PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: Noctis Lamnia on January 05, 2005, 06:05:20 pm
-
What are your views on time travel?
Personally, I believe it\'s possible. I\'m not gonna go into my whole belief system on the way the universe works, but I will say I believe time travel is possible.
-
You can\'t travel backwards into time (unless you change into antimatter ==> antimatter travels backwards into time).
Speeding up time would be possible by going at 99.99999% of the light speed.
-
There we go with science again.
?_?
Science isn\'t always right. Rarely has been.
-
Sigh... You\'d be surprised.
Tell me about the cases where science has been wrong.
If science is incorrect, it\'s because there has been an error in the logic. The error is fixed, and the new idea is correct.
To be honest, I find Stephen Hawking and Einstein more reliable sources for time travel than somebody on a forum saying \"Science is often wrong\".
No offence ;-)
-
NAh! Time travel would never happen! It may be only possible, if and only if, you consider finding a dimension that is perfect example of how it was in the past and ripping the space-time-coniom metter {Way #2, becouse way number one would tear a passage from one world to another that co-exist creating this dimension}time travel...
Stopping time is also a passage to tattal doom...
Explanations?
-
Originally posted by Arzosah
Sigh... You\'d be surprised.
Tell me about the cases where science has been wrong.
Telekinesis, Ki, Psi, Telepathy, Empathy, Magick.
There are more, but I\'m thinking people are going to hate me after what I\'ve already said...
-
It is more easy to travel into the future, as has already been said, but it is highly likely possible to travel into the past as well. There have been so many occurances in the past that are almost perfect descriptions of todays tech, that it either were another civilisation (yeah, aliens), or time travellers from our very own future / present time.
And I also think that \"magic\" and all other PSI stuff works, but on a perfectly scientific basis, and therefore isn\'t any more mysterious than is the light bulb. The only difference is that the underlying mechanics haven\'t been noticed and understood yet, therefore mainstream science doesn\'t accept it yet (why should it, really?). There will be someone who finds the flaws in the current models and equations, after there have been enough hints and discoveries of previously unknown effects. I\'s always been that way.
-
Originally posted by Noctis Lamnia
Telekinesis, Ki, Psi, Telepathy, Empathy, Magick.
There are more, but I\'m thinking people are going to hate me after what I\'ve already said...
Oh, now that\'s funny :-P
1. Science has not been PROVEN wrong. Some people THINK science is wrong in these cases.
2. I believe what is said in this post:
Originally posted by Seytra And I also think that \"magic\" and all other PSI stuff works, but on a perfectly scientific basis, and therefore isn\'t any more mysterious than is the light bulb. The only difference is that the underlying mechanics haven\'t been noticed and understood yet, therefore mainstream science doesn\'t accept it yet (why should it, really?). There will be someone who finds the flaws in the current models and equations, after there have been enough hints and discoveries of previously unknown effects. I\'s always been that way.
Telekinesis, magick (since you write it that way, I\'m assuming you believe in wicca... Read this: http://www.whywiccanssuck.com/) will eventually be explained by science.
-
Originally posted by Arzosah
Oh, now that\'s funny :-P
1. Science has not been PROVEN wrong. Some people THINK science is wrong in these cases.
Telekinesis, magick (since you write it that way, I\'m assuming you believe in wicca... Read this: http://www.whywiccanssuck.com/) will eventually be explained by science.
I\'m assuming you know nothing about the occult. You don\'t need to have a religion to perform magick. Hell, I used to be Christian... kinda lost my faith, but, meh. I am NOT a wiccan. Witches are not all Wiccans, Wiccans are not all Witches. Wicca has been around for a looooooooong time, not just 1950, like that page says.
Right now, I don\'t wear a pentagram around my neck. I will soon, however, and that guy\'s whole argument about the pentagram is stupid. There are MANY meanings to the pentagram. The one I believe in is God ruling over earth and hell. Grimiors, Familiars... that guy should not joke about those things.
They are both real and incredibly powerful. Familiars are usually provided by a spirit, however, and so a random animal isn\'t a Familiar.
I could go on and on about that page, but I don\'t feel like it. Good argument against magick? I think NOT. I can rebuke every single thing that guy says.
EDIT: Alright, ya know what? I SERIOUSLY hate that page, and I\'m not even Wiccan! That page goes against everything I stand for, and sounds like some angry Christian ranting.
-
Originally posted by Arzosah
Originally posted by Noctis Lamnia
Telekinesis, Ki, Psi, Telepathy, Empathy, Magick.
There are more, but I\'m thinking people are going to hate me after what I\'ve already said...
Oh, now that\'s funny :-P
1. Science has not been PROVEN wrong. Some people THINK science is wrong in these cases.
im not gonna deeper then this, i do love these kind of discussions. but im afraid my lack of great english is standing in my way..
anyway Science isn\'t saying that its fake. It just can\'t explain these things yet..and thats what science is all about: explainning the unexplained.
There are loads of scienists who are saying it does exists, but just didn\'t got it figured it out yet.
about the topictitle...YES, i think one day we will be able to timetravel. ALthough it does sounds great, im afraid this will also be the ending of our life. (as we all know it will effect the future).
-
Science wrong?
I recall a well published mathmatical calculation showing it was impossible for a man to run a mile in less than 4 minutes......then Roger Bannister did it in 1954.
In 1799, Anthropologist Charles White in \'An Account of the Regular Gradation in Man, and in Different Animals and Vegetables\' tracked \'higher\' and \'lower\' life forms in humanoids. At the top was the \'Greek Ideal\', at the bottom.........Negroids.
Into the 18th century the \'unicorn\' was included in scientists classification of animals. It was grouped alongside horses, zebra and donkeys etc.
Piltdown man took 40 plus years to be exposed as a hoax.
I loved the quote from Arzosah \"If science is incorrect, it\'s because there has been an error in the logic. The error is fixed, and the new idea is correct. \"
By this reasoning I have never ever in my life being wrong. Ever. :D
rofl - that cracks me up!!
-
Oh and on time travel?
Wait and see.
(ps. I didnt actually write this today. I went back to yesterday and added this comment. The funny thing is that none of you can disprove it! :P )
-
Originally posted by 2old
Oh and on time travel?
Wait and see.
(ps. I didnt actually write this today. I went back to yesterday and added this comment. The funny thing is that none of you can disprove it! :P )
Yes, I can. It says you posted it today.
^_^
Plus, I didn\'t really post this yesterday... or DID I!?!?
*Twilight Zone theme plays*
-
Time does not really exist, it is just like measuring distances, it is impossible to have a plank of wood -2 meters long. Time is a measurement used to make explaining things easyer and such, not even traveling faster than the speed of light makes you travel back in time as some may believe.
But I dont want to get too carried away with this topic.
-
^^^^^^^^^
I agree, time doesn\'t exist.
It isn\'t stable, either.
-
Originally posted by 2old
Science wrong?
I recall a well published mathmatical calculation showing it was impossible for a man to run a mile in less than 4 minutes......then Roger Bannister did it in 1954.
Actually that publication was 200 years old at the time and when Roger Bannister did it, his legs were more than 9 inches longer than the common man the calculations were based for 200 years earlier. This would allow someone to travel at a much more rapid speed. :rolleyes:
-
i have wood -2 feet long: make a mark on the ground that is 0, then on each side make marks every foot, since our mathematical brains use common sense that to the left of 0 is negative, put the board to the left of the 0 marker! whoo... i am such ... an idiot
anyway time is a concept of man, therefor i believe it has no real connections to the universe and all that, and cant be travelled in, as a concept of man we stupidly follow what has been said for many years and believe there is actually time... HAH! ... so much stupider...
-
Ahahahahahahahahaha \"science\" XD oh man i just literaly have been bowed over.. time isn\'t by ANY stretch of the word one of the dimmentions *breath out heavily after that long and hard chuckle* oh man *wipes tear* time is mearly a perception man creates in the realm of his mind.. the true mind is like a radio tuner.. you could \"psionicly\" (by mentaly willing it) \"dial\" yourself into any point in \"reality\" by willing it really :/ time or space... if i knew how i could send myself from the middle of nowhere texas studying the \"mad sciences\" in 2005 to feudal japan fighting in the way of the sword in the early 1700\'s... if i knew how that is *sigh* or the astral plane studing ethereal science i can only dream of :D but alas no time to die and find about the after-realm.. i have much work here to do >:D (death to the neo-con NWO!!) in fin time is merely a perception to prevent the mind from overloading in this multi-verse.. all \"time\" is happing at once the civil war is happeing in the same \"time\" as now is just you are only perceiving now.. so time travel back and forth is mere childsplay once some basic things are learned by me (i am working on it.. if i can set of a basic vortex feel free to test it for me ;)).. or i can get in contact with time-space labs (speaking of which when the hell did this happen?! http://www.montaukproject.com/ )
-
science does allow for the displacement of an object a negative distance in time. although it does require some pretty odd ball arrangements of matter and energy.
-
Since someone else mentioned the astral plane (I wasn\'t gonna talk about it, but Foresteer mentioned it), I will clarify my belief in \"time\" travel. I believe you can visit anywhere in time via the astral plane. I also believe you can change the past. However, I also believe that each person is living in his or her own unique time strain. Thus, whatever that person does affects only his or her perception of reality.
-
guess i just spoke to the walls here... \"time\" is percetion.. like sight is.. what you see isn\'t what is really there the eyes cannot see hundreds of colors.. there could be somebody stading next to you and you could not be seeing them just because they are outside of your visual range!! \"science\' doesn\'t allow for true invisiblity (the ability to go unpercieved by everything) but they would literaly be invisible to you ;) just as time is.... the string theaory and all \"science\" needs to be thrown out as it includes time as a dimmention therefore the calculations are off.. (math only applies to THIS ONE LEVEL of the multi-verse.. it can\'t describe the whole of it as it either doesn\'t exsist or the math we know doesn\'t work on the other levels of the multiverse)
-
?_?
I aint no wall. If anything, I backed up what you were saying. My viewpoint is similar to yours; each person has his or her own reality.
-
if it doesn\'t apply let it fly n_n... those who missed what i was saying about scince not really being able to axplane anything more then the \"gods\" did to the ancients.. people need things to be in tight nice little easy to understand boxes... mainly \"scientists\" who rather never leave their little world of mathmatics and learn something new beacuse it would mean they in fact no nothing when they thought they knew everything.. \"reality\" is a mangled mess of facts and figures.. i have been going strong ten years and am more confused now then when i began O.o i know more but every answer leaves 10 question in its place! the more feveriously i work the more work there is to be done XD but i am happy in this feild.. i chose it after all and can\'t imagine doing anything besides albeit slowly and muddingfully learning the \"real\" \"reality\" (i just leanred that items could be made from the ether with just the sound waves of the human voice! (or just sound waves period.. resonance is a very powerful thing) one could literaly \"summon\" creatures or items if they knew the right audiophonic combonation!!)
-
Originally posted by Foresteer
one could literaly \"summon\" creatures or items if they knew the right audiophic combonation!!)
Heh, that\'s interesting. Kinda similar to what necromancers do... except not with spirits.
?_?
*goes outside and tries to find the right combination for a flamethrower*
-
hmm it would be a lower Hz for an inaniamte object and probably unhearable.. you would need a machine for that.. living things should be in the humans spectrum.. golems are supposedly every letter in the hebrew aleph-bet (like AB AC AD: BA BC BD etc. etc. i saw some text on golem summonry and the hebrew creation documents.. it says \"god\" dictated being the masters of all beasts man could also create new ones from the dirt which god created all life from by using the language \"god\" gave them) never gotten around to trying it though.. been to busy building holy hand grenades (a model of Or (orgone) generator to rend reality to tranverse dimmentions)
-
Originally posted by Kixie
Originally posted by 2old
Science wrong?
I recall a well published mathmatical calculation showing it was impossible for a man to run a mile in less than 4 minutes......then Roger Bannister did it in 1954.
Actually that publication was 200 years old at the time and when Roger Bannister did it, his legs were more than 9 inches longer than the common man the calculations were based for 200 years earlier. This would allow someone to travel at a much more rapid speed. :rolleyes:
But for 200 years Science was wrong wasnt it??????
Or part therof unless all ppls legs grew 9inches overnight...
-
Haaaa, what a laugh it is to hear people talk about \'time travel\' :D If time existed as we perceive it to, then we are all forever time traveling ;)
Of course time does not exist anymore than any of the things the human mind has created to handle reality.
Now, really getting more philisophical here but, no one can ever really prove anything. Think about it, the only \'proof\' we have is our senses and we do not know what is really there. Our senses only send messages to the brain which our brain interprets as it will.
-
Bleh, I heard a lot of discussions about 4th dimension.
Syzerian: Take a plank of wood, write \'0\' in the middle of it. Then write \'past\' on the left, \'future\' on the right. Then measure it. How can you get -2? :P
There are books about further dimensions. There are computer presentations of 4D objects (you know, like 3D objects on a scrap of paper).
Time travel would be possible just like normal walking, but only if we would be in 4D ourselves :P
- Swords
-
I think time is sorta a place.
Not sure where I read it but when you get sucked by a black hole it is belived that you get see the future for a second. How would this be? Not going through time, goining somwhere else.
-
Uhh when you get sucked into a black hole you are squelched into a ball about 2mm big. And you would probably have to travel 50 times the speed of light to have a sling shot effect take place but this is going off topic.
Heh I knew someone would bring up the 4th dimension. The 4th dimension is just an imaginary dimension based on illusions, but then again there are hundreds of versions of the 4th dimension so I may not be refering to the same version Draklar is talking about.
-
depends are we talking about dimentions as in hight width or legnth? (i doubt there are many of these dimmentions maybe 5 at the most but then again i am not going to say for sure as at any point somebody says something for sure they are open to be found wrong) or spacial dimmentions? there are many spacial dimmentions... as this is a multiverse
-
Woah...
But I thought...
Wasn\'t the multiverse a combination of all the universes? You know, a way to explain the existence of our universe, just like God is another explanation?
Or did I see your post incorrectly?
-
the multi verse is existence... we live in a universe technicaly.. but just like earth is a planet in the universe so our universe is a universe in the whole multiverse.. just like atoms or light move at different frequencies (red has its own frequency range just as blue does...) so does each universe in the multiverse certian vibrational ranges for each universe... and then there are quantum possiblities for each universe and for the multiverse as a whole.. not an explanation for exisitence but just a decsription of what existence is :/
-
Okay, thanks for the explanation ;-)
-
ahh no problem.. sometimes the whole mess confuses me too O.O
-
Science is evolutive, of course, human doesn\'t have all the tools to explain everything right now. That\'s the cool thing in evoluting: the next day, we\'ll know a bit more than the previous one until one question is solved.
Now, don\'t say \"eh witches or other occult things exist, they\'ll rule the world!\"
Can\'t you see it\'s a typical human creation to make people dream or fear... (that\'s used in lot of things).
Actually, the \"magic\" that have been tested in a lab has always been proven wrong (we would know since there\'s a large reward for true \"magic\")
Now some people have some special talent that science couldn\'t explain now, like some healer. But even in that case, it\'s more and more understable.
I think too the science can not see everything too. We can\'t explain everything since after all, we perhaps simply lack the sense to understand or measure something...
(no witch has been harmed in this post)
-
Originally posted by Noctis Lamnia
Originally posted by Arzosah
Oh, now that\'s funny :-P
1. Science has not been PROVEN wrong. Some people THINK science is wrong in these cases.
Telekinesis, magick (since you write it that way, I\'m assuming you believe in wicca... Read this: http://www.whywiccanssuck.com/) will eventually be explained by science.
I\'m assuming you know nothing about the occult. You don\'t need to have a religion to perform magick. Hell, I used to be Christian... kinda lost my faith, but, meh. I am NOT a wiccan. Witches are not all Wiccans, Wiccans are not all Witches. Wicca has been around for a looooooooong time, not just 1950, like that page says.
Right now, I don\'t wear a pentagram around my neck. I will soon, however, and that guy\'s whole argument about the pentagram is stupid. There are MANY meanings to the pentagram. The one I believe in is God ruling over earth and hell. Grimiors, Familiars... that guy should not joke about those things.
They are both real and incredibly powerful. Familiars are usually provided by a spirit, however, and so a random animal isn\'t a Familiar.
I could go on and on about that page, but I don\'t feel like it. Good argument against magick? I think NOT. I can rebuke every single thing that guy says.
EDIT: Alright, ya know what? I SERIOUSLY hate that page, and I\'m not even Wiccan! That page goes against everything I stand for, and sounds like some angry Christian ranting.
1. Wicca is not that old.
2. How strange that you hate that page. There are many correct things on there. I showed that page to a friend of mine, who\'s wiccan, and he said to me: \"I have a lot to think about now.\"
-
\"Magick\" and \"wicca\" are just very crappy ineffecient forms of psionics.. so much energy is wasted in ritual and such instead of pure energy generation most of it goes flying hap-hazardly in any witch *which lol* way not getting anything done... but anybody who purely believes ALL of wicca does have a LOT of things to think about (like why the heck did i even start doing this O.o?)
-
Originally posted by Djaggernaut
Now, don\'t say \"eh witches or other occult things exist, they\'ll rule the world!\"
Can\'t you see it\'s a typical human creation to make people dream or fear... (that\'s used in lot of things).
Actually, the \"magic\" that have been tested in a lab has always been proven wrong (we would know since there\'s a large reward for true \"magic\")
DO NOT get me started about that guy. On a forum I frequent, we hit somewhere around 400 posts arguing about that guy... it wasn\'t pretty.
The one thing we all agreed on was this: even if magick was somehow proven, the dude would say it was just a coincidence.
A COINCIDENCE.
Plus, he isn\'t even gonna pay. You have to pay to get down there and FULLY SUPPORT YOURSELF for AT LEAST a year or so for all the testing he wants done.
Don\'t talk about that guy anymore, please...
And, magick is real. If you\'re Christian, you have to believe in magick. If you believe in the Bible, you\'ll also have to believe in necromancy.
-
Originally posted by Foresteer
(i doubt there are many of these dimmentions maybe 5 at the most but then again i am not going to say for sure as at any point somebody says something for sure they are open to be found wrong)
Yep, from mathematical point of view there can be pretty much infinite number of dimensions. As well as fractional dimensions (fractals).
Originally posted by Djaggernaut
Actually, the \"magic\" that have been tested in a lab has always been proven wrong (we would know since there\'s a large reward for true \"magic\")
You mean that biased test with huge reward that pretty much is impossible to pass?
Bleh, I used to have dreams showing exactly what I\'d see in future. That\'s all proof I need for any \"paranormal\" activities :P
Scientists are often narrow minded. They sometimes come up with stuff that can be easily overthrown by simple non-scientific approach to things.
And what about science itself? Many people believe that science is the only way to go. Why? Because science tells them so.
Well they certainly won\'t become open minded by doing that...
Also children seem to experience more paranormal things than grown ups. Before they become sceptical and fill their minds with \"science\". Coincidence? I don\'t think so ;)
So I don\'t think science is the best (or only) way to look at time travel and so on...
- Swords
-
Originally posted by Noctis Lamnia
And, magick is real. If you\'re Christian, you have to believe in magick. If you believe in the Bible, you\'ll also have to believe in necromancy.
So, let\'s see... How many people in Belgium (well, I can\'t really speak for other countries, can I?) interpret the Bible literally?
Virtually none.
A priest told me last year the Bible shouldn\'t be interpreted literally. If even priests go that way...
Also, it seems like you really want to prove magick is real, but don\'t give any proof.
\"Magick is real.\"
Oh, now I believe you!
\"Magick is real. If you\'re Christian, you have to believe in magick.\"
Oh, now that\'s a convincing argument! Sorry about that, I should\'ve believed you in the first place!
I\'m not stating that magick doesn\'t exist, but you say it does, without giving ANY reasons.
-
well \"magick\" really doesn\'t exist.. there are no \"mother goddesses\" or \"father earths\" that need rituals done.. they base force they rely on while a very diluted for does basicaly work as the person belives it will.. same way prayer works.. it isn\'t GOD doing the prayer.. its the person who believed \"god\" would do it\'s belief that creates the energy to get the prayer done... if they don\'t believe then it won\'t happen.. that don\'t need to believe a god will do it.. they just need to believe it will happen
-
Emm, no true thoughts on this.. Ill just shrug and follow the rules in D20 future on dimensions and time traveling.. :D
-
Originally posted by Syzerian
Uhh when you get sucked into a black hole you are squelched into a ball about 2mm big. And you would probably have to travel 50 times the speed of light to have a sling shot effect take place but this is going off topic.
Heh I knew someone would bring up the 4th dimension. The 4th dimension is just an imaginary dimension based on illusions, but then again there are hundreds of versions of the 4th dimension so I may not be refering to the same version Draklar is talking about.
Actuall Einstein said time is the 4th dimension. And therefore you can move around it if you learn how. Just like a child learns to walk, they are learning to move in this dimension.
Now, if that means you can just do some weird thing and begin moving around time or that you can go around time with a machine....
-
ok little \"dimension\" words and such are just excuses for real explanations.
time isnt a physical thing you know. its just what goes on our clocks.
well im a LITTLE sceptical here.
-
Umm if time doesnt exist then we won\'t duh. thats worst explanation yet. A thing thats on your clock... jeez
If I can ever travle through tim Im gonna go to the 70\'s and jump in a van with some hippes and follow bands around on tours :)
That or become a pirate, arr
Or become a ninja, hmm what do ninjas say. NINJA! 8)
-
All I can say is that none of us will probably be alive when the answer is clear, so I don\'t think it is worth the time explaining why I think time travel is not possible. Besides, how many people have we seen from the future? Then again, they could also be invisible to aviod changing the past, so they are just watching us. o.o eep
There are just too many things as people that we don\'t know and cannot comprehend in order to find this out yet.
-
Why are you dicussion time travel? Just go to a very powerfull mage and ask very nicely for mage to cast the time travel spell. Even better become excellent friends and go travelling through time and space exploring the realm.
-
Wikipedia: Einstein\'s Special Theory of Relativity (and, by extension, the General Theory) very explicitly permits a kind of time dilation that would ordinarily be called time travel. The theory holds that, relative to a stationary observer, time appears to pass more slowly for faster-moving bodies: for example, a moving clock will appear to run slow; as a clock approaches the speed of light its hands will appear to nearly stop moving. However, this effect allows \"time travel\" only toward the future: only forward, never backward. It is not the most interesting kind, nor the kind typical of science fiction.
-
Originally posted by Olig
Besides, how many people have we seen from the future?
Heh, thats the funny thing, if people do say they are from the future they are called lunatics and ignored so as far as we know there could be hundreds of them.
-
time is really both perception (in as much as \"reality\" itsself is a perception) and science.. therefore one could either time travel by perceiving a differnet time or by means scientific.. take your pick really.. as is true of the multiverse there are serveral ways to do everything pick one and go for it already :D
-
Originally posted by Syzerian
Originally posted by Olig
Besides, how many people have we seen from the future?
Heh, thats the funny thing, if people do say they are from the future they are called lunatics and ignored so as far as we know there could be hundreds of them.
So THATS who\'s taking up so much traffic in our streets, jerks from the future watching us from the road in their honda civics! I always wondered why I see more cars than houses no matter where I went. :P
-
Science, always a beatiful subject to talk about. It is right? It is wrong?
I say both of them. Yea, it\'s complicated but that is the answer.
And as for these kind of things that guide our lives, think at math. A science of precision, on which most of what we have is based. What if something like math will be proved wrong?
I almost forgot, here\'s a litlte exercise for you kids ;)
1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3 = 1
But what if you actually do ->
(1 : 3) + (2 : 3) = ? ... is it still one? :rolleyes:
Hurray for the math ;)
-
Of course it\'s still one, what are you trying to prove?
-
Originally posted by Annah
Science, always a beatiful subject to talk about. It is right? It is wrong?
I say both of them. Yea, it\'s complicated but that is the answer.
And as for these kind of things that guide our lives, think at math. A science of precision, on which most of what we have is based. What if something like math will be proved wrong?
I almost forgot, here\'s a litlte exercise for you kids ;)
1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3 = 1
But what if you actually do ->
(1 : 3) + (2 : 3) = ? ... is it still one? :rolleyes:
Hurray for the math ;)
It is still 1...........
The only way it may be different is on calculators because 1 / 3 = .3 repeating and 2 / 3 = .6 repeating. Calculators do not and cannot have an infinite decimal place, so it has to round at some point, so to a calculator, 2 / 3 = .666666666666666666667. Its the same reason why calculations with PI on calculators are never truely precise.
-
Are you sure it\'s still one?
Actually, it\'s an undefined number that uses a period.
points to * 0.(9)
That isn\'t one mate :P
And I am trying to prove that nothing is so sure around ;)
* EDIT *
It will never be one mate :P
-
well i\'m no mathmatist so i can argue that one way or another... if anybody wants to get into time travel there are many books and once i can hunt down the buggers there is time space labs Inc. i recommend books though.. mainly montauk series if you want to go about with \"science\" if you want to go about it psionicaly try \"chronolgy\" or \"chronokinesis\" on the web... i prefer using both a little though.. by far the easist once you gat all that reading on them both done -.- (study in orgone and leylines is a must.. they are the only power sorce to power such a device tomy knowledge.. and for heavens sake build a purple plate!)
-
Originally posted by Annah
Are you sure it\'s still one?
Actually, it\'s an undefined number that uses a period.
points to * 0.(9)
That isn\'t one mate :P
And I am trying to prove that nothing is so sure around ;)
* EDIT *
It will never be one mate :P
I don\'t know what you\'re trying to say, to be honest ;-)
But let\'s see:
Originally posted by Annah
Science, always a beatiful subject to talk about. It is right? It is wrong?
I say both of them. Yea, it\'s complicated but that is the answer.
And as for these kind of things that guide our lives, think at math. A science of precision, on which most of what we have is based. What if something like math will be proved wrong?
I almost forgot, here\'s a litlte exercise for you kids ;)
1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3 = 1
But what if you actually do ->
(1 : 3) + (2 : 3) = ? ... is it still one? :rolleyes:
Hurray for the math ;)
1/3 = 0.33...
10*1/3 - 1/3 = 9/3 = 3
3.33... - 0.33... = 3
2/3 = 0.66...
10*2/3 - 2/3 = 18/3 = 6
6.66... - 0.66... = 6
So we have:
9*(1/3) = 3 and 9*(2/3) = 6
9*(1/3 + 2/3) = 9
1/3 + 2/3 = 1
Basic mathematics ;-)
I\'ve just proven you wrong :P
-
Originally posted by Annah
Are you sure it\'s still one?
Actually, it\'s an undefined number that uses a period.
points to * 0.(9)
That isn\'t one mate :P
0.(9)
let\'s have a closer look shall we?
x = 0.(9)
10x = 9.(9)
10 x - x = 9.(9) - 0.(9)
9x = 9
x = 1
therefore
0.(9) = 1
dum de dum :]
math class here, \"mate\" ;)
- Swords
-
Oh, I don\'t live in the US ;-) I didn\'t know what 0.(9) meant ;-) In Belgium, we just write 0.99...
Sigh! I did ALL that work while I could have done it in such a simple way? X(
-
therefore
0.(9) = 1
Actually, no. It will never be one, from the simple reason it is an undetermined number. And what I just showed is a basic example from philosohpy, that shows nothing is how we believe it to be ;)
And theoretically you can\'t do operations with that kind of numbers. What you\'ve just did are just approx. operations used in lower class grades.
Now really, don\'t argue with this 8)
And I can show you many many many more examples, like, that involves radicals, area of a triangle etc.
Just know that math is not a certain science how is supposed to be, and what you teach at school is nothing :P
And, like math ... there are other sciences. Like i said in my 1st post here, every science is \"right\" and \"wrong\" in the same time ;)
Arzosah, I don\'t live in US either. Romania here. But we still use period \" ( ) \". It\'s easier than to have 0.99999... :P
-
This comes from another member of this community, way more educated than me:
if i remember right 0.9 (with that funny line above it) is defined as 1, its an axiome
:P
Axioms are what math is built on, Annah :P
- Swords
-
Originally posted by Annah
therefore
0.(9) = 1
Actually, no. It will never be one, from the simple reason it is an undetermined number. And what I just showed is a basic example from philosohpy, that shows nothing is how we believe it to be ;)
And theoretically you can\'t do operations with that kind of numbers. What you\'ve just did are just approx. operations used in lower class grades.
Now really, don\'t argue with this 8)
Nonsense ;-)
0.99... = 1
Me and Draklar just proved it.
And saying you can\'t do operations with that kind of numbers is nonsense as well!
Now, show me those other ways you have to prove mathematics wrong.
You failed the first test, try again :P
-
math O.O MATH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! logical order at its very worst!!! its within the confines of only this dimmention.. not to metion i suck *** at it!! math is evil! *Runs in circles chanting something illegably about guppies and his shoe size* \"oh isn\'t that nice some nice men in white coats are here to help me with this math :D oh wow a special math skill jacket! can i put it on please?! oh boy we are going for a ride to the math institute! i can meet a doctor there!\"
seriosly i am very good at grasping everything.. except math.. which turns my mind into a slush of synoptic silly putty.. in baby speak \"special needs class\" type explanation whatever are ya\'ll talking about? (i ph34r math O.O)
-
yes, is taken to be one. but it\'s not! It will never be :P
It can\'t :)
* EDIT *
err, do you have any philosophers near by? If yes, go right away and they\'ll tell you exactly what I\'ve just said :P
And I won\'t stay to say the other ways. Mostly because I have to stay to think of some namings in English :D
-
I don\'t have a problem with philosophy, but stating things that are just bull faeces ( :P ) is not considered philosophy by me ;-)
(And by that, I mean: stating that 0.99... is not 1)
-
well as far as my math goes i can say for sure .99 doesn\'t equal one.. just like .99 doesn\'t equal .98 now what on earth is the relevence of .99?
-
Originally posted by Foresteer
well as far as my math goes i can say for sure .99 doesn\'t equal one.. just like .99 doesn\'t equal .98 now what on earth is the relevence of .99?
Check the previous page. Me and Arzosah proved that it equals it there :P
Also if some philosopher talks about math while neglecting axioms then at all means he shouldn\'t be taken seriously ;)
- Swords
-
and read my post about 3 posts before your post.. in it a state i am at pre-kindergarten at math :P.. therefore i didn\'t grasp a single word of that exchange XD and holy crap whats an axiom?
-
1/3 = 0.(3) (or 0.3 repeating, didnt know that until now)
2/3 = 0.(6)
1/3 + 2/3 = 1
0.(3) + 0.(6) logically must be equal to 1 no matter what your philosopher tells you. I\'ve already mentioned that these numbers cannot be properly calculated on calculators, because of their infinity, so their answer of 0.(9) is wrong.
There is no insanity to math. Move on. Nothing else to see here.
-
Oh man, how could I not notice that before :D
Originally posted by Annah
(1 : 3) + (2 : 3) = ? ... is it still one? :rolleyes:
Let\'s state the obvious:
1 : 3 = 1/3 = 0.(3)
well you pointed that out yourself, right Annah? ;)
And now the funny part.
If
0.(9) does not equal 1
then tell me in what way
0.(3) equals 1/3
0.(3) goes into infinity, never actually reaches 1/3. But it equals it. It is a must for your theory to be true.
Once more, let\'s use maths:
x = 0.(3)
10x = 3.(3)
10x - x = 3.(3) - 0.(3)
9x = 3
x = 1/3
therefore
0.(3) = 1/3
So what am I getting at?
You used the fact that 0.(9) = 1 to \"prove\" 0.(9) does not equal 1 :D
- Swords
-
Man, maybe you didn\'t understand what I wanted to say.
1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3 = 1 right? This if you work with fractions ...
But, if you do each operation, it will be a number with infinite decimals (0.999999999999999999999.....), a number that will never be 1, that is for sure.
You just can\'t work like you did to prove me, because you did it contrary than what I said ... you used approximations.
This is the most basic for of math imprecision, but used in complicated formulas, it fuc*s up most of them.
And it\'s not just me to say this, there were math. teachers that proved this as well (ok, with some more complicated ways, but though ...).
logically must be equal to 1 no matter what your philosopher tells you.
And what means \"logical\" Olig? Actually, it means what other said before you right? And if many are using it, then it\'s logical?
* EDIT *
Drak, we\'re both too stubborn, so I guess we\'re getting nowhere, because we\'ll keep supporting what we say.
So back to topic :P
Time Travel? Yes and no :D
-
Oh no annah, you won\'t get away from this one ;)
tell me exactly how you moved from
(1 : 3) + (2 : 3) to 0.(9)
If what you say is true then you couldn\'t do it by
(1 : 3) + (2 : 3) = 0.(3) + 0.(6) = 0.(9)
So what is the other way to do it? Please, show me ;)
- Swords
-
Oh, ok ...
I think I\'ve actually found something better :P
1/3 = 0.333333333333333333333333..... I mean 0.(3) right? That means an infinte number of decimals.
2/3 = 0.66666666666666666666666666666667 - that means a finite number.
You can\'t do an operation between the two of them :P
So, therfore you won\'t have an 1 not even if you jump from Empire State Building :P
* EDIT *
But, if you want to use approximations you\'ll have this:
0.99999999999999999999999999999967 - which is also a finite number, that will never be one as well :P
-
You still didn\'t explain where you got 0.(9) from :D
And 2/3 = 0.66666666(6) it\'s infinite :rolleyes:
1/9 = 0.(1)
3/9 = 0.(3)
6/9 = 0.(6)
8/9 = 0.(8)
9/9 = 0.(9) = 1
- Swords
-
9/9 = 0.(9) = 1
Wrong :P
And 2/3 it seems is a finite number. Take some calculators and make it :P
You can try even with the basic Windows one :P
* EDIT *
I\'ve already mentioned that these numbers cannot be properly calculated on calculators, because of their infinity, so their answer of 0.(9) is wrong.
Now I noticed ...
So, you say that if a calculator, let\'s say it will be able to do operations even with that \"infinity\" of the numbers, 0.(9) will suddenly turn to 1?
wooow :rolleyes: lol ^^
Man, the number IS correct, but it doesn\'t have enough display to show all your .xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx... :P
-
Originally posted by Annah
And 2/3 it seems is a finite number. Take some calculators and make it :P
You can try even with the basic Windows one :P
did you by any chance noticed that your calculator has finite space to display numbers so it can\'t display infinite numbers (rounding it up instead)? :P
Annah! answer where you got 0.(9) from already :D
- Swords
-
err yea, it\'s approximated. My bad :P
And as for that 0.(9) - I approx. as well. Otherwise, the operation cannot take place.
Even so, there is no one :P
-
Sorry, mathematics in english are not my cup of tea (although they are in french as i got 20+ hours per week - yeah it\'s crazy)
The decimal representation of a number is defined by
n = sum-k (ak * 10^-k) where ak is the k-digit.
This representation is not unique. An algorithm based on euclidian division by 10 gives a representation which is named \"propre\" in french (proper?) and is the representation we are most used with. Example: 1.
But there may be other representation called \"impropre\" (improper?).
for example sum-k (9 * 10^-k) = 9 * 1 / ( 1 - 1/10) (limit of a geometric sum)
so 9.9999... = sum-k (9 * 10^-k) = 10
-
Stop with the math stop with the math! *twitches*
Eh hee hee, math math math math math WHooo math! *runs oaway while taring his cloths off*
-
Well i dont like to read the whole thread so i give my two trias about it:
Well time probably doesnt exist in physics, but it does in biology and chemistry. think of nuclear collapse. Or the growing of organism.
Well I have heard of some experiments where they put sucha atomic clock thing into an aero plane and one on the ground. then they after the aeroplane landed the clock which was stationary (well I know that the earth cycles but the aero plane gets its speed added to this one), were before the other one.
If this is right we DO make time travels, the one who keeps on the ground travels into future from the point of the one in the plane and the one in the plane into the past from the point of the one who is on the ground. Think of the clocks.
-
Originally posted by Annah
err yea, it\'s approximated. My bad :P
And as for that 0.(9) - I approx. as well. Otherwise, the operation cannot take place.
Even so, there is no one :P
You just don\'t get it, do you?
You CAN calculate things using 0.(6) and 0.(3)
0.(9) is one.
Let\'s do that again.
TELL me the error in the following logic:
9*0.(9) = 10*0.(9) - 1*0.(9) = 9.(9) - 0.(9) = 9
So, 9*0.(9) = 9
1*0.(9) = 1
That\'s just the way it is.
You know it\'s right, but you won\'t agree to it.
That\'s called \'refusing to accept reality\'.
-
Well, even if the result is correct, i think Arzosah miss the real benchmark of the demonstration:
The question is not what 0.(9) is. It is if 0.(9) (the limit of sum-k (9 * 10^-k)) exists. Proof of its existence are:
- any geometric sum with step lower than 1 exists (here the step is 0.1)
- it is the sum of the two 0.(3) and 0.(6) sums (the sum of two infinite sums exists and is the sum of the limits)
- noticing that the partial sums can be written as 1 - 10^-n
Note: i hope at least one people will understand this post :/
-
Soooo, I am guessing that you all are trying to prove or disprove time travel by arguing whether one is one???
*Kwip trys to time travel by typing . then a bunch of nines, and he secedes, for the time is now 20:43 while when he started it was 20:40!!!*
-
Originally posted by Olig
1/3 = 0.(3) (or 0.3 repeating, didnt know that until now)
2/3 = 0.(6)
1/3 + 2/3 = 1
0.(3) + 0.(6) logically must be equal to 1 no matter what your philosopher tells you. I\'ve already mentioned that these numbers cannot be properly calculated on calculators, because of their infinity, so their answer of 0.(9) is wrong.
There is no insanity to math. Move on. Nothing else to see here.
well yeah using calculators i guess.. but ONLY on calculators (which are wacky anyway) is that an instece where \".9\" would equal one... outside of the box .9 is different from 1.00 and .98
also yeah what the hell does the meaning of the number one when dealing with thirds on only a CALCULATOR have to do traversing time? O.o
-
well i\'m not mathamatic\'s wiz frankly i don\'t understand any of it lol. but on the subject of time travel what i think is a logical theory. it is imposible to travel forward into your time because once you leave and go forward time for lack of a better word has recorded you as gone. so it would not be your future that you see because you have changed the future by leaving your present. and if you were able to come back to where you left the future would either change again or go back to the way it was when you first left. one example of this is what if you were to have a child after you went time traveling the future you would see is one without that child because you left before you had it then that child would not have children and so on and so on. thus your future would have changed drasticly. and that\'s my two cent\'s for what it\'s worth :D
-
ok ok.
time in not a physical thing and can not interact with physical things. it is a measurement just like a centermetre or kilogram.
*trying to not sound biased*...now seriously sit here an think weather or not you are really going to do this by writing down little numbers and doing maths and whatever \"1 is 1\" ect. Its not going to leap to life and take you into the future.
cheers
-
Originally posted by Foresteer
Originally posted by Olig
1/3 = 0.(3) (or 0.3 repeating, didnt know that until now)
2/3 = 0.(6)
1/3 + 2/3 = 1
0.(3) + 0.(6) logically must be equal to 1 no matter what your philosopher tells you. I\'ve already mentioned that these numbers cannot be properly calculated on calculators, because of their infinity, so their answer of 0.(9) is wrong.
There is no insanity to math. Move on. Nothing else to see here.
well yeah using calculators i guess.. but ONLY on calculators (which are wacky anyway) is that an instece where \".9\" would equal one... outside of the box .9 is different from 1.00 and .98
also yeah what the hell does the meaning of the number one when dealing with thirds on only a CALCULATOR have to do traversing time? O.o
Foresteer, I think you misunderstood ;-)
We\'re not talking about 0.99.
We\'re talking about 0.99... (aka: 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999...99999 - the 9-s go on forever)
And I dunno how we got to this.
I think somebody tried to prove mathematics was often wrong, by stating that 0.99... doesn\'t equal 1.
-
oh.. well in that case i guess 9.999 in that case would equal 1 i still fail to get the relevance to time travel :P but hayy anyway..
\"Hey guys look! i found something REALLY awsome! Its the threads topic! i think we should go to it right away :)\"
except... i have nothing else to say on time travel really :/ didn\'t we just totaly hash out the issue? until somebody reads something new or has another question i am pretty sure i have expelled all my knowledge on the topic :P