It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time Traveler's Dilemma - Is the future fixed?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Are you saying time travel is forbidden by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? If so I don't agree with that but I would like you to elaborate on why Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle prohibits time travel if that is what you believe.

I'm not stating that the HUP is directly responsible for prohibiting time travel ... I'm in fact saying that in order to prevent a catastrophic failure of the HUP, that nature has NO alternative or choice but to prevent any form of time travel.

For those who may not be aware of the fact, but the HUP is a major building block and underpins quantum mechanics as we know it.
Essentially, the HUP states that it's impossible to know on one hand, with any high degree of accuracy both the momentum and position of a particle and on the other hand, to know with any high degree of accuracy the energy at any given instant of time of a particle.
As an example using the 1st case, we can either measure with extreme accuracy EITHER the momentum of a particle OR the location of a particle, but NOT BOTH at the same time. The more accurately we measure the momentum of a particle, the fuzzier it's location becomes ... and vice versa.

So, getting back to time travel and the HUP ... lets do an experiment.

We're in our laboratory and decide we want to measure with incredible accuracy the momentum of an electron. No big deal. But we know that we haven't a hope in hell of also at the VERY SAME TIME measuring it's location.

Why not ? well, because the HUP prevents us from ever doing such an experiment. It lets us measure momentum or location ... but not both. Bummer !!!

But wait, all is not lost ! We just happen to have a time machine sitting in a corner of our laboratory and we have a brain wave of an idea. Whats to stop us from jumping into our time machine and gong back to the EXACT moment in time that we performed the momentum experiment but this time, we instead perform the location measurement instead.

Now of course we're obviously going to run into our earlier self who's just about to perform the momentum measurement and we yell out "STOP !!" .. and consequently the momentum measurement is not performed. Instead we immediately perform the location experiment and get an incredibly accurate value for the electrons position.

So here we are with not only the knowledge of the electrons EXACT momentum but also its EXACT location ... and quantum mechanics has just come crashing down around us.

The solution to prevent this happening ? Nature ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITS any form of time travel along a given time line.




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
You see that folks?! He does this to me every single time I press him for evidence of his claims; Never fails!

All he does is lie and make up garbage to attack you with and then claim he already proved it. If anyone can re-read this thread for me and point out his links proving his assertions, I would be greatly appreciated. I unfortunately haven't seen much beyond a wiki link on information theory (which says nothing of what he claims), a youtube video and something about people who claim to have psychic powers. Which to my knowledge, no scientifically verified research exists, which is why this Matrix guy has put me on ignore. I could actually care less that he has me on ignore because he's done it before and takes it off just to argue with me some more. This person is an uneducated lying little sham who attacks when cornered and if pressed will then ignore you.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
have i missed something with this thread.?

if i had realised this was a armchair theoretical pissing contest i would never have wasted my time posting in this thread!

seriously ppl, grow up! You do realise your arguing about time travel which is something we will probably never see proven for or against in our lifetime!

im all for theoretical discussion, but dont start getting theory envy and turning it into a war sheesh!

[edit on 16-5-2010 by boaby_phet]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Interesting theory, haven't heard that one before.

What the OP is failing to recognize is *new* discoveries and knowledge coming to light in recent years showing that the previously held concept of what time is and it's very existence is wrong. The OP brings up Quantum Mechanics as part of his proof whilst failing to realize that Quantum Mechanics is set against his archaic description of time.

Understandably, it's hard for some people to let go and admit that something previously thought to be true for years and years can ever be untrue. Yet, science is not a stagnate pool of knowledge. It flows very fast and some may not be able to keep up with it's strong pull forward.

Here are a few links you might enjoy.


Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality.
link


Why, then, can we look back at the past but not into the future? Prof Rovelli, along with Alain Connes at the Collège de France in Paris, have argued this flow of time is an illusion. They liken it to the sensation of temperature. What we mean by temperature is molecular motion. A hot cup of tea teems with more energetic water molecules than a cold one, but the temperature we feel somehow gives us an average of all that turmoil. In a similar way, when our brains average what our senses detect, what emerges is a sense of passing seconds, minutes and hours. Time's flow is a measure of our ignorance. This chimes with earlier work of Julian Barbour, an independent thinker, who warned that when we unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, time will be seen as a trick of the mind.
link


Astronomer Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh came to this conclusion after looking at nearly 900 quasars over periods of up to 28 years. When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about 6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion light years away, he was surprised to find that the light signatures of the two samples were exactly the same. If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched” timescales for the distant, “stretched” high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.

....

There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.
link

He claims to want to discuss physics whilst ignore CURRENT physics and discoveries within the field. I'm unsure if he previously did not know about any of this or not, perhaps he will notice I posted and will take me off ignore for a moment to educate himself rather than to avoid having to be accountable for his assertions and the lack of evidence proving them to be true as he claims he has done.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by boaby_phet
 



im all for theoretical discussion, but dont start getting theory envy and turning it into a war sheesh!


You have to understand something about the OP, he really dislikes anyone stepping on his toes. If he posts something he expects you to discuss his topic from his viewpoint in agreement with his viewpoint on the topic.

This is why his threads usually become 'pissing matches'. He posts some sensationalized idea of his, I waltz in asking for evidence or point out holes in his theory and he pulls this kind of garbage. As a rule of thumb, if you don't agree with the OP, it *will* get turned into a pissing match. That's just how it is, can't fight it, can't change it. I've tried discussing his issues in U2U with him before, then I hadn't seen him for a month or two, he hasn't taken my advice or changed a bit. Sad really.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


First off, I did back up my claims but you said this:


I don't quiet understand what your trying to tell me there. I personally don't subscribe to Einsteinian physics.


and this:


I personally don't subscribe to QM, so my answer would be no.


and this:


I personally do not subscribe to notions of time as a dimension of travel, which for me is probably why I'm having trouble grasping your concept.


If what I'm saying is based on these things that you just throw out, then what's the point? Of course you're not going to understand or grasp what I'm saying.

It's like the article you linked to said this:


Some four decades ago, the renowned physicist John Wheeler, then at Princeton, and the late Bryce DeWitt, then at the University of North Carolina, developed an extraordinary equation that provides a possible framework for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. But the Wheeler-­DeWitt equation has always been controversial, in part because it adds yet another, even more baffling twist to our understanding of time.


Do you know where relativity comes from? Einstein

It also said this:


But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe. In fact, says Lloyd, clocks don’t really measure time at all.


Again, Einstein.

Why don't you call up theese people and say I want to discuss your theory but first we need to throw out Einstein, Quantum mechanics and theoretical physics.

It's just idiotic.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


You make a good point but let me ask you a question.

When you go back in time and stop yourself from measuring the momentum, why would the location be the same as the original measurement if your original self never made the measurement of momentum?

This actually supports what I'm saying about randomness and uncertainty.

If you go back in time and stop the measurement of momentum, when you measure it's location, then the momentum will be uncertain because that measurement was never made.

A new universe will form where you just measure the location instead of the momentum so heisenberg's uncertainty principle is secure.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



First off, I did back up my claims but you said this:


Really? Where in these links you have provided can I find irrefutable *proof* of time travel or information existing in the manner you have described? I've read them all, I've even watched your youtube video. I can't find anything remotely close to what your describing.

link
link
link
link

Now, *of course* I don't honestly expect you to do something so basic as to actually back up your statements, you've never been able to actually manage that before. So, this is going to be one hell of a long ass post, hope you take the time to read it and hopefully you will have some actual intelligent rebuttals and are capable of citing proper sources other than *scoffs* youtube videos.


OK, link 1: The Holographic Universe.


The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics


While the Holographic Universe is an interesting concept, it's based off erroneous and assumed conjectures. It's hardly scientific, let alone have anything to do with reality or the physics of reality. It's like reading a good sci-fi novel and *wishing really hard* that it was how reality really worked.

Now here's the kicker, HU is derived from black hole thermodynamics. What's really interesting about black holes, is that they simply don't exist.


If new calculations are correct, the universe just got even stranger. Scientists at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, have constructed mathematical formulas that conclude black holes cannot exist. The findings--if correct--could revolutionize astrophysics and resolve a paradox that has perplexed physicists for 4 decades.

....

Physicist Lawrence Krauss and Case Western Reserve colleagues think they have found the answer to the paradox. In a paper accepted for publication in Physical Review D, they have constructed a lengthy mathematical formula that shows, in effect, black holes can't form at all. The key involves the relativistic effect of time, Krauss explains. As Einstein demonstrated in his Theory of General Relativity, a passenger inside a spaceship traveling toward a black hole would feel the ship accelerating, while an outside observer would see the ship slow down. When the ship reached the event horizon, it would appear to stop, staying there forever and never falling in toward oblivion. In effect, Krauss says, time effectively stops at that point, meaning time is infinite for black holes. If black holes radiate away their mass over time, as Hawking showed, then they should evaporate before they even form, Krauss says. It would be like pouring water into a glass that has no bottom. In essence, physicists have been arguing over a trick question for 40 years.
link

Another member of ATS has already taken the time to more extensively research the issue surrounding black holes, I will now link to his thread as there is no real need to repeat everything that has already been said and backed up by numerous pieces of evidence. link

The fact that your using something that is blatantly *wrong* is a huge tell on your level of intelligence and your ability to learn. The fact that you have the audacity to mindlessly repeat childish gibberish rather than refute is quite telling of your level of maturity.

OK, link 2: Information Theory:

I've found it rather odd that you decided to use a method of quantifying information with applications ranging from data analysis to data storage. I then remembered something you quoted.

Which brings us to link 3: Wired interview.

In this article, you quote Seth Lloyd, who likens the universe to a gigantic quantum computer. OK, so if we go by that assumption, then your idea can sort of make sense.

Yet I just had to keep pressing on, learning as much as I could about Seth and his *opinions* on what the universe is and how it works. I then stumbled upon a site of quotes that Seth has said. One of those quotes was quiet interesting and pretty damning to your notion of "proof".


I have not proved that the universe is, in fact, a digital computer and that it's capable of performing universal computation, but it's plausible that it is.

....

In this metaphor we actually have a picture of the computational universe, a metaphor which I hope to make scientifically precise as part of a research program.

....

Of course, not everybody's willing to go out and do the experiments, but for the people who are willing to go out and do that, - if the experiments don't work, then it means it's not science.
link

Very interesting indeed, wouldn't you say? Not only does he go so far as to say that his opinions are unproven, but it's also a metaphor at this point. He then further contends that anyone who fails to experimentally prove his opinions are not conducting proper science. Wow, that is pretty powerful stuff!!!!

This now brings us to the fourth and final link: 100 years of Quantum Mechanics.

It's an interesting article, and I will grant that quantum mechanics has brought some pretty neat ideas to the table and has sparked many an imagination. What's really interesting is, when we attempt to reconcile QM with GR, we're left with a rather puzzling problem, it appears that time does not exist.


Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality.
link



Why, then, can we look back at the past but not into the future? Prof Rovelli, along with Alain Connes at the Collège de France in Paris, have argued this flow of time is an illusion. They liken it to the sensation of temperature. What we mean by temperature is molecular motion. A hot cup of tea teems with more energetic water molecules than a cold one, but the temperature we feel somehow gives us an average of all that turmoil. In a similar way, when our brains average what our senses detect, what emerges is a sense of passing seconds, minutes and hours. Time's flow is a measure of our ignorance. This chimes with earlier work of Julian Barbour, an independent thinker, who warned that when we unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, time will be seen as a trick of the mind.
link



Astronomer Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh came to this conclusion after looking at nearly 900 quasars over periods of up to 28 years. When comparing the light patterns of quasars located about 6 billion light years from us and those located 10 billion light years away, he was surprised to find that the light signatures of the two samples were exactly the same. If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched” timescales for the distant, “stretched” high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.

....

There’s also a possibility that the explanation could be even more far-reaching, such as that the universe is not expanding and that the big bang theory is wrong.
link
link

Now, this also poses a rather big problem for your assertion of "proof". Recent research and discoveries indicate that time itself does not exist and may just be an illusion generated by the mind in the same sense that temperature is an illusion generated by the mind.

Now that I've shown that every single one of your "proofs" are indeed *NOT proofs*, we're left with a puzzling dilemma. If you claim to be talking about proofs and evidences brought by physics, then why are all of your links indicating otherwise?

Honestly now, I couldn't think of anything more... hmm, as you like to put it... Idiotic.

Now, the big question is, do you hang onto your personal opinions and beliefs or do you do as I do and become a forward thinker accepting new discoveries and evidence of our universe and reality itself? I can pretty much predict your answer as it will be riddled with infantile bitching and evasion as always.

I've taken the time to produce a rather decent reply and I do hope to receive in like. As I should remind you, anything less is nothing more than a question of your own credibility. In other words, you can continue on from this point articulating your thoughts with more intelligence and evidence, or you can continue on with the pathetic garbage you've been giving me.

I look forward to your reply.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Sorry, I went to bed rather than finishing to reply to the entire post.


If what I'm saying is based on these things that you just throw out, then what's the point? Of course you're not going to understand or grasp what I'm saying.


Why would one *not* throw out demonstratively erroneous garbage? It's like your demanding I believe your version of the tooth fairy. One can't simply use erroneous concepts, formulate their own erroneous ideas off that and then demand to be taken at face value as valid science.

Of course I can't grasp your concept, it makes no sense in light of current research. Would any old wrong concept, such as a flat Earth make sense to you when you know the Earth is round?


It's like the article you linked to said this:


Some four decades ago, the renowned physicist John Wheeler, then at Princeton, and the late Bryce DeWitt, then at the University of North Carolina, developed an extraordinary equation that provides a possible framework for unifying relativity and quantum mechanics. But the Wheeler-­DeWitt equation has always been controversial, in part because it adds yet another, even more baffling twist to our understanding of time.


Great, you know how to use the bold feature to emphasize a word, yet your choice of word and quotation is rather puzzling. I find it rather odd that someone who keeps going on and on about discussing physics in such a way as if that very statement proves their case, could keep continuously using physics that destroys their assertions. It's... as you continuously put it, just idiotic.

That is an excellent quote by the way, the article I provided was against our current concept of time and how it's false. One of the many great thing's about the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation is that... Well, it backs up my assertion. SO I applaud you for not understanding the material you attempt to use, now allow me to edu-ma-cate you.


A similar position was reached by much more sophisticated arguments more than 30 years ago. Americans Bryce DeWitt and John Wheeler combined quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of general relativity to produce an equation that describes the whole Universe. Put into the equation a configuration of the Universe, and out comes a probability for that configuration. There is no mention of time. Admittedly, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is controversial and fraught with mathematical difficulties, but if quantum cosmology is anything like it-if it is about probabilities-the timeless picture is plausible.
link

Like I've previously said, when we attempt to reconcile QM with GR, we're left with a description of the universe in which time simply does not exist. There is no fourth dimension of temporal travel as Einstein erroneously postulates. There is no time travel, there is no past and there is no future. There is an eternal now moving through entropy with minds creating an illusion of time just as they create an illusion of temperature.


Do you know where relativity comes from? Einstein


Statements like that only prove to show the ignorance of those who make those statements as if they have an inkling of a clue what they're discussing. Actually, no, relativity does not come from Einstein at all. In fact, it was first developed by Lorentz. Poincare then developed parts of Lorentz' equations a little further and only towards the end did Einstein have anything to do with relativity, of which he did give Lorentz credit for developing in the first place. link

All Einstein had done was make a mess out of Lorentzian Relativity. We've now had to invent many new fanciful and invisible thing's in order to explain our observations of the universe compared to Einstein's descriptions of how it should be according to him. You can learn more about Lorentzian Relativity and how it more accurately describes the universe without invented invisible things from this site. link


It also said this:

But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe. In fact, says Lloyd, clocks don’t really measure time at all.


You choose to emphasize the most oddest parts of your quotes. It's as if your attempting to use three words out of a paragraph and say "See, I told you so!"

What else does that quote say?


Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe. In fact, says Lloyd, clocks don’t really measure time at all.


You simply can't ignore the main 'fluff' in a paragraph by emphasizing just a mere *scoffs* three words. Come on, you should know better than that! It's simply an exercise of intellectual laziness and, again as you like to put it, just simply idiotic.


Why don't you call up theese people and say I want to discuss your theory but first we need to throw out Einstein, Quantum mechanics and theoretical physics.

It's just idiotic.


And as we've learned.... those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. See, your problem is that your simply to ignorant and bull headed. I can't expect you to, or hold you accountable for not keeping up with the pace of science. What I do expect is a mediocre level of intelligent discussion and a smidgen of humility when someone points out holes in your assertion; And may I add, proves there are holes in your assertion and that you haven't a damn clue what your talking about.

Really looking forward to that reply of yours!


[edit on 17-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:35 AM
link   
All I see is dodging from the OP. How about OP, you have the courtesy to just answer some of sirnex's questions? They are not unreasonable questions either.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



This actually supports what I'm saying about randomness and uncertainty.


You know something, I really dislike people who are just blatantly intellectually lazy. You clearly don't know anything about what you've been trying to use in an attempt to prove your rather ignorant opinions on.

For example, you are somehow under the impression the the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is on your side in the case of one traveling back in time. Unfortunately, this is far from the case. If one is to travel back in time, or at the very least acquire information from the past through time travel, one must be able to measure or know all properties of matter in the past. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle disallows such measurement.


Another way of stating this principle, using relativity in the formulation, turns out to be that one gets another version of the uncertainty principle. This relativistic version states that as one gets to know the energy of an elementary particle very well, one cannot at the same time know (i.e., measure) very accurately at what time it actually had that energy. So we have, in quantum physics, what are called "complimentary pairs." (If you'd really like to impress your friends, you can also call them "non-commuting observables.")
link

What this is telling us is that we *cannot* measure at what time a particle had a particular state of energy. This throws an immense monkey wrench in your argument. If one can not measure or know precisely what the properties are of matter at a past moment and HUP disallows us from knowing, then there is no chance at time traveling or knowing information.

We can look for further evidence of your immense ignorance and quackery. You really appear to be nothing more than a con man selling snake oil.


A state that only exists for a short time cannot have a definite energy. To have a definite energy, the frequency of the state must accurately be defined, and this requires the state to hang around for many cycles, the reciprocal of the required accuracy.
link

As was previously shown, with current research and discoveries, our previous conception of what time was just simply holds no water. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and it's relation to energy-time would seem to be in agreement with current *update* knowledge. Since time is nothing more than an illusion generated by the human mind in the same sense that temperature is an illusion and that everything exists within an eternal "now" moving forward in entropy, it then stands to accurately reason that any given state does not last long enough in order to be accurately defined.


A new universe will form where you just measure the location instead of the momentum so heisenberg's uncertainty principle is secure.


Ah, I almost forgot you were a proponent of the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics. Sadly, this interpretation has hardly ever come close to be proven. Interestingly, I have managed to stumble upon a paper that falsifies this interpretation.


THE INEVITABLE NONLINEARITY OF QUANTUM GRAVITY FALSIFIES THE MANY-WORLDS INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS*

There are fundamental reasons why there should exist a reformulation of quantum mechanics which does not refer to a classical space–time manifold. It follows that quantum mechanics as we know it is a limiting case of a more general nonlinear quantum theory, with the nonlinearity becoming significant at the Planck mass/energy scale. This nonlinearity is responsible for a dynamically induced collapse of the wave function, during a quantum measurement, and it hence falsifies the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. We illustrate this conclusion using a mathematical model based on a generalized Doebner–Goldin equation. The non-Hermitian part of the Hamiltonian in this norm-preserving, nonlinear, Schr¨odinger equation dominates during a quantum measurement, and leads to a breakdown of linear superposition.
link

It's an interesting paper and I do hope you take the time to actually read and understand it in full. You might also enjoy this interview.


Phillip: Does the theory not allow for an infinity of possibilities?

Paul: Absolutely right, it does indeed. In the more general situation there are infinite possible outcomes of a scattering event or some other atomic process, and we must imagine an infinite number of alternative realities — or contenders for reality — superimposed upon each other; a superimposed reality. In this amalgam of possible worlds, each individual contender is a sort of ghostly half-reality — it is less than real, in the sense that true reality comes only when we look and see what is actually happening. Only when an observation is made can we be sure as to which of these outcomes has actually taken place. So I would refer to these contending realities, these alternative universes, as merely potential worlds, not actually existing worlds.
link

So, the many worlds theory doesn't contend that these 'alternate possibilities' are actual realities. They don't exist in reality in the same sense that you and I exist within reality. Now, your homework is to point out a previous statement I've quoted that has immense impact on what these two men are discussing. I wouldn't want you to come off as completely intellectually lazy and just generally making up any old garbage you please.

Really looking forward to that reply!


[edit on 17-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Here it is. All explained

Alexander Higgins Theory of Everything.

Alexander Higgins Theory of Everything attempts to once and for all explain everything, nothing and both everything and nothing all at the same time. The theory explains everything from time travel, teleportation, infinity, seeing the past, changing the past, predicting the future, creationism, atheism and evolutionism all the same time in a single unified theory.

http://(nolink)/2010/05/17/alexander-higgins-theory/



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Sirnex, it's obvious that your ATS ego was bruised and you're actually trying to overturn quantum mechanic, Einstein, Information theory and theoretical physics on a message board without a shred of evidence.

A person would have to be a fool to listen to anything you're saying. Around 30% of our GDP is due to technologies connected to quantum mechanics and you are silly enough to think people will throw out Einstein, Quantum Mechanics and more because of your wild speculation?

The sad thing is, everybody on this thread is debating physics and you're trying to convince people that your wild and silly speculation means they should just throw out Einstein, Bohr, Hawking, Heisenberg, Shannon, Maxwell, Dirac, Shannon, Kaku and more. You have to be insane if you think people are going to throw these things out because of a debate on a message board and your wild speculation.

Again, your problem is you're trying to debate your belief system instead of the thread and instead of physics. There will always be theories out there for different point of views but none of these links you are quoting says we need to throw out Einstein, Quantum mechanics, information theory, theoretical physics and more.

It's just idiotic.

What are these links you're posting supposed to support?

Do any of these links say we should throw out everything from Einstein to quantum mechanics?

It boils down to this. Are you here to debate what I said in the original post or are you here trying to show people that your silly speculation is correct.

Now back to my thread.

You said you don't get or understand what I'm saying because you throw out quantum mechanics, information theory, theoretical physics, Einstein and more.

So far none of the links that you have quoted have said they throw these things out nor have that provided a shred of evidence to throw these these things out.

Now I backed up what I'm saying but you said you throw out the things that what I'm saying is based on.

So I want you to tell me what I didn't explain at the start of this debate?

If I didn't back my claims why did you say this?


I don't quiet understand what your trying to tell me there. I personally don't subscribe to Einsteinian physics.


Here, I backed up my claims but you said you don't understand what I'm saying because you throw out Einstein.


I personally don't subscribe to QM, so my answer would be no.


Again, I backed up what I'm saying but you didn't get it or accept it because you throw out Quantum mechanics.


I personally don't subscribe to the notion that the universe is some gigantic quantum computer.


You didn't even respond to what Seth Lloyd said about information.


I personally do not subscribe to notions of time as a dimension of travel, which for me is probably why I'm having trouble grasping your concept.


Again, you answered your own question. I explaned and backed up my claim and you said you can't grasp what I'm saying because you throw out dimensions.

It's not that I didn't back my claims, the problem is you don't want to debate my claims, you want to debate your silly speculation.

This is why I say your a troll.

You want to make this thread about you when it isn't about you.

Everyone else on this thread has debated everything from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to Dimensions and you're you quoting links that have nothing to do with anything I'm saying or anything to do with your stated silly position.

So I want you to do 3 things.

1. Show me in any of these links you posted where they say throw out Einstein, Quantum Mechanics, information theory and theoretical physics.

2. Show me the equations, tested theories, and peer reviewed papers to back your entropy is everything theory and that's why we should throw out quantum mechanics, information theory, Einstein and more.

3. Tell me what I didn't explain and back up to you. I backed up what I'm saying and you said you could grasp or understand what I'm saying because you throw out Einsten and Quantum mechanics. If you throw these things out how are you going to understand or grasp what I'm saying since what I'm saying is based on things like Quantum mechanics, Einstein, Theoretical Physics and Information theory?

You're a troll that's trying to debate your personal, silly views instead of the thread.

So again, what didn't I explain to you? Your own words show you're lying.

I had to explain these things to you in order for you not to understand or grasp what I'm saying.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



Sirnex, it's obvious that your ATS ego was bruised and you're actually trying to overturn quantum mechanic, Einstein, Information theory and theoretical physics on a message board without a shred of evidence.


Now, now... Let's not get carried away with over sensationalizing my opinions and stance on the issue here. I never once said I was overturning anything. I said I don't subscribe to Ensteinian physics or quantum mechanics as it's portrayed by sensationalists, such as yourself.



A person would have to be a fool to listen to anything you're saying. Around 30% of our GDP is due to technologies connected to quantum mechanics and you are silly enough to think people will throw out Einstein, Quantum Mechanics and more because of your wild speculation?


I really dislike empty claims. Can you please cite your sources as it's the only proper thing to do.



The sad thing is, everybody on this thread is debating physics and you're trying to convince people that your wild and silly speculation means they should just throw out Einstein, Bohr, Hawking, Heisenberg, Shannon, Maxwell, Dirac, Shannon, Kaku and more. You have to be insane if you think people are going to throw these things out because of a debate on a message board and your wild speculation.


Now, this is just mindless dodging and evasion. How about you refute the points I've raised in my last three posts to you?



Again, your problem is you're trying to debate your belief system instead of the thread and instead of physics. There will always be theories out there for different point of views but none of these links you are quoting says we need to throw out Einstein, Quantum mechanics, information theory, theoretical physics and more.


Wow, I think you need a larger shovel for that hole your digging for yourself. Have you even bothered to read the last three posts by me? You argue in circles without any attempt to actually refute any of the points I raised in the last three posts.



What are these links you're posting supposed to support?


Are you kidding? Can you read? Honestly now, that statement is what's truly just idiotic.



Do any of these links say we should throw out everything from Einstein to quantum mechanics?


Where did I say we have to literally throw everything out? I did say I don't subscribe to it, somehow you have managed to twist my statements around into mindless gibberish. This appears to be the main basis of your arguments rather than actually discussing any of the points I've raised.



It boils down to this. Are you here to debate what I said in the original post or are you here trying to show people that your silly speculation is correct.


Again, please actually read and refute the last three posts I've made.



Now back to my thread.


Correction: Now back to your inane evasion and mindless whining.



You said you don't get or understand what I'm saying because you throw out quantum mechanics, information theory, theoretical physics, Einstein and more.


It's quiet humorous that you spend less time refuting and more time with mindless bitching.



So far none of the links that you have quoted have said they throw these things out nor have that provided a shred of evidence to throw these these things out.


Please re-read the last three posts. The intent of the last three posts was to *not* show that we need to throw anything out, but to show that they are not supportive of your ... Ah, wild speculation.



Now I backed up what I'm saying but you said you throw out the things that what I'm saying is based on.


With demonstratively erroneous garbage. Hell, if I wanted to I could post link after link showing the Earth is flat, hollow and the center of the universe.



So I want you to tell me what I didn't explain at the start of this debate?


You've yet to show that time travel is a real physical feat and you've yet to clarify your definition of information. I grow tired of your mindless bitching and evasion.



It's not that I didn't back my claims, the problem is you don't want to debate my claims, you want to debate your silly speculation.


Actually, I DID debate your claims in the last three posts I've made. Which your not even bothering to refute. Instead, this is the best response you can give me? The same bitch fest I've gotten for the last five or more posts from you? Your a pro at this evasion thing.



This is why I say your a troll.


Ah, I see... Your having trouble intelligently refuting anything I've just pointed out in the last three post's and so now you have to resort to mindless infantile personal attacks. *sigh* When will you grow up?



You want to make this thread about you when it isn't about you.


Really? That's interesting as I did initially try to discuss the main topic of the thread, which you somehow turned into a discussion of information, which then led us down this tiring path of attempts to get you to stop dodging the issues.



Everyone else on this thread has debated everything from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to Dimensions and you're you quoting links that have nothing to do with anything I'm saying or anything to do with your stated silly position.


I used your own links and the science behind them in my last three post's. I'm starting to suspect that you haven't bothered reading them yet.



1. Show me in any of these links you posted where they say throw out Einstein, Quantum Mechanics, information theory and theoretical physics.


Non-applicable request.



2. Show me the equations, tested theories, and peer reviewed papers to back your entropy is everything theory and that's why we should throw out quantum mechanics, information theory, Einstein and more.


Last three post's I've made.



3. Tell me what I didn't explain and back up to you. I backed up what I'm saying and you said you could grasp or understand what I'm saying because you throw out Einsten and Quantum mechanics. If you throw these things out how are you going to understand or grasp what I'm saying since what I'm saying is based on things like Quantum mechanics, Einstein, Theoretical Physics and Information theory?


Already have numerous times and received dodge tactics and personal attacks every time.



You're a troll that's trying to debate your personal, silly views instead of the thread.


The last three post's debated ONLY your ideas utilizing your own links, the science behind them and recent discoveries in each aspect of those theories. The best you can do is *scoffs* resort to infantile insults?



So again, what didn't I explain to you? Your own words show you're lying.


I think it's rather rude of you to indirectly lay claim to the level of intelligence of others reading this thread. I'm not the only one who has pointed out that your dodging very reasonable questions.



I had to explain these things to you in order for you not to understand or grasp what I'm saying.


What did you explain? All I've seen is mindless bitching, evasion and infantile insults.

I kindly and respectfully ask you to please refute my refutation of your assertion as is outlined in the last three posts I've made. Can you please just quit the juvenile garbage already and grow up for once?


WARNING



Failure to refute and resort to further insults *WILL* result in pissing me off to the point of calling in the mods to correct your juvenile behavior.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Look, I'm not here to debate your silly speculations. Your just a troll that wants to make this thread about you because you know how silly you look.

I again as you, what didn't I explain?

You said you couldn't understand or grasp what I'm saying because you throw out Einstein and Quantum mechanics.

Again, I quote you:


I don't quiet understand what your trying to tell me there. I personally don't subscribe to Einsteinian physics.


and:


I personally don't subscribe to QM, so my answer would be no.


So how am I supposed to explain to you what I'm saying if what I'm saying is based on Einstein and Quantum mechanics which you throw out?

Again, it's just idiotic and you realized how silly you look and now your all over the place.

Your own words show you are lying.

I explained what I'm saying to you and you said you could grasp and understand what I'm saying because you throw these things out.

So again I ask, how am I supposed to explain them to you? Am I supposed to make up new physics according to your silly belief to explain what I'm saying?

None of the links you posted throw out Einstein, Quantum Mechanics, Information theory or more.

You're the one who said this and you said Entropy is everything yet you haven't provided one equation, one peer reviewed paper or one tested theory to support these things.

I want you to post one line from any of these articles that say we should throw out Einstein and Quantum mechanics in favor of your entropy is everything theory.

Again, you ansked and answered your own questions at the start of the post.

You said:


I don't quiet understand what your trying to tell me there. I personally don't subscribe to Einsteinian physics.


I don't even need to quote the others because it's obvious how silly you look.

I explained to you what I'm saying.

You said you don't understand what I'm saying because you throw out Einstein.

I said okay and moved on because it's pointless to go any further.

You realized how silly you look and now yoyur all over the place.

So again, I ask you to tell me specifically, what didn't I explain because you told us why you couldn't understand or grasp what I explained.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Obviously you could care less about your credibility. I've directly debated your assertion and you've not bother to refute the points I raised. I've asked to refrain from insulting me instead of refuting my points with evasive garbage. I've reported you and I'm sick of your juvenile garbage.

You don't refute because you can't refute, this is why all you can do is mindless bitching and insulting.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You have to be joking.

I asked you to specifically tell me what you need me to explain.

Your own words show that I explained and backed up what I'm saying.

You said you couldn't understand or grasp what I'm saying because you throw out Einstein and Quantum mechanics.

Now what do you want me to refute in the links that you posted?

None of these links say they support your entropy is everything theory and none of them say they throw out Einstein and quantum mechanics.

What am I supposed to refute in these links that you post? What do they have to do with what I'm saying?

I want you to tell me in your own words how these links relate to what I'm saying and the relationship between these links and your entropy is everything theory.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Let's stick to the topic instead of resorting to insults and personal jabs directed at each other.

Please debate the other person's information- not them personally.

Take a moment to review these links:

Please Stay On Topic.

Courtesy is Mandatory.

Thank you.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Let's have a little peace and decorum, shall we?

This display of personal attacks and assorted allegations will stop now! You all will discuss the issue with some modicum of civility or warnings will start to be handed out.

This is an issue that shouldn't be raising tempers to this extent. So it's going to stop.

Civility.

Decorum.



[edit on 5/17/2010 by seagull]




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join