Shows about time travel

DaveC426913 said:
Turning around in time no more turns the universe around than does turning around in space.
Click to expand...
right but in the shows/movies it always shows that the individual didn't go back in time (as in, get younger)... the universe did (younger universe).
 
arfa brane said:
So the question here is: is about $$ 10^{15} $$ Joules enough energy to deflect a comet? Maybe, but deflecting the comet also means having to focus this energy on a known location.

Well, here's a problem, even if the future "knows" when the comet enters the earth's atmosphere and when it strikes the ocean it lands in (because both are known accurately), how could it know where the comet was when the deflection beam is fired? This comet doesn't get detected until it's too late, so there must be some really cool quantum processing goin' on somewhere.

Unless of course, it is possible to retrodict the comet's position from a sufficiently large set of measurements taken from the moment of first detection.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be a simple matter of concentrate their observations on the right place and looking really hard until they found it?
 
goose said:
right but in the shows/movies it always shows that the individual didn't go back in time (as in, get younger)... the universe did (younger universe).
Click to expand...
If I turn my car around and head back home, does my gas tank return to its former (younger) Fullness?
No. Turning around and going the other way doesn't reverse you; you don't get younger when you travel back in time.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
If I turn my car around and head back home, does my gas tank return to its former (younger) Fullness?
Click to expand...
No because your arn't going in a true negative direction (not talking about positive and negative in terms of an X, Y, and Z axis).
Going back in time is a true negative, much like a negative velocity is a true negative. (For the record, I do not believe in time travel at all to be even remotely possible due to its negative nature).
Sure you are now going along a new vector, but you are still moving in a positive motion. That is entirely different from the phenomenon described in movies.

your example would indicate going back in time is no different than turning around or walking backwards down the road. Extremely different phenomena.
 
goose said:
your example would indicate going back in time is no different than turning around or walking backwards down the road. Extremely different phenomena.
Click to expand...
That is, indeed, what people generally mean when they talk about "travelling through time".
 
DaveC426913 said:
Right. So, you acknowledge that your thoughts and memories are physically encoded in your physical brain.
Click to expand...
Let me think bout that. I know it not a trick question but at the moment I have a few distractions going on

:)
 
As someone posted, if you yourself reversed time the universe around you would also reverse. Where would the Earth and Sun be?
 
TheFrogger said:
As someone posted, if you yourself reversed time the universe around you would also reverse. Where would the Earth and Sun be?
Click to expand...
Let's be clear: if you were to travel backward in time, you could observe the universe moving in reverse. The universe itself would not.

What would happen to the Earth and Sun is self-evident; you would watch them reverse their directions of rotation/revolution, and trace their path backwards.

(Interestingly, you would not notice anything strange about the physics. Most physical processes are direction independent. The Earth revolving around the Sun in the opposite direction would obey all physical laws you could test, as would most of the rest of nature (with the exception of thermodynamics, and certain subatomic properties)).
 
TheFrogger said:
As someone posted, if you yourself reversed time the universe around you would also reverse.
Click to expand...

The surrounding environment as represented or manifested in your perceptions, anyway (though whether you could still cognitively recognize it as "reversed" is perhaps another matter). In contrast, the experience-independent version of the cosmos which rationalist activity has historically inferred / posited would remain as static as ever in the supposed physics rendition of it.[*]

Robert Geroch: "There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as 'moving through' space-time, or as 'following along' their world-lines. Rather, particles are just 'in' space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle." --General Relativity from A to B

Paul Davies: "Peter Lynds's reasonable and widely accepted assertion that the flow of time is an illusion (25 October, p 33) does not imply that time itself is an illusion. It is perfectly meaningful to state that two events may be separated by a certain duration, while denying that time mysteriously flows from one event to the other. Crick compares our perception of time to that of space. Quite right. Space does not flow either, but it's still 'there'." --New Scientist, 6 December 2003, Sec. Letters

Hermann Weyl: "The objective world simply IS, it does not HAPPEN. Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling upward along the life line [worldline] of my body, does a certain section of this world come to life as a fleeting image in space which continuously changes in time." --Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science ​

- - - footnote - - -

[*] The latter models or constructs don't have to be metaphysically reified, though, anymore than the rival ontological claims of commonsense realists. Aside from competition between the two parties provoking such, it's a rather useless step since both "yay" and "nay" opinions about _X_ metempirical assertions can't be validated.

~
 
arfa brane said:
what else is the problem about the idea that transmitting any kind of information back into the past can alter it?
Click to expand...

binary ...
mathamatically your making something exist in the past that was previousely not there.
this is a little different to alternate realities(for example).

Can science define the ability to create something that was previousely not there in any known form ?
or... is the transmission simply a "re-organisation" of existing energy into some form ?
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
What-if you put the WTC back in place on 9/12/01. What happens to the rubble from 9/11?
Click to expand...
What rubble are you talking about?
World Trade Centre rubble????
The buildings are there you idiot
Anybody like to help this person to medical assistance?

:)
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Yeah, but the debris is spread out, not just on the ground but people have taken souvenirs home. Time somehow has to track all that crap down and delete it.
Click to expand...

Bully for time

You may or may not know my position on TIME - it does not exist

Apart from that

Scenario
If if if someone makes a time machine and zips back 100 years and spends a week there
Now the problem becomes the world the traveler left has continued (without the traveler) and aged another week
So does the traveler go back to the moment they left or to the new 1 week older world?

Not going to happen

Nearly forgot

The idea that Relativity does not exclude time travel

Incorrect

What it does not exclude is PROCESSES reversal
ie you can unscramble a omelette and make a egg (however difficult and unpractical)
Which as you should note is not time reversal but the reversal of a process

:)
 
Last edited:
It would be just like watching a movie in reverse. You see a window shatter, the pieces fly everywhere, in reverse you see all these tiny fragments come together to form a window. You see people regurgitate their food whole again, you see rain rise to the sky, people walking backwards, old people getting young, young people becoming unborn. Buildings are dismantled from the top down, volcanoes suck in all the ash, lava and smoke and then settle down until they suck in more.
Movie in reverse. That's all you'd see. Unless you interacted with it on your journey, of course.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
What-if you put the WTC back in place on 9/12/01. What happens to the rubble from 9/11?
Click to expand...
Wait. This has nothing to do with time travel.

It would be just as easy - or just as hard - to put all the buildings from 9/11 back in place on 9/12 by any method - whether or not time travel was involved. Time travel is irrelevant to that scenario.

AS far as the engineering effort of building on top of rubble - it makes no difference to where the materials were transported from. Saying they came from "the future" doesn't make it any different than saying they came from "a warehouse down the block".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top