"I've come from the future... [Archive]

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 06:12 AM

...speaking, if you WERE by some freak circumstance, given the opportunity to glance over your future, as an opportunity to save you from your present course of events, how would you prove it?

Sure you'd say, by just telling people what is going to happen, and why, but isn't there an old Greek or Roman myth about a woman who comes from the future, but she is cursed to have no one believe her?

I heard this quote from a coming TV movie/series. A guy get the opportunity to travel back to high school, and do all the things he missed out on, and he decided to run for class office and be Mr. Cool. His opening line is, "I've come from the future to save us from ourselves!" And of course, the young idealist high school crowd errupts into applause.

Too bad, adults too often lose this idealist outlook, and more often choose the security of absolute skepticism. Even, when scientists provide real testable data that confirms that our future holds a Global Warming reality caused by OUR actions, and that IF we continue along this course BAD thigns will happen. Still, the adult skeptic in us demands more proof.

You say you have information about the future, and that I have to CHANGE my present course of actions to PREVENT certain danger...?

"Sorry, this window is closed, please pull forward and place your order at the next window, we're all grown up here."

And I think that is sad. Prophesy is not always an uncertain science. The most basic scientific concept is just this a 'theory'- that which explains a set of events or occurances, an then makes predictions as to future similar events.

Given that history tends to repeat itself...maybe someone with a vast knowledge of world history, could be trained in a manner that would allow them to easily predict the outcome of almost any event...?

:p

Soubrette

22nd July 2002, 06:19 AM

Do you mean Cassandra?

She was cursed, I think, to fortell the future and no one would believe her.

As far as I remember - she didn't come from the future though

Sou

Flatworm

22nd July 2002, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...speaking, if you WERE by some freak circumstance, given the opportunity to glance over your future, as an opportunity to save you from your present course of events, how would you prove it?

By making testable predictions that require knowledge of the future, and cannot be made as educated guesses based on today's data.

Sure you'd say, by just telling people what is going to happen, and why, but isn't there an old Greek or Roman myth about a woman who comes from the future, but she is cursed to have no one believe her?

Irrelevant. You can start complaining about this when you actually can make verifiable predictions.

Too bad, adults too often lose this idealist outlook, and more often choose the security of absolute skepticism.

I think you're overestimating most adults.

Even, when scientists provide real testable data that confirms that our future holds a Global Warming reality caused by OUR actions, and that IF we continue along this course BAD thigns will happen. Still, the adult skeptic in us demands more proof.

If the science is there, the science is there. Bring it forth- do you think that genuine science needs the prophecies of Albert James Knabe to lend it credibility?

You say you have information about the future, and that I have to CHANGE my present course of actions to PREVENT certain danger...?

"Sorry, this window is closed, please pull forward and place your order at the next window, we're all grown up here."

And I think that is sad. Prophesy is not always an uncertain science.

Not when it's based on sound science or commonplace observation, no. Of course, when someone sees a plane flying low towards a known airport with gear down and says "they're going to land soon", it's not called 'prophecy'.

This is not sad, this is necessary. If you don't believe me, take a tour of major cities in the U.S. and find out what the street crazies have to say about the future.

The most basic scientific concept is just this a 'theory'- that which explains a set of events or occurances, an then makes predictions as to future similar events.

So what's your theory? Can you, in fact, predict anything?

Given that history tends to repeat itself...maybe someone with a vast knowledge of world history, could be trained in a manner that would allow them to easily predict the outcome of almost any event...?

:p

Just curious, have you ever read Asimov's Foundation series?

BillyJoe

22nd July 2002, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Given that history tends to repeat itself...maybe someone with a vast knowledge of world history, could be trained in a manner that would allow them to easily predict the outcome of almost any event...?......and maybe this just isn't possible.

Think about it for a moment.
I'm sure you'll see reasons why.

Supercharts

22nd July 2002, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by LukeT

How could he be from the future if we didn't save ourselves the first time around?

:D :D :D

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 07:28 AM

... "Soubrette ", that WAS the woman I was thinking of, and moreover, shw WAS cursed and didn't come from the future persay, but her knowledge did.

"Flatworm", first and foremost, I would like to take the opportunity to offer you an ernest "Thank You" for your time, consideration, and rational responses to my work. Your responses are almost never personal attacks, and have been among the most challenging to answer. Given THAT, you are going to have to qualify a term for me, because I am not sure we agree on something. Exactly, what does this mean "making testable predictions that require knowledge of the future, and cannot be made as educated guesses based on today's data"...?

But, isn't one exactly the same as the other? I mean, I see and event, I note the outcome. Then I see a similar event, and I summize that IF process-A continues as it did before, then it will RESULT as it did before. I thought 'Prophesy' was foretelling the future by using one's collected knowledge and ability...?

Science's Failure is man's unwillingness to accept each other's findings in lou of their own. Science Succeeds when MEN work together to accurately predict and ACT upon their findings to move toward a more positive outcome.

*("Then again, how can ANY man truly know the weight of his own actions?")

You also use the term, "when you actually can make verifiable predictions".

Well, I say THAT is easy. Test me in any way you see fit.

You also offer up an absolute falacy when you gave the plane landing scenerio. Theorizing the plane would land, based upon your previous knowledge and experience, you summize that the plane SHOULD be landing. Now, if it were ME, I would take into account many more variables to include: whether or not i kNEW there was an airport nereby, if I had ever witnessed a similar landing from this angle, at this time, and if indeed the same kind of plane was landing.

I'd say that your scenerio was far too general to even be relivent in this discussion.

I haven't read Asmv., but I'll look for it on my next trip to the library. Can you give me any insight before-hand?

De_Bunk

22nd July 2002, 07:35 AM

Yeh i can time travel....trouble is i can only travel in the present...

Not much good really...is it...

De_Bunk

Furterfan

22nd July 2002, 07:47 AM

For his foundation trilogy, Asimov invented 'Psycho-history', a means whereby the empire's future course could be calculated by observing current and past trends.
It only worked for huge masses of people and it was, of course, Fiction.
The difference between 'prophesy' and "foretelling the future by using one's collected knowledge and ability" is simple if you consider the Lottery.
The Lottery numbers are decided by a random number generation device.

If you can give me next Saturday's winning lottery numbers (UK) I would consider this a result of Prophesy (I don't consider that you have the wit or guile to 'rig' them). This would be considered 'paranormal'

To postulate an outcome based on past observations may be clever, but it is not paranormal and (semantically speaking) may not even be considered 'foretelling the future'.

FF

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 08:03 AM

I am sorry, but you are wrong about the Lottery. It is NOT a 'random event', at all. And I know what you are thinking,...I am not going to suggest it is a conspiracy, wherein 'they' know whatich numbers are going to come up, and deliver the winning ticket to a pre-sellected winner.

However, what I WILL contend is that all of those balls are NOT equal in weight and form. In fact, I contend that given the more times you run any lottery with the same balls, the more accurate my 'predictions' will become.

Everything repeats itself, given enough time.

'Beating the Odds' quite badly would be easy, given enough resources.

Tricky

22nd July 2002, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I am sorry, but you are wrong about the Lottery. It is NOT a 'random event', at all. And I know what you are thinking,...I am not going to suggest it is a conspiracy, wherein 'they' know whatich numbers are going to come up, and deliver the winning ticket to a pre-sellected winner.

However, what I WILL contend is that all of those balls are NOT equal in weight and form. In fact, I contend that given the more times you run any lottery with the same balls, the more accurate my 'predictions' will become.

This is true, inasmuch as it is impossible to build a true random number generator (I have Stimpy's expertise to back me up on this), however the differences in ball size, shape and weight are so insignificant as to have negligible effect on the number selection. I also suspect they are replaced regularly, so discerning a long-term pattern is even more unlikely, unless you could also predict the behavior of the new equipment.

Originally posted by King of the Americas

Everything repeats itself, given enough time.

Even the "Big Bang"? I would have to say this is mere hypothesis on your part.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
'Beating the Odds' quite badly would be easy, given enough resources.
Well, there are lottery syndicates which pool their resources in return for smaller gains, and many use numerical analysis to select the numbers based on past results. Guess what. They are no more successful (proportionally) than anyone else.

Yes, given hundreds years and many millions of dollars to spend, and assuming no change in equipment, you might beat the odds of the average player. You would still lose money though, because the lottery takes a cut of all the proceeds. The game is designed to make money for its operators, and if it ever failed to do so, it would be changed. But you knew this.

headscratcher4

22nd July 2002, 08:38 AM

What's all this fuss about coming from the furniture? How can anyone come from the furniture? It is an inanimate object, for god's sake! Oh wait, you said "the future" --- Never mind....

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 08:43 AM

...State Lotteries make lots of money for themselves, and small fortunes for less than .01% of the general population. However, with enough wealth, it would be possible to secure more wins than losses.

The State would still make their money, but less 'common people' would win the lottery, or at least mor eof them would be forced to share the winnings...

The more 'varibles' and the more accurate those facts, the more accurate the predictions.

'Beating the Odds BADLY', would only be a matter of VERY detailed study of the entire lottery system and all of its working parts, IF such a thing would even be allowed...

Furterfan

22nd July 2002, 08:43 AM

I am sorry, but you are wrong about the Lottery. It is NOT a 'random event', at all. ..........However, what I WILL contend is that all of those balls are NOT equal in weight and form. In fact, I contend that given the more times you run any lottery with the same balls, the more accurate my 'predictions' will become. ....................'Beating the Odds' quite badly would be easy, given enough resources.

The balls are not equal in weight or form. - true, but only at a microscopic (and insignificant) level.
Will the balls change over time.- yes, they would all be subject to wear-and-tear.
IF the same balls were kept in use, would the differences become more significant. - No, not noticably. The gross wear-and-tear would affect all the balls (almost) equally and - although grossly worn) each ball would only have a microscopic (and insignificant) difference to the other balls.
Could you beat the odds "Quite badly - Define 'quite badly'. No, don't bother. The simple answer is, you could not.

Everything repeats itself, given enough time.
I suppose you're thinking of the 'Infinite monkeys typing Shakespeare' hypothesis.
In the real world, given finite resources, this is bollocks. Unless you're suggesting that the lottery balls have a memory...?

Anyway, if we can get away from the lottery for a moment, my comment still stands.
Giving the information which is output by a random generation device, may be considered prophesy. If you think you have this particular 'gift of prophesy', don't bother spending time on these boards, get yourself over to Las Vegas.
FF

CFLarsen

22nd July 2002, 08:53 AM

KOA,

It was Cassandra.

Cassandra was the daughter of King Priam of Troy. She had a love affair with Apollo, who in return for her favors gave her the gift of prophecy and the power of foreseeing the future. Since Cassandra didn't keep her side of the bargain, Apollo asked for a single kiss and breathing upon her, took from her the ability to make her prophecies sound convincing, so no one would believe her.

When she foresaw that the Trojan horse was a trick, nobody listened. She was later "assigned" to Agamemnon as part of the spoils of Troy. Both her and Agamemnon were killed by Aegistus, who was screwing Agamemnon's wife Clytemnestra at the time (Agamemnon himself had killed Clytemnestra's first husband, Tantalus).

For someone who is supposed to be well-versed in ancient myths, you are not making a very good impression.

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 09:00 AM

....would you find me in such a city.

Nor, will you find me with a lottery ticket in hand.

Using such 'system beating tools' would amount to cheating/lying under my personal belief system, and to NOT use such tools would be just like throwing 3 out of every 5 dollars in your pocket, out the window.

'Gambling' by nature is someone stealing money from someone else, and that is something I am just not interested in...

Tricky

22nd July 2002, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Using such 'system beating tools' would amount to cheating/lying under my personal belief system, and to NOT use such tools would be just like throwing 3 out of every 5 dollars in your pocket, out the window.

'Gambling' by nature is someone stealing money from someone else, and that is something I am just not interested in...
Perhaps your belief system prevents you from taking money in this way, but believe me there are plenty of people more clever than you or I who would not hesitate to do so. But observe that lotteries and casinos are still in business.

I don't gamble either, because my personal belief systems forbids me to give money to swindlers.

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 09:31 AM

...I am glad to see your search engine works.

:p

Oh, give me a break, it's Monday. I knew it was a chic who could foretell the future, but was cursed to have no one believe her. I would have guessed her name was Cass-something-or-other. Depending on the essay question, I could have easily scored better than 7 out of 10 points.:cool:

davidhorman

22nd July 2002, 09:36 AM

Using such 'system beating tools' would amount to cheating/lying under my personal belief system

It's a good job that absolutely everyone in the world thinks the same way, or the Lotteries would have gone down the pan a long time ago. Or, perhaps, the system is too chaotic to make any kind of prediction based on the initial position, did you think of that? In fact, funnily enough, it's designed that way.

Besides, we don't need you to win the money to convince us - just post your prediction here. And, if you think that might affect the outcome itself, well we've got that covered too, because you can encrypt your prediction, then only give us the key to decoding it after the draw.

'Gambling' by nature is someone stealing money from someone else

No, because if you win you are given the money.

The more 'varibles' and the more accurate those facts, the more accurate the predictions.

I suggest you read up on chaos theory (and perhaps a little Heisenberg).

David

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 09:46 AM

...NEITHER the time nor the inclination to partake in the kind of investigation it would take to achieve any such numerical success. We're not talking about putting all the 'previous winning numbers' in a hat and drawing out a few to generate winner, but rather an absolute scientific examination of the lottery system, and all of its working parts, ASWELL as a detialed review of the previous winning numbers.

Such a thing would take months, even years to perfect, AND it may not even be allowed by the gaming commision.

In so much, I must humbly decline your challenge.

davidhorman

22nd July 2002, 10:03 AM

I think you missed my point, which was that it simply can't be done. You could never know the initial variables accurately enough (and I won't even mention Heisenberg) to run an accurate simulation and thus determine which balls would be drawn.

Think about it - you would need to know, to essentially infinite accuracy, the following (and more):

(NB the following is based on the UK Lottery machines, but the same argument is still applicable)

a) the position of every ball inside it's "launch tube"
b) the exact position of the paddles at the time the balls are released (something you could NOT know until it happened)
c) the exact molecular structure of each ball - in order to determine how it collides with other balls
d) the exact shape and strength of the earth's gravitational field at the location of the machine

...

and so on.

David

De_Bunk

22nd July 2002, 10:12 AM

K.O.A....

Its funny...even though you're a bit insane...i cant help but read your posts....

You're an intelligent Kook / Troll...and thats unerving....

Why..Oh ..why....must i drink and get all sentimental....

You fruitcake...:D

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 10:16 AM

...and it is also 'technically impossible' to make a machine that flys...

What kind of ASSBACKWARD thinking is THAT!?!?

EVERYTHING is possible given unlimited resources. Are you ignorantly suggesting that man is somehow 'limited' in what he can see, understand, and record!?!?

I think you speak only for yourself.

:o

CFLarsen

22nd July 2002, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...I am glad to see your search engine works.
:p

Unlike you, I use other sources too. Try these, if you want to learn about greek mythology from other sources than dubious websites:

M. V. Seton-Williams: Greek Legends and Stories
Alexander S. Murray: Who's Who in Mythology
Thomas Bulfinch: The Golden Age of Myth & Legend
Sir James Frazer: The Golden Bough
H. A. Guerber: Greece And Rome
Michael Grant: Myths of The Greeks and Romans

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Oh, give me a break, it's Monday. I knew it was a chic who could foretell the future, but was cursed to have no one believe her. I would have guessed her name was Cass-something-or-other. Depending on the essay question, I could have easily scored better than 7 out of 10 points.:cool:

Cassandra wasn't cursed, she had her credibility taken away from her. A curse is something a mortal cast upon another mortal, invoking god-like powers. Deities have no need for this, they already have the power. The concept of curses does not exist in Greek mythology. Bad luck is solely the work and whims of the gods.

You "would have guessed her name was Cass-something-or-other"? You could easily have scored better than 7 out of 10? You sound like a bad psychic - or someone trying desperately to appear smarter and more knowledgable than he really is.

davidhorman

22nd July 2002, 10:24 AM

...and it is also 'technically impossible' to make a machine that flys...

I would love to see your references for that one.

Are you [ad-hom deleted] suggesting that man is somehow 'limited' in what he can see, understand, and record!?!?

Yes (http://thorin.adnc.com/~topquark/quantum/heisenbergmain.html).

Are you ignorantly suggesting that it would be possible to exactly (and I mean exactly) simulate a lottery draw and every variable that could affect it? To do so you would have to simulate pretty much the entire of reality (including your own simulation).

Once again, read up on chaos theory (although perhaps searching for "butterfly effect" would yield results nearer your understanding).

David

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 10:38 AM

...are you just pissed because I didn't give you the same kind of glowing report as I did "Flatworm"!?

Geez, you are awful harsh this morning. Okay, so you got me, I have NOT read any of those books you mentioned, and I only briefly remember 'a' story from either Greek or Roman mythology about a woman who's first name started with a "C" who could foretell the future, but that people didn't believe her. It is not like I claimed to be an 'expert' or even well-read in Greek & Roman Mythology...

Besides, naming the character and noting historical details was hardly the point of focus in my post.

Would you be willing to re-read the original post, and render a response to what is and is not 'prophesy'?

Furterfan

22nd July 2002, 10:43 AM

When someone starts off saying 'I can do' such-and-such, and then counters an argument by saying 'Everything is possible given unlimited resources' blah-di-blah. What kind of logical fallacy would you call that?
FF

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 10:47 AM

*hits chest twice*-"I feel Ya Bra!"

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 10:57 AM

Hold the slinging and sightation of assigning the term logical fallacy at My Work, kind sir.

If I can show you 'on paper' how I can build a craft that could propel man into the stars, you can't just write off the possibility simply because it would require more capital than any sum every imagined!

Well, actually that's just about what you did by submitting that "I can do' such-and-such, and then counters an argument by saying 'Everything is possible given unlimited resources' blah-di-blah" is a false assumption.

Give me a goal, and a deep pocket, and I will prove man an accomplisher.

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 11:14 AM

Are you suggesting that there was never a time when Man believed it was impossible to fly?

OR

Are you saying that Man was RIGHT when he thought so limitedly?

Furterfan

22nd July 2002, 11:16 AM

Give me a goal, and a deep pocket, and I will prove man an accomplisher.
Some things would take a long time, a lot of money, and a lot of intelligence. Some things which you may have in short supply.
What, I guess, you're saying, is that if someone were to supply you with money, and someone were to supply the intelligence needed, you could make a start on managing a long term project. Well woop-de-doo.
Does Mr Gates know you're available?
FF

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 11:27 AM

...sat there ignorantly smug and held to the false contention that Man was only finitely capable...until PROVEN wrong, and then you turn around and say my being right was 'nothing big'.

:rolleyes:

Tricky

22nd July 2002, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Are you suggesting that there was never a time when Man believed it was impossible to fly?

Probably there was never such a time. Even ancient legends speak of Icarus an other "heavier than air" flyers. Undoubtedly SOME humans at various points in time thought it was impossible, but I suspect that the majority of them looked at birds and said, "I can do that". The drawings of Leonardo da Vinci and others indicat that Man has even had plans to do so for a very long time. To suggest that everybody thought it was impossible until the Wright brothers is just plain wrong.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
If I can show you 'on paper' how I can build a craft that could propel man into the stars, you can't just write off the possibility simply because it would require more capital than any sum every imagined!

Nobody here is suggesting that flight to the stars is impossible. We are suggesting that it has incredibly large (and expensive) problems to solve. We are also suggesting that YOU don't have those solutions, either on paper or anywhere else. Not to say that nobody ever will, though.

Similarly, while it is not outside the range of possibility that someone could develop a machine or program that could predict the lottery (at least better than humans), the difficulties of doing so are enormous that it would probably cost more than even a lottery win could provide. You have suggested that it is so easy that you could do it if you had time and money. That is what we don't buy.
But you are right to have faith in the resourcefulness of man.

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 11:56 AM

I must wholey disagree with you, upon what I do and do not know.

Given sufficient time and resources 'I' could provide to you just such a craft.

That you would call me a liar, is hardly a surprise.

"Men are only limited by the amount of support they can garner for their endeavors."

Tricky

22nd July 2002, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I must wholey disagree with you, upon what I do and do not know.

Given sufficient time and resources 'I' could provide to you just such a craft.

That you would call me a liar, is hardly a surprise.

"Men are only limited by the amount of support they can garner for their endeavors."
I do not call you a liar. I believe you are mistaken, although well intentioned. If you are telling me that you have enough time in your life to acquire all the necessary training to do what thousands of scientists, engineers and doctors (at NASA and other places) have not been able to do, then you must understand why I doubt you. If you are saying that given an indefinately extended lifetime in which to do so, then perhaps, but then you have to solve the problem of aging first.

If you are saying you could assemble a team of people who could do this, again, perhaps, but that would not be just "you".

But it sounds to me as if you are saying that you, all alone, have enough knowledge right now to do such a thing, if you only had the time and money. I find that claim highly improbable.

For example, how would you solve the problem of keeping humans alive for an interstellar trip that would last many generations? You are aware, of course, that nobody has been able to put a human in suspended animation for even a period of weeks. You need to do so for centuries, or else find a way to generate energy in the vast reaches of interstellar space where you won't get enough starlight to run a pocket calculator.

Or perhaps you plan to find some way to accelerate the craft to nearly lightspeed (and of course, slow it down again which requires about the same amount of energy). Again, I do not believe you will be capable of such engineering feats within a normal lifespan.

Do you recall a Monty Python sketch where on of the characters was planning to jump over the English Channel? Ring any bells?

Crossbow

22nd July 2002, 12:34 PM

My sister made pastries the other day and she ate all of them!

Wow, what a bummer.

Oh well, at least my cats still like me.

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 12:43 PM

There is nothing worse than a self assured, short sighted scientist...

The PROBLEM with today's Space program is simple that it is NOT forward thinking enough.

I engage in coffee talk with a cousin of mine who just happens to be systems engineer at NASA, and he claims that the whole of the program goals have been designed with maximum conservative agendas. Then again, these days it is hardly surpising that the government would be so short with handing out capital/ability.

The main reason for our crawl into space is that GOVERNMENT refuses to release the 'space patents' out, to allow the private sector to leap into space, at ANY speed.

Of course, in these Days of Terrorism, it is not shocking WHY they hold back such technology.

What we could do, what we are doing, what we daily do, not knowing what we do.

c4ts

22nd July 2002, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...to save us from ourselves!"

--

If you're all they've got in the future then we're all screwed.

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 12:53 PM

...If you refuse to heed the warnings of those who know more than yourself, you are going to find yourself a few miles SOUTH of just screwed.

crapmike

22nd July 2002, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

If you're all they've got in the future then we're all screwed.
:D :D :D

Tricky

22nd July 2002, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
There is nothing worse than a self assured, short sighted scientist...

The PROBLEM with today's Space program is simple that it is NOT forward thinking enough.

I engage in coffee talk with a cousin of mine who just happens to be systems engineer at NASA, and he claims that the whole of the program goals have been designed with maximum conservative agendas. Then again, these days it is hardly surpising that the government would be so short with handing out capital/ability.

The main reason for our crawl into space is that GOVERNMENT refuses to release the 'space patents' out, to allow the private sector to leap into space, at ANY speed.

Of course, in these Days of Terrorism, it is not shocking WHY they hold back such technology.

What we could do, what we are doing, what we daily do, not knowing what we do.
Could you do your cousin's job? You'd have to do it and all the other jobs as well.

Now we have a government conspiracy to throw in the mix. I know that NASA budgets have been trimmed (I do live in Houston, after all) but none of my NASA buddies think there is any conspiracy other than to save money. Though there have been wonderful discoveries made through the space program, their "bang for the buck" factor is very low. Other ways of supporting technology have proved much cheaper. I personally consider that a shame, but I do understand that our country is into deficit spending (again) and we need to get more out of our 'investment' than space exploration is currently giving.

In any case, this does nothing to support your contention that you could design an interstellar space ship. How about this. Just give us a list of the problems that would have to be solved to do this. I'm not even asking you to solve them.

CFLarsen

22nd July 2002, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...are you just pissed because I didn't give you the same kind of glowing report as I did "Flatworm"!?

Of course not. Unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around any attention I can get from any poster here.

I am not pissed at all. I am merely pointing out the gap between your claimed knowledge of myths and what (little) you really know.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Geez, you are awful harsh this morning. Okay, so you got me, I have NOT read any of those books you mentioned, and I only briefly remember 'a' story from either Greek or Roman mythology about a woman who's first name started with a "C" who could foretell the future, but that people didn't believe her. It is not like I claimed to be an 'expert' or even well-read in Greek & Roman Mythology...

No, that's not what you said. You never mentioned any first letter, until you were informed of Cassandra. You also claimed that she came from the future. Wrong on both accounts.

I don't understand how you can now say that you don't know much about Greek and Roman myths. If you are not an "expert" or even well-read in Greek & Roman mythology, how come you use myths as basis for some of your claims? Shouldn't you at least study as many myths as possible before you come up with your silly theories? Wouldn't Greek and Roman mythology be a very good place to start?

Or do you merely go off on a tangent every time you see something that fits your silly ideas, without taking the time to actually study?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Besides, naming the character and noting historical details was hardly the point of focus in my post.

No, you merely used a half-assed example to make your point.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Would you be willing to re-read the original post, and render a response to what is and is not 'prophesy'?

A prophesy is "the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose" and "a prediction of something to come", according to good old Webster. Your idea (and you may excuse me if I have misunderstood any of your ideas - they are rarely, if ever, examples of shining clarity) tries to incorporate scientific concepts and historical events is plain silly. Neither scientific progress or historical events can be foretold.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
There is nothing worse than a self assured, short sighted scientist...

Yes, there is: A self assured, near sighted half-educated boron...

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The PROBLEM with today's Space program is simple that it is NOT forward thinking enough.

I engage in coffee talk with a cousin of mine who just happens to be systems engineer at NASA, and he claims that the whole of the program goals have been designed with maximum conservative agendas. Then again, these days it is hardly surpising that the government would be so short with handing out capital/ability.

The main reason for our crawl into space is that GOVERNMENT refuses to release the 'space patents' out, to allow the private sector to leap into space, at ANY speed.

Once again, you display an immense lack of knowledge. We don't merely begin sending ships out into space. We need to build a solid foundation on which space programs can evolve and develop. You think we haven't done enough? Do you have any idea how risky the moon landings were? Remember Challenger?

To "leap" into space, we need someone to pay the bill. That's why Europe and Asia have space programs as well. As well as a quest for knowledge, space exploration is also very much a question of business: What do we put into the programs, what do we get out of them.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Of course, in these Days of Terrorism, it is not shocking WHY they hold back such technology.

Nobody is holding anything back. The space program is dependent of congress money, and those money fluctuates. There has not been a cut in NASAs budget specifically because of 9/11.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
What we could do, what we are doing, what we daily do, not knowing what we do.

Start with learning a lot more about the things you speak about first.

Sanamas

22nd July 2002, 01:22 PM

Well KoA, if I am reading your posts correctly, you are claiming to have knowledge from the future and the knowledge to create a spaceship that can take humans to the stars. The reason we aren't at your feet in awe and reverence is because you have yet to put up anything that would distinguish you from the large crowd of crazy people that also claim these things.

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 01:33 PM

..." I know that NASA budgets have been trimmed (I do live in Houston, after all) but none of my NASA buddies think there is any conspiracy other than to save money."

And THIS is the only thing holding man to Earth. That the government can't/won't fund more far reaching projects. There is NO 'conspiracy' keeping the space patents under lock and key, they outwardly announce that doing so repreents a clear and present danger to national security.

Meanwhile, you have the private sector fumbling around in the stone age, while the government has not the resourse to take the next step.

---

You asked could I do my cousin's job?

My response is, "No, but I COULD do his boss's job." My coisin is one of a team of 8 up to 24 engaged in the development of different systems for different projects There are LOTS of such teams all working on independent, sometimes interlocking projects. My knowledge upon any specific system would be VERY limitied, but the vision needed to take what we have and apply it in a larger further reaching goal is not beyond comprehension.

That we can NOW easily send Lego-style pieces it no space to join others is small potatos to what we COULD do with what we presently have...IF the finacial resources were available.

---

My contention is still sound, given a goal and a bottomless pocket, I WOULD prove man to be an accomplisher.

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 01:49 PM

I am not sure what is worse, YOUR attempt to make me look stupid, or my attempt to look more intelligent...

Indeed, I have engaged in brief studied of both Greek and Roman mythology, but I am in no way an expert in the study. I didn't mention a name or a "C", but that was the initial memory of the story. Although I didn't offer a name. But then WHO gives a ******?!?

You are right, I was wrong, what ****ing more do you what!?

Okay, so space travel is risky...big deal! ANY far reaching exploration has always been dangerous. That we once reached for the moon with man's hand, and that now were are reduced to only orbital exchanges with him, is MY POINT. We (our government) AREN'T using all of our tools and ability to set far reaching goals in the near future, and those with the financial ability are allowed to compete.

You misunderstood my contention about these Days of Terrorism. I didn't say they were holding back funding for technological development in lou of Terrorism, but rather they are willing to allow the general public access to the technologies that CAN put men on the moon.

..."things I know"...

Well I know that those who work in and around our space program believe that we aren't being limited by our abilility, but rather our initiative.

King of the Americas

22nd July 2002, 01:52 PM

That was a quote I got from a television show.

What I ACTUALLY said was that at present, we aren't doing all that we are capable of, and that given any goal and an endless supply of wealth, anything is possible.

Aoidoi

22nd July 2002, 01:59 PM

My response is, "No, but I COULD do his boss's job." Have you ever been a manager? Have you ever been in charge of a project? Just curious on what basis you're making this claim.

CFLarsen

22nd July 2002, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I am not sure what is worse, YOUR attempt to make me look stupid, or my attempt to look more intelligent...

It's easy to tell the difference: The former is easy, the latter is impossible! :D

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Indeed, I have engaged in brief studied of both Greek and Roman mythology, but I am in no way an expert in the study. I didn't mention a name or a "C", but that was the initial memory of the story. Although I didn't offer a name. But then WHO gives a ******?!?

You are right, I was wrong, what ****ing more do you what!?

Temper, temper. Who is pissed now?

You obviously give a ****, since you brought Cassandra up. But I can understand why you don't want to discuss it anymore.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Okay, so space travel is risky...big deal! ANY far reaching exploration has always been dangerous. That we once reached for the moon with man's hand, and that now were are reduced to only orbital exchanges with him, is MY POINT. We (our government) AREN'T using all of our tools and ability to set far reaching goals in the near future, and those with the financial ability are allowed to compete.

Sure, far reaching exploration has always been dangerous. Do you know how many people died during Cook's trip to Australia? During Hanno's exploration of Western Africa? Remember Apollo 1?

We are not reckless with peoples' lives anymore, KOA. You may be comfortable with sending people off to their possible deaths with a dismissive wave of your hand, but NASA is not. That's why we take cautious steps in the space program.

Big deal? Tell that to the families of the dead astronauts.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
You misunderstood my contention about these Days of Terrorism. I didn't say they were holding back funding for technological development in lou of Terrorism, but rather they are willing to allow the general public access to the technologies that CAN put men on the moon.

You were not very clear, then.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
..."things I know"...

Well I know that those who work in and around our space program believe that we aren't being limited by our abilility, but rather our initiative.

If money's the problem, then I suggest you send NASA more money. How much are you willing to sacrifice to see your dreams fulfilled?

Furterfan

22nd July 2002, 02:44 PM

KoA wrote: And you. sat there ignorantly smug and held to the false contention that Man was only finitely capable...until PROVEN wrong, and then you turn around and say my being right was 'nothing big'.
You must have not read my posts properly. I have placed no absolute limits on Human ingenuity. Only yours.

KoA wrote: If I can show you 'on paper' how I can build a craft that could propel man into the stars, you can't just write off the possibility simply because it would require more capital than any sum every imagined!
Semantic drivel from a flake. You have nothing concrete, just daydreams and ego.

Tricky wrote; Nobody here is suggesting that flight to the stars is impossible. We are suggesting that it has incredibly large (and expensive) problems to solve. We are also suggesting that YOU don't have those solutions, either on paper or anywhere else. Not to say that nobody ever will, though.
KoA wrote:I must wholly disagree with you, upon what I do and do not know.
Given sufficient time and resources 'I' could provide to you just such a craft.
So, are you suggesting that you have the education to account for all the disciplines to allow you to build such a craft. How many degrees do you have? Or, where did you get your vast knowledge from? Do you even understand all the different disciplines required to start designing a project that might lead to an interstellar spacecraft?

No. You’re just engaging in semantical word play. Your whole argument boils down to: You asked could I do my cousin's job?
My response is, "No, but I COULD do his boss's job."
How many times have we heard a ******* low-grade worker say that?
You haven’t got the wit or wisdom to achieve any sort of scientific accomplishment, but you think you could manage some people who may be able to start along the road to such a plan. And why would clever, educated people respect a flake enough to follow him as a manager?
I’ve seen enough of your past posts to know that you have no new ideas, you just have word games.
FF

Flatworm

22nd July 2002, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas

"Flatworm", first and foremost, I would like to take the opportunity to offer you an ernest "Thank You" for your time, consideration, and rational responses to my work. Your responses are almost never personal attacks, and have been among the most challenging to answer. Given THAT, you are going to have to qualify a term for me, because I am not sure we agree on something. Exactly, what does this mean "making testable predictions that require knowledge of the future, and cannot be made as educated guesses based on today's data"...?

Well, lottery numbers would be an excellent start. If you're talking strictly about climactic data, you could predict the mean temperature of a given city on a given day. We know something about the mean and variance of those measurements so we would be able to tell what kind of a prediction would be unlikely to be correct due to chance.

But, isn't one exactly the same as the other? I mean, I see and event, I note the outcome. Then I see a similar event, and I summize that IF process-A continues as it did before, then it will RESULT as it did before. I thought 'Prophesy' was foretelling the future by using one's collected knowledge and ability...?

No, generally Prophecy refers to telling the future through divine/supernatural inspiration. Dictionary.com says:

proph·e·cy Pronunciation Key (prf-s)
n. pl. proph·e·cies (-sz)

An inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation of divine will.
A prediction of the future, made under divine inspiration.
Such an inspired message or prediction transmitted orally or in writing.
The vocation or condition of a prophet.
A prediction.

Science's Failure is man's unwillingness to accept each other's findings in lou of their own.

Scientists accept each other's findings all the time. Of course, that's just out of necessity. In an ideal world everyone would have the time to replicate every experiment themselves. This is not a weakness of science, but one of its greatest strengths.

In order for findings to be accepted in the scientific community, there must be strong evidence. All I ask is that you provide this evidence for your predictive ability.

Science Succeeds when MEN work together to accurately predict and ACT upon their findings to move toward a more positive outcome.

Science is a combination of both competition and collaboration. In that spirit, work with us here and please provide us with verifiable evidence of your predictive abilities.

You also use the term, "when you actually can make verifiable predictions".

Well, I say THAT is easy. Test me in any way you see fit.

Excellent. Could you reveal some winning lottery numbers before they're called?

You also offer up an absolute falacy when you gave the plane landing scenerio. Theorizing the plane would land, based upon your previous knowledge and experience, you summize that the plane SHOULD be landing. Now, if it were ME, I would take into account many more variables to include: whether or not i kNEW there was an airport nereby,

That was implicitly taken into account when I mentioned the nearby airport.

if I had ever witnessed a similar landing from this angle, at this time, and if indeed the same kind of plane was landing.

I think you're missing the point of the example. The idea is that this is a mundane occurence, and I assumed that most people had seen planes landing before. Extensive detail would be superfluous.

None of this explains in any way how my example is 'fallacious'. A person observes a plane with gear down approaching a nearby airport. Based on previous knowledge and experience, it would be reasonable to predict that the plane will be landing shortly.

I'd say that your scenerio was far too general to even be relivent in this discussion.

It's meant to be general. The point is that there are certain predictions that anyone can make without recourse to supernatural ability. Under those circumstances, "prophecy" is not an uncertain science.

I haven't read Asmv., but I'll look for it on my next trip to the library. Can you give me any insight before-hand?

A major thread of the Foundation series is the invention of a mathematical method for predicting the future, called "psychohistory".

Flatworm

22nd July 2002, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...NEITHER the time nor the inclination to partake in the kind of investigation it would take to achieve any such numerical success. We're not talking about putting all the 'previous winning numbers' in a hat and drawing out a few to generate winner, but rather an absolute scientific examination of the lottery system, and all of its working parts, ASWELL as a detialed review of the previous winning numbers.

Such a thing would take months, even years to perfect, AND it may not even be allowed by the gaming commision.

In so much, I must humbly decline your challenge.

Actually, all you have to do is get a record of past winning numbers. If there is any long-term bias, it will show up there. You can give me a random number generator in a black box, and I can analyze the output and reveal any bias without ever looking inside.

22nd July 2002, 04:04 PM

and it is also 'technically impossible' to make a machine that flys...
What kind of ASSBACKWARD thinking is THAT!?!?
EVERYTHING is possible given unlimited resources. Are you ignorantly suggesting that man is somehow 'limited' in what he can see, understand, and record!?!?

You have a very large whole in your reasoning here.

Yes, everything is possible given unlimited resources.
However you do not have unlimited resources, no one does.

Unlimited resources would include:
Unlimited funds: Nope sorry not even Bill G has these.
Unlimited time: Nope, you're gonna die.
Unlimited intelligence: Oh hell no.
etc etc

Therefore to have unlimited resources is impossible so what you are saying is:
'Everything is possible if you just give me the impossible.'

Well duh, no **** Sherlock.

That is the equivalent of saying 'I could be Supermen if I was born on a distant planet under a red sun and sent here as a baby to grow up under this yellow one, but I wasn't so I aint, but I coulda been.'

c4ts

22nd July 2002, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...If you refuse to heed the warnings of those who know more than yourself, you are going to find yourself a few miles SOUTH of just screwed.

Indeed I will, but your warnings are another matter altogether.

davidhorman

23rd July 2002, 01:44 AM

Are you suggesting that there was never a time when Man believed it was impossible to fly?

OR

Are you saying that Man was RIGHT when he thought so limitedly?

This thread has pretty well exploded since I last looked at it, so I'll just go back to this, which KOA said to me (I think).

I'm not suggesting either of those things. I have said nothing about your dreams of interstellar flights. What *I* have said is that to accurately simulate such a chaotic system as the lottery you would need more information than Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (let alone simple logistics) allows you to have. Your own simulation could disturb the drawing of the numbers, let alone the other facts I have outlined (not knowing beforehand the exact time of the draw, the positions of all the various pieces of equipment, etc).

David

Hannibal

23rd July 2002, 05:16 AM

EVERYTHING is possible given unlimited resources. Are you ignorantly suggesting that man is somehow 'limited' in what he can see, understand, and record!?!?

:o [/B]

Try and fold a piece of paper in half ten times then:D

King of the Americas

23rd July 2002, 12:41 PM

Indeed, I have served as 'project supervisor' for several different kinds of projects, starting when I was 16 and in charge of 6 other young men asked to build a a small barn, as a industerial arts training exercise. As well at age 20, I served as the project manager of a very successful dirt track racing team, which is the closest thing I have done to doing something similar to my cousin's boss, but I would need months of briefing before I could actual step in and be effective.

Which really isn't the point here.

Rather, the issue at hand is what are we doing, compared to what are we technologically capable of?

'I' say given the resources of the private sector, used in conjunction with the knowledge being withheld by the government, we could EASILY put 'men' in the stars.

Could 'I' head a project at NASA? Probably not...but if the funds were available, I'd love to take a crack at a shot with free range in an "Existing Technologies' Alternative Uses Department" (if such a thing exists).

The solution to our earthbound problem lies in combining what the government knows, with what the masses can achieve.

CFLarsen

23rd July 2002, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Indeed, I have served as 'project supervisor' for several different kinds of projects, starting when I was 16 and in charge of 6 other young men asked to build a a small barn, as a industerial arts training exercise. As well at age 20, I served as the project manager of a very successful dirt track racing team, which is the closest thing I have done to doing something similar to my cousin's boss, but I would need months of briefing before I could actual step in and be effective.

You think your experience would match being a boss of systems engineers at NASA? You are even more deluded than I thought!!

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Which really isn't the point here.

Well, actually, it is. You claimed you "COULD do his boss's job." Now, you admit that you can't. Do you honestly think a few months of briefing is enough to fill a position like this? Do you consider yourself so much more brilliant than the boss in question?

Do you even know what the boss actually does?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Rather, the issue at hand is what are we doing, compared to what are we technologically capable of?

'I' say given the resources of the private sector, used in conjunction with the knowledge being withheld by the government, we could EASILY put 'men' in the stars.

Do tell: What knowledge is being "withheld by the government"?

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Could 'I' head a project at NASA? Probably not...but if the funds were available, I'd love to take a crack at a shot with free range in an "Existing Technologies' Alternative Uses Department" (if such a thing exists).

Go ahead. Tell us how you would design - with what we are technologically capable of - a spaceship that would reach the stars.

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The solution to our earthbound problem lies in combining what the government knows, with what the masses can achieve.

...and putting King of the Americas in charge, not to forget! :eek:

Upchurch

23rd July 2002, 02:15 PM

Going back a little bit, I believe the original conversation was on the possibility that, given enough resources, one could travel through time.

Forward travel through time is rather easy. We do it all the time and through the use of spacial acceleration, we can speed up the process (look up the twin paradox for more details).

I'm going to make the assumption that what King of America is refering to is backward time travel, which is a much more allusive beast. There are a couple of ways, theoretically, that it could be done including the use of wormholes or black holes. a blackhole, despite what the movies say, .will kill anyone long before they get close enough to use one in this fashion. It's not speculation, it's mathematical fact.

You're best bet, KoA, would then be wormholes. And even then, you couldn't really use them to travel to Earth's past because it's too close. You could, instead, use it to travel to the past of a planet lightyears away.

The trouble is, and here I'd have to re-look up the exact numbers, that in order to generate a wormhole you'd need more energy than can be generated on the earth alone, even if you could perfectly convert the mass of the Earth to energy (e=mc^2).

So, it really wouldn't matter how many resources you have. There simply aren't enough on Earth to do what you claim. I'm tempted to say there isn't enough in the solar system, but I'd have to check on that.

Upchurch

King of the Americas

24th July 2002, 10:11 AM

...BEGAN with the idea that those who could foretell the future are usually doomed to have no one believe them. I started with the remeberance of an old myth about a woman who could foretell the future, but had not the ability for people to believe her.

And I asked if you COULD predict future events, how would you prove it. After all, skeptic scientists are still claim thea Global Warming isn't really happening right now! And that the increased CO2 levels aren't going to have an drastic effect...!

Then someone said that IF I wanted to prove I could foretell the future, to come up with next week's winning lottery numbers. And to this, I said I COULD do such a thing given access to all of the working parts of the lottery system, as well as the previous winning numbers, and enough time and resources to make a complete study.

And I rendered the quote: "Give me a goal, and a deep pocket, and I will prove man an accomplisher."

Wherein, the post took on a new life, and it was about my lack of knowledge of Greek and Roman myths.

The second page focused on this, and my viewpoint that give enough time and resources 'I' could do anything, even create a craft that could put men into the stars, wherein I really pulled the **** down atop my head.

In the end, my main contention is that: 1.) IF you could foretell teh future, there would be a very small chance of anyone ever believing you. 2.) That given enough time and resources, all things are possible. and 3.) 'I' am unable to prove any of this...

Whether or not 'time travel' is possible either forward or backward was never really the issue.

ALL this being said, are those who would collect data and observe common occurances in an attempt 'theorize' what will happen next really doomed to have skeptics disblieve all their conclusions...in lou of 'proof'?

Those who would support the 'prediction' of future global warming were and still ARE being fought tooth and nail on this. AND they actually have testable data!

What would someone from the future have to tell YOU about your future, and how long would it take you to have him put away in some kind of home?

Tricky

24th July 2002, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by King of the Americas

Then someone said that IF I wanted to prove I could foretell the future, to come up with next week's winning lottery numbers. And to this, I said I COULD do such a thing given access to all of the working parts of the lottery system, as well as the previous winning numbers, and enough time and resources to make a complete study.
... and it was pointed out by many that you STILL couldn't do this with any available technology. You are merely hypothesizing that someday the technology may exist. But even if it did, I'm sure "lottery technology" would find a way to counter "lottery predicting technology".

Originally posted by King of the Americas

The second page focused on this, and my viewpoint that give enough time and resources 'I' could do anything, even create a craft that could put men into the stars, wherein I really pulled the **** down atop my head.

Thank you, KOA. It takes a brave person to admit he made a mistake. I am glad you have abandoned this contention and I think more of you for it.
Originally posted by King of the Americas

In the end, my main contention is that: 1.) IF you could foretell teh future, there would be a very small chance of anyone ever believing you. 2.) That given enough time and resources, all things are possible. and 3.) 'I' am unable to prove any of this...

1.) Actually, you would stand a pretty good chance of getting SOME people to believe you. Look at the Heaven's Gate cult. Look at Scientology. One of Murphys laws should be "There is no idea so stupid that somebody doesn't believe in it."
And of course, lots of people (besides psychics) make their living predicting the future. They are called "stockbrokers".

2.) Not necessarily true. Some are pretty unlikely (like re-creating the Big Bang). As was pointed out, if by "enough" you mean "infinite", then you are talking about an undefinable quantity.

3.) Of course. That is why it is best to preface such sweeping statements with "I believe". Of course, that prefix is implied, but it looks better if you are not pretending to know such things.

Originally posted by King of the Americas

ALL this being said, are those who would collect data and observe common occurances in an attempt 'theorize' what will happen next really doomed to have skeptics disblieve all their conclusions...in lieu of 'proof'?

Data collection and evaluation is highly encouraged. Nobody here is asking for absolute mathmatical proof. What we are asking for is a reasonably good record of predictions. This is how you people choose which stockbroker to use. (And of course, predicting things that have already happened, like the Bible does, is not prophecy.)
Originally posted by King of the Americas

Those who would support the 'prediction' of future global warming were and still ARE being fought tooth and nail on this. AND they actually have testable data!

Here I tend to agree with you, although there is a lot of contradictory data and lots of world models. The vast majority of people have agreed that the Earth is warming (hint: sea level is rising) but they don't agree as to whether it is caused by man or just normal climatic fluctuation. Of course, those who are arguing hardest for "normal climatic fluctuation" are those for whom cutting down energy usage would be personally traumatic or financially disasterous. It's called, "enlightened self-interest".
Originally posted by King of the Americas

What would someone from the future have to tell YOU about your future, and how long would it take you to have him put away in some kind of home?

It would depend, of course, on what kind of predictions they made. If they said, "You will work about ten more years then retire with a modest income, then in less than 30 more years, you will die", then I would tend to agree (but not be particularly impressed). If they said, "Tomorrow you will be kidnapped by Mexican guerillas posing as a mariachi band and made to play the marimba until President Bush agrees to stop calling them 'Mescans' ", then I might look at them askance. However, if that person had previously provided me a winning lottery number before making the kidnapping prediction, then I'd be on the next plane out of town.

25th July 2002, 02:35 PM

I can't read an entire KOA thread. Just can't do it. So excuse me if I repeat something someone else might have said.

Okay. Given enough resources (money), I can win the Powerball Lottery every time.

82 Million dollars in resources outta bout do it.

I promise I won't use any hocus-pocus.

patnray

8th August 2002, 01:51 PM

I question the assertion that "EVERYTHING is possible given unlimited resources. " It is always possible to describe impossible tasks, for example: can you make a rock so big it can not be moved? If everything is possible then it should be possible to create such a rock. And, if EVERYTHING is possible, then it should be possible to move it... This kind of statement leads inevitably to such paradoxes.

Can the lottery be simulated: no. The process is designed to be chaotic. Even if all the balls started in exactly the same position, the results will vary, time after time. And if you had unlimited resources, why would you care about predicting lottery results?

Here in California, by the way, the balls are all weighed and measured before the drawings, and there are several sets, one of which is chosen randomly for use before each drawing... These are just some of the measures taken to ensure a chaotic and unpredictable outcome.

King of the Americas

9th June 2003, 06:50 AM

This is my oldest post from this year.

Wow, look how idealistic I was.

aggle_rithm

9th June 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas

Give me a goal, and a deep pocket, and I will prove man an accomplisher.

Exactly the sort of rhetoric that sustains funding for charlatans.

"If I could only get a few million dollars more, I could prove that there is a microscopic but measurable bend in this spoon. But nobody CARES, dangit!"

:mad:

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

9th June 2003, 04:50 PM

Please ensure your volume is turned on for this (http://www.dreamerwww.com/tdtess.htm)

Klaatu (http://www.dreamerwww.com/mp3/klaatu.mp3)

Helen (http://www.dreamerwww.com/wavs/nikto_1.wav)

King of the Americas

17th June 2003, 07:02 AM

...tell you what was going to happen, then what?

-No one believes me and it happens anyway, so saying it didn't matter.

-Someone believes, me, and acts to stop it FROM happening, and then I turn out being wrong.

Ah, the curse of foresight lives on...

I have 'predicted' qute a few things in my time, but I must say that there is no ESP in this. It is quite easy to read certain signs, present throughout history. We are, if anything very circular in our behavior. After a while it is just a matter of watching the wheel turn and looking ahead of the turn.

Indeed, the details of who, when, and where all change but it is not difficult to see that we are repeating a lot of history, and have still not broken the chains of violence over territory.

'I' truly see better days through better ways for us all, but not with a greater struggle.

The days we are living in NOW, have already been written about by many others, and it is not difficult to see how accurate or inaccurate they are.

Psiload

17th June 2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...tell you what was going to happen, then what?

-No one believes me and it happens anyway, so saying it didn't matter.

-Someone believes, me, and acts to stop it FROM happening, and then I turn out being wrong.

Ah, the curse of foresight lives on...

I have 'predicted' qute a few things in my time, but I must say that there is no ESP in this. It is quite easy to read certain signs, present throughout history. We are, if anything very circular in our behavior. After a while it is just a matter of watching the wheel turn and looking ahead of the turn.

Indeed, the details of who, when, and where all change but it is not difficult to see that we are repeating a lot of history, and have still not broken the chains of violence over territory.

'I' truly see better days through better ways for us all, but not with a greater struggle.

The days we are living in NOW, have already been written about by many others, and it is not difficult to see how accurate or inaccurate they are.
You predicted:

- that you could build a device that would convert the energy of a single person peddling on a stationary bicycle into enough electricity to power an entire city block... outcome: you still pay monthly utility bills.

- that Saddam Hussein would retaliate against a US led invasion of Iraq by launching nuclear missiles into Isreal, which in turn would lead to armageddon... outcome: no comment required.

- that your "World Peace Concert" would be bigger than Woodstock... outcome: more than ten people showed up to Woodstock.

- that you would be a contender in your hometown's last mayorial race... outcome: you didn't even have to take off your shoes to tally up the number of votes you got.

- that terrorist "sleeper cells" would be activated in the US, and wreck havoc across the country in the year following the 9/11 attacks... outcome: the cells must have ODed on NoDoze.

These are just a few off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more dismal flops... perhaps it would be an easier task to list your accurate predictions?:

-

Oh yeah... that was much easier on the ol' carpal tunnel.

aggle_rithm

17th June 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Psiload

You predicted:

- that you could build a device that would convert the energy of a single person peddling on a stationary bicycle into enough electricity to power an entire city block... outcome: you still pay monthly utility bills.

- that Saddam Hussein would retaliate against a US led invasion of Iraq by launching nuclear missiles into Isreal, which in turn would lead to armageddon... outcome: no comment required.

- that your "World Peace Concert" would be bigger than Woodstock... outcome: more than ten people showed up to Woodstock.

- that you would be a contender in your hometown's last mayorial race... outcome: you didn't even have to take off your shoes to tally up the number of votes you got.

- that terrorist "sleeper cells" would be activated in the US, and wreck havoc across the country in the year following the 9/11 attacks... outcome: the cells must have ODed on NoDoze.

These are just a few off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more dismal flops... perhaps it would be an easier task to list your accurate predictions?:

-

Oh yeah... that was much easier on the ol' carpal tunnel.

And remember: He was able to accomplish all this WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF ESP!!! :eek: