<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Donovan et. al.<BR>
<BR>
You are changing the terms of this argument to argue against an argument I never made. Changing the terms of a debate, as you are doing, is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Let's start over. This will be my final post to answer your objections to my original post on time dilation, partly because I don't think there is much point in debating with someone who does not believe in "verified scientific facts." <BR>
<BR>
Below is my original post on the subject of time dilation. I never said any theory is "proved" in this post. The word "proved" or "proof" is never used. I merely pointed out that there has been empirical validation of the equation of time dilation from Relativity. This empirical validation is a fact. Therefore we have already witnessed time dilation in fact.<BR>
<BR>
Continue to read down till you find your response, and I will again answer your response.<BR>
<BR>
Subj: <B>[Vision2020] Time Travel To The Future is Real </B> <BR>
Date: 5/6/2005 7:17:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time <BR>
From: <A HREF="mailto:tbertruss@aol.com">tbertruss@aol.com</A> <BR>
To: <A HREF="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A>, <A HREF="mailto:whayman@adelphia.net">whayman@adelphia.net</A>, <A HREF="mailto:predator75@moscow.com">predator75@moscow.com</A>, <A HREF="mailto:dgray@uidaho.edu">dgray@uidaho.edu</A> <BR>
CC: <A HREF="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> <BR>
<I>Sent from the Internet (Details)</I> <BR>
<BR>
Donovan et. al.<BR>
<BR>
You are right Debbie, despite what I took to be your sarcasm: Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a lot of fun to talk about. <BR>
<BR>
Donovan, time travel is not just a possibility, but a verified scientific fact. According to the time dilation equation from Relativity, if you travel fast enough for long enough relative to another object that you left behind in your journey, let's say the Earth, you can return to the Earth and in effect have traveled into the Earth's future. If you blast off on a spaceship with a clock that is set to exactly the same time as a duplicate clock on Earth, when both clocks function perfectly, and travel very fast for long enough, if you return to Earth the two clocks will read different times. They both are correct. But each clock was functioning in a different area of space/time. A human who left behind their identical twin on Earth to travel in a very fast spaceship for a number of years will return to Earth to find their twin much older than they are, assuming both twins age at the same rate. Just ! like the clocks kept time perfectly, both twins were aging at the same rate, but were living in different space/time areas.<BR>
<BR>
A spaceship can thus become a time traveling machine to travel into the future. If our species survives for another millennia or two, we may send ships to nearby star systems. The occupants, even if the ship is multi generational, will know that when they return they will view an Earth that is far further into Earth's future that they would have been able to view had they remained on Earth, or had been born on earth, instead of on a starship.<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Subj: <B>"verified scientific fact"? No such thing Ted </B> <BR>
Date: 5/6/2005 7:56:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time <BR>
From: <A HREF="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</A> <BR>
To: <A HREF="mailto:tbertruss@aol.com">tbertruss@aol.com</A>, <A HREF="mailto:whayman@adelphia.net">whayman@adelphia.net</A>, <A HREF="mailto:predator75@moscow.com">predator75@moscow.com</A>, <A HREF="mailto:dgray@uidaho.edu">dgray@uidaho.edu</A> <BR>
CC: <A HREF="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> <BR>
<I>Sent from the Internet (Details)</I> <BR>
<BR>
Ted,<BR>
<BR>
You write, "time travel is not just a possibility, but<BR>
a verified scientific fact."<BR>
<BR>
There is no such thing as a verified scientific fact.<BR>
In science, only evidence of a theory can be<BR>
presented. In science the Theory of Gravity is still<BR>
just a theory. Although evidence is very high it is<BR>
true, it is not, nor will it ever be verifiable<BR>
scientific fact. Somebody could come along and<BR>
demonstrate that gravity is far more complex than we<BR>
perceive it to be. You could also state that nobody<BR>
has successfully proved the Theory of Gravity as<BR>
false, but you can never prove it to be fact according<BR>
to science. <BR>
<BR>
The "Theory of Relativity" Is only theory, not<BR>
verifiable fact. <BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Donovan, your second and third sentences in the post above are a blatant contradiction of each other, and the second sentence is false in regard to the facts. The second sentence is false, because there is "verified scientific fact." And the two sentences contradict each other, because if "evidence of a theory" can be presented, what is that if not "verified scientific fact," though you had just stated there is no such thing.<BR>
<BR>
I was discussing time dilation from Relativity, and at the end of your response to my post, which was only offering a simple version of what modern physics has already verified in fact, you introduce a suggestion about the theory of gravity not being a fact, but only a theory.<BR>
<BR>
As a matter of fact, the theory of gravity, all the differing theories of gravity, are facts. Human beings thought of and wrote the theories down, so they are facts of our world. But of course this is not what you meant. But I do want to be dragged into a debate on epistemology and theory of knowledge over whether theories of science can be ultimately proved to be "facts" or not.<BR>
<BR>
What do you think a "verified scientific fact" is? And how do you know that, as you wrote, "In science the Theory of Gravity is still just a theory. Although evidence is very high it is true, it is not, nor will it ever be verifiable scientific fact." Are you playing God here? "Nor will it ever be verifiable scientific fact" is a statement invoking your perfect knowledge of all future for all eternity. Hmmmmm.... Wow, quite a statement from a skeptic on scientific theory!<BR>
<BR>
We need to back up and explore what a "verified scientific fact" is first, before we slide down the slippery slope of endless tangents involving numerous complex issues in epistemology and theory of knowledge.<BR>
<BR>
When we have two perfectly functioning clocks that show different times after they are subjected to differing speeds and positions in space, this is a "verified scientific fact," scientific because of the care and precision and double and triple checking of the apparatus and the precise descriptions of the conditions of the experiment so that other scientists can duplicate the experiment to verify if the results are correct or not.<BR>
<BR>
You are wasting my time if you think I am not aware of the theoretical difficulties and troubling assumptions involved in this process. But it is how science proceeds.<BR>
<BR>
If you want to believe that time dilation from Relativity is not a "verified scientific fact," go ahead!<BR>
<BR>
As a matter of fact, it is a "verified scientific fact." As a matter of fact, there are "verified scientific facts" by the millions. They exist, they are facts, and your statement that there is "no such thing" as a "verified scientific fact" is false.<BR>
<BR>
Of course, given that there are numerous theoretical problems with the ideas of theory, fact, proof and evidence, and that God might resemble Descartes all powerful evil deceiver, anything is possible. There are theoretical problems with proving that we are all real, and not just events inside some unimaginably advanced living neural processor supercomputer on a planet in some other galaxy.<BR>
<BR>
Can you prove otherwise? Just don't use any "verified scientific facts." They don't exist. Just ask Donovan!<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>