"If we don't know your father is alive right now - if there is only a 90% chance that he is alive right now, then there is a chance that you can go back and kill him.
"But if you know he is alive, there is no chance you can kill him."
In other words, even if you take a trip back in time with the specific intention of killing your father, so long as you know he is happily sitting in his chair when you leave him in the present, you can be sure that something will prevent you from murdering him in the past. It is as if it has already happened.
"You go back to kill your father, but you'd arrive after he'd left the room, you wouldn't find him, or you'd change your mind," said Professor Greenberger.
"You wouldn't be able to kill him because the very fact that he is alive today is going to conspire against you so that you'll never end up taking that path leads you to killing him."
It's hard to find the words to explain why, but this sounds like a couplete loads of fucking bollocks, coming from supposedly educated people. I've never read something as wishy-washy as that quote that came from a "scientist".
I could be completely wrong, but doesn't it just read like they're struggling for an explanation?
Where were you when the West was defeated?
[url=http://profile.mygamercard.net/doncarlos83][img]http://card.mygamercard.net/gbar/doncarlos83.gif[/img][/url]
For a start, no u dont just see people disappear because you wouldnt know that the course of time has changed. You would go along nice and happy as if it was normal. For all i know 3 minutes i could have gone outside and gotten hit by a car. My sister time travelled back in time to ask me about an MP3 player that she wants and now im here typing this..?! Not knowing any different. Get what i mean?
Where were you when the West was defeated?
[url=http://profile.mygamercard.net/doncarlos83][img]http://card.mygamercard.net/gbar/doncarlos83.gif[/img][/url]
Where were you when the West was defeated?
[url=http://profile.mygamercard.net/doncarlos83][img]http://card.mygamercard.net/gbar/doncarlos83.gif[/img][/url]
Actually that sounds about right. Say you go back in time right before dinosaurs became extinct and you decide to bring a few nuclear bombs with you and you wipe out the species yourself. This will have already been pre-determined, therefore there never was an ice age, the real explanation would be some guy went back in time and killed them all. Dunno if that makes sense....hmm, watch the Futurama episode where the team travels back in time and Fry becomes his own grandfather.
Also, the going back and killing your father thing sounds logical. Here's why, if you go back in time to kill your father, you won't be able to do it. If you somehow did kill him, how would you have been alive in the present time to go back in time and kill him?
YES COMPLETELY LOGICAL. EXCEPT THAT WHEN YOU GO BACK IN TIME YOU HAVE THE SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU WERE ELSEWHERE AT THAT POINT IN TIME. SO THE PAST WILL STOP YOU GOING BACK IN TIME BECAUSE YOU'RE ALREADY THERE.
Woo.
What a complete load of horseshit :icon19:
"Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do."
― Terry A. Davis
Uaintseenme wrote:Actually that sounds about right. Say you go back in time right before dinosaurs became extinct and you decide to bring a few nuclear bombs with you and you wipe out the species yourself. This will have already been pre-determined, therefore there never was an ice age, the real explanation would be some guy went back in time and killed them all. Dunno if that makes sense....hmm, watch the Futurama episode where the team travels back in time and Fry becomes his own grandfather.
Also, the going back and killing your father thing sounds logical. Here's why, if you go back in time to kill your father, you won't be able to do it. If you somehow did kill him, how would you have been alive in the present time to go back in time and kill him?
"If we don't know your father is alive right now - if there is only a 90% chance that he is alive right now, then there is a chance that you can go back and kill him.
"But if you know he is alive, there is no chance you can kill him."
In other words, even if you take a trip back in time with the specific intention of killing your father, so long as you know he is happily sitting in his chair when you leave him in the present, you can be sure that something will prevent you from murdering him in the past. It is as if it has already happened.
"You go back to kill your father, but you'd arrive after he'd left the room, you wouldn't find him, or you'd change your mind," said Professor Greenberger.
"You wouldn't be able to kill him because the very fact that he is alive today is going to conspire against you so that you'll never end up taking that path leads you to killing him."
It's hard to find the words to explain why, but this sounds like a couplete loads of fucking bollocks, coming from supposedly educated people. I've never read something as wishy-washy as that quote that came from a "scientist".
I could be completely wrong, but doesn't it just read like they're struggling for an explanation?
tbh it makes perfect sense to me, though the logical conclusion of looking at retrograde TT in this way is that actual time TRAVEL (in the normal sense, like travelling to Tunisia or the off license) is not possible, but time-viewing IS. Seems to me like everything you did when you went back could change something, therefore you can't do anything at all, least of all kill your own dad.
Besides, are there such things as points in time anyway? I mean, there are points in local space (like 3" to the left of this chair and 3" to the right of it), but can a point in 'global space' (i.e. the expanding universe) be defined such that one could travel to it? If not, I doubt such 'points' exist in time. And remember that TT would involve moving through space also, since my chair isn't where it was 5 minutes ago even in reasonably local space (because of the Earth's rotation).
The essence of what I was getting at is that, if you can travel back in time 'as long as you change nothing', then you can't travel back at all. Where would you stand? Oops, just disturbed some air particles by standing there, and have changed history.
on the subject of viewing, I don't really understand how you would propose this would work.
Your point on 'points in time' is very good though, given the time differences depending on gravity, and all that stuff.
"Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do."
― Terry A. Davis
This might sound stupid but does time even exist? Could it be that there is only now and nothing else, even if you manage to travel forward you have only slowed yourself down instead of acctually going to a certain spot in time.
At this point I could just reply with 'Explain', and you'd have to type like another page.. at which point I could repeat my post and you'd have to type ANOTHER page. Then I could keep doing it until you confuse yourself.
I'm just saying, I could. Go me.
"Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do."
― Terry A. Davis
inphlict wrote:This might sound stupid but does time even exist? Could it be that there is only now and nothing else, even if you manage to travel forward you have only slowed yourself down instead of acctually going to a certain spot in time.
That's where I stand. Time is a perception. When astonauts rocket into space, they travel fractions of milliseconds into the future in relation to those on earth. It's hard to explain, and I don't fully understand it myself. :/
As we discussed earlier, the theory of relativity states that as the velocity of an object nears the speed of light, time slows down. Scientists have discovered that even at the speeds of the space shuttle, astronauts can travel a few nanoseconds into the future. To understand this, picture two people, person A and person B. Person A stays on Earth, while person B takes off in a spacecraft. At takeoff, their watches are in perfect sync. The closer person B's spacecraft travels to the speed of light, the slower time will pass for person B (relative to person A). If person B travels for just a few hours at 50 percent the speed of light and returns to Earth, it will be obvious to both people that person A has aged much faster than person B. This difference in aging is because time passed much faster for person A than person B, who was traveling closer to the speed of light. Many years might have passed for person A, while person B experienced a time lapse of just a few hours. Find out more about this twin paradox in How Special Relativity Works.
The quotes at the top make sense to me. It's a possibility I've pondered before. If timetravel was possible, I'm really not sure if it would work that way, or work "the way of the movies" and everything would be altered in the future.
