Charlie Chaplin time traveler w/ cell phone

[User Name]

Ha, don't believe it myself, but here it is... I do wonder what she is holding..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I3O_...layer_embedded

Some people have mentioned it could be a hearing aid check out these pics:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23909185@N06/5108888518/

Kinda like that guy from the Canadian museam who looks like he's from the future too. Way ahead of their times I guess. haha.

[HeartsOfFire]

Definitely not a cell phone. In 1928, there's no way she would have gotten any kind of service.

Want to debate time travel? I love debating time travel, epecially since I can prove it is impossible in the sense that Back to the Future makes it out to be.

[Cowperson]

Most analysts looking at that assume she's adjusting a hearing aid, since those devices were invented just a few years prior.

Anyway, if it's a cell phone as we understand it who would she be talking to and secondly, how's she doing it without cell phone towers?

Balderdash!!!

Cowperson

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Definitely not a cell phone. In 1928, there's no way she would have gotten any kind of service.

Want to debate time travel? I love debating time travel, epecially since I can prove it is impossible in the sense that Back to the Future makes it out to be.

I'm really curious to hear your Back to the Future debunking.
Please proceed.

[Thor]

Not to mention if she really was a time traveller why in the hell would she have some large bulky 1990's style cellphone.

Amazing what people will believe, guess its hard to just say, hmm I don't know what that is. Yet the guy who posted the video has been studying it for a year, lol.

[Kybosh]

The most interesting thing I learned here is that hearing aids were a lot different than I previously assumed.

[scotty2hotty]

Originally Posted by Thor

Not to mention if she really was a time traveller why in the hell would she have some large bulky 1990's style cellphone.

Pffft. Obviously it's a Tricorder.

Science expert, my ass.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'm really curious to hear your Back to the Future debunking.
Please proceed.

The concept of Time Travel used in Back to the Future revolved around the physical transplantation of an object (the DeLorean, in this case) and the object's occupants. By fuelling the flux capacitor, then bringing the DeLorean to the required speed of 88 miles per hour, it was capable of displacing itself from that exact point in time, and re-emerging in the same space at an entirely different time. A theoretical concept that, while fantastical, fails to take into account that the space from which they depart may in all likelihood be deep space in the space when they arrive. Where you are right this very moment is not where you were last week, or last month, due to the movement of the Earth through space. But that's besides the point.

Assuming this theory of Time Travel by Time Transplantation is true and possible, then it must exist right here, right now. Without time travel, we perceive time as a linear phenemonon that is constantly moving forward at a steady pace. Picture the Timeline, if you can, as a perfectly straight line on a piece of paper. Across this Timeline, you have intersecting ticks that mark points in history. But, if Time Travel by Time Transplantation were possible, the Timeline would be different. While it would maintain its forward, linear momentum, that would no longer have any bearing because if it is possible to jump backward or forward in time, then that constant, straight line can be manipulated. Previously intersecting ticks could be removed, replaced, or even added at the will of the Traveller, based on the events of the Earth happening at that moment in time.

If Time Travel by Time Transplantation were possible, we would have seen evidence of it. The notion that 'it's not possible because it hasn't been discovered yet' is not four-dimensional thinking. You cannot consider time travel as something yet to be invented because by its very nature, it either exists, or it does not. Time travel eliminates the concepts of 'past, present, and future.' If it were possible, we would have seen some evidence of it by now, evidence to show that it will some day be invented. And since no such evidence exists, it is not possible.

One could potentially argue that maybe some day it will be invented, but be under such strict control and guidelines as to prevent manipulation of past events to alter the future timeline, thus making travelling back in time impossible. I would counter that by saying man is an imperfect creature, and it is assured that sometime, somewhere, there will be someone nefarious enough that succeeds in getting past all that said security and successfully transplanting themselves into the past to alter the timeline in some manner.

Make sense?

[rubecube]

nm

[KTrain]

[HeartsOfFire]

Exactly.

OH! I should note, there is one exception to the rule, whereby where you are right now is not where you were last week.

If you live in Toronto...

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Most analysts looking at that assume she's adjusting a hearing aid, since those devices were invented just a few years prior.

Anyway, if it's a cell phone as we understand it who would she be talking to and secondly, how's she doing it without cell phone towers?

Balderdash!!!

Cowperson

Not that I believe what I'm about to say, but if they can figure out time travel, then they can probably figure out a way to communicate through time too. You just don't know what is possible until it is discovered.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Buff

Not that I believe what I'm about to say, but if they can figure out time travel, then they can probably figure out a way to communicate through time too. You just don't know what is possible until it is discovered.

Not with Time Travel, you don't. It either is, or isn't discovered.

Read my post above.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

The concept of Time Travel used in Back to the Future revolved around the physical transplantation of an object (the DeLorean, in this case) and the object's occupants. By fuelling the flux capacitor, then bringing the DeLorean to the required speed of 88 miles per hour, it was capable of displacing itself from that exact point in time, and re-emerging in the same space at an entirely different time. A theoretical concept that, while fantastical, fails to take into account that the space from which they depart may in all likelihood be deep space in the space when they arrive. Where you are right this very moment is not where you were last week, or last month, due to the movement of the Earth through space. But that's besides the point.

Assuming this theory of Time Travel by Time Transplantation is true and possible, then it must exist right here, right now. Without time travel, we perceive time as a linear phenemonon that is constantly moving forward at a steady pace. Picture the Timeline, if you can, as a perfectly straight line on a piece of paper. Across this Timeline, you have intersecting ticks that mark points in history. But, if Time Travel by Time Transplantation were possible, the Timeline would be different. While it would maintain its forward, linear momentum, that would no longer have any bearing because if it is possible to jump backward or forward in time, then that constant, straight line can be manipulated. Previously intersecting ticks could be removed, replaced, or even added at the will of the Traveller, based on the events of the Earth happening at that moment in time.

If Time Travel by Time Transplantation were possible, we would have seen evidence of it. The notion that 'it's not possible because it hasn't been discovered yet' is not four-dimensional thinking. You cannot consider time travel as something yet to be invented because by its very nature, it either exists, or it does not. Time travel eliminates the concepts of 'past, present, and future.' If it were possible, we would have seen some evidence of it by now, evidence to show that it will some day be invented. And since no such evidence exists, it is not possible.

One could potentially argue that maybe some day it will be invented, but be under such strict control and guidelines as to prevent manipulation of past events to alter the future timeline, thus making travelling back in time impossible. I would counter that by saying man is an imperfect creature, and it is assured that sometime, somewhere, there will be someone nefarious enough that succeeds in getting past all that said security and successfully transplanting themselves into the past to alter the timeline in some manner.

Make sense?

Well that's not really debunking back to the future, it's just debunking time travel in general. I was really hoping for something back to the future specific.

That being said (and I can't believe I'm about to do this), you haven't debunked back to the future. The whole point of the movies is that changing things in the past crates a new timeline, meaning that no one knows that anything has been changed from the point of view of the time traveler, meaning evidence of the time traveler does not exist, or exaclty the opposite of what you're saying. How would I know if someone went back in time and changed it so that Napolean lost at Waterloo?

Besides, like the axiom goes "Absence of evidence, does not equate to evidence of absence".

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

Not with Time Travel, you don't. It either is, or isn't discovered.

Read my post above.

You're talking about linear time though... so that doesn't mean it doesn't exist? I thought linear time wasn't even the current time thought anymore? This is science and you're trying to argue it philosophically.

Your logic:

- we have not yet discovered time travel is possible (publicly)
- we have seen no evidence that it is possible (ie/ we have not recognized things from the future existing in there here and now)
- therefore we will never discover time travel is possible

My counterpoint is: what if we are the first iteration of the loop? ie/ if no one has gone to the "future" yet, then no wonder they haven't discovered time travel. We will be the first, and then go back, thereby retroactively messing it up for everyone in the future. But we could very will be the first iteration even if your argument is true.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

The concept of Time Travel used in Back to the Future revolved around the physical transplantation of an object (the DeLorean, in this case) and the object's occupants. By fuelling the flux capacitor, then bringing the DeLorean to the required speed of 88 miles per hour, it was capable of displacing itself from that exact point in time, and re-emerging in the same space at an entirely different time. A theoretical concept that, while fantastical, fails to take into account that the space from which they depart may in all likelihood be deep space in the space when they arrive. Where you are right this very moment is not where you were last week, or last month, due to the movement of the Earth through space. But that's besides the point.

Assuming this theory of Time Travel by Time Transplantation is true and possible, then it must exist right here, right now. Without time travel, we perceive time as a linear phenemonon that is constantly moving forward at a steady pace. Picture the Timeline, if you can, as a perfectly straight line on a piece of paper. Across this Timeline, you have intersecting ticks that mark points in history. But, if Time Travel by Time Transplantation were possible, the Timeline would be different. While it would maintain its forward, linear momentum, that would no longer have any bearing because if it is possible to jump backward or forward in time, then that constant, straight line can be manipulated. Previously intersecting ticks could be removed, replaced, or even added at the will of the Traveller, based on the events of the Earth happening at that moment in time.

If Time Travel by Time Transplantation were possible, we would have seen evidence of it. The notion that 'it's not possible because it hasn't been discovered yet' is not four-dimensional thinking. You cannot consider time travel as something yet to be invented because by its very nature, it either exists, or it does not. Time travel eliminates the concepts of 'past, present, and future.' If it were possible, we would have seen some evidence of it by now, evidence to show that it will some day be invented. And since no such evidence exists, it is not possible.

One could potentially argue that maybe some day it will be invented, but be under such strict control and guidelines as to prevent manipulation of past events to alter the future timeline, thus making travelling back in time impossible. I would counter that by saying man is an imperfect creature, and it is assured that sometime, somewhere, there will be someone nefarious enough that succeeds in getting past all that said security and successfully transplanting themselves into the past to alter the timeline in some manner.

Make sense?

OK.. I'll bite. Thing is, no one really knows what the real co-ordinate system of the universe really is. With relativity and all, our co-ordinate system is based on our frame of reference. We haven't seen anything that could be considered a universal space frame of reference (that I've ever heard of), especially considering the universe itself is expanding. That universal frame of reference, if it exists, is in constant flux or change.

Even locally, on a global scale, our frame of reference is really screwed up. Remove the interesting thought about flying through the solar system (although you would also have to account for the solar system flying through the galaxy, and the galaxy flying through the universe), and just look at Earth. Geologically, things have changed a lot, screwing up our frame of reference plenty if we start traveling further along the time scale than just to the 50's. In the Cambrian, Alberta (or rather, the rocks that constituted the rocks we are standing on now, provided you are in Alberta) was south of the equator. I've always been wondering about that, when we say "this place used to be a sea back during the time of the dinosaurs", what "this place" were they talking about? Latitude makes sense, but even with the spinning of the globe, Longitude is a somewhat abstract idea. Is "this place" something that has traveled, and then does it make it still "this place"? The mind continues to unearth complexities regarding that.

But.

If your method of time travel requires you to pass out of the space-time continuum, then re-enter, then it is entirely possible that you can travel through space as well, theoretically being able to go anywhere in addition to anywhen. Provided Doc Brown was able to calculate a passable universal framework, and adjust his location to compensate, then yes, he could travel back through time in a manner that would let him do so without popping into the void of space, or the center of the planet. In fact, the choice of a mode of transportation to achieve time travel would make that space traveling easier to achieve. The calculations need to do so however are astronomical. In fact, it would be more believable if the DeLorean included an Astromech droid.




I know that part was besides your point, but it's something that has been nagging at me for awhile.

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Well that's not really debunking back to the future, it's just debunking time travel in general. I was really hoping for something back to the future specific.

There are multiple means of travelling through time. Time Travel through Time Displacement is the most fantastic and is what is demonstrated through movies like Back to the Future, Terminator, Star Trek etc. One could also theoretically travel through time by means of physics, through wormholes or singularities (provided they survive the experience), or by simply beingplaced in a state of hibernation and woken up years later. The latter is technically possible, but not true time travel in the essence of the term.

That being said (and I can't believe I'm about to do this), you haven't debunked back to the future. The whole point of the movies is that changing things in the past crates a new timeline, meaning that no one knows that anything has been changed from the point of view of the time traveler, meaning evidence of the time traveler does not exist, or exaclty the opposite of what you're saying. How would I know if someone went back in time and changed it so that Napolean lost at Waterloo?

Besides, like the axiom goes "Absence of evidence, does not equate to evidence of absence".

Doc and Marty were not the only ones aware that something had changed. Older Biff became aware, and it was his discovery that brought the whole changing-the-past dynamic into a crucial problem that made the crux of the second film. Fact is, evidence that time travel was possible existed, and was evident in objects like the DeLorean itself, which had to be concealed when in the past, and The Sports Almanac. Older Biff's idea of taking the Sports Almanac from the future and giving it to his younger self -- though originally Marty's idea -- is evidence of Humanity's flawed nature just as much as it is an ingenious idea from the perspective of personal financial gain via knowledge of the future's outcome. It is inconceivable to think that if time travel were real and possible, that someone somewhere would not have used it -- and their knowledge of the future -- to their own selfish ends.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

The other thing about time travel...assuming that there is a fixed amount of matter/energy in the universe...if I go back in time and see myself...I've essentially added 200lbs of matter to that Universe.

[return to the red]

Wait, are we talking about going forward in time to something that doesn't exist yet or backwards in time to stuff that has already happened?

[HeartsOfFire]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

My counterpoint is: what if we are the first iteration of the loop? ie/ if no one has gone to the "future" yet, then no wonder they haven't discovered time travel. We will be the first, and then go back, thereby retroactively messing it up for everyone in the future. But we could very will be the first iteration even if your argument is true.

I understand your argument and am putting it into perspective. I'll take it away for now and get back once I have an answer.

Originally Posted by FozzieDaBear

The other thing about time travel...assuming that there is a fixed amount of matter/energy in the universe...if I go back in time and see myself...I've essentially added 200lbs of matter to that Universe.

But at the same time, that 200 lbs is missing from the Future timeline. Balance achieved.