|
|
| Author |
Message |
snafu
|
|
Time Travel
| 
Dec 4 22:48 UTC 1996 |
This may sound stupid, but I saw Star Trek: First Contact recently, and on the
way home, I had an hour long discussion on the paradoxes and other problems
with time travel. I'm not going to list them all here, but they were all very
odd and bizare, and thought this crowd could beat them to death a little more.
|
| 50 responses total. |
nistel
|
|
response 1 of 50:
|
Dec 5 16:42 UTC 1996 |
Time Travel, Hm... I think the medium being what it is will not support our
bodies to either travel backwards (or) forward in time. I will accept it if
someone says we could go back or forth in our mind but then what of vital
inputs like sight, smell, touch, taste and hearing ??? Not at all stupid Snafu
but then you always start like that!
|
snafu
|
|
response 2 of 50:
|
Dec 5 19:13 UTC 1996 |
Uh huh.. our argument basically inged on the fact that you could travel back,
but you couldn't travel forward. Mainly because the past is already written,
but the furture all depends on what you do, therefore you couldn't travel
forward to a specific point in the future.. So you travel back, but as soon
as you go back, the future becomes variable, therefore you can't travel back
to the place you started from..
|
hokshila
|
|
response 3 of 50:
|
Dec 6 01:33 UTC 1996 |
Well, I know of people that do travel in time, but it isn't what most people
think it is. Going back in time is like reading a book. Everything that has
been done has left an impression back there...you can go back and look at what
has happened, but you can't change it in any way. It is a record....Now the
future is a different story...it is like your hand...there are many possible
futures and one probable future, which would be your middle finger...the
future hasn't happened yet, so it is fluid and yet there is a probable future.
The motion that things are moving is the probable future, the inertia of
events. This is called crossing the veil, and has been done for thousands
of years by indeginous cutures through the world.
|
snafu
|
|
response 4 of 50:
|
Dec 6 03:04 UTC 1996 |
well.... I guess... not exactly what I meant by time travel. I meant more of
travel back (or forward) and CHANGING things.
|
kain
|
|
response 5 of 50:
|
Dec 6 03:31 UTC 1996 |
I think that one day it may be possible. Imagine telling a cave man that he
would one day fly. He would probably say ugh scratch his head and walk off
to kill some buffalo. but the idea of time travel and changing the past is
really scary to me. t hese things should not be messed with. If someone were
to go back and kill hitler at birth <please no-one take offence from this.
I'm not saying what hitler said is good> but the world would be massively
overpopulated. And good or evil could have come form any of those who died
the possibilities are endlessit's just scary what could happen if time travel
got into the wrong hands.
|
hokshila
|
|
response 6 of 50:
|
Dec 6 07:23 UTC 1996 |
Well, relax, you can't change the past...at least that is what I have
been told by those that go there....
|
snafu
|
|
response 7 of 50:
|
Dec 6 19:48 UTC 1996 |
Right... A suggestion... make conversation and discusion, as opposed to saying
"I AM GOD, WHAT I SAY IS RIGHT!!" don't just discount others' beliefs.... you
won't get far here like that...
|
hokshila
|
|
response 8 of 50:
|
Dec 7 09:39 UTC 1996 |
Discount another's belief's? No not at all, just trying to ease the worry of
someone who has anxiety. Relax.
|
snafu
|
|
response 9 of 50:
|
Dec 7 18:40 UTC 1996 |
Yeah... Ease worries... some of our discussions stem from worries, and without
them, we have notheing..
|
kain
|
|
response 10 of 50:
|
Dec 7 18:46 UTC 1996 |
Who's worried/ not like it's going to happen within the next few centuires
anyway
|
snafu
|
|
response 11 of 50:
|
Dec 7 20:41 UTC 1996 |
BRAVO!! I'm just trying to do a little soap-box kicking...
|
orinoco
|
|
response 12 of 50:
|
Dec 8 14:21 UTC 1996 |
snafu--the fact is, if at some point we can't just say "it is this way just
because this is the way it is", there is no point to logic.
hokshila--what do you mean by "those who go there"
snafu again--How do you find time travel worrying?
|
eldrich
|
|
response 13 of 50:
|
Dec 8 21:54 UTC 1996 |
Food for thought. I read a book recently where the Heroine goes back in time
and takes part in history. She doesn't change anyrthing per se, because history
refects her journey.
|
snafu
|
|
response 14 of 50:
|
Dec 8 23:17 UTC 1996 |
Right.. I don't find time travel worrisome... It's just that he said his thing
about "setting at ease the worriers.." or something like that, here, so I
responded here...
|
orinoco
|
|
response 15 of 50:
|
Dec 9 02:00 UTC 1996 |
Eldrich--If your'e going to belive that is possible, you have to give up the
idea of cause and effect. THe standard idea of cause and effect is that it
only moves forwards in time, but if time were to reflect her journey, then
her travelling back in time would cause the events of history, which would
cause her travelling back in time, which would casue the events of history,
etc.
|
eldrich
|
|
response 16 of 50:
|
Dec 11 15:39 UTC 1996 |
Exsactly! She isn't changing anything because her journey already has
happened. I don't think I'm exsplaining this right... oh well.
|
de
|
|
response 17 of 50:
|
Dec 18 18:15 UTC 1996 |
I think it's called a "predestination paradox". You have to go back,
because if you didn't the future would be changed.
|
nistel
|
|
response 18 of 50:
|
Dec 22 13:57 UTC 1996 |
OK. I've got a wee bit more... Time Travel may be a possibility since time
itself is relative. We are looking at this from being very human and
maintaining that this is not possible. maybe so. But if we break out of those
restrictive parameters ... it may be a definite yes. Think about flying. when
we got to the idea of flying in an aircraft, the idea just took off. But there
were maiden attempts like leaping off a cliff - for instance. I've been
thinking about this for quite sometime. Keeps getting better by the day. Guys,
Gals! dont be chintzy with your ideas. We'll put them down and the fw can
delete the previous ones (can you tell me who I can print - say - the 15th
response ).
|
snafu
|
|
response 19 of 50:
|
Dec 22 19:26 UTC 1996 |
|
orinoco
|
|
response 20 of 50:
|
Dec 22 19:48 UTC 1996 |
<I'm getting sick of being the resident skeptic--someone else argue with this
guy>
|
snafu
|
|
response 21 of 50:
|
Dec 22 21:03 UTC 1996 |
I could argue with myself, but that would be odd..
|
orinoco
|
|
response 22 of 50:
|
Dec 23 01:35 UTC 1996 |
Go ahead...we don't mind
|
de
|
|
response 23 of 50:
|
Dec 28 19:36 UTC 1996 |
Well, it would depend: Is your temporal theory linear or other? What is
time (i.e. is it a quantifiable "energy", or is it merely a label we apply
to our perception of decay and entropy which are the inevitable results
of conservation of energy and matter)?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 24 of 50:
|
Dec 29 02:53 UTC 1996 |
whoa...lost me there, de. If I understand the first part of the question...
Yes, I'm talking about linear time, because if time is not linear than cause
and effect goes out the window. And I'm not willing to throw away the
foundation of much of our logical understanding of the world unless you give
me a damn good reason. As for the second part, how can time be an 'energy'?
And how can decay exist without time? Maybe I'm misunderstandinn the
question.
And incidentally, welcome to thezone, de.
|