Depends. Some think that altering events starts a new universe and so nothing actually changes in the timeline, ie. the New Star Trek movie.
Depends. Some think that altering events starts a new universe and so nothing actually changes in the timeline, ie. the New Star Trek movie.
Social democrat? Hitler used the name "National Socialist" in the 1930's to fool people and it's still working. The Nazi party was right wing extremist fascism. Its amazing how the big lie still spreads today on the Internet. More education is the answer.
Don't worry about that. Its just speculation. Currently nobody is going anywhere, and I hardly think that video was a sound source of information. I find it unlikely to impossible to invent a time machine, and currently no such things has been achieved.
As is said before, we don't even know that this even qualifies as a time machine, as per the normal sense of the word anyway. As I showed in post #39 and before, there mere measurements described in post #35 are not good enough to warrant something being a traditional time machine. All I see is an entertainment programme.
That is just a silly and speculative fantasy-based statement. There is currently no evidence of this, and the simple fact is people just make it up. As I said before, there is no evidence that a real time machine has been invented, nor sufficient evidence that it even could be invented.
Even if so, all this would mean is human meddling in the "new universe" and that would be equivalent. It would also spread the toxic plague of humanity to a new universe.
Fortunately, these claims are just a non-sense. The idea that going back or forward in time and changing events would somehow magically create a new universe is deranged. There is simply no evidence nor is there any rational explanation as to how changing some insignificant detail could generate enough energy to create a new universe, and how that new universe could magically be created. Its just cloud-talk.
One must suspect that arrivals in the future would not only be relatively powerless, but would be met by a welcoming committee and return ticket. Or a Gulag.
So Einstein was insane and deranged? Hawking? Newton? I find your out of hand rejection of what you don't understand amusing. :giggle:
It does not neccesarily mean that Hawking is deranged, but he very well might be, as most humans are. It depends what you mean by "insane". Of course, I am sure the finer points of thinking are lost on you, just as was My question as to why I am not satisfied that any such time machine could be said to exist.
There is currently no evidence of such a thing as instant universes that appear due to time travel, and the whole notion is absurd. To suggest that others "understand" something that does not exist is also absurd.
Also, as stated before, the machine in "the time machine" movie in no way functions in such a way as to make certain it lives up to its name.
It is proven, I'm not a physicist, so don't ask me to go into a detailed explanations but it is proven.
Also, I never claimed the Time Machine movie was a valid explanation of what I'm saying. I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
What, exactly is proven? You just don't get it. There is no proof, nor evidence, of parallel universes. Thats just speculation and fiction.
As to proof of "time travel", all they can prove is what and how something is happening. They cannot prove what time travel is. Your explanation of "Getting 6 seconds into the future in only 2 seconds" does not cut it, and that applies to the time machine movie also.
I am not saying it is or is not a valid explanation. I am suggesting it may be similar to what the video is talking about.
The point is that the machine in the movie could not be said to be a time-machine, at least under certain conditions.
The thing is, what is time travel? Then, what could a time machine be? You need to answer that first, before you start spewing stuff about time travel.
Last edited:
You have no evidence of that, any more than you can disprove any other parallel universe.
I dont have to disprove anything. Those making the positive claim need to show the proof. Parallel universes are just a stupid delusional fantasy.
Back on topic
A previous post :
Well, I still am not convinced. Science may well be correct in what you say, but the problem is I am not satisfied with what science gives as a time-travel definition. So the question is science has proven what possible? Time travel? I hardly think so - it proved X possible and then people called it time travel.
As I stated earlier, the film "the time machine" had such a machine. From what I saw of the film, the machine was in no way a time machine per se. This is because it was judged by its function, not by how it achieved its function.
So, is the video showing us a proposed time machine/travel, or is it presumed that it would be a time machine/travel?
A previous post :
Well, I still am not convinced. Science may well be correct in what you say, but the problem is I am not satisfied with what science gives as a time-travel definition. So the question is science has proven what possible? Time travel? I hardly think so - it proved X possible and then people called it time travel.
As I stated earlier, the film "the time machine" had such a machine. From what I saw of the film, the machine was in no way a time machine per se. This is because it was judged by its function, not by how it achieved its function.
So, is the video showing us a proposed time machine/travel, or is it presumed that it would be a time machine/travel?
As one of the oldest books on earth the Bible is literally admissible as evidence in court for the truth of what it says. It is history. You might choose to disbelieve, but that is in part because you are on the other side of the debate. Unless you can now provide evidence to rebut it, your position is not maintainable. Simply saying, "I disbelieve," doesn't do it because the Bible is real evidence, something you can hold, feel and see. Unless you can provide some other real evidence sufficient to outweigh it, your argument loses this time.
As one of the oldest books on earth the Bible is literally admissible as evidence in court for the truth of what it says. It is history. You might choose to disbelieve, but that is in part because you are on the other side of the debate. Unless you can now provide evidence to rebut it, your position is not maintainable. Simply saying, "I disbelieve," doesn't do it because the Bible is real evidence, something you can hold, feel and see. Unless you can provide some other real evidence sufficient to outweigh it, your argument loses this time.
Oh, sorry, i actually thought you were joking. It was not meant as offensive - i'm a secularist.
I'll post it later. Have to gather my thoughts.
Similar threads
