My brother claims he saw a hummingbird hovering outside his window. We live in Switzerland.

How can this dude get taken seriously?

I heard about that on Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory, but not in connection with time travel. Someone said that they were CIA assets, with Bush junior taught to govern from the right, and Obama from the left.

If time travel is possible and is going to be invented at some future date and the best use of it that they can think of is to brief our sorry presidents about future events... then we truly are ****ed.

I always thought if you went back in time you would likely end up in empty space. The problem is the earth is not in the same place it was in the past. For time travel to be useful not only must you travel back in time but you also have to travel spatially.

This thread will be moved to the outerlimits/debunking thread. Too bad I can't move it 100 years into the future and thus avoid all the present repercussions of its impact.

-Zeno

People smart enough to figure out time travel(if it is even possible) Will be smart enough to understand the consequences of sending someone back in time so really doubt it will ever happen.

Plus as stephen hawking showed in his tv show, Time travel into the past can create paradox's which is impossilbe. Such as someone traveling back in time and killing themselves. If someone travelled back in time to kill their former self, Then in the future they wouldnt be still alive to travel back in time and kill their former self so the paradox arises.

Just for your information:





This August 2011 image made available by NASA shows paths left by walking astronauts, single lines, and lunar buggy tracks, parallel lines, from the 1972 U.S. Apollo 17 moon mission. NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter made this and other photographs of lunar landing sites from 13 to 15 miles above the moon's surface. (AP Photo/NASA)



More information:


Link to full NASA report including additional photos:NASA Spacecraft Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo Landing Sites----

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...llo-sites.html


News Release from msnbc:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44411123/?GT1=43001



-Zeno

Sure it is, just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Good job sir!

Good job you, sir! I'm sure you would get noticed with that comment in RGT.

Are you going to claim that not participating in religion is religion in itself?

Misunderstanding, wasn't ironic. I actually meant what I said

got you !

I watched the two, but it didn't become obvious to me how the towers could be destroyed in the fashion they were. For example, wrt WTC7, NIST has reluctantly admitted free-fall for 2.25 seconds into their model after some people called it to their attention. David Chandler, high school physics teacher, claims that free-fall is literally proof of demolition.

His argument is that a mass in free-fall can do no 'work'.

How I paraphrase his argument is that while the building free-falls, it cannot be working/crushing anything as that would imply a loss of downward kinetic energy. Free-fall implies that total kinetic energy is loose, meaning the supporting mass must have been removed by some other source, as the mass being crushed, while maintaining free-fall acceleration, would be an impossibility.

Thoughts on the argument that free-fall implies demolition?

Here is the most recent collection of thought from engineers/scientists on the collapse of the buildings, filmed earlier this year, released this past weekend:

A big part of the debris falls free during that process. The rest knocks downward, giving kicks to the underlying construction material, fastening their descent. Only a small part of that energy is needed to destroy the construction.

Yeah, it's not that hard to calculate the force needed to crush the building materials below and then calculate the decelleration of the 'top' mass to see if it will appreciably affect the velocity.

Instead we get handwaving and the word of a high school physics teacher (LOL).

I'm not in the habit of believing the word of ANYONE when it comes to scientific arguments, but a high school physics teacher is not going to be anywhere the top of the list of those whose words I'd automatically believe.

Free-fall implies no crushing, or there would be deceleration, which isn't free-fall. There was free-fall, which is the issue raised, so deceleration is beside the point. The issue is the implications of free-fall in WTC7. Does it imply demolition or not? Why/why not?

His 'handwaving' comes in a form of a coherent argument. Plz destroy it, not him.

You make a habit of believing SOME people automatically, and have a list of those people, but high school physics teachers are not anywhere near the top of that list, and you don't make a habit of believing anyone NOT on your list.

No. He said that if he had such a list, high school teachers wouldn't be at the top.

Error bars? Are you just close to free fall? How far off would you expect to be? Could you measure that? Those are important questions to answer but all we get is the hand waving.

And you didn't read what I wrote correctly. I don't automatically believe anyone, but if I did, a high school physics teacher would be about the last...

Booo, I saw that some tv channel was showing "Loose Change" yesterday. I hate that more, not-so-physics-savvy people were exposed to such garbage. Unless the refutations were aired immediately following, but I doubt that.

DIAGRAM OF THE TEN OCTAVE CYCLE OF INTEGRATING AND DISINTEGRATING LIGHT UNITS INTO ATOMIC SYSTEMS CALLED "ELEMENTS OF MATTER"



discuss

Not even wrong?

fyp

Wish this could be about the 10 octave cycle of whining in ATF after a 100 point infraction.

1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89......

I think this expression is appropriate here: "WTF is this ****?"

But maybe not, don't want an answer.