|
Post by rialvestro on Apr 19, 2010 21:05:46 GMT -5
No. Marty was disappearing in that universe as it was the universe he created when stopping his own birth. Hence the explanations of tangents in the next movie. Changing the past means opening new, unopened doors and being forced to enter said doors unless you can somehow prevent them from being opened in the first place. It's all centered around whatever universe you're currently dealing with and altering. Either way, it's just a movie. That doesn't make any sense. The simple way to exsplain it is the exsplain weather or not it is even possible to alter an exsisting history. If history can be changed that means that every aspect of the exsisting history would be wiped out and replaced with the new history. If the multiverse theory is true than history can't be changed because trying to do so would only create a new history while leaveing the original history in tact. With a single time line there's also the paradox of if you prevent your own birth you will of never traveled to prevent your own birth and the universe will destroy itself some how in a puff of logic. With the multiverse theory there is no time travel paradox because you can never travel to your own past. The moment you change your history a new universe is created and you're no longer in your own universe. Your universe will still exsist so you will still exsist. The only way time travel can effect the future is if there is only one possible future and if that's the case than we've already changed the future but there's no evidence that time travel is possible so we couldn't have time traveled already. With the multiverse theory we don't need any evidence of time travel because not having evidence only proves that time travel hasn't created this universe that we're in.
|
|
|
Post by zoethedotted on May 21, 2010 17:39:54 GMT -5
Our history, what we remember, can never change. Even if it does, we'll be unaware that it has, because we'll only ever remember the version of events that happened to us. Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series sets out this concept a lot better than I could... On the other hand, there are theories that state we can only time travel if we have terminals to travel between, terminals that would be impossible to create in the past, and therefore while we cannot time travel now, we could travel between any point from when time travel is invented. Hope I explained this in a way that made sense
|
|
|
Post by Insane_Zang on May 21, 2010 17:47:54 GMT -5
You know, every debate I post in has a rock and sock and robot video to go along with it
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on May 21, 2010 18:18:19 GMT -5
zang, if i could stop laughing I would be angry at your immaturity.
|
|
|
Post by brumagem on May 21, 2010 20:58:33 GMT -5
I'm a fan of the whole "Time is an illusion" mentality (I don't care what you say, Einstein/Hawking. TIME DON'T EXIST!). Just like mathematics or cheesecake, the concept of time is a tool created by man to better comprehend his existence.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 23, 2010 12:10:33 GMT -5
Couple things.
One, the multiverse theory is really the only explanation of time travel that could hold any water. Every other version is wrought with too many paradoxes. This is of course assuming that all of string theory, quantum physics, and the resulting multiverse theory is true, which is quite a stretch at this point in the research.
The other thing is that unless you believe in some ethereal intangible human soul that can somehow guide our mental processes, we invariably and inevitably have no free will.
By simple cause and effect, from the Big Bang forward everything that has happened leads to every choice we will make. Our world around us has been predetermined, including our genetics, and therefore our entire make-up has been predetermined, therefore the fact that I am choosing to write this couldn't NOT happen. Every choice you make, even if you choose not to make a choice, has been decided. Unless you believe in some transdimensional supernatural force existing in every one of us that is unaffected and untethered to our perception of existence, free will is simply inexorable cause and effect.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 23, 2010 12:15:31 GMT -5
This theory would lead to the debate that all of time happens simultaneously. It also reduces the ethical complication of time travel. Another corollary to this theory is that, though we have free will, we have already made every decision that we will ever be faced with. This last corollary would provide massive philosophical debate. How is it that we have choice, if we've already made it? Disagree with the emboldened. If the ethical motivation for preventing time travel successfully does so and thereby prevents the past from being changed in the first place, then that ethical motivation stands as valid; it has become part of the final time line that your theory posits exists. (That is, if the ethical compulsion not to time travel had not existed, a different final time line would have occurred.)
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on May 23, 2010 13:13:28 GMT -5
I see where you're going, but discovery channel ( has taught me that in time travel is only possible to travel to the future, not the past. Also time travel to the future would not be teleporting to a future that exists simultaneously with the present, would be altering how the time passes for the travelers so that their time becomes really really slow (of course the travlers would still feel that time passes just like always), thus making time really really fast for everybody else. When stopping the "time travel" and stepping out of whatever vehicle the travelers were using, the travelers would have experienced far less time than the rest of the world, and the world would have experienced far more time than the travelers ... I think I'm really bad at explaining stuff...
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 23, 2010 13:39:13 GMT -5
I see that you people watch way too much sci-fi....joking, I love sci-fi. But seriously, you can speed up or slow down the time itself, but you can't travel in time, and here is a simple example why. Basic laws of physics state that matter and enegry can't be created or destroyed. Now lets take an object and send it back in time, if we do that there is more matter/energy at that time in the universe then there was before, and that breaks the laws of physics, thus making time travel impossible. I realize that its not exactly "destroying" an object, but its still not possibe to have something out of nothing, and this is what it comes down to. Now about the multi Univers, its a man made concept, there is really nothing supporting this idea, so it makes as much sense as me stating that there is a giant panda in the middle of the universe, no way to prove it, but also no way to argue agains it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2010 14:22:19 GMT -5
Four words:
Wibbly-Wobbly Timey-Wimey
xD
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on May 23, 2010 17:30:36 GMT -5
@krzych wormholes are methods in which someone can travel back through time without speeding or slowing time down without creating or destroying matter, simply traveling through a different space-time medium. Nakor if moving back in time already happened - then any law that prohibited moving back in time would prevent future use of time travel which would mean that no future person would travel back in time to change the past which would mean that no alternate timeline exists - ergo no ethical dilemma (in this thread along with the big bang and before thread there seems to be an inadequacy of language to describe ideas). KipEnyan - see explanation above @krzych that could explain why not only a multiverse theory could hold water.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on May 23, 2010 18:48:40 GMT -5
Right, I have completely forgot about wormholes 0.0 But those use time dilation ... isn't that like slowing down/speeding up time ? Also... damn, I really need to know more about this, there is too much debate and theories about the matter, and I can barely understand the basic of the basic stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on May 23, 2010 19:33:50 GMT -5
a wormhole would allow someone to fold the space-time of this universe very close together at different points in space-time and then make a 'hole' in the fabric (this whole is the wormhole). It does not dilate time (speed-up/slow-down) and it is within the same universe (not a multi-verse veil)
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on May 23, 2010 20:34:54 GMT -5
I know... well not, not know... I understand that part of the wormhole thing, but in order to make it a time machine there's suppose to be time dilation [looks in wikipedia to back-up his statement*...statement backed-up... actually "special relativistic time dilation" would be necessary for the whole time travel thing to work]. Or that is what I understand, some people would say that wikipedia is not really a good enough source, but I got to get my information from somewhere...
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 23, 2010 20:45:50 GMT -5
@tyme: Rather than speaking about correcting the past, I'm merely speaking on leaving the past we have as it is. I think we had a language problem, but rather than being English's fault it's our own; the law preventing time travel was the ethics of which I spoke.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on May 23, 2010 22:06:59 GMT -5
what I was saying in response to that, nakor, was that if there was ethics involved in preventing time travel, then there would be nothing ethical about it because any change that would be prevented (historically) by any form of prevention of time travel, would not happen and so would not need to be worried about. I think that says what I'm trying to say.
@ Lyserg, time dilation is only one possible means of time travel.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 24, 2010 0:20:02 GMT -5
Right, but if someone did worry about it instead of not worrying about it because of that, and thereby prevented a future change that wouldn't have been prevented without the having worried about it, causing the current time line to be the final one, that ethical judgement would have had effect and been valuable. In other words, if we don't worry about it, our 'final time line' will be the result of that and not need worrying about, but if we do worry about it and successfully achieve the prevention of all time travel (probably a large task if it ever becomes easy enough for this to be a concern), our 'final time line' will be the result of that, and the worrying will have been warranted.
|
|
|
Post by bagelz on May 24, 2010 1:19:46 GMT -5
time is a place
time traveling is simply moving to another place that we can't with ordinary means
therefore, when you time travel, you aren't back in time, but just in another setting
ugh this is hard to explain
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on May 24, 2010 13:24:34 GMT -5
Ryan, I'm sorry, but your logic is wrong, there is no scientific evidence to what you are saying, you can't even explain why a black hole would "fold space-time". Don't base your logic on the Star-Trek series. I on the other hand will explain my reasoning, when you look at a black hole, what it really is is just a lot of matter compressed together. Matter, in large amount creates gravity, this is why a black holes have such a great pull. Gravity, can alter time, but the only way it does so is by slowing it down. And that's a scientific fact, all of this was proven thru testing. And if you still believe that time travel is possible, please address my first point, that if some object is to travel thru time it would alter the amount of matter/energy in the universe itself, thus breaking the basic laws of physics.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on May 24, 2010 13:50:14 GMT -5
krzych32While I agree with most of what you said, I think you're wrong on the last thing. If time travel was possible by any other mean than time dilation, this would mean that "" Future, past and present happen simultaneously or had already happened"". I could say that time is part of the universe, and different times still happen on the same universe. Matter taken from an existing future would dissapear from that future, but only to move to the present, like in the methaphor saying that time is a place (see bagelz's explanation above, I'm not sure of agreeing with it, but it serves the purpose) you don't create matter out of nothing when time traveling, you just move it, it does not come from nowhere, it comes from another time, another place, but in the same universe. ... Or maybe my explanation above it's just a falacy that comes from my ignorance (also I may be using the term "Universe" wrong, I don't really know what kind of definition you would apply to this matter)
|
|