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.
No worries, I don't mean for it to cause a huge argument, I just wanted to make the point that (however improbable it is) we could be in the first iteration, making it just a matter of time until we see all those changes (pun intended??) that you say aren't visible to us right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire
But at the same time, that 200 lbs is missing from the Future timeline. Balance achieved.
IF time is not linear, and space is not linear, then the movement of MASS (no one cares about weight, it's relative) isn't a big deal. But if they are on somewhat linear paths, then the mass is a big deal, and so what would happen?
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?
Both.
Time Travel by Time Displacement -- The method made famous by Back To The Future -- assumes that it is possible to displace oneself to whenever they want through the continuum. Forward, or backward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by REDVAN
IF time is not linear, and space is not linear, then the movement of MASS (no one cares about weight, it's relative) isn't a big deal. But if they are on somewhat linear paths, then the mass is a big deal, and so what would happen?
That... is a question for minds better versed in physics than my own.
BTW, I'm don't mean 'argument' in the confrontational sense, but rather in the sense of great minds thinking alike and challenging one another to be better.
Last edited by HeartsOfFire; 10-28-2010 at 12:26 PM.
Time Travel by Time Displacement -- The method made famous by Back To The Future -- assumes that it is possible to displace oneself to whenever they want through the continuum. Forward, or backward.
But if that's the case if we were going back in time we would have an understanding of where we needed to be at a certain point (physical location) but if we were jumping ahead in time there are too many factors to account for in determining where we will need to end up no?
__________________
Thanks to Halifax Drunk for the sweet Avatar
But if that's the case if we were going back in time we would have an understanding of where we needed to be at a certain point (physical location) but if we were jumping ahead in time there are too many factors to account for in determining where we will need to end up no?
Yes, and this is something that Back to the Future omitted from their story so that it could seem plausible.
Physical location relative to the theoretical Universal Constant is constantly changing as time moves forward. While it is theoretically possible to pinpoint where in the Universe the Milky Way was, and where the Solar system was within it, and where Earth was in its orbit around the Sun some 50 years ago to the day, it is impossible to accurately predict that same variable for 50 years in the future due to the unpredictable nature of random coincidences. Hence, plucking oneself out of one point in space and time and instantly dropping themselves at that exact point 50 years in the future, odds are extremely high that same spot would be in deep space, if not a solid chunk of mass.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire
But at the same time, that 200 lbs is missing from the Future timeline. Balance achieved.
That's not achieving balance at all.
Let's say the normal mass of the univers is 10 billion tons.
Now when I leave the future the future timeline universe weighs 10 billion tons -200 lbs, and the past universe now weighs 10 billion tons + 200 lbs.
At some point those times are supposed to converge, and the universe can't weigh 10 billion +- 200 lbs at the same time now can it?
This is exactly the kind of thing Stephen Halking has talked about, and why he thinks real time travel isn't really possible. He figures that the universe would create enough feedback to sort of close any kind of "time portal" the way people think of it.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire
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.
Bah, Biff only figures it out because he here's them talking about it.
He then goes back, tell himself, and no one else.
See, if I knew about time travel and was using it to my advantage, I sure as hell wouldn't tell you.
That's where your argument, that someone would certainly exploit time travel so we should know about it breaks down. If someone was using time travel for their own gain, they sure as hell wouldn't broadcast it now would they?
That all being said, I'm pretty sure time travel like we see on BTTF or Star Trek won't ever happen, but I'm basing that more on what folks in the know say about it, not because I figure Biff would have told us by now.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
Let's say the normal mass of the univers is 10 billion tons.
Now when I leave the future the future timeline universe weighs 10 billion tons -200 lbs, and the past universe now weighs 10 billion tons + 200 lbs. At some point those times are supposed to converge, and the universe can't weigh 10 billion +- 200 lbs at the same time now can it?
Unless you take into consideration the old addage, "Wherever you go, there you are."
To better explain my answer, allow (n) to equal the mass of the universe, and (t) to represent the point in time when you depart.
If your mass is 200 lbs, and you leave a specific point in time, the understanding is that at the point of your departure, the universe had a mass equal to (n) - 200 lbs. At your destination, the universe has a mass equal to (n) + 200 lbs.
Now, what happens if you stay at your destination and don't return to (t)? This is where the addage comes into play.
The moment you leave a point in time, it ceases to exist from your perspective. All that matters to anyone, at any given time, is now. Not before, not what's to come, now.
Your existance in (t) makes no difference to the universe if you travel to (t) - x, or any point in time less than (t). It's like starting out a sketch, erasing half of it, and continuing on. However, this is not the case if you travel to (t) + x, any point in time after (t). This case is slightly different: (t) + x exists as though you have been missing for the exact same time that x is equal to. It continues on its merry way, but for all intents and purposes, you are missing. Not non-existant, not 'gone,' but missing.
Example: Back to the Future 2 had numerous flaws, one I recently discovered from the very beginning of the movie. There is no way to ever encounter your 'future self' as it were, because the instant you remove yourself from the timeline to go forward in time, you are 'missing.' When you arrive at your destination, if anyone that has ever known you is still alive, to them you would have been gone for x amount of time. So in the case of Back to the Future 2, Marty and Jen would have been declared missing persons by their families, no doubt. And once discovered by the cops in the alley in the future, they would not be interested about knowing that she is "McFly, Jennifer Jane nee Parker living in Hilldale and aged 47," rather they would be curious as to how a woman that has been missing for 30 years suddenly and inexplicably shows up unconscious in an alley and hasn't appeared to have aged a day. Just like the original demonstration of the DeLorean in Back to the Future 1, when Doc remote controlled it through the Twin Pines parking lot with Einstein inside. The DeLorean was programmed to travel 1 minute forward in time. For that one minute, it and Einstein were 'missing,' then it re-appeared after Doc's watch beeped.
Last edited by HeartsOfFire; 10-28-2010 at 12:59 PM.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire
Unless you take into consideration the old addage, "Wherever you go, there you are."
To better explain my answer, allow (n) to equal the mass of the universe, and (t) to represent the point in time when you depart.
If your mass is 200 lbs, and you leave a specific point in time, the understanding is that at the point of your departure, the universe had a mass equal to (n) - 200 lbs. At your destination, the universe has a mass equal to (n) + 200 lbs.
Now, what happens if you stay at your destination and don't return to (t)? This is where the addage comes into play.
The moment you leave a point in time, it ceases to exist from your perspective. All that matters to anyone, at any given time, is now. Not before, not what's to come, now.
Your existance in (t) makes no difference to the universe if you travel to (t) - x, or any point in time less than (t). It's like starting out a sketch, erasing half of it, and continuing on. However, this is not the case if you travel to (t) + x, any point in time after (t). This case is slightly different: (t) + x exists as though you have been missing for the exact same time that x is equal to. It continues on its merry way, but for all intents and purposes, you are missing. Not non-existant, not 'gone,' but missing.
Example: Back to the Future 2 had numerous flaws, one I recently discovered from the very beginning of the movie. There is no way to ever encounter your 'future self' as it were, because the instant you remove yourself from the timeline to go forward in time, you are 'missing.' When you arrive at your destination, if anyone that has ever known you is still alive, to them you would have been gone for x amount of time. So in the case of Back to the Future 2, Marty and Jen would have been declared missing persons by their families, no doubt. And once discovered by the cops in the alley in the future, they would not be interested about knowing that she is "McFly, Jennifer Jane nee Parker living in Hilldale and aged 47," rather they would be curious as to how a woman that has been missing for 30 years suddenly and inexplicably shows up unconscious in an alley and hasn't appeared to have aged a day. Just like the original demonstration of the DeLorean in Back to the Future 1, when Doc remote controlled it through the Twin Pines parking lot with Einstein inside. The DeLorean was programmed to travel 1 minute forward in time. For that one minute, it was 'missing,' then it re-appeared after Doc's watch beeped.
I don't really want to debate the physics of back to the future time travel.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
the only thing that doesnt make sense is theoretically, the future, will come back to the past...which would occur the moment the time machine would turn on, and conceivably creating a flood of information instantly appearing, eg things sent from the future back to the past at that very moment the machine was turned on...
Also, as it says, you cant go BACK into the past, before a time machine was created..
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
