Time Laws Revisited
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Tue Jun 21, 2005 @ 10:55pm |
 Coolness: 340385 | gimme a gun and a time machine and i'll prove you wrong.
then again, the only reason you can't kill youself 5 minutes ago is quite simply because it's impossible to go back in time. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Tue Jun 21, 2005 @ 11:50pm |
 Coolness: 145920 | nothing physical can go back or forward in time, to much contradiction in terms of physical constituition, if you can move anything physical through time you will be essentially adding/taking away mater from the universe, and we all know that's imposible... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Wed Jun 22, 2005 @ 12:00am |
 Coolness: 686310 | See, that's where Neoform is getting stuck on. But if you take the time to read it, and read up a little on quantum physics, it doesn't seem that far-fetched.
See, if a person ever stepped into a time machine to go back to 1600, he could, because it's already happened, and the current history of the world IS THE RESULT of the going back. NOBODY that's arguing that it's impossible has taken the time to try and understand what exactly is being spoken about. It's within the first 3 paragraphs on the page! Researchers speculate that time travel can occur within a kind of feedback loop where backwards movement is possible, but only in a way that is "complementary" to the present. In other words, you can pop back in time and have a look around, but you cannot do anything that will alter the present you left behind. As for taking a gun back, what makes you think you'll be able to go back with ANY clothes? Clothes could leave traces of the future in the past, which would affect the present, and therefore they wouldn't go back with you. Or maybe they'd get burned in a fire, or you'd be hit by a car and the guy that hit you would dump your body where it would never be found to avoid jail time... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» michaeldino replied on Wed Jun 22, 2005 @ 12:43am |
 Coolness: 69695 | no... even youre getting something wrong there...
you had it at first and now it seems like you dumped it out the window... what they're saying is that: you CAN go back in time... but since that 'time' youre going back to already happened, the outcome of it is already known, thereby reducing the probability of change to zero (its all based on probabilities this quantum physics time travel stuff)... meaning, the fact that you went back in time has already been taken into consideration in the time that you left from... the probability of you being able to change something is reduced to zero since it had already happened if you KNOW that youre alive now and you go back an hour, you cannot kill yourself since you KNOW you're still around in an hour so that you can go back that hour... so the probability of you being alive in an hour is one or 100%... thereby you cannot kill yourself an hour ago since you know that youre alive an hour later... its interesting stuff... but what i dont get, or what this actually pretty much explains... is how can you go back to the time you left from? assuming you were able to travel backwards through time? time travel into the future seems to me to be impossible... since you cannot 'catch up' to light that hasnt been emitted yet (since travel backwards in time is basically catching up to "old light" ... meaning that you're looking at things that have already come to be) thinking of it in that way is actually another way of realizing that what the article said MUST be true... you're catching up with old light by going back in time... meaning youre looking at something that has already come to be... how can you possibly change what already has been? its like youre looking at a movie of what happened in the past... think about it... if you know what the future holds... how can you deviate from it? youve come from there and KNOW that certain things are the way they are.. how can you change it merely by being in a 'moving image' of things past? anyhoo... its late and i cant sleep... so this may not make all that much sense... though ive put PLENTY of thought into this throughout my lifetime... seeing as i am completely obsessed with the Back to the Future Trilogy... (question.. when old biff goes back in time to give young biff the almanac... how does he return to the year 2015 where marty and doc are if he has supposedly already altered the 'future' ? that always bothered me... but its a movie...) |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Wed Jun 22, 2005 @ 1:00am |
| Coolness: 686310 | I still get it, it's just trying to explain it to NEOFARM that's making it come out all jumbled.
I think that the key to it is that it's stated that it's a feedback loop. It'd probably end up being like that movie with the aliens that send a signal to earth to build something and this chick goes into the sphere and she gets transported on a crazy adventure, but when she steps out of the machine it's only been a fraction of a second. I think if you COULD go back and walk around and see things and touch and smell and taste etc., it would probably be happening only in an "enclosed" environment, like it would be a VCR of history that you could rewind and go back to look at the details, but you still would be "here". I'm not making much sence now. Typing is way too limited a form of self-expression to get this down right. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Jun 22, 2005 @ 6:57am |
| Coolness: 340385 | |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Wed Jun 22, 2005 @ 3:37pm |
| Coolness: 145920 | fred if anything material goes back in time the material (ie atoms) will exist already somewhere else, (if your time machine is made of iron say, then the iron atoms will be some where in some mountain in the mine shaft) which seems very contradictory, even if we strip physics to it's most rudimentry level, it seems very hard to admit that a thing (ie an atom) can really be in more than one place at once (....notwithstanding the recent advances in quantum physics) the only way around this is to say that if something material 'can' go back in time the material substratum that constitutes it although physically and numerically identical to the particular mater in the world (ie the atoms) it would have a different 'temporal' identity, in that case you would have to look at matter as a so-called 'four dimensional worm' with each object having so-called temporal parts
very shifty ground we are on here... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Jun 22, 2005 @ 5:43pm |
| Coolness: 340385 | if i had a time machine i'd use it to throw all my garbage away.
just open up a time rift and empty the can into it! voila! instant matter destructor. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Wed Jun 22, 2005 @ 6:38pm |
| Coolness: 686310 | Originally posted by BASDINI...
...even if we strip physics to it's most rudimentry level, it seems very hard to admit that a thing (ie an atom) can really be in more than one place at once (....notwithstanding the recent advances in quantum physics) This WHOLE theory is BASED ON QUANTUM PHYSICS! Seriously, did ANYONE other than Dino read this thing? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Wed Jun 22, 2005 @ 7:06pm |
| Coolness: 340385 | i seriously don't need to read a theory by a bunch of "researchers" who claim time travel is possible to know that it's not possible.
if we can't even fast foward time what makes us think we can move back in time...? |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Mico replied on Wed Jun 22, 2005 @ 10:44pm |
 Coolness: 151180 | Originally posted by [SCREWHEAD]...
Seriously, did ANYONE other than Dino read this thing? no lol |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Thu Jun 23, 2005 @ 1:09am |
| Coolness: 145920 | fred, it's onething to say that an atom or an electron fired at near the speed of light at two holes in the wall goes through both...
it would be a bit different if we said something the size of a car could do that... you cannot (no matter how much we would like to...) create or destroy mater/energy, time travel means fucking with that...if you can move something (no mater how big) through time, you are implicitly playing with the thermo dynamics of the entire universe... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Thu Jun 23, 2005 @ 5:16am |
 Coolness: 92985 | I read it last week and from what I remmeber(and im not gonan read it again so correct me if im wrong), I don't believe they were talking about whether or not time travel was possible. They were saying that if it's possible we wouldn't be able to change anything from going back in time. They were saying that even if we did have a physical form that can interact normally with the world then everything we'd attempt to change would find a way to remain the way it was so that the future would still be the same. Basically they were talking about fate without using the word fate. They were claiming to have proven that you can't change fate. I didn't read the whole thing but from what I read they didn't say anything about whether or not time travel is possible.
If it is possible though, then we'd go into the past with our time machine and what would we come back with? Maybe we could transport another time machine inside that time machine. But technically if we are not able to change the future by going into the past that would mean that either everyone wed talk to would have their memories erased or we would simply not be able to interact with anything, which would probably include our time machine, unless that's exempt cause it's from the future. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Thu Jun 23, 2005 @ 5:21am |
| Coolness: 92985 | Oh shit okay, they did say time travel was possible but they also did factor in what Ian is saying as mentioned above. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» Screwhead replied on Thu Jun 23, 2005 @ 5:30am |
| Coolness: 686310 | ...
One last time. Original Time Travel theory: Back to the Future: Marty Mc Fly goes back into the past and gets in the way of his parents getting together, so he has to make sure they fall in love again. When it all works and he comes back to the "present", his parents are still together but it's still diffrent than the "present" he left. Now, lt's re-write the movie using THIS time travel theory: Marty Mc Fly goes back into the past and gets in the way of his parents getting together, so he has to make sure they fall in love again. When it all works and he comes back to the "present", EVERYTHING is EXACTLY as it was, because the events that happened in the "past" he went to are the reason the "present" is the way it is. If the present is shaped by the past, then any alteration of the past from a future point has already happened and the world today is a result of taking that into effect. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» moondancer replied on Thu Jun 23, 2005 @ 5:52am |
| Coolness: 92985 | In light of all the logic we have to support the idea of not being able to change the present, it is no wonder that they would prove such a thing with physics. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» michaeldino replied on Thu Jun 23, 2005 @ 11:45am |
| Coolness: 69695 | Originally posted by [SCREWHEAD]...
I think if you COULD go back and walk around and see things and touch and smell and taste etc., it would probably be happening only in an "enclosed" environment, like it would be a VCR of history that you could rewind and go back to look at the details, but you still would be "here". exactly Originally posted by DJneoform...
if we can't even fast foward time what makes us think we can move back in time...? we can fastforward time... if we travel at a speed near light speed for numerous years, we will in fact have slowed the 'time' we're in... everyone aound you will have aged more than you have, so you have indeedfast forwarded time the people around you age, but you do not (well not as quickly anyway), time has been forwarded around you, but really, you have gone back in time... since you are in a time before the time they are in, you are younger and such... also... fred, good back to the future analogy |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Thu Jun 23, 2005 @ 1:52pm |
| Coolness: 145920 | Originally posted by [SCREWHEAD]...
... One last time. Marty Mc Fly . you mean the Dj? i agree history is certainly not given twice... |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» neoform replied on Thu Jun 23, 2005 @ 7:17pm |
| Coolness: 340385 | Originally posted by DINOSAUR...
we can fastforward time... if we travel at a speed near light speed for numerous years, we will in fact have slowed the 'time' we're in... everyone aound you will have aged more than you have, so you have indeedfast forwarded time the people around you age, but you do not (well not as quickly anyway), time has been forwarded around you, but really, you have gone back in time... since you are in a time before the time they are in, you are younger and such... also... fred, good back to the future analogy oh yeah, i forgot all about those jet's the military's building that can travel *near* 1,080,000,000 kph that allow us to speed up and slow down time.... :| to get any sort of "time travel" you'd have to travel WAY too fast. and we're no where near those kinds of speeds. like centuries away. |
| Good [+1]Toggle ReplyLink» basdini replied on Fri Jun 24, 2005 @ 12:43am |
| Coolness: 145920 | maybe for you |
Time Laws Revisited
[ Top Of Page ] |
Post A Reply |
You must be logged in to post a reply.
[ Top Of Page ] |
