Time slips

Nope..the science section is separate from the fringe section. You can find that out yourself by looking at the forum home page.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A time slip. I'd like to think I'm open minded to different ''theories'' but I don't think time slips are possible. My main reason for thinking that is the process of a 'time slip' would be unpredictable, and not controllable. You can't really put a ''time slip'' through a scientific process. Time is one of the odder properties of the universe, and then we're also left with the question of is time really just an illusion or within our perception? If that is the case, anything could happen...even a time slip. But, my pragmatic side leans towards there not being enough hard evidence to prove a time slip.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like what Einstein said about time:

"Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."===http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm willing to treat this time slip phenomenon as a possibility. I feel like there are alot of aspects to reality we don't understand yet. Connections across space and time that can result in remarkable occurrences. But its probably not a common enough of a phenomenon to worry much about. And even if it is, it seems only very brief and quite harmless. It certainly doesn't change anything I know about the world already that such anomalous events might occur. I still buy into the scientific paradigm. I just allow for intermittent glitches in this enormously complex and mysterious reality.

 

A possibility explains nothing. It is merely speculation with no evidence to back it. For the possibility to become plausible and so explanatory, it needs evidence for it. If I claim a murder victim was murdered by her husband, I need to support that explanation with some evidence. It would never do to just raise the vague possibility of it in court. "Well, it's possible she was killed by her husband. I rest my case." To become an actual explanation, the possibility needs to fit the facts of the case and be shown to be more probable than other possibilities. That's the whole point of explaining. To understand HOW something actually happened rather than to settle for unevidenced speculations. If mere plausibility were sufficient to explain a mystery, then cases would be decided on probability alone. But they aren't. They are decided based on evidence.

 

The account clearly details the experience occurring before they reached the Temple de l'Amour, involving people on the road, a farmhouse, and a cottage:

"They travelled with a Baedeker guidebook, but the two women soon became lost after missing the turn for the main avenue, Allée des Deux Trianons. They passed this road, and entered a lane, where unknown to them they passed their destination.[9] Moberly noticed a woman shaking a white cloth out of a window[10]and Jourdain noticed an old deserted farmhouse, outside of which was an old plough.[10]

At this point they claimed that a feeling of oppression and dreariness came over them.[11] They then saw some men who looked like palace gardeners, who told them to go straight on. Moberly later described the men as "very dignified officials, dressed in long greyish green coats with small three-cornered hats."[12]Jourdain noticed a cottage with a woman and a girl in the doorway. The woman was holding out a jug to the girl.[10] Jourdain described it as a "tableau vivant", a living picture, much like Madame Tussaudswaxworks.

They reached the edge of a wood, close to the Temple de l'Amour,..."

 

Ah, yes, the deserted farmhouse, and the cottage which only one of them saw.
Furthermore, if you've never been to the estate of Versailles, we're not talking someone's small little back yard. The grounds in which the party (or rehearsal or whatever it was) were being held are fairly sizeable.

 

Indeed it is speculation. Speculation in the same manner that the possibility of it being a timeslip is also speculation.

It becomes plausible as soon as the theory fits the observations.

You certainly would. Just as if you claim this event was a timeslip you need to support that explanation with some evidence.
If the defence can poke holes in that evidence, and come up with a more likely explanation for it than the explanation of "murder by her husband" then there is reasonable doubt.
That is what the themed party does - it offers not just a reasonable alternative but in fact a far more likely alternative.
So if the defence can explain away every piece of observation that led to the claim of murder as being another possibility - whether they have evidence of their own or not - the defence will succeed.

If you are making the claim then you do need to support it. You have claimed it to be a timeslip, I have offered a more likely alternative. The defence rests. The jury acquits.

Exactly. And do you honestly think a timeslip is more likely than a themed party? Seriously? It should be a given that themed parties do occur, with enough photographic evidence of the many that have taken place across the world, that it really shouldn't be an issue.
Do I need to provide proof that in this specific case it definitely was a party? No. You haven't provided proof that it definitely was a timeslip. You have merely looked at the observation and fitted a theory around it: timeslip. Where is the evidence for it?
I, likewise, have merely raised an alternative theory: themed party.
Now, which theory is more likely?

You can't prove it was a timeslip, MR. None of this can ever be a matter of proof - until such time as the phenomenon is actually examined as it occurs. Alternative explanations to all the cases will exist, and they will almost certainly be more plausible / likely than the phenomena you wish it to be, a phenomenon that has nothing in its favour other than subjective interpretation of anecdotal evidence.

I'm starting to lean toward DaveC's assessment that you are deliberately pulling peoples' legs, MR.
Either that or your way of thinking is not something I can currently get my head round, so odd do I find it.

 

Absolutely, science can't answer everything, for we simply are limited as humans to know all the possibilities with absolute certainty. That said though, I tend to look at life as what would be the reasoning for something to occur in the first place? What value does a time slip bring to us? What is the purpose of a time slip? Let's say you did experience this, or maybe we all have and we chalk it up to something else, how would it change how we view time?

 

5 accounts of timeslips isn't speculation. It's evidence. What was your evidence it was a party? You offered none. I was supposed to take your word for it. I didn't. I found evidence for that claim, which you only bitch about me doing. Again, remind me why evidencing claims is a bad thing.

Then a timeslip was plausible since that theory fit the observations AND had evidence from other accounts of actually happening.

I did provide evidence of timeslips happening. Where was your evidence it was a party?

The prosecuters need evidence to support their claim. Just saying it is likely she was murdered by her husband doesn't cut it. Just like saying it's possible there was a party isn't adequate either.

You don't know how unlikely a timeslip is. You're making assumptions about a phenomenon you don't even admit happens. Going by the numerous accounts of such in history I'd say this phenomenon is very likely when it explains the facts.

You aren't even understanding my analogy. I said the mere claim that something is possible in court, such as that the victim was murdered by her husband, needs evidence to support it. Just saying it is possible isn't proving anything, just like saying it was possibly a theme party isn't proving anything either.

5 accounts of timeslips is evidence. What was your evidence? None.

If timeslips occur, as my evidence shows, then it is 100 % likely that they occur. No less than parties where people dress in period costumes across the countryside to imitate paintings.

5 cases of timeslips happening. Where was your evidence it was a party? You didn't provide it. I had to find it myself. You don't get credit for correct speculations made based on no evidence.

In a huge blocktime universe where just about anything is possible given enough time, the theory that has evidence to support it is the more likely explanation. Which is what I provided.

Oh so now you admit there IS evidence for timeslips. Finally!

I know you're frustrated that I don't bow reverently before your unevidenced speculations presented as valid explanations. But you don't need to ad hom or talk about how I am as a person at all. You can entirely debate without doing that. Give it a try. I have faith in you.

 

A time slip may not have any purpose, anymore than a genetic mutation or a tornado does. It may just be an odd glitch of spacetime that happens out of sheer chance. Like that one in a millionth electron that suddenly appears on the other side of a barrier. We call that quantum tunneling.

 

They aren't accounts of timeslips. They are accounts of magic. They are accounts of God working in mysterious ways.

As with UFOs and ghosts, you keep affirming the consequent.

 

In his book Time Travel: A New Perspective, J. H. Brennan tells a curious story of a time slip experience that happened to Air-Marshal Sir Victor Goddard.

Brennan writes: “In 1935, while still a Wing Commander, he was sent to inspect a disused airfield near Edinburgh at a place called Drem. He found it in a very dilapidated state with cattle grazing on grass that had forced through cracks in the tarmac.

Later that day, he ran into trouble while flying his biplane in heavy rain and decided to fly back to Drem to get his bearings.

As he approached the airfield the torrential rain abruptly changed to bright sunlight.

When he looked down he saw the airfield had been completely renovated and was now in use.

There were mechanics in blue overalls walking around and four yellow planes parked on the runway.

One of these was a model which, for all his aviation experience, he completely failed to recognize.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It was a very puzzling experience, not alone because the instant renovation was quite impossible, but also because mechanics were supposed to wear khaki and Air Force planes were painted with a silvery aluminum paint.

Four years later, Goddard solved the mystery. With war now raging in Europe, he happened to visit Drem again… to find it exactly as he had seen it in 1935, completely with blue-overalled mechanics and yellow planes. He even found the plane he had been unable to identify earlier – a Miles Magister. ”

Had Goddard somehow flown four years into the future, and then shortly returned to his own time?"

Read more: http://www.messagetoeagle.com/three...e-say-they-saw-the-future-past/#ixzz48fHTMBBB

 

"A remarkable time travel case was published in Strange Magazine 2, Spring, 1988. The article “Time Traveler” written by Ken Meaux is about a man who calls himself L.C. (his real initials) and who experienced one the most amazing events of his life, something the could never forget.

Meaux writes: “L.C. and a business associate, Charlie, (fictitious name) had just finished lunch in the small Southwest Louisiana town of Abbeville. Still discussing their work, they began their drive north along Highway 167 towards the Oil Center city of Lafayette about 15 miles away.

The date was October 20, 1969, and the time was about 1:30 in the afternoon. It was one of those picture-perfect days in Fall–clear blue skies and a nippy 60 degrees, just right conditions for cruising along with the car windows rolled down.

The highway had been practically traffic-free until they spotted some distance ahead what appeared to be an old turtle-back-type auto traveling very slowly. As they closed the distance between their vehicle and this relic from the past, their discussion turned from their insurance work to the old car ahead of them. While the style of the auto indicated it to be decades old, it appeared to be in show room condition, like it might have just been serviced by some which evoked words of admiration from both L.C. and Charlie.

Because the car was traveling so slowly, the two men decided to pass it, but before doing so, slowed to better appreciate the beauty and mint condition of the vehicle. As they did so, L.C. noticed a very large bright orange license plate with the year “1940” clearly printed on it.

This was most unusual and probably illegal unless provisions had been made for the antique car to be used in ceremonial parades.

As they passed the car slowly to its left, L.C., who was in the passenger’s seat, noticed the driver of the car was a young woman dressed in what appeared to be 1940 vintage clothing. This was 1969 and a young woman wearing a hat complete with a long colored feather and a fur coat was, to say the least, a bit unusual. A small child stood on the seat next to her, possibly a little girl. The gender of the child was hard to determine as it too wore a heavy coat and cap. The windows of her car were rolled up, a fact which puzzled L.C. because, though the temperature was nippy, it was quite pleasant and a light sweater was sufficient to keep you comfortable. As they pulled up next to the car, their study turned to alarm as their attention was riveted to the animated expressions of fear and panic on the woman’s face. Driving alongside of her at a near crawl (no traffic in either direction allowed this maneuvering) they could see her frantically looking back and forth as if lost or in need of help. She appeared on the verge of tears.

Being on the passenger’s side, L.C. called out to her and asked if she needed help. To this she nodded “yes,” all the while looking down (old cars sat a little higher than the low profiles of today’s cars) with a very puzzled look at their vehicle. L.C. motioned to her to pull over and park on the side of the road. He had to repeat the request several times with hand signs and mouthing the words because her window was rolled up and it seemed she had difficulty hearing them. They saw her begin to pull over so they continued to pass her so as to safely pull over also in front of her.

As they came to a halt on the shoulder of the road, L.C. and Charlie turned to look at the old car behind them. However, to their astonishment, there was no sign of the car. Remember, this was on an open highway with no side roads nearby, no place to hide a car. It and its occupants had simply vanished.

L.C. and Charlie looked back at the empty highway. As they sat in the car, spellbound and bewildered, it was obvious to them that a search would prove futile. Meanwhile, the driver of a vehicle that had been behind the old car pulled over behind them. He ran to L.C. and Charlie and frantically demanded an explanation as to what had become of the car ahead of him. His account was as follows.

He was driving North on Highway 167 when he saw, some distance away, a new car passing up a very old car at a slow pace, so slow that they appeared to be nearly stopped. He saw the new car pull onto the shoulder and the old car started to do the same. Momentarily, it obstructed the new car and then suddenly disappeared.

All that remained ahead of him was the new car on the shoulder of the highway. Desperate to associate logic to this incredible sight, he immediately assumed an accident had occurred. Indeed, an accident had not occurred, but something more haunting, perhaps as tragic, and certainly more mysterious had.

After discussing what each had seen from his perspective, the three men walked the area for an hour. The third man, who was from out of state, insisted on reporting the incident to the police. He felt that it was a “missing person” situation and that they had been witnesses. L.C. and Charlie refused to do so as they had no idea where the woman and child along with the car had gone.

They were missing alright, but no police on this plane of existence had the power to find them. The third man finally decided that without their cooperation he could not report this on his own for fear his sanity would be questioned. He did exchange addresses and phone numbers with L.C. and Charlie. For years he kept in touch with them, calling just to talk about his incident and to confirm again that he had seen what he had..."

Read more: http://www.messagetoeagle.com/three...e-say-they-saw-the-future-past/#ixzz48fK2tws4

 

I was hoping to come to this section and see some serious discussion. But it's full of MR dodging basic reasoning and logic.

Alas, I'll probably have to look elsewhere.