xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 04:41 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
I'm not avoiding the question, I've answered it several times. Their assassination attempt already existed in the past before they got in any time machine. Therefore their assassination attempt fails. You keep adding 'they kill themselves' or 'I kill Hitler' and the like so the paradox here is simply the human ability to say something nonsensical. I can say "I only have one arm, one on the left shoulder, one on the right shoulder." Am I a paradox? No, I'm just talking garbage!
So what are you denying could not happen..please answer..please..
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 04:48 pm
@xris,
On the subject of time,is it right that someone/something looks down on earth a trillion,(or whatever),miles away because it takes so long for light etc to reach the earth they would be actually looking down so far back in the past around when the dinosaurs were here? I totally dont understand this theory as far as im concerned logic tells me that the evidence says it no longer exists,it's in the past. I know when we look at a star dying that we are seeing the past because it takes so long for it's light,(supernova),to reach the earth,but to see it for real would we have to invent interstella travel?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 04:51 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
lol.
I always thought that,i got confused about what you mean't,let me rephrase,if you went back and met yourself,etc,then you would have no free will,I thought you meant you believed it was possible to go back so I said that if it were possible than because of the paradox there would be things you couldn't do,again xris I get my wires crossed!
No i dont think its possible..you dont have to do anything to change the future just going back would create a paradox..Have you ever thought , if i had left two seconds later or i had glanced in the mirror, the accident would not have happened..Our relationship to events is inextricably linked and to alter them in the most insignificant way will change the future in unbelievable ways.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 04:54 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
On the subject of time,is it right that someone/something looks down on earth a trillion,(or whatever),miles away,because it takes so long for light etc to reach the earth they would be actually looking down so far back in the past around when the dinosaurs were here? I totally dont understand this theory as far as im concerned logic tells me that the evidence says it no longer exists,it's in the past. I know when we look at a star dying that we are seeing the past because it takes so long for it's light,(supernova),to reach the earth,but to see it for real would we have to invent interstella travel?
I have no problem with watching the past i do it everytime i play an old film.It has just taken years to get to my tv..
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 05:04 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
No i dont think its possible..you dont have to do anything to change the future just going back would create a paradox..Have you ever thought , if i had left two seconds later or i had glanced in the mirror, the accident would not have happened..Our relationship to events is inextricably linked and to alter them in the most insignificant way will change the future in unbelievable ways.

Oh yes,many have said to me if "I didn't go to that place I wouldn't have met her"and so and so on,who knows maybe you would've met her some place else,here it is,I really don't know! All I know xris that no matter who im with where I am,I am me and im happy to be in this moment,no parallel universes,just me in this moment and I am who I am no matter where I go,if I chose to go this way my life will be different to if i chose to go the other direction down the road,(or whatever),but life is full of surprises whichever direction I choose and as long as im enjoying it that's cool with me,I dont agree with the theory of parallel universes because what makes me me is my soul and im here,(I know you didnt bring parallel universes up,I just though I'd throw it in there!)
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 05:06 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
I have no problem with watching the past i do it everytime i play an old film.It has just taken years to get to my tv..

lol
????????????
Yeh I think I get what your saying but can that be aplied to my question,is history recorded in a way that we can just press play or is it more complicated than that,I know scientists say that time is a line but how do we access it,wormholes,intrestingly enough Alan Wheeler suggests that there are places that open up for a short time in obscure places that enable travel,(I have yet to track this paper down as I just got on the net). Because it takes along time to travel we are seeing things/events in the past it just blows my mind I would love to see the past/dinosaurs.
0 Replies
 
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 05:06 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
So what are you denying could not happen..please answer..please..

I'm denying that there is any possibility of changing the past in any way whatsoever.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 05:15 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
science tells us, theoretically we can travel back in time.The problem is, if we went back in time and killed ourselves at birth how would we be able to exist in the first place to be able to kill ourselves..The paradox is either free will is not feasible or time travel is a theoretical mistake.


What you bring up is the Grandfather paradox:

Grandfather paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, if we don't take into consideration Everett's

Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

then it holds.

However, if Everett's theory is correct, this would mean there are alternate histories, that branch off into other universes. So, if you went back in time and killed yourself, I believe you'd be altering another universe; you would have left your initial universe.

I wouldn't say time travel is 'impossible' indefinitely. Sure, it's 'impossible' now, but so many things have been 'impossible' centuries before and we've found solutions. Science fiction is only fiction relative to the time in which we live.

This doesn't mean that time travel is possible, but merely that I believe it's a bit presumptuous to rule it out completely.
Kolbe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 06:07 pm
@xris,
Engage the Bill and Ted paradox. State now and simply "If it is possible in my lifetime to go back in time then I will go back in time to this exact moment and greet myself". Do you arrive? No.
ACB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Mar, 2009 07:08 pm
@Kolbe,
A few random thoughts about time travel:

1. If time travel were possible, every time traveller would have his/her own personal timeline, which would sometimes coincide with that of the universe as a whole, and sometimes not. Weaving all these timelines together into a complete 'history of everything' would require a radically new set of physical concepts and laws.

2. Since there have been no recorded instances of time travellers materialising, even at the most famous historical events in which you would expect them to be interested, I think we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that travel into the past will never be possible.

3. If I were to go back into the past in a time machine, what would happen when I 'landed'? What would happen to the air molecules already occupying the space where the machine materialised? Would they (a) simply vanish, or (b) be instantly displaced to the sides of the machine, or (c) be superimposed on the air molecules inside the capsule, thus instantly doubling the pressure (very nasty!)?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 04:56 am
@ACB,
ACB wrote:
A few random thoughts about time travel:

1. If time travel were possible, every time traveller would have his/her own personal timeline, which would sometimes coincide with that of the universe as a whole, and sometimes not. Weaving all these timelines together into a complete 'history of everything' would require a radically new set of physical concepts and laws.

2. Since there have been no recorded instances of time travellers materialising, even at the most famous historical events in which you would expect them to be interested, I think we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that travel into the past will never be possible.

3. If I were to go back into the past in a time machine, what would happen when I 'landed'? What would happen to the air molecules already occupying the space where the machine materialised? Would they (a) simply vanish, or (b) be instantly displaced to the sides of the machine, or (c) be superimposed on the air molecules inside the capsule, thus instantly doubling the pressure (very nasty!)?
Interesting point i have also thought about why we dont see time travellers.The point to me is that there are so many paradoxes , they go on forever.The point made of dispersing into milliard of parallel universes by going back in time and altering your time line, how many do we think there are. Even that does not recognise the fact that you alter the future. Its like a theme park ride where you end up or where you started.We get on a ride ,it starts, take one rider out of the ride during the ride and then obviously we cant start the ride exactly the same because one rider is missing..Oh he got on another ride..yes but this ride is not the same , it cant be.:perplexed: Science theorises, it cant prove time travel, logic is our only tool .
0 Replies
 
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 10:22 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

However, if Everett's theory is correct, this would mean there are alternate histories, that branch off into other universes. So, if you went back in time and killed yourself, I believe you'd be altering another universe; you would have left your initial universe.

Everett's theory deals with complete and continuous time-evolution of the universal wavefunction, which would be stuffed if you could introduce non-conservative, discontinuous phenomena like jumping back in time. In Everett's theory, systems which are in a superposition of states with respect to some interacting system remain in that superposition, with each of the possible states represented in a world. The splitting described by some solutions to the time travel paradox, notably in sci-fi, is a very different beast and operates via a never disclosed mechanism.

Zetherin wrote:

I wouldn't say time travel is 'impossible' indefinitely. Sure, it's 'impossible' now, but so many things have been 'impossible' centuries before and we've found solutions. Science fiction is only fiction relative to the time in which we live.

This doesn't mean that time travel is possible, but merely that I believe it's a bit presumptuous to rule it out completely.

Well, it would violate the most fundamental laws that underlie all physical theory. Energy is not conserved, since energy is lost in the world after going back in time and gained after arriving. Charge is not conserved, since human bodies and time machines are comprised of charged particles. Information is not conserved since the information of our structure and that of the time machine is lost in the world after going back in time and gained after we arrive. And, since we're dealing with macroscopic objects, mass is not conserved. Momentum is not conserved in any frame of reference in which we're in motion. Angular momentum is not conserved since our absence after we leave and additional presence after we arrive changes the moment of inertia, and so the angular momentum, of the Earth. That momentum would be conserved in the traveller's rest frame but nowhere else violates the principle of relativity.

Pretty much all science would have to be wrong.

There is an interpretation of matter and antimatter espoused by Feynman that antiparticles are just particles moving backward in time. In this view, a pair annihilation or creation event can be thought of, instead of two particles interacting, as one particle reversing the direction in time in which it travels. In this view, it does so by releasing a photon with twice as much energy as the particle itself. In this process, all conserved quantities remain conserved. So if you can find an exact anti-you in an anti-time machine to annihilate with, you will effectively be moving backward in time. Assuming you survive this. ;o)
0 Replies
 
Bones-O
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 10:26 am
@ACB,
ACB wrote:

3. If I were to go back into the past in a time machine, what would happen when I 'landed'? What would happen to the air molecules already occupying the space where the machine materialised? Would they (a) simply vanish, or (b) be instantly displaced to the sides of the machine, or (c) be superimposed on the air molecules inside the capsule, thus instantly doubling the pressure (very nasty!)?

I was always amused by the notion of travelling backward in time in a fixed location as per Wells' The Time Machine. Since the Earth isn't in a fixed position, you'd be likely to find yourself floating in space when you arrive. :shocked:
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 12:14 pm
@Bones-O,
Any journey can only be experienced once in my opinion, to reverse what has been into what could be is beyond logic.If we were ethereal we might observe the past or maybe a parallel universe could also.I think science should reconsider its theories and take all the anomalies into its speculation.I find theoretical science has become to glib in its claims, knowing that it is almost impossible to resolve their theories by experimental science.
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 12:14 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
Since the Earth isn't in a fixed position, you'd be likely to find yourself floating in space when you arrive. :shocked:


Haha... excellent. Wow, I needed a good belly-laugh; Bravo

Aside from whimsical science-fiction entertainment, I see no worth or validity in the notion of time travel. To me, it's likelyhood ranks up there with ghosts, lunar-landing fraud, tarot cards and Ouija boards.

Thanks again
mindlink
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 03:35 pm
@Khethil,
It has been said that the past exists only in our memory and the future exists only in our imagination; that the only time is NOW. But we don't live in the NOW; we live only in the past. The fraction of a second which it takes for our brain to become aware of an event, puts the event in the past. By the time that our brain has processed the information which it receives from the sensors of physical feeling, hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting and touching, and from the sensors of subtle energies and emotions, the events which stimulated the sensors are history. From the awareness capabilities of humans, there is only the past and the memories of all past events have equal value with respect to when they can be recalled and in what order they can be recalled.

Humans have invented a means of associating events with the location of the Earth in its orbit around our Sun (which we call months, weeks and days), and with the rotation of the Earth relative to our Sun (which we call hours, minutes and seconds). This enables us to group events which take place simultaneously. We can record that some particular events all occurred around January 24 at 8:10 pm Eastern Standard Time, and other particular events all occurred around August 22 at 4:16 am, Pacific Daylight Time. This invention of time enables us to observe when similar events occur at regular intervals, like sunrises every 24 hours, and equinoxes every 6 month, and we can thus predict when repetitive events are likely to reoccur. The more accurate is our calender and clock system (like the Mayan calendar), then the more accurate can be our predictions.

Time, as we have invented it, is a filing system for keeping track of when particular events (changes) occur, relative to the position of our Earth and relative to other events. But that is all that time is: it is a filing system and a prediction tool. Unlike heat, light and pressure, time has absolutely zero influence on the changes which are constantly taking place in our universe. Relative to the creation and evolution of all things that make up our universe, time has no reality. It is just a figment of our imagination. Just as the concept of "maintaining the status quo" is a fantasy, so is the concept of "turning back the clock" a fantasy. We cannot stop change and we cannot maintain or re-create something which is constantly changing, which is never the same from moment to moment.

From the human perspective, there is no "future", except in the probablities we create in our imaginations. There is no "now" because, when our mind becomes aware of a change, it is already history. There is only "past" and, if we put aside the filing system we call "time," all events in the past have equal value. The events recorded in the storage devices of computers and cameras can be recalled at any time in any order, regardless of the "time label" which is associated with them. When we acknowledge our recall abilities, it is just as easy to recall and interact with memories of events which happened five thousand years ago as it is to recall and interact with memories of events which happened five minutes ago. All events placed in memory have equal value with regard to when and in what order the events can be recalled.

From a human perspective, there is no time; there is only change.

mindlink
manored
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 04:18 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
I'm not avoiding the question, I've answered it several times. Their assassination attempt already existed in the past before they got in any time machine. Therefore their assassination attempt fails. You keep adding 'they kill themselves' or 'I kill Hitler' and the like so the paradox here is simply the human ability to say something nonsensical. I can say "I only have one arm, one on the left shoulder, one on the right shoulder." Am I a paradox? No, I'm just talking garbage!
But the assassination attempt would modify the past and would therefore modify the assassination attempt, what would cause the assassination attempt to already come out modified since its coming out of the future. I see only two possible ways out of this:

1. The modifications would be of a circular nature, that is, eventually the "lastest" would be exactly the same than the "First".

2. Time travel is not possible, at least not to the same timeline.

Caroline wrote:
Oh yes,many have said to me if "I didn't go to that place I wouldn't have met her"and so and so on,who knows maybe you would've met her some place else,here it is,I really don't know! All I know xris that no matter who im with where I am,I am me and im happy to be in this moment,no parallel universes,just me in this moment and I am who I am no matter where I go,if I chose to go this way my life will be different to if i chose to go the other direction down the road,(or whatever),but life is full of surprises whichever direction I choose and as long as im enjoying it that's cool with me,I dont agree with the theory of parallel universes because what makes me me is my soul and im here,(I know you didnt bring parallel universes up,I just though I'd throw it in there!)
The two arent self-exclusive. You can be you and have a thousand clones of yourself Smile I think the teory works by having an infinite amount of equal universes, except that some would be in different points in time.

I once played a online game where you solve pluzzes by time travelling, and it seens to prove its teorically possible to alter the past winhout screwing the time line, but only if you plan your actions ahead of the involved time and nothing goes wrong... and what would happen if something went wrong? Smile And how come there wasnt a second (or third or fourth, depending of your level) there already? Smile

Play Chronotron, a free online game on Kongregate
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 06:18 am
@manored,
How can a game prove the theory of time lines.We could say every time we make a decision we create a time line,how that effects the time line of everyone else on this planet is negligible.Altering major events would create an enormous paradox that would shake the very fabric of progress through time.To make a supposition on certain theories and claim it as fact is a worrying feature of modern science. To make one theory fit, the theories supporting it become more and more strange and we end up with science fiction..
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 06:25 am
@mindlink,
mindlink wrote:
It has been said that the past exists only in our memory and the future exists only in our imagination; that the only time is NOW. But we don't live in the NOW; we live only in the past. The fraction of a second which it takes for our brain to become aware of an event, puts the event in the past. By the time that our brain has processed the information which it receives from the sensors of physical feeling, hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting and touching, and from the sensors of subtle energies and emotions, the events which stimulated the sensors are history. From the awareness capabilities of humans, there is only the past and the memories of all past events have equal value with respect to when they can be recalled and in what order they can be recalled.

Humans have invented a means of associating events with the location of the Earth in its orbit around our Sun (which we call months, weeks and days), and with the rotation of the Earth relative to our Sun (which we call hours, minutes and seconds). This enables us to group events which take place simultaneously. We can record that some particular events all occurred around January 24 at 8:10 pm Eastern Standard Time, and other particular events all occurred around August 22 at 4:16 am, Pacific Daylight Time. This invention of time enables us to observe when similar events occur at regular intervals, like sunrises every 24 hours, and equinoxes every 6 month, and we can thus predict when repetitive events are likely to reoccur. The more accurate is our calender and clock system (like the Mayan calendar), then the more accurate can be our predictions.

Time, as we have invented it, is a filing system for keeping track of when particular events (changes) occur, relative to the position of our Earth and relative to other events. But that is all that time is: it is a filing system and a prediction tool. Unlike heat, light and pressure, time has absolutely zero influence on the changes which are constantly taking place in our universe. Relative to the creation and evolution of all things that make up our universe, time has no reality. It is just a figment of our imagination. Just as the concept of "maintaining the status quo" is a fantasy, so is the concept of "turning back the clock" a fantasy. We cannot stop change and we cannot maintain or re-create something which is constantly changing, which is never the same from moment to moment.

From the human perspective, there is no "future", except in the probablities we create in our imaginations. There is no "now" because, when our mind becomes aware of a change, it is already history. There is only "past" and, if we put aside the filing system we call "time," all events in the past have equal value. The events recorded in the storage devices of computers and cameras can be recalled at any time in any order, regardless of the "time label" which is associated with them. When we acknowledge our recall abilities, it is just as easy to recall and interact with memories of events which happened five thousand years ago as it is to recall and interact with memories of events which happened five minutes ago. All events placed in memory have equal value with regard to when and in what order the events can be recalled.

From a human perspective, there is no time; there is only change.

mindlink
This very interesting but change is time, how can you say we have no such thing as time.We can not experience the past or view the future but we can measure time by our passing through it.If we where ethereal creatures time could be observed but not be relevant to us but we are creatures of time our bodies experience the inevitability of time.We may only ever have the here and now but that's the nature of time, we are trapped by the motion of time.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 11:58 am
@xris,
xris wrote:
How can a game prove the theory of time lines.We could say every time we make a decision we create a time line,how that effects the time line of everyone else on this planet is negligible.Altering major events would create an enormous paradox that would shake the very fabric of progress through time.To make a supposition on certain theories and claim it as fact is a worrying feature of modern science. To make one theory fit, the theories supporting it become more and more strange and we end up with science fiction..
Well it cant, I used the wrong word, it exemplifies how it could be possible. But how it could be possible only analizying time itself, that is, pretty much inserting time into and ideal universe to see if it works. In our universe time travel is a paradox.

But the existence of the universe is a paradox and well... here we are Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 03:45:03