrogant of ignorant enough to claim certainty on the matter.
Take the hydrogen bomb, when we had no evidence to support the idea of everything being made up of teeny tiny little bits, do you think the hydrogen bomb was impossible?
In conclusion, the evidence for your validity is pretty pathetic, and you are a grade A troll, au revoir!
stasis box? Like time travel, it's science fiction, but it's interesting. It's like the ultimate refrigerator. No motion occurs inside the box, so when I put you inside one, electromagnetic and other phenomena donít propagate, so nothing happens. So you canít see, you canít hear, and you canít even think. Hence when I open the door 5 years later, to you itís like I opened the door just as soon as I closed it. You ďtravelledĒ to the future by not moving at all. Instead everything else moved.
'Croydon' Bob Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
Agreed. I hope nobody will argue with that.Originally Posted by Physics
No. Things move sure enough, but they just move. Think about a clock. Open up a mechanical clock and you see cogs and gears moving. But they're just moving, through space. The clock shows you an accumulation of this motion via its hands, and they move through space too. They don't actually "move through time". Again, that's just a figure of speech.Originally Posted by Physics
I do actually. But in brief: things move, things change. But that change is evidence that things change, not evidence of motion through time. We just tot up change, like inside a clock, and we call it time. And that change is there because all those cogs and gears move through space. I can move through space. I can jump forwards a metre. But you can't move through time. You can't jump forwards a second. Read what I said about the stasis box.Originally Posted by Physics
It isn't mine. Show me some motion through time, and when you can't, look in the mirror.Originally Posted by Physics
No I don't, see above, but nevermind. People used to believe in geocenticism, that the earth was the centre of everything. It took a hundred years to convince them otherwise. Because they were skeptics. The thing that so-called skeptics don't understand is that sometimes they swallow stuff for which there is no evidence, hook line and sinker. Then they're skeptical when some guy points out that there is no evidence. They don't appreciate that people are suckers for believing in stuff for which there is no evidence. It's kind of like Christians laughing at heathens, but taken up a notch.Originally Posted by Physics
Because time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion, It's a cumulative measure of motion used in the relative measure of motion compared to the motion of light, and the only motion is through space. Like I said, travelling forward through time is just a figure of speech. Hence we can't travel backwards in time.Originally Posted by Physics
It's called Morton's Demon. Check out A World Without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein.Originally Posted by Physics
Thanks for the link Matt, I stand corrected!
Flat Earth by Christine Garwood. First Chapter goes inot detail about the Myth of the Flat Earth, the rest deals with the more recent globular denialists whose motivations range from biblical literalism to a toungue in cheek challenge towards the uncritical acceptance of scientific authority.