Time Travel question

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Or pretty much any physicist and not some guy behind his computer who thinks he knows the ins and outs of science based on personal philosophy combined with something he might have read on the internet.

Really? Lots of physicists out there believe in time travel, huh? :lol

ShadowX81 said:
Guess what, part of living anywhere is paying for government programs or ideologies which you may not endorse. It just goes with being a citizen.

teaparty4.jpg


ShadowX81 said:
Says the guy that can't even scientifically explain why it wont work.

Says the guy who can't explain why it would, and who is not cogent enough in the laws of logic to grasp that the onus of proof belongs to the one making the claim. But that's academic, isn't it? You don't even understand the the simple logic of past, present and future.

Would you like me to explain them again?

ShadowX81 said:
Government funded science is the the most salient example of why fascism is evil? I guess the wide class gap, rampant corruption, and tendency towards genocide must be secondary problems.

No, Nazism is the most salient example of why fascism is evil. Government funding of things that governments deem important, through the confiscation of citizens' property is the salient feature of fascistic governance. The other evils are consequences of those predations, and of the consent given by people who prefer to not make waves.

ShadowX81 said:
Its a defining characteristic of pretty much every government on earth, bub.

Well yes, you people are like cockroaches.

ShadowX81 said:
Guess what, everywhere that has a state run university has someone doing some research somewhere. Learn to deal with it because its never going to change.

Roaches is what roaches does.

ShadowX81 said:
Whats your point?

Government roads are about as valuable as government cheese. I'll go one further and say that government science is worth as much, if not less. You can give them credit for all of the things they've managed to contribute to over the years, except that they did it with money stolen from the private sector; money which employed by those it actually belonged to would have produced far more, in less time, and of greater quality. That's speculation, but it's based on the assumption that businesses don't invest unless they expect a profit, and since it's their money, they are motivated by the fact that they have something to lose. Those are basic biological parameters that governments are not beholden to, and it shows.

Not that they care. They'll just keep taking, as you made clear.

ShadowX81 said:
Unless you are a citizen of CT, you didn't pay crap.

I can't stand up for the people of Connecticut who were fleeced to pay for this garbage? They came for my neighbor, and I said nothing, etc.

ShadowX81 said:
But if you are and it it makes you feel better, im sure that your congressman will be more than willing to refund you the .02 cents of your money that was put towards this program.

Do you have this attitude towards all of the pennies that your state leeches out of it's producers? How neighborly of you.
 
My quality of life is pretty optimum, but assuming you're right, who exactly is the arbiter of that? Who are you to declare what is optimum? By what standard? Paleolithic? How many acres and how many mules would you let us have?

First of all, optimum quality of life is determined by the application of the Hippocratic oath. First, do no harm. That means no pollution. No air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, ect. Food must be free of synthetic chemical residues. Food must be readily available and fresh, locally grown. Housing must be sturdy and non toxic. The health of the environment must be safe and not negatively affected by anything man does in any way that cannot be completely reversed in a day.

People need to have the freedom to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't come at the expense of someone else's quality of life in any way. First come, first served.
Basically, anything that can be done within that framework that allows people the most ability to create, learn,explore, and grow as people as much as their hearts desire is allowed and encouraged.

This is the only objective standard, because otherwise, people say things like: well, even though there is this pollution or this problem caused by this over here, what I get from it is worth it, even though other people might not like it because that "benefit" I get from it doesn't interest them.
No profit is worth pollution. No "joy" of one is worth the suffering of another who came before.

I am tired so I won't go further for now.
 
There is a lot of evidence to support the fact that several billions of people have had their quality of life, as well as the length of it, grossly benefit from 'pollution'. Are you saying that if one person is harmed by it, then they do not have the right?
 
There is a lot of evidence to support the fact that several billions of people have had their quality of life, as well as the length of it, grossly benefit from 'pollution'. Are you saying that if one person is harmed by it, then they do not have the right?

Pollution shortens lifespan. Sometimes there is a difference between merely BELIEVING you have a better quality of life, and actually having one. I was talking about an objective standard, rather than a subjective standard. If one person is harmed by it, it proves that is is a reduction in quality of life and that any greater quality of life from it is an illusion. It is a placebo at best.
You can increase quality of life without causing pollution, but it requires more intelligence.
 
I cut out all your crap about government funding and duties of a citizen because that is a completely separate debate entirely. And you don't seem to get some basic fundamentals of democracy, taxes, and citizenship.


Really? Lots of physicists out there believe in time travel, huh? :lol

Yes, they do. Pretty much all of them agree it is possible.

Says the guy who can't explain why it would, and who is not cogent enough in the laws of logic to grasp that the onus of proof belongs to the one making the claim. But that's academic, isn't it? You don't even understand the the simple logic of past, present and future.

Because there is nothing simple about "past, present, and future". Time and the way we perceive it is entirely more complex than a linear constant at a fixed rate.

My claim is not that time travel is possible, but rather that neither you or I is smart enough to know. Neither of us are scientists let alone quantum physicists.

But those that are say it is possible. So if you would really like to call them quacks or shoot down their theories, that burdon of proof rests entirely on you; the person without any scientific credentials.

Would you like me to explain them again?.
Naw, your last explanation didn't contain any science in it. I doubt you reposting it would change anything.


The stupidity that emanates from these forums never ceases to amaze me. :slap
Tell me about it.
 
Time travel is impossible. Well, at least travelling back "in time".
 
Back
Top