But....

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #251,465 by broomberg 4/9/06 6:49:21 PM Reply	But.... If a time traveler from the distant future travels to the timeframe specified within the article, wouldn't that satisfy the prediction?
Post #251,466 by drewk 4/9/06 7:04:46 PM Reply	That'll work, but kind of hard to perform that experiment === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #251,471 by Another Scott 4/9/06 8:01:19 PM Reply	It's been done. [link\|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12208638/\|MSNBC] via [link\|http://www.theinquirer.net/\|The Inquirer]: Chiropractor claims to travel through time Updated: 4:16 p.m. ET April 7, 2006 COLUMBUS, Ohio - A chiropractor who claims he can treat anyone by reaching back in time to when an injury occurred has attracted the attention of state regulators. The Ohio State Chiropractic Board, in a notice of hearing, has accused James Burda of Athens of being "unable to practice chiropractic according to acceptable and prevailing standards of care due to mental illness, specifically, Delusional Disorder, Grandiose Type." Burda denied that he is mentally ill. He said he possesses a skill he discovered by accident while driving six years ago. [...] Cheers, Scott.

time and space story - (boxley) - (26) - April 6, 2006, 12:04:14 PM EDT

No reason to think you can go backwards - (drewk) - (25) - April 6, 2006, 12:20:35 PM EDT

General relativity allows backwards time travel - (ben_tilly) - (24) - April 7, 2006, 03:12:00 AM EDT

The article addressed that - (drewk) - (23) - April 7, 2006, 03:35:23 AM EDT

Point missed - (ben_tilly) - (22) - April 7, 2006, 11:32:03 AM EDT

Your faith is touching - (drewk) - (21) - April 7, 2006, 11:47:11 AM EDT

The point still stands - (ben_tilly) - (20) - April 7, 2006, 01:01:35 PM EDT

We just place the bar at different points - (drewk) - (19) - April 7, 2006, 01:15:24 PM EDT

You were criticizing general relativity, not string theory - (ben_tilly) - (18) - April 8, 2006, 12:21:14 PM EDT

We have measured the distance to over 8000 stars: Parallax. - (Another Scott) - (1) - April 8, 2006, 12:50:08 PM EDT

But only indirectly - (ben_tilly) - April 8, 2006, 03:03:09 PM EDT

Show me where I did that? - (drewk) - (15) - April 8, 2006, 03:45:44 PM EDT

OK... - (ben_tilly) - (14) - April 8, 2006, 05:59:22 PM EDT

Like I said, we just set the bar at different levels - (drewk) - (13) - April 8, 2006, 07:00:03 PM EDT

Yet you believe that stars are lighted by fusion and... - (ben_tilly) - (12) - April 8, 2006, 11:08:06 PM EDT

Now you're telling me what I believe? - (drewk) - (11) - April 9, 2006, 11:54:54 AM EDT

And I was right, too! - (ben_tilly) - (10) - April 9, 2006, 02:33:05 PM EDT

I'll simplify - (drewk) - (9) - April 9, 2006, 03:39:14 PM EDT

I'll complexify - (ben_tilly) - (8) - April 9, 2006, 03:48:23 PM EDT

I'll simplify some more - (drewk) - (7) - April 9, 2006, 04:00:01 PM EDT

I have to read the article to disagree with you? why? -NT - (boxley) - (1) - April 9, 2006, 06:28:40 PM EDT

The specific disagreement he made, yes - (drewk) - April 9, 2006, 06:39:44 PM EDT

But.... - (broomberg) - (2) - April 9, 2006, 06:49:21 PM EDT

That'll work, but kind of hard to *perform* that experiment -NT - (drewk) - (1) - April 9, 2006, 07:04:46 PM EDT

It's been done. - (Another Scott) - April 9, 2006, 08:01:19 PM EDT

This is getting silly - (ben_tilly) - April 10, 2006, 12:03:10 AM EDT

Still, in Bertie's words - - (Ashton) - April 10, 2006, 05:49:36 AM EDT

How?
48 ms