Edtharan

Yeah man as i told in my above post, the things what u called "laws" are just incidents of the nature. So cant humans or whatever can chane or i mean violate the "laws" of nature?????????????

No. Humans can not change or violate the laws of nature. These laws are what make up our universe, so the only way we could change them is if we created a whole new universe (but then we still couldn't do it in our universe).

We can create imaginary universes and we can do what we like in them (daydreaming is a fun way to pass the time). You can create an imaginary universe during an hallucination (drug induced or whatever), but this does not mean that anything you think you are doing actually occurs in the real universe.

And here in lies the danger: How do you separate your imagined universe of your perceptions from the real universe? If you get it wrong, then you could place yourself in real danger, or at the least loose some of your hard earned money.

This is why I am so harsh against people who claim that we can change the laws of the universe (or violate them) just my using our mind. They are saying that their imaginary universe is just as real as the real one (they then usually try to get you to buy some product that is based on their imaginary universe).

Even if they are not selling something, these actions cause more confusion about what the real universe is like and people find it harder and harder to separate the imaginary from the real.

So when people who are in real need and need treatment that relies on the real universe, they seek the wrong treatment and can end up worse (or at least the same). Because I am in this situation, I can say that false hope is worse than no hope. With false hope, not only do you have to deal with the no hope, but you also have to deal with the failure of the false hope.

SO here is the question: Do you hate that person so much that you want to cause them more distress? If so, then give them that false hope, if not, then stick with the real universe.

I have not so far found any reasonable explanations for how or why the Nazca lines were made (including the animalia inscribed, as well.) Erecting monolithic construction is one thing, but mile-wide monkeys?

How is easy, it is a matter of geometry, and not very complex geometry (understanding lengths and angles and multiplication is all that is really needed).

Why is something we will probably never know. These were made a long time ago and the civilisation that made them is long since gone.

But there are things that have occurred over the world that might offer an explanation.

On Rapa Nui (Easter Island), they made Moai (those statures that made the island famous). Although it is not absolutely clear why they were made initially, what occurred to perpetuate it is better understood.

These Statures represented social dominance. The more and bigger the statures the more it showed how powerful you were. It ment that you could command enough resources to put a lot of people to work in a non-productive manner.

So, over time, you would ahve had to out do the ones that had been done in the past, or you were saying that you weren't as good as them.

In our Capitalistic societies, we find this kind of behaviour odd and unreasonable.

But all it is, is that the society valued something more than the acquisition of resource. What was important to them was your standing in the society. Power, not wealth was what they desired.

Now, if you apply this to the Nazca glyphs, one could understand them in this manner. What if this was another case of demonstrating ones ability to command large amounts of people? If a ruler could afford to send that many people to work with the knowledge and skills needed to construct such large glyphs, this might be an explanation of why they are so big and so much effort went into them. It is very typical human behaviour, especially in Males.

Other examples can be seen in any school yard (especially with kids aged between 10 to 15).. But even the Egyptian Pyramids can be seen as this behaviour. Even the great Cathedrals of Europe are an effect of this behaviour. Look around you at the behaviours of people and see how much of this behaviour you can spot (the flashy sports car, the expensive cloths, etc)

This behaviour is so "Human" that it is probably wired into our genetics, it is an instinct of humanity.

I don't think that's quite it, actually. I think it's a camera exposure problem, not a visibility problem. I've not researched this (astronaut statements might be useful here) but I would imagine that the stars are indeed visible on the moon during "daytime" because there is no atmospheric defraction taking place filling the sky with blue secondary light, like we get here on earth.

It is both. Reflection from the surface of the moon can dazzle the eye and cause it to adjust to the brighter light levels of the surface.

If you could shield your eyes from that dazzle then you would be able to see the stars. On Earth we can't do that, because of the scattering of light due to the atmosphere.

Cameras have this same problem. They can be adjusted to expose something in bright light by having a fast shutter speed, or they can be adjusted to expose something in dim light by having a slow shutter speed.

Cameras today (and video cameras too) can have an automatic system to adjust the exposure length, so in modern times we don't necessarily experience having to adjust shutter speeds. If you have ever worked with old film based cameras, you might have experienced having to adjust the shutter speed manually.

Often you will see, in film sets or in professional photographers, using a little device that they stick near the subject just before they take the picture. This is a light meter and is a much more accurate (and sophisticated) version of the automatic device in modern cameras that measures the strength of light on the subject (the more sophisticated ones can measure light in the different frequencies so as to also adjust the colour of the photo - but now days we can adjust it in a photo editing program like Photoshop).

So, both the eye and cameras have this problem of over/under exposure. The eye has several mechanisms to adjust to light levels, and modern cameras have similar systems as well. But even with these systems, if there is too much light, then dim lights will not be visible.

this is none sense . the light reflected by the moon is not enough to block the light of millions of stars , this only works when you are seeing object near each other like the sun ,moon, stars...and on other hand moon is not bright enough ............there are not just 10 or 20 there are many photos like this ............it is just that you don't want to accept it .............

The amount of light that reaches the moon as the same as that reaches the Earth. (actually the light that reaches the moon is a bit stronger as it has not atmosphere to pass through first ).

Tell me, can you see the screen of your mobile phone in direct sunlight? No. Well then. That might be why you can not see the stars in those pictures of the moon. The light that is reaching the surface of the moon at that time should be about as bright as daylight (a bit brighter actually). As Starlight is far more dim than the light from your mobile phone, then it is perfectly possible that the light from the sun is enough to blot out any starlight from the moon.

This of course does not prove that they landed on the moon, only that the claims that the pictures were fake because you can't see stars is not a vaild argument.

then what will you say about the two source of light that casted shadows in different direction

If there were more than 1 source of light from similar directions, then you would ahve had more than 1 shadow (try it with two torches). As there is only one shadow, then we can only conclude that either the light sources were pointing in opposite directions (which would not have left a shadow in the direction in the photo), or that there was a single light source.

This too, does not prove they landed on the moon, only that this particular argument that we didn't is also not a valid one.

you can not be sure that man reaturned to the earth safely with that deadly radiation in space , it was not only from sun but also from outer space radiation , x ray , cosmic ray . etc.....................

They had specially designed suits (they are called space suits) that protected them . These suits didn't just stop air from them getting out into space, but also had shielding to prevent radiation from harming them too much. And yes, I say "too much" because they were harmed and there is long term medical problems due to radiation that all astronauts face on return to Earth, including those that went to the moon. There are higher rates of cancers in astronauts.

In fact, this damage can be easily enough detected, and the technologies that they developed to do so are now available to your doctors to use to help detect damage done to you from the radiation that reaches the surface of the Earth.

did you notice errors in the image like the cross camera ' date=' clear images in dark shado

[/quote']

I want you to go out and go look at the moon at night. Can you see it? Well the reason you can is because light is reflected off of it.

 

Next, I want you to go outside during the day and look up at something that is in shadow. Can you see it? Well the reason for this is because light is reflected off of the surface of the Earth.

 

The amount of light that reaches the surface of the Moon is about strength the same as that which reaches the surface of the Earth (the moon is a bit stronger). These photos were taken during the "Day" on the moon, so the sunlight is about the same strength as a bright (not overcast) day here on Earth.

 

So, if you can see something in shadow here on the Earth during a bright day, why can you not see it there on the Moon?

 

However, you can also see into shadows here on the Earth. Why? Well you ahve an atmosphere that scatters the light a bit, and then you have all this stuff that is reflecting light (like house roof eves). On the Moon, most of the light is reflected upwards and they have no atmosphere to scatter the light (and there is very little in the way of house roof eves too). SO I would not be surprised that you could not see the surface of the Moon in the shadows, but you could see the Astronauts and Lander (you know, things that stick above the surface and would reflect back the light that was reflected from the surface of the moon).

 

This does not, of course, prove that we landed on the moon, but it does mean that this argument is not a valid reason to believe that we didn't.

 

well first talk about the reflector on the moon ' date='you would be knowing the area of that reflector it is apprx. ( 15-16)inch . tell me how are we able to hit our lasers at that small area with that accuracy ..

[/quote']

Go get a torch and, at night, shine it across the room. Now, measure both the size of the front of the torch and the size of the spot of light on the other side of the room.

 

Is the spot on the other side of the room bigger or smaller than the size of the front of the torch?

 

The reason for this is that the rays of the light beam are not perfectly parallel. Even in a laser this is the case (however, in a laser they are much closer to being parallel than in a torch).

 

Light has a 800,000km round trip to the moon, even if they were 0.1% off being parallel, they would have diverged massively by the time they reach the moon, thus even if there is only a small target, because the beam will have diverged enough to cover a huge area, thus making the chances of hitting that target much easier.

 

Also, the fact is they know where to aim the lasers to within less than a metre, and the target being around 1/3 of a metre in diameter, I think they stand a really good chance of hitting it.

 

BTW: Would anyone know how much an average laser beam will have diverged by the time it reached the Moon? (just for my own collection of trivia )

 

you can see the image of astronaut clear behind the space ship although it is not possible because the source of light is behind the ship

There was. The surface of the Moon...

 

You can tell this because it is bright, and bright objects are giving off (or reflecting) light. reflected light is sufficient to light up that astronaut. The brightness of the light reaching the surface of the Moon is about the same as a bright day on Earth, we are of course about the same distance form the sun and all .

 

This is what all the people who claim the photos were fake keep forgetting, the photos were taken during the DAY. They think that because the Moon is visible here on Earth mostly during the night, then the astronauts must have landed on the Moon during the night.

 

No. The photos were clearly taken during the day (the hint is that you can see anything at all in the photos as they didn't have low light cameras on these moon trips). As the photos were taken in the day, then it is expected that the reflected light from the surface of the Moon would light up the astronauts and Lander. To think otherwise clearly shows a complete lack of knowledge of basic photography (like take photos in light, not darkness) and reflection (seen your self in a mirror lately).

Coz you know, there r ppl (i mean i have also met) saying this concentration thing is a real bull$%@. But you know there are advantages...Isnt it?!?

The big difference is that telekinesis and these "mind over matter" proponents propose that the brain (which is a material thing that follows the laws of physics) can break the laws of physics. The mental control needed to manage pain does not.

There in lies the big difference. One violates the known laws of physics, the other does not.

Unless you have proof that the laws of physics are violated, then you can not claim that it is possible to violate the known laws of physics.

If you want, I can explain why controlling pain through concentration is not a violation of physics if you still don't understand the differences.

BTW..I know some of u gyz will say this is like bull!@# but u know concentration has become a very good medicine in the present.. even in famous hospitals etc. If u know abt this well you wont tell this is bull@#$ but..I just want to discuss abt this....

Due to an injury, I am involved with this "Concentration" aspect of medicine in my recovery. And I am saying what you are claiming to be "bull!@#".

Why?

Well the entire concept of mind in medicine is completely different to what you are claiming. What is being done in medicine is based on neurology. In using the mind to prevent pain (what I am involved with) they are using the fact that neurons lead from the brain to where the noireception form the peripheral nervous system reaches the brain. These are inhibition neurons and are the bodies natural method of regulating pain. By developing your own control over these neurons you can help to control your pain levels.

This is based on functional (real time) MRI scans of the brain and decades of research and development.

Being able to fly, or otherwise break the laws of physics is just not possible.

yes, the brain is powerful and it can be used to accomplish many things, but what it can not do is break the laws of physics. There has never, not once, ever been a single reputable case of such an effect.

If there was, using today's knowledge of brain imagery and biofeedback, we all could be doing it.

Also, such abilities would be of such evolutionary advantage that any species that either had the capabilities, or even needed the capabilities would develop them to the degree that they would be common place.

Why have a taken such a harsh response? (I know I'll probably get a reprimand for the tone, but I feel that my response is appropriate and I thought I'd say why).

In pain management and dealing with long term injuries (and medicine in general too), unreal expectations can be very detrimental to patients management of their conditions. these can lead to depression and even suicide as the hopes they had are not fulfilled by their treatments.

So, every time these claims of the brain being able to do "magic" are espoused by individuals and the media, it leads people to unrealistic expectations. These people are in desperate circumstances and any such offer (real or not) will be grabbed by them as any hope. When these then fail to work properly, and their condition does not improve (or even gets worse), then this can set them back years of progress in their mental acceptance of their condition.

More so, such claims are usually better than what medicine can actually do, so these patients often forgo the actual medicine that has been shown to work in favour of these treatments that offer to solve the problem and then fail to work. This can set them back physically in their recover and even cause more injury.

If, these claims were true, there are thousands (tens of thousands) of doctors that would gladly jump at the opportunity to use such techniques to help their patients. No one, (especially doctors) like to see people suffer. Because of this, they can get deluded by the promise of "magical" effect of the mind (and as not all doctors are neurologists, they don't necessarily understand why/why not themselves, but they rely on those that claim to understand).

Doctors are human too and are just as prone to mistake or being deceived (whether the deceiver is intentional or not).

Science is about evidence, not belief. One my believe such things are possible, but that does not make them so. I might believe that there is a pink unicorn that is causing my condition, but that does not make it so.

However if I did have evidence that a pink unicorn was causing my condition, then well... we could probably do something about that.

The same as it is with this. You might believe that such "magic" is possible, but there is absolutely no evidence that says that it is possible.

If you have evidence that this is possible (rather than some writing saying that they think they saw someone do it - and they could have been fooled).

Anecdote is not evidence.

Evidence requires that it is repeatable under controlled circumstances. This has never been done. There is no evidence that the brain can break the laws of physics.

One question: If it really was cancelling gravity: Why did it stop going up after a few centimetres?

There would be two effect at work to get that result:

1) Cancellation of gravity

2) An upward force on the card and coin.

If this really is an anti-gravity device, then (1) must have occurred, or it is not actually anti-gravity and the same (with a greater effect) could have been done buy simple magnets. Because the card moved upwards, then (2) must also have occurred.

But, if there was no gravity, then there would be no downwards force on the card/coin at all. So, even if the force that caused the card were to be removed, the card/coin would ahve continued up until the anti-gravity effect was turned off (the device dismantled at the most).

What should not have occurred is that the car/coin seem to levitate as it did.

In other words, the only way the effect that we see would occur is if someone was faking it. Anti-gravity would not cause the kinds of effect that was seen in that video.

These guys seem pretty convinced fractals are absolute, real things:

I never said that these things weren't real. I said I disagreed with the Tegmark's postulate that: "All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically".

The key word here is "physically". These are regular structures that can be found in mathematics, and we can arrange matter and energy to represent them. But, until we arrange the matter and energy correctly, then the structures don't exist physically.

Information, if it is to exist physically, must have some arrangement of matter and/or energy to represent it. However, the Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex: that is it has an infinite amount of information. But, if this information is to be "physically" existent, then it need an infinite amount of matter and energy to represent it.

This is a problem. First of all, if enough matter and energy is concentrated into a small enough space, it forms a black hole and no information can come out from that. Second, if we have an infinite amount of matter.energy to represent an infinite amount of information, then no amount of space could contain such a physical construct without collapsing into a black hole. Even an infinite amount of space would succumb to this collapse (when you realise that even in an infinite space, there has to be an infinite density of matter/energy to handle the amount of information).

Therefore, if the Mandelbrot set were to be represented physically, then the universe would collapse into a black hole. But we don't have an infinite density of Matter/Energy do we, so this also rule out the possibility of the Mandelbrot set existing physically, as there is not enough "stuff" to represent it completely.

Does that mean that when people aren't looking at the Mandelbrot Set or the Rule 110 cellular automaton they go away?

In a way I do agree with this because it is only when we arrange matter and energy to represent part of these mathematical constructs do they have any "physical" existence. Even if we are just thinking about them, the matter and energy (electrical activity) in our brains are arranged to represent these structures.

When we stop representing these structures, that is when we stop "looking" at them, then there is no physical structure representing them and they "go away". But this does not make them any less "real", in that they are a regularity in the "structure" of mathematics.

So I agree that they exist, but I disagree that the "exist physically".

Since H. Sapiens have been around for 100,000 years +, why didn't we develop writing sooner?

 

Things happen when they happen. (Speculatively speaking. )

That is a good question, and there is a reason: Writing requires time to invent and time to learn. Until humans had developed agriculture (and this depended on the evolution of other species to achieve) there was not a lot of time to invest in such activities. Also, if a small tribe develops writing, if they can not transmit that to other groups then it does not serve much purpose (but it is still an advantage to that group).

So for constructs , such as writing, to develop and to spread it requires a conjunction of outside factors (available species for domestication) and a sufficiently dense population to allow regular exchange of ideas.

However, communication in general is a better case study. Look at the advantage communication has given our species. Many species develop communication systems (even bacteria have them) and these systems give massive advantages to any species that have them as compared to ones that don't. This is especially true for any social species (like humans).

I don't fully agree with the proposition that: "All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically."

However, it is noteworthy that any mathematics your create must occur in a physical system because it is a physical being that thinks of it (even if it was a being made of pure energy, it still has a physical reality in the universe in the form of force carrying particles/fields). So in some way Max Tegmark is sort of right because if you can think of the mathematics, then it does "exist physically".

Why I don't agree with him is that in mathematics there exist Infinities, and Infinitesimals. and all evidence we can see indicates that the universe is finite. With Infinitesimals, we have even more evidence that they can't exist because of the Plank limits (size and time).

These finite limits to sizes (big and small) seem to make any such structures (infinities and infinitesimals) impossible to "exist physically".

Well, not necessarily. It could just be relatively recent, or go hand in hand with some disadvantage, or for some reason be nearly useless in the modern world but outright useless as a hunter gatherer. Otherwise, yeah, I agree.

relatively recent is a stopper, but then it begs the question: Why could it not have occurred earlier.

If it is supposed to be that it required certain features of the brain, then the features of the Human brain have equivalents in animals, and this does not even consider other Hominid species.

If it is a certain capacity of the human brain, then you have to consider the other Hominid (and near hominid species.

Even if it has some disadvantages, unless these are severe enough (like lethal) such advantages that psychic powers could convey would still permeate. There are many traits that have occurred in people, within the last 10,000 years, that have some drastic negative consequences. Take for example Sickle cell anaemia. People who have this have two copies of a mutated allele will get a serious and life threatening condition known as Sickle-Cell Disease which causes their red blood cells to become sickle shaped (which prevents them from doing their job of carrying oxygen).

However, people with just one copy of the allele don't have this problem, however this causes them to have an increased level of resistance (but not totally immune) to Malaria.

So, if Psychic powers do exist and humans do have them, then even if they have some disadvantage, they will still develop through evolution.

in the bear situation, being able to run 3 nanometers/second faster than the otherguy isn't going to help you much and whether you live and die is probably going to depend more on the wind or what you had for breakfast than the fact you can run slightly faster.

Yes, for a specific individual this might hold true, but in the deep time of evolution this does not hold (and of course there is the logical fallacy of Appealing to Ridicule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule).

Running 3 nanometers/second faster than the other guy is a ridiculous (and Strawman) argument.

I was talking Reaction Times in the fraction of a second, not running speed. A reaction time of a fraction of a second is far more valuable. The difference between a predator getting its prey or not is measured in fractions of a second.

Also, as running faster is something that has been seen to evolve through the method I described, then using this "3 nanometres/second faster" as an argument against the ability to evolve better performance is not really even a good Strawman argument to begin with (as a strawman argument is supposed to attempt to disprove the other guy, not yourself ).

So, as insane_alien helpfully pointed out, it is possible for minor increases in an ability, like running speed, though evolution to lead to an increase in that particular ability.

So again: If Psychic powers exist, and humans have them, then why hasn't evolution made them more prevalent?

Is the event itself repeated in diffrent time frames?

The problem we are having here is that you have one specific meaning of the word "Event" and I am trying to determine what that definition is. Without that definition I can not answer such a question to your satisfaction.

I have tried to answer it in a more general way, one that if you carefully read and try to understand (and ask questions about) what I have written we could make progress in actually getting to what you want to know and how I can answer it in a way that you understand. If you just repeat the same question, then all I can give is the same answer (but I can change the word using a thesaurus if you like).

Just repeating the question will not make it any easier for me, or anyone else, to understand what you actually want to know.

The fact that you just repeated your question without asking any question about what I had written shows that you have not tried to understand it. If you had tried to understand it and were unable to, you would have a specific question about what I had written that you didn't understand.

So, don't repeat you question in your next post. Instead, ask a question concerning why my post didn't seem to address your question.

Per Edtharan, I defer to Niven's Law #5: "Psi and/or magical powers, if real, are nearly useless."

Even "nearly useless" is in some measure useful. If something is useful, then all else being in equilibrium, this "nearly useless" thing becomes almost infinity useful.

So I disagree here with Larry Niven here.

To win (at evolution) you don't have to run faster than the Tiger, you just have to run faster than the other guy.

So even if you can run only a little bit faster than "the other guy", then you will beat him and the Tiger will not eat you.

If you can predict a Tiger attack only a fraction of a second faster than the next guy, then you will have that fraction of a second head start.

Evolution acts to multiply any small effect into a large effect over generations. So a "nearly useless" advantage is worth far more than Niven is willing to give it.

I am not sure what you mean by "repeat" here.

For every observer there is a frame of reference. Sometimes that frame of reference is a similar frame of reference to the experiment/event.

Different observers in different frames of reference will see different parts of an event differently.

BUT they will always be able to mathematically adjust for these differences by using Relativity. This adjustment does not work if you only consider the 3 dimensions of space. It does work if you include a dimension of Time and include it as part of the adjustments.

In my last post, I talked about how a photon, seen from a higher point than it was emitted from will appear to loose energy and violate the conservation of energy laws.

In that instance, different observers see a different version of the Event repeated (is this how you meant for the word "repeated" to be used?). However, this is only because they are considering a spatial effect (one is higher than the other). However, if they also take into account the Temporal difference (people in a higher gravitational field - that is lower height - experience Time more slowly), then there is no difference in energy and no violation of the conservation laws.

But, if you assume an Absolute Frame of Reference (an absolute spatial co-ordinate system, or an absolute Now), then you have the problem with the missing energy again.

So to make it very simple: Yes, different observers see an event repeated for them, but the event that they see is mathematically related to the one that the other sees.

This mathematical relationship depends on the relative motion between the observers (and the event being observed) and is connected by the theory of Relativity.

If the principals behind relativity (one being that there is not absolute frame of reference) were wrong, then we would see massive violations of the laws of conservation of energy. And as we don't see such things, we can be confident that Relativity (and the principals that it is based on) are correct.

As these are correct, you claim of a universal "Now" must be incorrect. "Now" must therefore be based on the relative motion of the observers.

No criminal is going to be afraid of any psychic, no matter how popular because they are well aware that it wouldn't get past the judge. Someone who is proven to have abilities would be a threat though.

I disagree. Criminals know that the police have many different ways of identifying them form remains left at the crime scene, stuff that would, a century ago, borer on almost magical ability (DNA, Polilights, CCTV, etc).

And yet, crimes still happen.

Unless these psychics were 100% reliable and could see every single crime no matter how small, then criminals will still attempt crimes (and even if this were the case, I still think they would occur).

Crimes are not usually attempted because they think they will get away with it. Crimes are usually done out of desperation (or at least the perception of it).

Psychics would have no impact on this.

But psychics would be just one form of intelligence gathering. It would be possible to manipulate people into believing that they were going to do a crime (planning, etc) and then have them stop just as the police are mobilising to stop it. As the police are a finite entity, such misdirections would cost them hugely and would make the psychic almost useless, and as all participants in that crime would believe it to be real, up to the point of stopping, the psychic would not be able to use their mind reading to counter act it.

Also, these criminals, if the could get their own hands on a genuine psychic would also ahve intelligence on what the police psychics were doing. In other words, it would not be much different from the current state it is now.

The best argument against any psychic power is Evolution.

If a population of animals (or humans) had any form of psychic power and no one else did, then this would be a massive evolutionary advantage. If you could predict the future, then you could see droughts coming and store more food to get you through it. If you could read minds, then you would be able to see an enemy raid on your settlement and so hide well before they get there, or if you are attacking, you know where their warriors are located, or where their population is trying to hide form you, or even when their warriors are off hunting and so could not defend their settlement from your raid. OR, your warriors could communicate silently with each other and so better sneak around after prey, or enemies.

So, any population that has these kinds of abilities, they would survive better than any other. Also, if they had more of their population, or their population were better at it, then they would survive better.

As that population would survive better, then the genes that enabled these kinds of abilities would proliferate and the abilities would spread to more of your population. As the genes for it would be selected, then any improvements in the abilities would also spread through your population. And so forth until such abilities were in everyone and to high fidelity.

So, why can't we all use psychic powers? Even if these powers aren't genetic, but were learned, any culture that could pass on knowledge (any knowledge) would be able to do so and this would have the same effect as if they were genetic (they would be transmitted as memes and so be memetic).

So again, where are all the true psychics? The only answer that solves this is: That psychic powers are impossible.

Clocks may run at diffrent rates but that does not mean a change in what is being measured.

Not just clocks, but space as well.

This is where you seem to be having the problem. If you only consider the change in clocks, then you will end up with a nonsense result. It is only what you realise that a change in clocks means that there is a commensurate change is space as well, then the answers become more sensible.

Take for instance the experiments where they shine a laser up a tower.

Lasers have an extremely precise frequency, and unless something absorbs and then re-emits the light the frequency should not change.

So one would expect that if you shone a laser up a tower inside a vacuum tube, then one would not get any change in frequency.

However, a change in frequency is exactly what they measure. The laser beam is shifted towards the longer wavelength.

Now, we could assume that the energy of the light beam just disappears, but that would be a violation of the laws of conservation of energy, or we can look at it in terms of relativity.

Under relativity, gravity bends time and space (by rotating one into the other). The stronger the gravitational field you are in the slower time will occur for you (but anybody in the same strength gravitational field - eg at the bottom of the tower with you - will experience the same rate of time relative to you).

This means that the person at the top of the tower is experiencing a faster rate of time than you. As the frequency of the laser beam is dependent of the speed of light (a constant no matter what frame of reference or strength of gravity you fell), the energy involve and time. So if a change in frequency is seen, then as Both the Speed of light and the amount of Energy are constants, then the only then that can change is Time.

So if you see a laser beam shift in frequency towards the longer wave lengths, then you can know that Time for you is running faster than it was then where it came from.

This has been directly measured. It is something that really happens, and as Energy must be conserved and the speed of light is a constant (there is other reasons beyond relativity that state why light must be constant, relativity uses these and doesn't actually state that light must be a constant itself - look up Maxwell's Equations on the propagation of light), then the only thing that can make sense of it is if time is variable.

You might not want to accept it, but it has been directly measured, and is therefore true. It doesn't care if someone believes it or not, it is true regardless of individual understanding or belief.

They will differ, not in just the Time an event occurs, but the Space as well. moreover, the relationship between the differences in Time and Space they observe something in relative to another observer is mathematically related to the relative movement and gravitational fields of these two observers.

For instance:

You have Person A sitting down by the ocean. Person 2 is up at the top of a high mountain.

Person A is in a slightly higher gravitational field than Person B. We can actually measure the difference in the change in Time from one place to the other.

But

If you go to the location of Person A and measure the rate of time locally, then go to person B and measure the time locally, you won't find any difference.

So, there is a difference of rate of change in time between Person A and B, but there is no difference in Time as perceived locally.

The only conclusions form this are: If you measure something locally, regardless of that locality, then it will match any results measured in another locality (if the measurements are taken for that location at that location). But that the relative locations can have variability in them.

So, if at Person A's location, you measure the decay rate of certain atomic ions, and then take these same atomic ions up to Person B's location, you will measure the same decay rate.

But if you measure the decay rate of certain atomic ions at Person A's location, then remaining at Person A's location and transport the atomic ions to Person B's location and then measure their decay rate from person A's location, then you will see a difference.

This effect has been observed. Atomic clocks measure time by measuring the decay of certain types of atomic ions that they know occur in a very precise time (they actually measure the frequency of light emitted by the decay). They stuck one up on a high mountain and the other at it's base. They measured a difference between their rates.

They have also repeated this same experiment by sticking one of the atomic clocks on a plane and flying it around (so we know that this works for moving object too).

Belief doesn't come into it. You can believe what you want, but empirical evidence states that reality works in a way contrary to what you are needing for your concept to work.

If a theory contradicts reality, then no matter how good the theory, or how much sense it makes, or how much one wants to believe in it: Reality Wins (reality FTW ).

Given that energy cannot be created or distroyed, if energy lingered in the past its amount in the present would be reduced. My "now" is where the energy is. It somehow proceeds as part of "now". The role of time I do not know. "now" of course can refer to conscous awareness.

The study of conscious awareness has improved greatly. We can now (sorry) study it. We have Functional Magnetic Resonance Machines that can actually see the brain in operation. What they have discovered is that Consciousness is not a local phenomena. It is distributed both around the brain and in time (not as in time travel mind you, but more like a long exposure of a camera: the phenomena is smudged out over a period of time).

So, "now" as you ahve described it can not refer to conscious awareness as it exist in humans.

As such, we should avoid thinking of "Now" in terms of our awareness of it. We need a much more empirical method of defining "now".

Relativity shows us that Space and Time are the same thing, we just experience them differently. You don't think of North as flowing do you. But you might use it as an analogy.

remember, when people talk about the flow of Time, they are using an analogy. They have no empirical knowledge that time flows, they just feel that such a metaphor describes what they think sounds right.

Science does not work on what sounds right.

Most people who have heard of relativity has heard the analogy of a planet bending space like a rubber sheet. Well it is not just space that gets bent, Time does as well.

In fact, it is this specific, mathematical relationship between the bending of space and the bending of time caused by mass that Einstein worked out.

If space bent into space, then we would have ended up with only a slight modification to basic Newtonian gravity, however, due to empirical observations, this was not shown to be correct.

Something else was happening. There was some bending going on that was not in a spatial direction (neither up/down, left/right or forwards/backwards).

Einstein postulated that it must be a bending in a 4th dimension. When he worked out what this 4th dimension had to be, it turned out it had to be time.

Measurements made since then have confirmed that this bending is indeed in time, as when time is accurately measured with the bending of gravity, time is indeed distorted exactly as predicted by Einstein.

What does this mean? Space is made up of 3 dimensions, but we now know that there is another dimension and this dimension is what we call Time. It is linked to the spatial dimension the same as the spatial dimensions are linked to each other. SO, anything we say occurs with the time dimension we also have to say occurs with the spatial dimensions.

If you twist one the others twist. This also means that if one flows, they all flow, and we can see directly that space does not flow. This also means that Time can not flow.

But, what is "Now".

Any point in the Spatial dimensions can be described by co-ordinates. That is if you give an X/Y/Z co-ordinate you can describe a point in space.

As was shown above, what you can do in space you can also do in time. So this means you can also describe a point in Time by a co-ordinate, which nomenclature uses T.

So a point in Space-Time can therefore be described with a co-ordinate X/Y/Z/T.

But, as you might ahve already thought of, just a pure co-ordinate won't really give you a position, what you need is a co-ordinate relative to something. In maps, this is relative to the North Pole.

Relativity states that any point in Space-Time is relative to any other, not only that, it has to be. There is no absolute point in space time. It also means that there is no absolute "Now", as a Now would be an absolute.

Take for example your beam of light taking 1 second to travel 300,000km (approx).

If you take the beam of light as the reference point, then when travelling at the speed of light, the dimension of space in the direction of travel and the dimension of time are rotated 90 degrees into each other. Space becomes time and time becomes space.

From this perspective, the light beam does not travel that 300,00km, as there is not space for it in the direction of travel. So it can not be said to travel 300,000km in 1 second. It also, from the lights perspective take no time to travel.

So, from the perspective of a beam of light, it exists along its entire length simultaneously. Time and space have no meaning to it and what you perceive of as a "Now" also has no relevance from its perspective.

These kinds of thought experiment are often used to try and prove that there is a universal "Now", but when examined closely, they actually disprove a universal "Now".

The trap they all seem to fall into is that they forget one of the observers. When they describe these, they usually have some abstract observer watching the whole thing. They then go on to show that from this point of view, then is a universal "Now".

the big problem is that "observer" is an observer and so has their own "personal" now, and that is what they get confused over. This "observer" is not a universal observer outside the experiment, but has to actually be an observer within the experiment.

If this was not the case, then talking about distances would be meaningless as I showed above, a co-ordinate without a point of reference is meaningless.

An observer that had no co-ordinate would therefore not have any notion of 300,000km or 1 second as it relates to the situation being considered.

In the end, any universal "Now" that can be shown, or demonstrated in these experiment inevitably ends up being the Now of the abstract observer, which if it is an observer has to be subject to relativity, and therefore negates them form being the point of the universal "Now".

Hi all.

Suppose you had a mirror that showed you what you will look like tomorrow.

First of all, I would love a mirror like that . I would do some kind of calculation (say for the value of PI) and hold up a piece of paper (or an optical data transfer system) to the mirror with the results of that day's calculation (the previous day's calculation from the perspective of the me in the mirror). Then, based on those results I would continue the calculation and show the results in the mirror.

In effect I would have an infinite processing capacity.

But all that is beside the point (but would ve very cool)

Suppose you had a mirror that showed you what you will look like tomorrow. Now upon gazing into this mirror you would at first be shocked by how different you look but you would eventualy come to terms with it and be able to look and realize what you had on.

Thinking about his, I see no difference from such an system than would exist with light.

Light can interact with itself constructively or destructively. If you arrange it so that light interferes constructively, then you will get a bright patch at that point. If you make it interfere destructively, then you get a dark patch where no photons occur.

For instance, if you were to loop a beam of laser light around (through fibre optics, or mirrors) so that it passed along, in the same direction as the initial beam, then you could, by changing the loop path so that it interfered constructively or destructively.

This is the same as it is with your "Time Mirror". Light from the future is allowed to "loop back" and interfere with the universe. Which would end up causing that looped light, so it effectively interferes with itself (as it is a quantum wave we are dealing with). Rather than just light waves we are also dealing with matter waves here as well, but they are both described by a quantum wave function and this is the wave function that is really interfering in this experiment.

The iridescence in butterflies wings is caused by light being reflected in such a way that some frequencies are constructively interfered and other are destructively interfered. As such we get brilliant colours of light seemingly reflected off the wings (but it is more complex than simple reflection).

In a way this can also be an analogy for time travel (or time loops if you will). If a loop constructively interferes with itself (or other loops), then this loop will potentially exist. However, if a loop destructively interferes with itself, then that loop will never exist. And, like the butterfly's wing, multiple possibilities can exist.

Actually, the only real prohibition is that a loop can not destructively interfere with itself as it would cancel itself out. What this means is that the only prohibition to time travel is that it can't prevent the time travel occuring, and anything else in between that doesn't stop the time travel occuring will be allowed.

This would also include complex loops where the loop seems to destructively interfere with itself, but if the loops area followed through it eventually reinforces the loop.

As an example using your time mirror:

Janet goes to the mirror one morning getting ready to wear her favourite red dress, sees herself in the mirror showing that her favourite red dress is torn. Assuming that she will tear it that day, she instead wears her least favourite dress (and perhaps tears it).

But, as her mirror will no longer show a torn red dress, then she can not show that she has torn her favourite red dress.

So in the net loop around, as she does not see that she tore her favourite red dress, she wears it anyway and it gets torn. To prevent this (as she has no knowledge about the previous loop) she shows it in the mirror so that her previous self can see that it is torn and thereby avoid getting the red dress torn.

In the end, even though you have to follow the loop around twice to see it, this is still a constructively interfering loop as there is nothing in it that prevents the time travel occuring.

so speed acts as a sort of magnet between space and time

What is it that links the Horizontal direction to the Vertical direction?

Both are dimensions.

Time is also a dimension, however, we can not arbitrarily choose to change out motion in that dimension. Also, we can not directly perceive along the Time dimension because the stuff that makes up the universe we see, also can not move freely through the time dimension.

Now, you can state a relationship between the change in position along one dimension (say horizontal) and the distance moved in the other dimension (say vertical). So we could state that for every 10 metres in the Horizontal dimension there is a change in distance of 1 metre in the vertical dimension.

this give s 10 metre horizontal /1 metre vertical

Now, what if this was something like this:

10 metres horizontal / 300,000,000 metres vertical.

What if this was representing the distance you were falling in space. Say you have a malfunctioning space ship where the main thrusters have failed and you only have lateral thrusters that are working. You could move 10 metres sideways for every 300,000,000 metres you fall towards the planet.

Why the big numbers? Well 300,000,000 metres per second is the speed of light.

That is light travels 300,000,000 metres for every second that passes.

Or you could look at it this way:

Light travels 1 second for every 300,000,000 metres it travels.

So we can state out speed in terms of the distance that light travels. We would be able to move 10 metres for every 300,000,000 metres that light travelled.

Time is just a dimension, albeit one in which we can not control our motions.

A quick thought to this discussion on evolution.

Which way would the human race be heading in? If evolution is adaptation to the enviorment and we can create an enviorments, specific living conditions or conditions for people that would normally not make it in life or life in a "natural" enviorment, yet still pass along there genes. Then are we looking at a broad range of people that need specific living conditions, or over population, something along thoughs lines.

Hopefully this makes sense.

It is wrong to think of Evolution heading in a "direction". It is random variation with non random selection. This leads to adaptation, but it is not specifically in any "direction".

Adaptation can be in many directions at the same time. Usually there is not just one adaptive solution to the situation.

Also as you state, we area changing our environment, but, as this ability to change our environment has been evolved (large brain, etc), this is actually a feedback loop where we change the environment, then we adapt to that new environment which changes the environment again leading us to adapt again.

But, as adaptation is in no specific direction, and as it is also random, then we are not really progressing in any direction, we are just adapting to the immediate environment (which then changes the immediate environment).

If the environment changes faster than we can adapt, or in ways that we cant adapt to, then we will have problems and might even get speciation if this situations persists long enough. Until then, Humans as we know them will change, but they will change in ways that is partly directed by ourselves.

Also, why would God embed retrovirus fragments throughout our lineage in the pattern expected by common ancestry? In fact, why would God embed retroviruses in our DNA at all?

The interesting thing about this is that in the bible God states that He will not lie to us. So, either the bible is wrong (and God is lying about that), or the fossil record is wrong (and He is lying about that - as He would have created it to make it appear that the Earth was not created 6,000 years ago when the bible says it was).

So either one or the other is wrong and deliberately wrong, hence a lie, and that invalidates the statement by God that He will never lie to us.

Been reading William Lyne's book, "Occult Ether Physics" which explains Tesla's theories and talks about the ideas of the Ether at beginning of 20th cent. It all makes so much sense to me and seems to be a unified theory unlike Relativity/Quantum Mechanics!! So how did we end up with Relativity which leaves my feeble brain like porridge??

Just because something makes superficial sense, does not make it correct. Just because you don't understand something does not make it wrong.

Newton's Laws of Gravitation makes sense. But they make predictions about the behaviours of objects in the gravitational field that are incorrect. Therefore, no matter how much sense Newton's Gravitational Laws make, they are wrong.

I don't full y understand the workings of a Car. Does that make Cars impossible. No.

An individual's understanding makes no difference to whether something is correct or not.

One you can abandon this egocentric view, then you will have more of a chance to understand what science says.

I see the Pseudo-science thread as a test of my knowledge and a chance for education. If I can disprove a proposition using my knowledge that is ok, but if it takes me a bit of research, or I read someone else's disproof, it adds to my knowledge.

This stems from the misconception that we only use 10% of our brains. This is not true, we use all of it, just not all of it at the same time. As we use all of our brain, then all of it must be needed.