crunchy on 22/8/2007 at 04:42
One thing that always worried me about time travel...
In the Back to the Future movie, when Marty McFly travels back to 1955 and meets his parents why doesn't his parents back in the 80's go "Hey you know, our son looks exactly like that guy we met back in High School" :confused:
37637598 on 22/8/2007 at 05:42
Quote Posted by crunchy
One thing that always worried me about time travel...
In the Back to the Future movie, when Marty McFly travels back to 1955 and meets his parents why doesn't his parents back in the 80's go "Hey you know, our son looks exactly like that guy we met back in High School" :confused:
Seconded, especially considering he played such a major part in their 'getting together'.
PigLick on 22/8/2007 at 07:39
cos the first time round that hadnt actually happened yet.
sparhawk on 22/8/2007 at 13:59
Quote Posted by Peanuckle
Another problem is that one body of mass can't exist in two places at the same time. So if you go into the past, either you or your past self, or both, will die, prematurely ending your life. If you go into the future, the same will happen and you will end your life then. The only option is to go into the future farther than you will live.
I don't see this as a problem. Depends on your definition of time-travel though. If you go back in time by reversing it, then you would be really the same mass that you were before. No duplicates exists. Such a kind of time-travelling would be pointless though, because you would also have exactly the same knowledge as before, because everything was reversed, like a movie, and you can't have more knowledge before then you had.
If you go back in time as travelling as your current selve, then you are not the same mass as you was before, so you would exist twice and there would be no problem. Would be the same as meeting a twin brother who is younger than you.
Quote Posted by RocketMan
2. I don't think time travel to the past is impossible. There are a couple of mathematically permissable theories that do not create causality violations such as those involving multiple quantum histories, ie. multiverse.
I don't think it matters what mathematics says on this topic. Physics can only be proven by experiements, not by math. You can easily devise a mathmatical solution that permits speeds faster then light, but you wont be able to build it. Mathematics is only a theoretical representation and of course you can do more with it, than is actually possible. Just like a computersimulation, where you can do all kind of tricks, that are not possible in reality.
RocketMan on 22/8/2007 at 16:44
Quote Posted by sparhawk
I don't think it matters what mathematics says on this topic. Physics can only be proven by experiements, not by math. You can easily devise a mathmatical solution that permits speeds faster then light, but you wont be able to build it. Mathematics is only a theoretical representation and of course you can do more with it, than is actually possible. Just like a computersimulation, where you can do all kind of tricks, that are not possible in reality.
I'm not saying its true because its mathematically possible. I'm saying I don't think its impossible because if there is a mathematically permissable theory that could be tested if we were sufficiently advanced, then we must entertain that idea as a possibility until there is sufficient reason to say that it can't be done.
Quote:
You can easily devise a mathmatical solution that permits speeds faster then light, but you wont be able to build it.
If information or matter of any kind are travelling faster than light then you won't be able to devise such a mathematical solution. It is forbidden. You could devise a solution mathematically whereby a pair of very long scissors closes and as it does so the intersection point of the 2 blades creates an ever decreasing angle. As it does this, its horizontal velocity grows and can easily exceed the speed of light. So can a carefully programmed string of lights illuminated in series. Point is, in no example like this can you transport information or matter faster than light. In the above examples, an intersection point (a massless concept of the mind) is what's moving, and in the light example, again it is the bulk effect of the lights going off that seems to violate the light speed while each light is static and emits light at the speed of light. Further more neither method can send information faster than light so its useless as an FTL communication device.
OrbWeaver on 22/8/2007 at 20:47
Quote Posted by 37637598
Screw AA guns, we would just go back to the day a caveman took a shit and called it IRAQ, and prevent [911] from ever happening!
wow I am totally not a racist...
Not a racist, just extremely gullible.
37637598 on 22/8/2007 at 21:50
Quote Posted by OrbWeaver
Not a racist, just extremely gullible.
Oh here we go...
There are a million different views on the situation. I've heard stories that the government crashed the planes to confiscate information that was about to become de-classified, I've heard that it was an accident and the first plane crashed due to a flaw in the GPS, and the second plane crashed because it was following the same GPS path, I've heard that terrorists were in charge of the whole deal, I've heard that there were more buildings than just the twin towers in New York that went down rather much like a staged implosion all simultaneously, etc.
What have you heard?
Ultraviolet on 23/8/2007 at 03:16
Quote Posted by 37637598
I've heard that it was an accident and the first plane crashed due to a flaw in the GPS, and the second plane crashed because it was following the same GPS path
Utterly ridiculous. Planes DO have windshields, you know, and flying anywhere near close enough to those buildings to not notice the course until too late just wouldn't have been done.
Quote:
I've heard that there were more buildings than just the twin towers in New York that went down rather much like a staged implosion all simultaneously, etc.
I have read/heard interesting things about what the structural steel in a building like that should be able to stand up to before going down, and apparently the steel wasn't just messed up but severely fucked, which supposedly indicates demolition explosives rather than a fuel-bomb (which isn't all that compressed and thus is incendiary and reactive to the oxygen, but supposedly not forcefully explosive enough or LASTINGLY hot enough to actually melt the steel).
OrbWeaver on 23/8/2007 at 14:34
Quote Posted by 37637598
There are a million different views on the situation.
There are a million different conspiracy theories, yes, but none of them stands up to logical scrutiny and they can all therefore be dismissed without further consideration.
However, it was your apparent belief that Iraq had something to do with 911 that I was referring to by "gullible", not conspiracy theories regarding the attacks.
37637598 on 23/8/2007 at 16:00
Well if everything I listed is so wrong, what happened?
