Time Travel - Possibility and Speculation

[elibol]

thats nice man, but a couple of questions...

Originally posted by tanus5
The theory was based on a particle view of the universe, but now I'm starting to believe that the physical universe may be made up of standing waves. Combining my previous theory with a standing wave model, to travel backwards in time you would only need to stand in the path of the waves traveling backwards in time.

first you need to explain why you think the world is made up of waves... or which standing wave model you are using in this example+ what implementations of this model prove your theory correct.

so, how do u get the waves to start going backwards in time?
if/when this happened, wouldn't they just disappear from your timeline? having no effect on you whatsoever? how do they know to carry you back in time with them?

Originally posted by tanus5
These waves would have to be of the correct frequency to interact with the waves that make up your body in such a way as to create movement backwards in time.

hmm, waves are not the only thing that make up my body, what would happen to my particles?

Originally posted by tanus5
A simple model would be two high powered electro-magnets placed some distance appart. One would be activated at the time of departure, and the other would be activated at the time of arrival. The magnetic pull will need to be great enough to break the force which prevents particles from changing their direction of movement through time (time-velocity)..

electro-magnets wield the capability to change the direction of particles* movement through time? what prove of this is there?

and you've said particles... not waves... do electro magnets have any effect on waves?

Originally posted by tanus5
It would need to be pre-determined which waves were traveling forwards in time, and which waves would be traveling backwards in time..

what do you mean by this?

Originally posted by tanus5
If you were in the "future" and steped into the waves traveling forwards in time you would simply be bombarded by [particles<->standing waves] and not actually travel anywhere.

ok, technically like it was stated earlier, we are moving at a set velocity to the future, and i don't seem to be bombarded by anything... besides this, why would you be bombarded by these waves moving to the future?

Originally posted by tanus5
On the other hand if you were to stand in the path of waves traveling backwards in time they should carry you backwards in time..

these waves will carry me back in time? how exactly does that work?


thats about it, explain yourself =]

added afterwards:
all the stuff about how the universe spins and the necessity to overcome the speed in which the universe spins to go backwards in time seems a little far fetched to me. i am really uneducated but i think i am still capable of analysis regardless of my lack of knowledge...

wouldnt you be relative to the movement of the universe, just like every other movement in the universe? you cannot use traveling faster than however fast the universe spins, because i have not read anything that states this. when you go beyond the universe man, you don't know anything... if there is anything causing it to spin, than our definition of the universe must be changed, because we apparently live in a bigger universe than we formerly supposed...

though it is interesting to think if the universe does spin, if it had any implementations on gravity and the speed of c. maybe there is some linkage to be made huh?

stephen hawking speaks of theories on the universe being finite, but never ending at the same time. much like our planet is. we can walk the Earth forever in one direction, however, Earth as we know it now, is finite. his conclusion in this theory was that the universe could possibly be spherical as well, and would make the most sense... i couldn't think of it any other way. and i am being literal when i say that because it is impossible for me to imagine anything beyond my space-time.

you said:
"I immagine there would should be an anomaly traveling from one of the electromagnets to the other created by the electromagnetic field breaking the time barrier."

time barrier? huh? explain. and + the conclusions you came from this statement are really odd... i don't understand it.
you said:
"This would make the limit to backwards time travel equal to the time when the first portal was created."

now you may be on to something, that seems plausible, but your theory is full of holes man...

you said:
"One last comment about time travel. I have read many articles about time travel and there is one major feature most articles do not adjust for, our planet is rotating around the sun, and our sun is rotating around the galaxy, etc. . If time travel were possible some distance must also be traversed or else a time traveler, traveling forward in time, would end up floating in space where the Earth was at the time they initiated the time traversal."

very interesting, but this only holds true to your theory of time-travel. you would have to work that factor into your device somehow if it were every to be possible now...

any sound attempt to travel thru time would surely not be from our own planet, most theories are associated with the speed of c, which i doubt can be achieved in our atmosphere full of things to slow us down, like air.

i could be wrong. =]

you said:
" If it is possible to traverse time using strong electromagnets, how would you get an object to travel along the electromagnetic field which is traversing time?"

very big problem indeed...

 

[tanus5]

Originally posted by elibol

first you need to explain why you think the world is made up of waves... or which standing wave model you are using in this example+ what implementations of this model prove your theory correct.

Well, I'm not going to re-invent the wheel here. You can read about it at http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Particle-Wave-Duality-Paradox.htm

so, how do u get the waves to start going backwards in time?
if/when this happened, wouldn't they just disappear from your timeline? having no effect on you whatsoever? how do they know to carry you back in time with them?

Some good questions are raised here. In the wave model of the universe there would be some linear affect of waves through time which would affect matter close to the experiment. I've read of experiments where using superconductors and super-cooling some frequencies of electro-magnetic-radiation could be used to move matter that doesn't carry a charge.

hmm, waves are not the only thing that make up my body, what would happen to my particles?

Again, using the standing wave model of the universe, your body would only be made up of waves because all particles would be standing waves.

added afterwards:
all the stuff about how the universe spins and the necessity to overcome the speed in which the universe spins to go backwards in time seems a little far fetched to me.

When I say "spins" I'm talking about 4th dimensional spin. Time itself spinning, and the force created by this spin and the expansion of the universe. The proof that such forces must exist is evident by the fact that any spinning object will have an increaseed resistance to changes in the angular velocity of its axis. To show this in real life examine how a bicycle works. At rest a bicycle will tip over quickly, but in motion it will take more time to tip over. This is due to the forces created by the wheels spinning.

stephen hawking speaks of theories on the universe being finite, but never ending at the same time.

My theory about time itself spinning is based on a finite universe that is in series of expansion and contracting cycles which eventually create a loop. This theory of time spinning breaks down if for some reason the universe were to reach an "escape" velocity and never re-enter the contracting phaze of the cycle.

 

[Pergatory]

Originally posted by tanus5
When I say "spins" I'm talking about 4th dimensional spin. Time itself spinning, and the force created by this spin and the expansion of the universe. The proof that such forces must exist is evident by the fact that any spinning object will have an increaseed resistance to changes in the angular velocity of its axis. To show this in real life examine how a bicycle works. At rest a bicycle will tip over quickly, but in motion it will take more time to tip over. This is due to the forces created by the wheels spinning.



My theory about time itself spinning is based on a finite universe that is in series of expansion and contracting cycles which eventually create a loop. This theory of time spinning breaks down if for some reason the universe were to reach an "escape" velocity and never re-enter the contracting phaze of the cycle.

Doesn't spin require two dimensions? Also, I don't understand your link between the spin of time and the gyroscopic effect of spinning objects within the spatial dimensions. Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks! Interesting stuff.

 

[tanus5]

Originally posted by Pergatory
Doesn't spin require two dimensions? Also, I don't understand your link between the spin of time and the gyroscopic effect of spinning objects within the spatial dimensions. Could you please elaborate on that? Thanks! Interesting stuff.

Time would be spinning around a centralized point such that time as we know it would be an angle such that we could state in two dimensions a ray from any point in time to the point exactly 1/2 of a complete cycle of the universe away would be one dimension, and 1/4 of a complete cycle before and after the selected point would be the other dimension. The other gyroscopic force would be from the expansion and contraction of the universe. This is the part I expected a scientific dispute to and to be the greater of the forces needed to be overcome. The affects seen in the EPR experiement shows that all particles may in some way be connected to each other. If you had a wheel and some type of compression device moving rapidly from the center outwards and back again wouldn't that create a gyroscopic force?

Now that I think about gyroscopic forces and knowing that the universe is in motion with no known outside friction source it is fairly reasonable to assume our universe is spinning in that when the universe contracts it would spin faster, and when it expands it would spin slower. If this is the case than there would be an inverse relationship between the expansion of the universe and the amount of force required to break the time barrier.

 

[MentalManager]

My opinion. We face time travel every day. Sleeping is the easiest consepts of time travel. We go to sleep, time goes by, we don't notice it, we wake, new day has begun.

So if you want to travel time you should put yourself to sleep. At this point we don't have technology to put to sleep for hundreds of years, but when we achive it, we achive time travelling.

Well there is the theory of twins...but this is just too far from us.

Thats my opinion. Sorry for my bad english

 

[Tigron-X]

Time travel isn't possible but an illusion of it is because there is no such thing as a true paradox; only anomalies that we do not yet understand.

That said, time travel isn't possible because time isn't a real dynamic of existence. It is only a numeric value we assign to events so that we can have awareness and a frame of mind as we measure events for whatever reason or purpose. An event that happened is done and "reversing", as people say, an event is actually creating new events no matter how anyone folds space, speeds through space, inverts space, or whatever.

Such travel would allow a traveler to experience a domain that might resemble past experiences and the traveler can believe whether he/she is in the past by comparing the new experience to certain frames of mind in memory. He/she might believe that one is in the future if he/she begins to have new experiences when all along that person is only becoming more aware of existence as he/she travels through infinity where probability becomes only self relevant as the mind assesses the new event, even if it is an anomaly that leads you to a point in space that is reflective of one minute ago and you're ten steps behind what appears to be you. The future of one cannot be the past of the other because presently, it's only another event in existence that is seperately experienced; relativly speaking and on a whole because time isn't real. It is only a tool that provides awareness and frame of mind.

 

[AWolf]

Defining Time as the fourth dimension, creates a lot of confusion.
One current definition of our Universe is having 3+1 dimensions.
This is 3 real dimensions and 1 virtual dimension.

Our perception of Time allows us to talk about past,present and future as if they were directions.

The virtual dimension is just that, virtual, it doesn't actually exist.

The fact that relative time can slow down or speed up is due to what happens in the 3 main dimensions, not some manipulation of an additional dimension.

If Time was a real dimension then you would be able to move around in it relative to some reference point.
You could move forward 10 minutes, the question is would there be anybody there.
If you walk from your house, when you stop at the end of the street, your house remains where it was. Dimensionally it is now not in the same place as you.
So if you could walk forward or backward in Time, everybody else would remain in their original dimensional place, so like I said, would you be alone ?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by AWolf
The virtual dimension is just that, virtual, it doesn't actually exist.

The problem with that is that time most certainly does exist.

The fact that relative time can slow down or speed up is due to what happens in the 3 main dimensions, not some manipulation of an additional dimension.

Without time, there is no such thing as "speed."

If Time was a real dimension then you would be able to move around in it relative to some reference point.

You can. I got up at 7:30 this morning and have been moving forward through time since that reference point.

If you walk from your house, when you stop at the end of the street, your house remains where it was. Dimensionally it is now not in the same place as you.

Your house exists in a range of times, just like the street exists in a range of lengths.

So if you could walk forward or backward in Time, everybody else would remain in their original dimensional place, so like I said, would you be alone ?

[looks around] No.

 

[AWolf]

The problem with that is that time most certainly does exist.

But does it exist as a dimension ?

would you be alone ?
[looks around] No.

They've just kept up with you. You'll have to try walking through time faster than them.

I know this isn't the book review forum, but Stephen King's book The Langoliers had a similar thread where at the end, the passengers catch up with normal time and other people start appearing.

 

[Tigron-X]

You would be alone if you isolated yourself just like right now I'm alone at home and I will be 10 minutes later. I know no one is coming here until later on, and I can further isolate myself by not answering the door or picking up the phone or not talking to anyone online. I can project myself in the future through imagination based on relative known properties of nature, and I can do the same thing with the past. Western movies do it all the time and so do Sci-fi movies, but that's as far as "time" travel goes. The reason is because time isn't the fourth dimension, it's gravity; again, relatively speaking. We judge time relative to gravity and time remains constant as long as the law of gravity is applied and remains constant. But, then you have to consider the forces that creates gravity, and those have to remain constant for gravity to remain constant. I can go on forever with this. Relatively speaking,I can also go on forever as long as my relative gravity remains constant, but gravity doesn't actually remain constant; only the force that binds dimensional properties during a given relative moment remain constant and only during that quantum instant. Why else can you be live on tv while 10 minutes away from your house that has you on the tv and still all be in the same dimension with you and everyone thousands of miles away in different dimensions?

Someone already basically said it in here, but I don't think they really understood what they said or how to compile it into a frame of mind that is relative to his existence and our existence. Anyhow, the question is to show you how the illusion of time travel would work. You might think you're there, you might feel you're there, and you will be there, except it's a future of a past event that has not yet happened relative to you and it will remain within the parameters of the gravitational existence you would be encountering unless once again the relative gravitational constant is manipulated to a new desired result which can be done in many mathematical ways by applying the correct force which at some point in infinity must balance out to return you to your relative gravitational equilibrium to have your same relative form and same frame of mind or else you return to infinity in its many finite forms. Some might be similar forms, but genetically mutated. You might find yourself as a monkey, but how would you know if you couldn't conceive the notions of logic like you can now? That's just one of the many things that can happen while traveling space in such a manner.

There's a reason for the way things are. There's a congressional order to physical structures in its infinite combinations which is understood by using applicable laws of physics. We use and manipulate them everyday since we first discovered how to make fire. See, we can't change that order, but we can prolong it. :D It's a balanced equation away. You can go back through time and kill yourself a billion times over and laugh at it tomorrow as long as something doesn't happen to your relative equilibrium.

 

[AWolf]

We judge time relative to gravity and time remains constant as long as the law of gravity is applied and remains constant. But, then you have to consider the forces that creates gravity, and those have to remain constant for gravity to remain constant.

Doesn't SR deal with time dilation in the absence of gravity ?

 

[pallidin]

Interesting reading, to be sure.

Question: Since the "future" only exists as non-actualized reality, how then, could it be possible to "travel", "observe" or otherwise relate directly with it?

John has a time machine. He activates on July 4th, 2004 and "time travels" to the White House Oval Office on Dec 1, 2004 and observes the events.
Jill also has a time machine. She departs to the same location and time, but earlier, say May 4th, 2004, and similarly observes the events.
Back in their own real time, John and Jill get together on July 5th, compare notes and find the events to be identical in observation.
Dec. 1, 2004 comes around, and John and Jill are pleased to find their observations to be accurate.
Conclusion: Under this circumstance, future events are now proven to be pre-determined.

So, help me with this everyone. If future time travel is possible, than are not the events pre-determined?

 

[AWolf]

So, help me with this everyone. If future time travel is possible, than are not the events pre-determined?

What you would see is one version of events, because having observed them, you would have changed them.
Until John and Jill visited the Oval Office in the future, nobody knew who was President. Maybe they decided that their guy got in anyway, so decided not to vote. Their two non-votes could change the result, hence there could be a different future.
Maybe this comes down to Time-Lines. There are infinite possible futures, and if you kept making the same journey you would never see the same future.

By the way, you couldn't ask John and Jill who did win, I may want to put a bet on.

 

[Pergatory]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The problem with that is that time most certainly does exist.

Without time, there is no such thing as "speed."

You can. I got up at 7:30 this morning and have been moving forward through time since that reference point.

Your house exists in a range of times, just like the street exists in a range of lengths.

[looks around] No.

A street is a collection of molecules. While the street may exist on a range of lengths, each molecule that defines the street exists in only one location at a given moment.

I don't believe he was arguing that time did not occur, rather that it was a representation invented by humans. In other words, time is constant, you can't move around within it. It's not a dimension because it defines dimensions; a single entity (particle?) can only occupy one location in a dimension at a given time. (Current experiments have created the illusion that in some cases this is not true, but I'm willing to bet we will soon discover that it is always true.) Therefore, time cannot be a dimension, because just as you said, matter would then be able to exist in multiple positions throughout the dimension simultaneously, because time would change as the position in the time dimension changed. Assuming time is infinite, this creates a paradox of infinite energy. You can, however, alter your perception of time as to how fast is passes. I know I'm drawing several assumptions here, but it sounds like everyone agrees that altering perception of time is the only definite method for 'time travel.' (If it could even be considered that.)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by AWolf
They've just kept up with you. You'll have to try walking through time faster than them.

EVERY person already travels through their own personal timeline independent of everyone else's based on their altitude and speed. Looking through a telescope provides a glimpse into the past. The sort of time travel you describe already exists and does not work the way you are describing it.

So, help me with this everyone. If future time travel is possible, than are not the events pre-determined?

No. The scenario you describe does not conform with reality. Again, we are traveling through time right now. Watch your clock. That's time travel and its the only type of time travel that exists.

A street is a collection of molecules. While the street may exist on a range of lengths, each molecule that defines the street exists in only one location at a given moment.

No. A molecule is not a point. It takes up a finite amount of space.

Assuming time is infinite, this creates a paradox of infinite energy.

That does not follow logically.

 

[AWolf]

Here's an alternative definition of Time.
See if it fits the facts.

All matter consists of particulate energy. This energy is by no means static, but has a repeating cycle. which is governed by its environment.
The length of the cycle for each particle, within the same basic environment will be the same.
This cycle is the length of sequence and it will have duration. This sequence and duration is the basis for our determinination of Time.

Taking a single particle for examination.

If the particle is given velocity, kinetic energy is added, then the cycle now has to process the additional energy. The result is that the cycle has now been extended, and subsequently the time to complete one cycle.

Now place the particle in a gravity field. The warping of spacetime causes compression of both the particle and the space it occupies. The distance the energy has to travel to complete one cycle is now extended due to the increase in space. More space between two points will increase the distance between those two points.

Time is based on how long it takes our constituent particles to complete a single cycle.
This cycle is not the spin of a particle or any other property attributed to the system called particle, but the energy that comprises the particle.

 

[Tigron-X]

Originally posted by AWolf
Doesn't SR deal with time dilation in the absence of gravity ?

You mean light delusion? :P

I think you need to explain what you're asking a little more further because time dilation deals with many principles, such as the principles of diffraction or reflection, of course in reference to and/or concerning light, and if you even take into account different intensities of light, then you have a whole other ball game because the true speed of light is infinite until certain forces act on it and finite it to a relative median such as seen from the perspective of Earth when looking at a star or on Earth when looking into water. In other words, all we can do is calculate how long it takes for light to reach infinite speed as it passes through a certain median in retrospect to our gravitational equilibrium.

Anyhow, before I go any further with that, the true absence of gravity isn't possible, however a change in gravitational force on a certain object by a certain other object is possible. That force itself can even be at such an infinite value that it becomes finite by "ripping" space, so to speak; hence black holes and how they contain and absorb in all light and objects. I like to call them space pockets. Anyhow, in retrospect to Earth and our current technology, we push off from Earth's gravitational field and break through it in order to reach a certain balanced median that makes Earth's gravitational affect on our spaceships to approach zero. Of course, as long as Earth exists, then that gravitational force will remain present in space, and our astronauts have a home to come back to. Well, assuming they don't disburce into light as there bodies ignite into flames during that process because of some miscalculation of their relative equlibrium in comparison to Earth's equilibrium as they return. Scary way to travel space and through its many medians.

So, if you could elaborate on your question or ask it in another way or state an objection, then I might be able to give you a more specific answer or elaborate on what I said.

Thanks,

Tigron-X

 

[AWolf]

The reason is because time isn't the fourth dimension, it's gravity; again, relatively speaking. We judge time relative to gravity and time remains constant as long as the law of gravity is applied and remains constant. But, then you have to consider the forces that creates gravity, and those have to remain constant for gravity to remain constant.

So you are saying that Gravity is the Fourth dimension and Time is proportional to Gravity.
We determine time based on our proximately to a gravity well (our planet/solar system/galaxy) and our velocity relative to universal dead stop.


If it's true that Gravity is the cause of warping SpaceTime, then how can one dimension influence another. This would have to imply that the 3 primary dimensions are caused by gravity.
If matter exists in 3 dimensions, and gravity is proportional to mass, then how can the effect because the cause ?

So, if you could elaborate on your question or ask it in another way or state an objection, then I might be able to give you a more specific answer or elaborate on what I said.

Special Relativity deals with the velocity of an object in the absence of gravity. At any velocity an object's mass will increase in proportion to the velocity and time will also dilate at the same rate.
There is no mention of the Relativistic Mass producing any increase in gravitational force.
So, according to SR, Time is not Gravity.

then you have a whole other ball game because the true speed of light is infinite until certain forces act on it

In other words, all we can do is calculate how long it takes for light to reach infinite speed as it passes through a certain median in retrospect to our gravitational equilibrium.

You are saying that Light under goes acceleration, which would imply that the Speed of Light is not constant.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by AWolf
Here's an alternative definition of Time.
See if it fits the facts.

All matter consists of particulate energy. This energy is by no means static, but has a repeating cycle. which is governed by its environment.
The length of the cycle for each particle, within the same basic environment will be the same.
This cycle is the length of sequence and it will have duration. This sequence and duration is the basis for our determinination of Time.

Taking a single particle for examination.

If the particle is given velocity, kinetic energy is added, then the cycle now has to process the additional energy. The result is that the cycle has now been extended, and subsequently the time to complete one cycle.

Now place the particle in a gravity field. The warping of spacetime causes compression of both the particle and the space it occupies. The distance the energy has to travel to complete one cycle is now extended due to the increase in space. More space between two points will increase the distance between those two points.

Time is based on how long it takes our constituent particles to complete a single cycle.
This cycle is not the spin of a particle or any other property attributed to the system called particle, but the energy that comprises the particle.

I think to be capable to observe all of n-dimensioms , it is necessary to be in (n+1)–dimension.
My point about Time Cycles is here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1054

 

[AWolf]

Michael,

your Time Cycle thread mentions from the Atom upwards. Each object with its own Time Cycle.

What I proposed was more fundamental in that each object is made up out of particulate energy and it is these particles and the time taken to process their energy for one complete cycle that determines Time. The faster they cycle, the quicker the time that we experience.


With your thread, if you take a very long steel bar, you propose that the steel bar has its own time cycle.

If you were to stand the bar on its end here on Earth, the bottom of the bar would experience a different time measurement from the top. Doesn't this conflict with your time cycle ?

If you left the bar in place long enough, the atoms at the top of the bar would decay before those at the bottom. This would mean that your bar had varying time cycles along its length.

 

[Antonio Lao]

elibol,

Did someone already mentioned?? that it's not enough to be able to just travel forward or backward in time. We also need to travel forward or backward in space. These two degrees of freedom must be coordinated properly.

If we just travel forward in time, we will reach a place where the universe has not reached it yet during its expansion. So basically we travel outside the universe which is really impossible (possible only if ending up in another parallel universe). But if we synchronized our space travel with the expansion then we can still reach a point inside the universe by going forward in time.

Antonio

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by AWolf
Michael,
your Time Cycle thread mentions from the Atom upwards. Each object with its own Time Cycle.

From atom downwards too.
It means preservation of the frequency (energy) inherent at object ( a wave) too.

What I proposed was more fundamental in that each object is made up out of particulate energy and it is these particles and the time taken to process their energy for one complete cycle that determines Time. The faster they cycle, the quicker the time that we experience.

Energy and time is one thing.
We cannot experience the time of other object. We can observe changes of this object only.

With your thread, if you take a very long steel bar, you propose that the steel bar has its own time cycle.

Yes.

If you were to stand the bar on its end here on Earth, the bottom of the bar would experience a different time measurement from the top. Doesn't this conflict with your time cycle ?

No.

If you left the bar in place long enough, the atoms at the top of the bar would decay before those at the bottom. This would mean that your bar had varying time cycles along its length.

The alive lion and dead lion is a different things, though amount of atoms in them is identical.

 

[AWolf]

Michael,

if your proposed time cycle exists outside of conventional time, ie varying time dilation on the same object, then it would appear to have very little to with time.

Are you not talking about the life cycle, because if it was time, then it would have to have some reference to how we determine the measurement of time.

Energy and time is one thing.

If everything in the universe consists of differing quantities of energy or to put it simpler the Universe is Energy, then how can Energy/Universe be Time ?
The energy in the Universe is constant, so that would make time constant, which we know it isn't.

Surely it is what happens to the energy that determines time.

 

[Sariaht]

v/V

Speed of matter divided with volume.

Yes. You could call it time.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

We, as an inhabitants of 4-dimension world , can to observe 3-dimensional objects. We can travel in 3-d. To be capable to observe 4-dim. and to travel in the Time we should be inhabitants of 5-dim. Some of people have the such privilege. It is so clear.

 

[AWolf]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
to travel in the Time we should be inhabitants of 5-dim. Some of people have the such privilege.

Who ?

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by AWolf
Who ?

Nostradame, for example.

 

[neutroncount]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Nostradame, for example.

You mean the guy that made general, ubiquitous statements about the future that could in no way be proven other than through massive interpretation by numerous individuals that believed them to be many different events? Nostradame wasn't ever right, nor was he even a good guesser. It doesn't help that so many people make up predictions and blame them on Nostradame.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by neutroncount
You mean the guy that made general, ubiquitous statements about the future that could in no way be proven other than through massive interpretation by numerous individuals that believed them to be many different events? Nostradame wasn't ever right, nor was he even a good guesser. It doesn't help that so many people make up predictions and blame them on Nostradame.

You are wrong. He has made predictions which were carried out.
He has predicted Napoleon, the first and the second world wars, a nuclear bomb, flu, AIDS. He has predicted destruction of two giants in the eagles’ country also.
Is it not convincing?

 

[neutroncount]

Have you even READ any of those predictions? They are very ambiguous predictions. Something akin to "there will be trouble in a place called the middle of the earth". I could easily say that that was Iraq, or Afghanistan or the Palestinian Israeli war. Plus that last one wasn't even real. It was a hoax.

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-...date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/predict.htm

He wasn't real. He wasn't even a good guesser. You're wrong and aren't a real scientist if you believe that junk.