Is time travel possible?

[JaKiri]

Was talking about the bit earlier on.

 

You know, the bit talking about Hawking?

[YT2095]

Sorry, not familiar with "hawking" or his works?

beyond me dude? not that "into" stuff like that. I just go on the workings of my own observations and thinking, I take no ones "word for it" unless it suits me to get a greater level of understanding from where I can move on using it as a temporary model. IF all becomes congruent with that temp model that I`ll use it and maybe "stick to it", but I`m always open minded and subject to change

I can`t say he`s crap or not, although I do like some of Einsteins work

[JaKiri]

You don't know who Stephen Hawking is?

 

http://images.google.com/images?q=%22stephen+hawking%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

[YT2095]

Oh Right!!!! the guy on the BT adverts

so what about him? LOL

[Sayonara]

I think it was "he's a quack".

[YT2095]

maybe just as well I didn`t contaminate myself then

 

FREE THINKERS ROOL!

 

brb, need to take my Prozak now

[Khôr’nagan]

YT2095 said in post #71 :

hehehehe

 

that`s why time exists on a 1 D plane, getting from point A to B (obviosly in a straight line) will take TIME.

 

What the heck are you talking about? A 1-dimensional plane has no lines... 1-D exists only as a single point, without any real dimensions. Your statement makes no sense.

[JaKiri]

1D is a line.

 

0D is a point.

[deamonstar]

it was probably the reference to the "plane" that was misunderstood. a plane is 2 dimensional; length and width. a line is 1 dimensional; length.

[aman]

A point can be two dimensional if you consider time.

Just aman

[JaKiri]

0 + 1 = 2?

[Sayonara]

0 + 1 (&1) = 1 (&1) ?

[YT2095]

Khôr’nagan said in post #82 :

 

What the heck are you talking about? A 1-dimensional plane has no lines... 1-D exists only as a single point, without any real dimensions. Your statement makes no sense.

 

Whoa! bogus to the MAX. Think 3 D then, Up/down, Left/right, Forwards/backwards.

that`s where WE live

now 2 D would be any 2 of the above

1 D would be any ONE of the above

 

nothing complicated

[JaKiri]

Sayonara³ said in post #87 :

0 + 1 (&1) = 1 (&1) ?

 

???????

[Sayonara]

MrL_JaKiri said in post #89 :

???????

If I have to explain it to you it just won't be funny any more.

[Khôr’nagan]

Okay, dang. I just wrote, like... a page of for my response, and I accidently clicked "Back". Now it's all gone. Now that just stinks. I've been on that for over an hour.

 

Okay, quick summary of what it would have been:

 

* I wasn't thinking straight about the 1-d thing, and confused it with 2-d. Sorry.

* The human senses are all perception

* All knowledge, which is accumulated through the senses, is entirely human perception

* What you see as blue could be red to someone else

* If you say "hello" someone else might hear "crato", and if they say "craso", you might hear "hello".

* There is no fact that is 100% certain. There is always something else, always.

* There is no way to know what you know and what you think you know. You could know everything exactly how it is, or you could no nothing as it really is. Of course, you could know some things that are and some things that aren't (true)

* Everything from the point of view of a human is human perception. You may be seeing something completely different than what really is. Everything is determined, in the human mind, by the way it percieves the outside envirement. If you are deaf, than you don't know what sound is, and, if everyone in the world was deaf, we might not even know that sound exists. We know things solely and completely through our perceptions, and things that we don't percieve, we cannot even know exist at all. Then again, you can't know that anything exists, since our perception can be decieved.

* Technically, you can say as fact that "I know for a fact that I percieve that object's color as blue.", and you'd be right. But that is a mere technicallity, and could be disproven as well (by the fact that you don't know what the color blue is for sure, and that you cannot even know for sure that your mind is telling you the truth... The object might not be there at all, and your mind is decieving you.)

 

Therefore, please do not post with mere technicallities in an effort to nitpick. I would think that people on this kind of forum would be more mature than that, and I would not like to be proved wrong (about you people being mature). Because that would be a degradation to your character, and to the quality of people going into the world and being considered the "Experts." So please, just don't post nitpicky things.

 

Please respond seriously, and do not waste my time.

[Sayonara]

You can't seriously expect to be able to dismiss common frames of reference as "mere technicalities".

[Khôr’nagan]

They are only mere technicalities. When you get down to the simplest frames, saying that you percieve something in such a way is only a technicality when referring to my overall point. Such things are inevitably present in the most complicated of things, yet they are insubstantial and it is pointless to dwell on them.

[Skye]

Science only deals with the observable universe, not with Truth. The only point is to make sense of what we observe, or perceive, so any discrepancies with this and Truth aren't considered.

[Sayonara]

So what happens when there are so many "mere technicalities" operating that they all rely on each other?

 

Does this make the entire observable universe a house of cards? Why is everything anyone else says not utterly alien to anyone who hears it?

 

If someone calls you on the difference between 1D and 2D, labelling that an "effort to nit-pick over mere technicalities" is really not the best way to convince people you know what you're talking about.

[aman]

In a language we all recognize, a point is a point in time. It exists after it didn't exists and exists as long as it does. Makes sense to me that time is the first dimension and a point is two dimensional. As far as perception we only have consensus by the best minds available for pointing us in good directions. This place has a good amount of good minds peeling a really big onion layer by layer.

Technicalities are really strong layers built like all the previous layers and it takes good arguments to say the next uncovered will be totally different.

Just aman

[Khôr’nagan]

The "mere technicality" wasn't about the dimensions. (by the way, * I wasn't thinking straight about the 1-d thing, and confused it with 2-d. Sorry. should have been * I wasn't thinking straight about the 1-d thing, and confused it with 0-d. Sorry.... A typo) The "mere technicality" to which I was referring was a person saying that it is a fact that they percieve something a certain way, because that doesn't mean that it is that way, and it's just a tachnicality in my argument. Of course it's no "mere technicality" in everyday life, because with science, the "mere technicality" is (what we percieve to be) fact.

Does this make the entire observable universe a house of cards?

That's what science is. "There is no fact so astonishing that scientists will not stand ready to abandon it if the evidence goes against it." - Chet Raymo. Facts in science are constantly proven and disproven, and are always abandoned when new knowledge goes against them. If someone discovered that there was no such thing as an atom (ridiculous, of course) and was able to prove it for certain, the entire structure of science and modern world would colapse to the very lowest of its foundations. One card at the bottom, and it all goes to hell. Any time a card fails, everything it supports fails with it. And, though not all science would collapse, a massive section would, should a card at the bottom fail. More than anything in the world, science is not sturdy enough, not well-founded enough that it cannot fail. Although, its structure is still strong, and would take a huge blow to fail.

 

Therefore, your analogy that the observable universe as being a "house of cards" is more correct than anything I have ever heard it compared to. It is, in my opinion, the perfect analogy. *Claps*

[Sayonara]

Very interesting theories, but I have to observe that the universe does not collapse every time we find we're wrong about something.

 

So house of cards is an ok analogy, but probably for 'scientific knowledge' rather than for 'the observable universe'.

[Khôr’nagan]

Well, that's what I meant. Did I imply that the universe would collapse? If I did then I apologize, because I meant the knowledge gained by observing ther universe. That's also what I thought you meant. Perhaps I was mistaken, though my thoughts still stand as I said (or at least meant) them.

[Sayonara]

lol

 

I think what you said is what I think I was saying I thought about what you said