#127493 - keldon - Thu May 03, 2007 12:15 am
We all have our own ideas on it; but being people who are likely to have some grounds in physics should have interesting ones.
#127494 - Lick - Thu May 03, 2007 12:18 am
Wouldn't it be nice if it was possible? :)
_________________
http://licklick.wordpress.com
#127503 - keldon - Thu May 03, 2007 12:46 am
I'd think it would be nicer if it could be proved impossible. Although one strong case against time travel is that nobody has come from the future, therefore we can say that nobody has travelled back in time to now!
#127505 - tepples - Thu May 03, 2007 12:48 am
Yes, time travel is possible on the DS. Changing the DS clock affects events in Animal Crossing: Wild World. A lot of people play the game Harvest Moon style: they start the game one year behind the current date and set the date forward a day after each session.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#127519 - HyperHacker - Thu May 03, 2007 1:41 am
| keldon wrote: |
| I'd think it would be nicer if it could be proved impossible. Although one strong case against time travel is that nobody has come from the future, therefore we can say that nobody has travelled back in time to now! |
How do we know they're not just using advanced technology such as a cloaking device or SEP Field to prevent us from knowing they're time travellers (or even here at all)?
_________________
I'm a PSP hacker now, but I still <3 DS.
#127522 - keldon - Thu May 03, 2007 1:59 am
If you could travel through 'time', then where do you end up? What are you travelling through, and to? Where do the atoms come from?
If I move my finger, but time travel exists and therefore that same point of time before my finger moved still exists; then has my finger ever moved. If it has then that time cannot be revisited since my finger is moved; but if my finger has moved then that time cannot be revisited
^_^
#127541 - RegalSin - Thu May 03, 2007 4:06 am
Personally we live like gods compared to then. If I did ever wanted to time travel I would like to travel to days when the world was like one of my RPG games I have.
Personally we can find everyting here from every other time zone. We got Confederates in the Southern States, Naszi here and there, Even a Slave or two, Berlesk houses, and so on.
Store houses full of heat beams, micro machines, dragon DNA, The lost maps of yesterday.
We have Giant Squids, Giant Dragon lizards with Bateria breath, Giant turtles, Giant rodents big enough to train as dogs, Giant Spiders that makes "Jeepers Creepers" Snatcher look like nothing, and Giant cats.
We have dolphins that are human like along with sharks who are beast like.
We can have and harnest technology to do about anything even the so called 4d Time Travel, We even put people on the moon.
Right now we have Water cars and cars that can go on water literially. We have Flying cars just like in the movies.
The Germans had plans for flying saucers which we have been mimicing for years. Russia has a coupe of saucers and so does the US. We have them as toys now for less then $45 to $200 dollars.
_________________
Graphics Design Major currently enrolled in CUNY for a start in art world. A figure artist who can create people, babies, Aliens, animals, cowboys, beasties, warriors, cyborgs, monsters. I am limited by tools, refrence materials that is provided.
#127552 - HyperHacker - Thu May 03, 2007 6:16 am
Heh, your post reminded me of something I noticed about a lot of sci-fi movies. They all tend to just give more dramatic things to everyday technology. Cars are civilian transports, guns are blasters, the Internet is the global communication system or some such nonsense, cell phones are personal "datacoms" or similar. We have a lot of the things in the movies, it just doesn't look and sound as cool. Though, the movie versions tend to be more advanced - our cell phones don't project 3D holograms, our cars don't fly, our Internet isn't accessible from literally anywhere in the world wirelessly, etc... yet. ;-)
We do have a sort of flying car though. It's called the airplane. :-p OK, maybe it's more of a flying bus, but you can get personal airplanes if you're willing to spend the money.
_________________
I'm a PSP hacker now, but I still <3 DS.
#127563 - keldon - Thu May 03, 2007 8:34 am
>>> In fact here's another statement; if time travel exists then every object must exist infinitely! I'm off to bed now, goodnight <<<
OMG, I wrote this last night in the quick reply but never posted it because I thought there was no need (or I was too tired and shut down); but Firefox stored the quick reply!!! Amazing
But what exactly was RegalSin's post in response to? I'm lost!
#127568 - keldon - Thu May 03, 2007 9:36 am
Haha, but am I the only one who wants to denounce time travel; I think it's the most over-hyped fantasy since the Tower of Babel.
#127580 - OogyBoogy - Thu May 03, 2007 12:05 pm
My little theory:
Time travel will probably be possible, but they will find that once you travel through time, you can't travel through space, thus you'd be there, but not. Kinda like stepping into a non-interactive full 3d display, where you can see things happening, but can't do anything about it.
_________________
OogyBoogy
#127609 - gauauu - Thu May 03, 2007 3:28 pm
Read The Fabric of the Cosmos. It's a book about higher-level physics (quantum physics, string theory, relativity, etc) written for normal human beings. He has a chapter where he discusses the current popular views about time travel. Very interesting stuff.
Quick summary: most physicists don't believe it's possible, although there are some theoretical ways that it could happen (there was one theory about if you somehow could come up with an infinitely long pole, and went around in circles around it just right, you would travel through time.)
#127613 - keldon - Thu May 03, 2007 4:19 pm
I just think scientists need to sit down and write a proof to shut up all these fantasy-film-fanatic-wannabe-time-travelling-scientists. Please someone do it!
#127628 - RegalSin - Thu May 03, 2007 5:59 pm
Maybe somebody has already done it and we don't know the effects that they made or change. Maybe we have to take every step we made from the last one only backwards to go back in time. Like I am typing this I would have to maek every single move backwards including body movement not only from the outside.
_________________
Graphics Design Major currently enrolled in CUNY for a start in art world. A figure artist who can create people, babies, Aliens, animals, cowboys, beasties, warriors, cyborgs, monsters. I am limited by tools, refrence materials that is provided.
#127630 - keldon - Thu May 03, 2007 6:14 pm
Time travel exists!!! Only that it only travels at 1000ms per second ... oh well!
#127633 - zzo38computer - Thu May 03, 2007 6:38 pm
Once I saw a question in a book that says "What would happen if you could get out of time for 5 minutes? When you come back, you would suffocate because the Earth would have moved away and now you are in space". But I disagree, because of the relativity.
I also heard of some people trying to build a time-machine, and that you could only go back in time to when the time machine was turned on, no further back than that. Well, they finished building it, and tried sending photons back in time, and they received it regardless of whether or not it was sent, so they realized they must have made a mistake. Maybe time-travel is not possible in this way.
_________________
Important: Please send messages about FWNITRO to the public forum, not privately to me.
#127657 - gauauu - Thu May 03, 2007 9:52 pm
| zzo38computer wrote: |
| I also heard of some people trying to build a time-machine, and that you could only go back in time to when the time machine was turned on, no further back than that. |
In that book I was referring to, he states that this would pretty much be the case with any theoretical time-travel device.
#127662 - keldon - Thu May 03, 2007 11:10 pm
If the state of an object (such as an atom) exists because of its previous state and the actions that took place in the transformation for which the state is s[n], the transform is t[n] and the action is a[n]. Then the present state (say s[current]) exists because there existed a state (s[other]) and a transformation (t[other-to-current]); therefore there exists no state s[phi] that results from s[current] + t[current-to-phi] that could result in a change to s[other]
That's some form of disproof for the grandfather paradox. In laymen's terms it means that no object can change something in its past.
This should also disprove the possibility of travelling into the future and changing that future, since that perceived future affected the state of your eyes, anything that follows is now dependant on that future so now that future cannot be changed since it is no longer the future but the past!!!
I just wish there was one to disprove time travel!
#127666 - keldon - Thu May 03, 2007 11:54 pm
Another interesting premise is that the state of an object (in such a given model) contains the entire state of the universe, otherwise you could not perform an action on it to reach a new state since the result of the action is dependant on the state of its surroundings. Nothing special, just making note of a property.</mental note>
#127674 - Dood77 - Fri May 04, 2007 12:37 am
Yeah this is really interesting stuff. Usually I just leave it as it's impossible for us to comprehend, us being 3 dimentional beings, and thats that. I saw a tv show, I think it was Nova, on time travel a long time ago... One thing it mentioned was taking two ends of a worm hole and sending one out in space and bringing it back, due to Einstein's relativity, walking through the wormhole would put you into the future. I think if people in the future have discovered time travel they don't make themselves known because we as a race aren't ready enough, we haven't learned all that is necessary. And the only way society learns is through experience.
| OoglyBoogly wrote: |
| Time travel will probably be possible, but they will find that once you travel through time, you can't travel through space, thus you'd be there, but not. Kinda like stepping into a non-interactive full 3d display, where you can see things happening, but can't do anything about it. |
What do you base your theory on?
The way I understand it:
1st dimention: Two directions of movement
2nd dimention: Four directions of movement (2D movement + instantaneous movement in 1D (fold a piece of string flat on a table))
3rd dimention: Six directions of movement (3D movement + instantaneous movement in 2D (fold a piece of paper))
4th Dimention: Eight directions of movement (Instantaneous movement in 3D(wormhole?))
5th dimention: Ten directions of movement (4D + time travel)
So what makes you say if you time travel you would lose your ability to move through space?
| zzo38computer wrote: |
| I also heard of some people trying to build a time-machine, and that you could only go back in time to when the time machine was turned on, no further back than that. Well, they finished building it, and tried sending photons back in time, and they received it regardless of whether or not it was sent, so they realized they must have made a mistake. Maybe time-travel is not possible in this way. |
Haha, all you wold have to so is make a machine that creates a few protons when its turned on, and say "Look! It worked! We must have sent them in the future!!" I mean how do you tell one photon from the next?
#127704 - HyperHacker - Fri May 04, 2007 5:15 am
It's interesting to try to think how a 2D person would perceive a 2D world. Then imagine you put them in a 3D world. They'd still see only in 2 dimensions, but then they'd take a step to the left or right... it'd be as if they just moved into an alternate, but likely very similar world. It might look very different to them, because they might have e.g. just stepped in front of something, but chances are it looks similar. That gives you some idea of what it would be like for us to move in the 4th dimension. More food for thought: maybe the 2D perspective is correct, and being 3D just means we can see and process several of these worlds at once?
Also, interesting perspective trick I noticed the other day. If you draw a cube on paper, the corners will come out something like this:
There's a pattern; a line rotated 45? from the previous one. So continue it:
If you keep going you just get the other end of the Y, Z and X axes respectively. This probably doesn't mean anything, I just noticed it while bored. :-p
_________________
I'm a PSP hacker now, but I still <3 DS.
#127723 - keldon - Fri May 04, 2007 9:36 am
Oh man I wrote an nice explanation of 4d for you but it failed due to the quickreply+phpBB timeout to threads (or something). But that is not how you represent 4d with axis!
Also the number of dimensions are your directions of movement! If sound, heat, gravity, and explosions happen in all directions then why are they only restricted to 3 dimensions of movement? Although having said that there may be plenty of reasons which would be known if we were to take a course in whatever field of study would give that answer.
But back on time travel!
#127798 - Huitzilopoctli - Sat May 05, 2007 2:07 am
A few scientists recently proposed that if they could build a quantum gravity computer, it would be able to answer questions before they were asked, exploiting the fun of confused causilty at quantum scales. When asked how they would go about building one, they said that they would have to ask a quantum gravity computer 1. How quantum gravity works, (if it does :p) and 2. How to build a quantum gravity computer.
Lots of other scientists then proposed that they had been watching far to much science fiction.
_________________
The fifth is my least favourite interval!
#127833 - zzo38computer - Sat May 05, 2007 1:38 pm
| gauauu wrote: |
| zzo38computer wrote: | | I also heard of some people trying to build a time-machine, and that you could only go back in time to when the time machine was turned on, no further back than that. |
In that book I was referring to, he states that this would pretty much be the case with any theoretical time-travel device. |
Yes, I knew that I just forgot to write that. I didn't see the book though, I saw it on TV at the same time as some other people were watching TV with me. And it does make sense to me, it is relativity (or something). With the relativity and stuff, I cannot think of how anyone knows where you could end up if you could go more further back in time than that.
_________________
Important: Please send messages about FWNITRO to the public forum, not privately to me.
#127834 - Darkflame - Sat May 05, 2007 2:01 pm
Time travel would only be possibly for observation trips, or accidental change.
We can not be visited by time travelers for this reason. (not human ones anyway :p)
Any deliberate change would set up a feedback loop that would instantiously resolve itself to be a stable timeline. (that is, one where your own actions in the past dont change your trip to the past in any way).
It annoys me when paradox's and other dimensions and such are brought up in time travel, because its a solved problem.
You can not cause a change in the past without first causing a change to your own journey into the past, which will, in turn, set up another change.
Even the very air and heat brought with you in the time machine will displace atoms and subtly change the future, and thus your trip back.
Theres no paradox to this, its just a feedback loop that will continue untill the timeline is stable.
Its hard too visualise or comprehend the "human scale" effect of that, but it would be the minimum change needed for the timeline to stop looping.
Could be your time machine stopping working, could be you were never born, could be something as minor as a change in your brain chemestry just enough too stop you wanting to kill your grandfather ;)
| Quote: |
A few scientists recently proposed that if they could build a quantum gravity computer, it would be able to answer questions before they were asked, exploiting the fun of confused causilty at quantum scales. When asked how they would go about building one, they said that they would have to ask a quantum gravity computer 1. How quantum gravity works, (if it does :p) and 2. How to build a quantum gravity computer.
Lots of other scientists then proposed that they had been watching far to much science fiction. |
Indeed, they have more chance if they give it a cup of tea first and work out how improbably it is.
| Quote: |
| Also the number of dimensions are your directions of movement! If sound, heat, gravity, and explosions happen in all directions then why are they only restricted to 3 dimensions of movement? . |
Heat, Sound and Explosions are merely propertys of other particals.
They are 3d discription of a 4D shape, in effect.
So its not that they are restricted, its that the 4d "shape" we view as those 3D movements we call heat, sound, ect.
In order for there to be a 4D explosion, there would have to be at least 5D, because it will take 1 dimension to messure the change in the other 4...do you see?
However, gravity *does* work in higher dimensions, its completely nutral too direction or dimension.
The effects of gravity on our speed though time are well known, studyied and even messured.
Put simply, in theory, passing over a point were a dense object used too be, will slow you down in time slightly relative to that around you.
In fact, one of the current lines of study involves looking at small scale gravity to work out how many dimensions there are. (in a hope of limiting down some of the string theorys, that are currently so diverse as to be useless).
| Quote: |
| If you keep going you just get the other end of the Y, Z and X axes respectively. This probably doesn't mean anything, I just noticed it while bored. :-p |
Actualy, its one method to draw 4D shapes on a 2D plane.
But it gets very confusing, I find it easier to draw a true perspective view of a 3D shadow of a 4D object.
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#127882 - HyperHacker - Sun May 06, 2007 2:18 am
Yeah, I tried to extend upon it to draw hypercubes, but how do I know if I've done it right or not? :-p
_________________
I'm a PSP hacker now, but I still <3 DS.
#127891 - Ant6n - Sun May 06, 2007 6:26 am
| Code: |
However, gravity *does* work in higher dimensions, its completely nutral too direction or dimension.
....
In fact, one of the current lines of study involves looking at small scale gravity to work out how many dimensions there are. (in a hope of limiting down some of the string theorys, that are currently so diverse as to be useless). |
yeah, and assuming there is a fourth dimensions the data so far says that that one has to be smaller than 44 um.
| Quote: |
If the state of an object (such as an atom) exists because of its previous state and the actions that took place in the transformation for which the state is s[n], the transform is t[n] and the action is a[n]. Then the present state (say s[current]) exists because there existed a state (s[other]) and a transformation (t[other-to-current]); therefore there exists no state s[phi] that results from s[current] + t[current-to-phi] that could result in a change to s[other] |
again:
axioms
there exists states s1,s2,s3... - s_n
there are transformations T_mn such that T_mn[s_m] = s_n
s_n can exist iff there exists s_x and T_xn.
proposition
there exists no s_phi and T_phiother such that T_cur.phi[s_cur] = s_phi and and T_phiother[s_phi] = s_other
i dont really get it
#127898 - keldon - Sun May 06, 2007 9:13 am
Sorry my bad I used the wrong word; when I said transformation I meant transition, and the underscores replacing paramaters make it more confusing
axioms:
- s(n): state
- transition ( s(n), action ) = s(;n)
- transition ( s(n), action1 + action2 ) = s(''n) iff there exists transition (s(n),action1) = s('n) and transition ( s('n), action2) = s(''n)
- action_m = action1 + action2
- there exists no transitions transition ( s(n), action ) = s('n) where s('n) leads to changing a state where that state leads to s(n); since it automatically introduces a contradiction.
#127939 - misterDtD - Sun May 06, 2007 9:04 pm
Easy, all you need is a flux compacitor =P
~DtD
#127942 - keldon - Sun May 06, 2007 9:08 pm
| misterDtD wrote: |
Easy, all you need is a flux compacitor =P
~DtD |
And some special effects ^_^
#127962 - Ant6n - Mon May 07, 2007 12:11 am
| keldon wrote: |
| misterDtD wrote: | Easy, all you need is a flux compacitor =P
~DtD |
And some special effects ^_^ |
and 80 miles per hour, and uranium power or power from a lighting
#127979 - Rajveer - Mon May 07, 2007 4:17 am
Anybody read anything about string theory, the 10 dimensions and time travel?
http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php
#127991 - keldon - Mon May 07, 2007 9:26 am
There was a documentary about this that I watched years ago, you guys are way behind!
#128189 - PhoenixSoft - Wed May 09, 2007 2:44 pm
I can't see travelling backwards through time being possible, but the perception of travelling forwards through time at a faster rate definitely is.
That is, in my opinion, the main goal of time travel; to move to another point in time without consciously experiencing the points in between. Thus, sleep can be seen as a form of time travel.
This concept can be extended to other dimensions as well - if you are knocked on the head and dragged to a different location, it is equivalent to having teleported. The actual method does not matter (as long as you don't mind a slight concussion), the perception of instantaneously moving from one point to another is the same.
#128208 - Darkflame - Wed May 09, 2007 7:30 pm
| PhoenixSoft wrote: |
I can't see travelling backwards through time being possible, but the perception of travelling forwards through time at a faster rate definitely is.
That is, in my opinion, the main goal of time travel; to move to another point in time without consciously experiencing the points in between. Thus, sleep can be seen as a form of time travel.
This concept can be extended to other dimensions as well - if you are knocked on the head and dragged to a different location, it is equivalent to having teleported. The actual method does not matter (as long as you don't mind a slight concussion), the perception of instantaneously moving from one point to another is the same. |
I really like this viewpoint, and its mostly correct.
However, I think its purpose slightly beyond a mere absence of consciousness.
If I wanted to travel 50 years into the future, Id preferably not want to age either ;)
Its a very nice site, and upto 5-6 dimensions it makes sense.
Beyond that it lose's its way.
The connection to string theory isn't like that anyway.
Dimensions are kinda a place to store the information of mater as far as string theory goes.
They haven't got them numbered or listed as meaning stuff what the site implies.
Also, Id argue you could say you need infinite dimensions to cover all possibilities.
Because, however many dimensions you got, to store/mesure *change* in those dimensions, would take...another dimension :p
So you could go on again.
Still, its a nice site, and its very good visual explanation.
| Quote: |
| and 80 miles per hour, |
88 miles per hour.
The physics dont work at 80 miles and hour, that would be just stupid!
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#128213 - Tikker - Wed May 09, 2007 8:13 pm
Time travel, think of time as a flowing river
if you were to go back in time, and somehow force someone to wear a different outfit, it's probably not a big change
kinda like tossing a pebble into the stream. small ripple, but no noticeable change in the actual flow
go back in time, and kill your grandfather before your father is born and that's a major change (nay sayers will point out that the flow of time should somehow keep you from doing this (the grandfather paradox)
what will happen tho, is the stream will split
there will now be a parallel universe!
1 where your grandfather lived, and another where he was murdered, and you did not exist
you can't get back to your own time now tho. you've changed the universe that you exist in, and ceased to exist in your original timeline
#128222 - keldon - Wed May 09, 2007 8:45 pm
The whole 'starting a new split/branch' is more of a fantasy explanation based on the idea that a particular event creates an entirely new instance of the universe.
The multiple dimensions concept makes complete sense, however there is no reason to believe that there exists any means that will allow you to travel backwards in time. We move forward by applying force in the opposite direction, movement in the desired direction is a reaction to that force. Just try sitting at your screen and pushing backwards against time ^_^
#128246 - Dood77 - Wed May 09, 2007 11:42 pm
| PhoenixSoft wrote: |
I can't see travelling backwards through time being possible, but the perception of travelling forwards through time at a faster rate definitely is.
That is, in my opinion, the main goal of time travel; to move to another point in time without consciously experiencing the points in between. Thus, sleep can be seen as a form of time travel.
This concept can be extended to other dimensions as well - if you are knocked on the head and dragged to a different location, it is equivalent to having teleported. The actual method does not matter (as long as you don't mind a slight concussion), the perception of instantaneously moving from one point to another is the same. |
Yeah, I remember instances where I couldn't sleep for excitement of the next day, maybe like christmas as a little kid where I would think people are lucky that they're asleep because they're already at christmas...
And only a few times I've had an experience where I fall asleep immediately and wake up immediately, seemingly losing time. One occasion this happened in the blink of an eye...
#128266 - Tikker - Thu May 10, 2007 3:37 am
| keldon wrote: |
| We move forward by applying force in the opposite direction, movement in the desired direction is a reaction to that force. |
so you're implying that if you could stop moving that time would cease to flow?
#128285 - keldon - Thu May 10, 2007 8:48 am
| Tikker wrote: |
| keldon wrote: | | We move forward by applying force in the opposite direction, movement in the desired direction is a reaction to that force. |
so you're implying that if you could stop moving that time would cease to flow? |
No
#128372 - Darkflame - Fri May 11, 2007 1:32 am
If you stoped your movement in time relative to everyone else, then yes.
Perhapes if there was some sort of temporal friction.
| Quote: |
| The multiple dimensions concept makes complete sense, however there is no reason to believe that there exists any means that will allow you to travel backwards in time. We move forward by applying force in the opposite direction, movement in the desired direction is a reaction to that force. Just try sitting at your screen and pushing backwards against time ^_^ |
Exactly, but this does raise the possibility that time travel would be possible if we were hit (gained an impulse) from another object already "time traveling" relative to us.
Also, I agree there is no reason to belief its possible.
But I do get irritated with the the idea that its impossible because of the apperent paradox's that it would cause.
And I then get doubly annoyed with the idea that you have to invent new instances of the universe to get around the paradoxes that wouldn't happen anyway. :p
Paradoxs are just an illusion caused by people seeing events as discrete instantanious things. ("kill grandfather") rather then the continious flow of events that make them up.
Time is like kaplunk played in zero gravity. Removing one bit will effect everything else but it wont all fall down.
| Quote: |
| Time travel, think of time as a flowing river |
More like an ocean in a storm I have heard ;)
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#128391 - Dood77 - Fri May 11, 2007 4:24 am
Paradoxes happen because we live bound by time and we're not capable of understanding it. If we could control time we wouldn't look at how it effects other times, because it doesn't really matter. Its just like traveling from place to place, we could always go back.
#128403 - Tikker - Fri May 11, 2007 6:16 am
splitting the time stream at the point where history diverges solves the problem of all the paradoxes
#128410 - DiscoStew - Fri May 11, 2007 8:19 am
Just a random thought.
I take a look at all those movies that involve time travel in the blink of an eye, yet one of the things they don't want to bring up (or haven't even thought up) is this.
If I were to go forward (or even backward) in time by just 1 minute, right while I'm sitting at my chair, where would I end up? Well, I'd assume that I'd end up floating in space if anything, as my position in the universe is set at one point, whereas everything else in the universe has moved forward (or backward) in time.
I would hazard a guess that if we somehow figured out how time worked, we'd have other far greater problems to deal with.
_________________
DS - It's all about DiscoStew
#128411 - keldon - Fri May 11, 2007 8:24 am
| Tikker wrote: |
| splitting the time stream at the point where history diverges solves the problem of all the paradoxes |
Splitting the time stream is a fantasy fix. It implies that either (a) all things in the universe exist infinitely and are constantly creating new time streams, or (b) a particular event will create an entirely new instance of the universe. Note that you are therefore not changing a thing; your mother is still dead, your sister still maimed; all you have done is gone to another Universe and not let that happen. How very selfish of you -_-
| Dood77 wrote: |
| Paradoxes happen because we live bound by time and we're not capable of understanding it |
The only paradox of time travel is changing the past. It is not a paradox because we are not capable of understanding it but because the scenario contradicts itself. That's why I wrote a 'proof' for it, well the proof is merely state transition itself, but the splitting time streams and branching are the only other possible explanations.
Also if you are able to travel to any particular point in time then all states of the Universe must exist infinitely. Think about it!
#128443 - spinal_cord - Fri May 11, 2007 2:59 pm
| Tikker wrote: |
| splitting the time stream at the point where history diverges solves the problem of all the paradoxes |
However multiple time lines is completely made up.
How about, you can't go back in time and change things because you didn't. The flow of time stopped you from doing it.?
_________________
I'm not a boring person, it's just that boring things keep happening to me.
Homepage
#128467 - Darkflame - Fri May 11, 2007 6:41 pm
| Quote: |
| How about, you can't go back in time and change things because you didn't. The flow of time stopped you from doing it.? |
Thats actualy a very good way of putting it.
The very moment you go back in time and do anything you have changed the timeline.
The very heat, the very atoms that come out of your craft has changed things. By a tiny slight amount, yes, but its still changed.
The changes propagate instantly, meaning that you have also changed.
Which means the past changes again, which means you change again and so on.
This is NOT a paradox at this stage, this is merely an iterative process.
The irritations will continue untill the timeline is "stable".
eg. That actions in the past do not result in changes to the future that would effect the past.
From the perspective of the human time traveler this would happened instantly. They wouldnt even know it happened, as their bodys and brains are part of what changed.
Its much easier to understand with heat, balls, atoms..to think of it on the human scale is confusing.
Nevertheless, paradox's are merely an illusion. Even if Time travel was possible, paradox's would not happen.
| Quote: |
| The only paradox of time travel is changing the past. It is not a paradox because we are not capable of understanding it but because the scenario contradicts itself. That's why I wrote a 'proof' for it, well the proof is merely state transition itself, but the splitting time streams and branching are the only other possible explanations. |
If it happened yes.
But it wouldnt.
| Quote: |
I take a look at all those movies that involve time travel in the blink of an eye, yet one of the things they don't want to bring up (or haven't even thought up) is this.
If I were to go forward (or even backward) in time by just 1 minute, right while I'm sitting at my chair, where would I end up? Well, I'd assume that I'd end up floating in space if anything, as my position in the universe is set at one point, whereas everything else in the universe has moved forward (or backward) in time. |
Well, HGWell's The Time Machine was one of the few things to have proper time *travel* rather then time teleportation.
Most things kinda take a wormhole approach.
Either way, you wouldnt even up in empty space.
The earth isnt a 4D sphere, its some crazy 4D helix shape with a 3D spherical cross section :p
One interesting fiction example is an eppisode of Earie Indiana, where people are the only things really moving in time. By not setting his clock back the hero ends up an hour "behind" everyone else, and the streets are all abandoned.
| Quote: |
| Paradoxes happen because we live bound by time and we're not capable of understanding it. |
This is quite true.
We cant even picture 4D objects in heads, we can only infer their shape.
The timeline or "history" of any set of human effects is so complex its very hard for us to comprehend what would happen if we changed it a bit.
I try to imagine myself as wigglying line crossing an itteracting with lots of other wigglingly lines.
If I time traveled back, the line would loop back, and any effects I do to my past self would also instantly be effecting my current self too.
_________________
Darkflames Reviews --
Make your own at;
Rateoholic:Reviews for anything, by anyone.
#128482 - keldon - Fri May 11, 2007 10:02 pm
| Darkflame wrote: |
This is quite true.
We cant even picture 4D objects in heads, we can only infer their shape. |
Donnie Darko has a good representation of 4D. 4D is nothing more than an extra plane which can easily simply represented with the object at multiple points in time quite like motion blur or how it was shown in Donnie Darko. Obviously you wouldn't expect to draw an objects entire existence in 4D in the same way you wouldn't expect to draw an entire scene 3D semi transparent - you just couldn't see anything.
| Darkflame wrote: |
| Nevertheless, paradox's are merely an illusion. Even if Time travel was possible, paradox's would not happen. |
A paradox is a statement that says "I am true, I am false". Paradoxes have nothing to do with lack of understanding, and yes, if time travel was possible then paradoxes could not happen. The main paradox involved in time travel is changing the past since changing the 'past' negates the existence of the 'past', which the one changing the past is a dependant of.
And then what future do you go to? Because essentially there will now be two of you! How so, because the past didn't exist and now you don't go back! And if that instance of you goes back then what happens? Are they following your path, it's all very .. well .. dependant on the idea that it 'just works', all part of the fantasy thought of "if only I could go back and change this and that"; and also idea that if time travel exists then so does the ability to change the past too.