94 replies to this topic

[ozman]

In this movie http://www.moviesdig...me-Machine.html
The guy can't save the lady from death by going back in time because he built the time mac
hine after her death.

But I believe if a real life time machine was built then he can save her because since the materials to make the time machine already existed before the machine itself, then why couldn't a person save a life, like RON MALLET is trying to do with the laser light gravity bending time machine he is working on to try and save his father from a heart attack.
Anyone disagree???

[Leave Britney alone!]

If all of space and time equal the universe then it would seem that all that is required to travel in time is to leave the universe then reenter.

It would be like a record spinning with the position of the needle at any given moment representing the present. Simply picking up the needle and placing it back down in another place would require to not be within the record as a part of it but instead to be outside of it. Also one would need to be able to visually inspect the whole album to know where it is.

So we might have to learn to safely leave the universe and return before we could time travel.

[Chrlzs]

ozman, on 28 April 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

Anyone disagree???

Yes, I disagree.

If time travel is possible, you have to deal with the two big problems:

1. If it is possible to time travel, then why haven't we been visited from future time travelers?  After all, now is the past that is leading to the supposed invention, so why hasn't anyone turned up?  (Think about this too much and your head will implode..)

2. What would happen if instead of saving a life, you killed one or both of your parents?  Would you at that moment disappear?  Or are there infinite parallel universes that allow this kind of anomaly?  (And if so, then return to item 1...)

I'm a great believer in time being a strictly one-way arrow.  You can certainly do some tricky stuff to increase the rate it goes forward, but backward?  Nah.

[keninsc]

Quote

1. If it is possible to time travel, then why haven't we been visited from future time travelers? After all, now is the past that is leading to the supposed invention, so why hasn't anyone turned up? (Think about this too much and your head will implode..)

I can see where you're coming from on this, however one does have to consider that IF time travel does become possible at some point in the future, we might well have had researchers, scientists, historians already come back. I recall a conversation with a friend once where we wondered if maybe a number of UFO sightings weren't possibly time travel ships from our own future. Now anything did would have to careful so it didn't disrupt the current timeline, but I personally don't think the timeline is so fragile that just coming back and observing would create some sort of paradox.

Quote

2. What would happen if instead of saving a life, you killed one or both of your parents? Would you at that moment disappear? Or are there infinite parallel universes that allow this kind of anomaly? (And if so, then return to item 1...)

As I recall from what I've seen on TV and read about, we really don't know how time works exactly. Parallel universes is the current mainstream thinking but really and truly it's just a guess made by very qualified scholars. Killing your parents would be like a preemptive abortion so to speak and might very well terminate you OR simply create a new parallel universe.........now my head is starting to ache a bit.

Quote

The guy can't save the lady from death by going back in time because he built the time machine after her death.

I follow what you're saying, but this is really in the context of a fictional story line. In other words it's like saying if you live on a river and build a boat then you can't take the boat any further up stream than the point at which you built the boat. You see what I'm trying to say? Time really doesn't care when you built a time machine, just as the river doesn't care where you built the river boat.

Quote

But I believe if a real life time machine was built then he can save her because since the materials to make the time machine already existed before the machine itself, then why couldn't a person save a life, like RON MALLET is trying to do with the laser light gravity bending time machine he is working on to try and save his father from a heart attack.

The real paradox here isn't the point at which the machine was built but rather saving his father from dying prematurely. There's no tell how his father living might or might no influence the current time line. Unless his father was saved and became a Global scale leader such as President of the US then caused a war or prevented one from happening. The time machine proper is not an anchor point in time other than at that point time travel became a reality. I'm not familiar with the story you're speaking of but the paradox was created in order to write a fictional story around. Now having said all that, I could be totally wrong about a time machine becoming a fixed anchor point in the fabric of time. I'm just offering up my two cents worth for your consideration really.

[ozman]

I'm beginning to believe now that there is no past or future, there is only an everlasting now!
Einsteins theory say's that the closer you come to the speed of light the more that time slows until the universe time passes by very fast while everyone ages and you stay young and all that but in order for this to be true then the person coming close to the speed of light must have somehow left this universe alltogether and not be subject to it's rules since the universe itself is aging by fast while this person traveling close to light speed stays at same rate.


there is so much i can say and ask, it's just best left alone rather than try to understand it.  but one thing is clear, there are secrets and unknown things out there, i believe much of nature is hidden and man's knowledge is a pin drop in the ocean.  There's probably some very simple explanation to physics's mysteries such as dark matter.  It may be that we live in a multidimensional universe and all things are possible.  We could be like dog's with only one perception of the universe and world we live in.  Much of it could be hidden, we could very well even all be interconnected in ways we never imagined before and that everything that exists may all be the very same thing in a hidden level of reality!

we could be superimposed and swimming in something hidden, if the higgs boson field can be hidden then imagine what else out there is hidden? we could be multiple layers of being that we ourselves our not even aware of which would explain astral projection, sleep paralysis and all that!

Edited by ozman, 29 April 2012 - 02:23 AM.

[J. K.]

Anybody remember how the signal from 8-track tapes would sometimes bleed over?  While listening to one track, you could hear part of another track.  I've wondered from time to time if some spiritual phenomena is a bleed-over from past/future time.

[P4UL N0153]

The time paradox works like this:

You want to go back in time to save her life. You build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine. You go back in time and you succeed. She lives. Time catches up to where you were inspired to create the time machine to save her life, only now, you are not inspired to invent the machine, because she never died. You never had any reason to invent the machine. Ergo, the machine never gets invented. Which means that you were never able to go back in time to save her. Which means she dies. And then you get inspired to build a time machine... ad infinitum

[Sensible Logic]

ozman, on 28 April 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

In this movie http://www.moviesdig...me-Machine.html
The guy can't save the lady from death by going back in time because he built the time mac
hine after her death.

But I believe if a real life time machine was built then he can save her because since the materials to make the time machine already existed before the machine itself, then why couldn't a person save a life, like RON MALLET is trying to do with the laser light gravity bending time machine he is working on to try and save his father from a heart attack.
Anyone disagree???

Even if time travel worked it would be of no help.  It is after all time travel and not space travel.  The Earth moves in it's path around the sun and the Solar system around the galactic center and one day puts the Earth millions of miles from where it was at that same time the day before.  So even traveling for just a few hours, you would be where the Earth was when you started your journey but the Earth would not be there.

[JGirl]

ozman, on 28 April 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

In this movie http://www.moviesdig...me-Machine.html
The guy can't save the lady from death by going back in time because he built the time mac
hine after her death.

But I believe if a real life time machine was built then he can save her because since the materials to make the time machine already existed before the machine itself, then why couldn't a person save a life, like RON MALLET is trying to do with the laser light gravity bending time machine he is working on to try and save his father from a heart attack.
Anyone disagree???

not really much use having a time machine that has restrictions on where it will take you.

as for time machines themselves. i don't think that's how it's going to come about - time travel i mean. first of all time is only our perception so we don't really have to 'go' anywhere. hence the lack of need for a 'machine' to get us there.
travelling through 'time' will come about from within us not from something outside of us. that's my belief in any case.

[FlyingAngel]

Sensible Logic, on 30 April 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Even if time travel worked it would be of no help.  It is after all time travel and not space travel.  The Earth moves in it's path around the sun and the Solar system around the galactic center and one day puts the Earth millions of miles from where it was at that same time the day before.  So even traveling for just a few hours, you would be where the Earth was when you started your journey but the Earth would not be there.

You got a good opinion here. The hardest part of time travel is the coordination. We don't have the map of the entire universe
- places moves around the earth because of rotation
- earth moves around the Sun
- the Sun moves around a galaxy
- a galaxy moves around ???
....
- ??? move around the the center of the universe

You'd wonder, with just a tiny second, how far you'd moved from the original absolute position (relative to the universe).

[keninsc]

Quote

Even if time travel worked it would be of no help. It is after all time travel and not space travel. The Earth moves in it's path around the sun and the Solar system around the galactic center and one day puts the Earth millions of miles from where it was at that same time the day before. So even traveling for just a few hours, you would be where the Earth was when you started your journey but the Earth would not be there.

Excellent point!   Rotation of the Earth around the Sun, rotation of the Earth on it's axis, tilt of the Earth and the general movement of the Earth threw the Milky Way Galaxy. I think that's why it's often "time and space".

Ok, memo to the R&D department: Hey guy? Don't forget about where you are is as important as when you are. Give me an updated schedule based on that.

Edited by keninsc, 01 May 2012 - 02:20 PM.

[SkeletonDisaster]

I myself have thought of this topic very m,uch. And even though i am a 15 year old in the United States, i have came to a conclusion. The only possible way to fully understand timetravel and what it could do is to solve the paradox of: If you go back in time and changed something, you never would have changed it because it would have never been needed to change. So is this actually possible to truely change somehting in the past? Or would it have simply never needed to be changed? I personnally think the second because of this. In a scenerio, if i were to go back one minute before now and move the piece of papre in front of me, and go back forward to exactly when i had left, the paper would be, of course, moved. But would i remember moving it if it was in the past of my future present? Think what you want of this, but that is my responce.

[keninsc]

SkeletonDisaster, on 01 May 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

I myself have thought of this topic very m,uch. And even though i am a 15 year old in the United States, i have came to a conclusion. The only possible way to fully understand timetravel and what it could do is to solve the paradox of: If you go back in time and changed something, you never would have changed it because it would have never been needed to change. So is this actually possible to truely change somehting in the past? Or would it have simply never needed to be changed? I personnally think the second because of this. In a scenerio, if i were to go back one minute before now and move the piece of papre in front of me, and go back forward to exactly when i had left, the paper would be, of course, moved. But would i remember moving it if it was in the past of my future present? Think what you want of this, but that is my responce.

That going to depend on how fragile the current time line is really. If you go back in time and change a significant world event like say killing Hitler when he was born. That single event would have global significance and would change where we are now. How? Good question, because who can really say how the events from that point on might play out.

Now if you consider a less global change, like say going back in time to the lottery drawing that happened before the Monster one that was won by three different people and you played the winning number combination for that lottery. Ok, obviously you'd change the out come of the people who would have won the next drawing and just as obviously it would change your life as well, not to mention the lives of those around you just in case you decided to share the prize with friends and family. But, that change is really just a footnote really, if that because the vast majority of people really make very little impact on world events. You see what I'm saying? A change does occur, but the significance of that change really doesn't amount to a great deal, because that lottery was won by the following drawing by others, but the event itself was an event that did happen, it just happened a bit differently.

Not sure if I'm doing a good job or not explaining what I'm talking about and yest this is a very overly simplified break down. Yes, I am aware that we can't know what significant changes might come from such a thing but the majority are only going to effect a relatively small group of people in a relatively small area.

It's not like if you go back in time and step on some minor emerging new species you wipe us all out or you change history by simply having gone back in time. That's my twp-cents worth on the subject anyway.

[Its Mii]

keninsc, on 01 May 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

That going to depend on how fragile the current time line is really. If you go back in time and change a significant world event like say killing Hitler when he was born. That single event would have global significance and would change where we are now. How? Good question, because who can really say how the events from that point on might play out.

Now if you consider a less global change, like say going back in time to the lottery drawing that happened before the Monster one that was won by three different people and you played the winning number combination for that lottery. Ok, obviously you'd change the out come of the people who would have won the next drawing and just as obviously it would change your life as well, not to mention the lives of those around you just in case you decided to share the prize with friends and family. But, that change is really just a footnote really, if that because the vast majority of people really make very little impact on world events. You see what I'm saying? A change does occur, but the significance of that change really doesn't amount to a great deal, because that lottery was won by the following drawing by others, but the event itself was an event that did happen, it just happened a bit differently.

Not sure if I'm doing a good job or not explaining what I'm talking about and yest this is a very overly simplified break down. Yes, I am aware that we can't know what significant changes might come from such a thing but the majority are only going to effect a relatively small group of people in a relatively small area.

It's not like if you go back in time and step on some minor emerging new species you wipe us all out or you change history by simply having gone back in time. That's my twp-cents worth on the subject anyway.

I agree!! You wouldn't be able to save the girl, the girl will still die. Maybe a little differently but she will die, You may come to find out that you are in part to blame for her death because you were trying to save her. Technically all this already happened but not for you, not yet. You are going back and reliving it now, it is her past but it is your present. You were there all along but in your timeline this is just now happening.

keninsc, on 28 April 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

I can see where you're coming from on this, however one does have to consider that IF time travel does become possible at some point in the future, we might well have had researchers, scientists, historians already come back. I recall a conversation with a friend once where we wondered if maybe a number of UFO sightings weren't possibly time travel ships from our own future. Now anything did would have to careful so it didn't disrupt the current timeline, but I personally don't think the timeline is so fragile that just coming back and observing would create some sort of paradox.

As I recall from what I've seen on TV and read about, we really don't know how time works exactly. Parallel universes is the current mainstream thinking but really and truly it's just a guess made by very qualified scholars. Killing your parents would be like a preemptive abortion so to speak and might very well terminate you OR simply create a new parallel universe.........now my head is starting to ache a bit.

I follow what you're saying, but this is really in the context of a fictional story line. In other words it's like saying if you live on a river and build a boat then you can't take the boat any further up stream than the point at which you built the boat. You see what I'm trying to say? Time really doesn't care when you built a time machine, just as the river doesn't care where you built the river boat.

The real paradox here isn't the point at which the machine was built but rather saving his father from dying prematurely. There's no tell how his father living might or might no influence the current time line. Unless his father was saved and became a Global scale leader such as President of the US then caused a war or prevented one from happening. The time machine proper is not an anchor point in time other than at that point time travel became a reality. I'm not familiar with the story you're speaking of but the paradox was created in order to write a fictional story around. Now having said all that, I could be totally wrong about a time machine becoming a fixed anchor point in the fabric of time. I'm just offering up my two cents worth for your consideration really.

I believe this is known as the Grandfather Paradox.

I strongly believe nothing would be changed, the time traveler was already there. Like someone stated before I think there is no past or future just an everlasting now, time is in the eye of the beholder. The anchor is the person, it is your point of view that creates time. Even tough you are going into the past, it is your present.

[keninsc]

There is a current that suggests that what happens is that there are an infinite number of dimensions and that ever decision we and other make creates new dimensions and all of these dimension coexist at the same time. Which gives me a bit of a headache thinking about all the same and yet different things happening at once. So perhaps there is only the here and now.

I recall watching a TV show on PBS back in the eighties where they were talking about time and how different physicists thought it might work. I recall one fellow contended that we could never go forward in time because the future hadn't happened yet. He agreed with the separate dimensional break up, but he felt the the here and now was much like the bow of a boat cutting a path across an absolutely flat, smooth lake and the wake generated by our movement in time were the way the varying dimensions sort of peeled off one another.