Re: Time Machine

On Aug 26, 10:19 am, Barbara's Cat <c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sherrie Lee <sherriel...@xxxxxxxxx> said:





On Aug 25, 8:22 am, George Dance <georgedanc...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 22, 10:32 am, Sherrie Lee <sherriel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293937,00.html

From the article:

"The machine is space-time itself," Ori said. "If we were to create an
area with a warp like this in space that would enable time lines to
close on themselves, it might enable future generations to return to
visit our time."

Ori emphasized one significant limitation of this time machine.

"It can't be used to travel to a time before the time machine was
constructed," he explained

******************
******************

Sherrie's comments:

I'm trying to understand this. It sounds like two time machines must
be constructed. One from which to travel, and one to which to travel.
This might be like the chicken and the egg concept, I'm thinking.
Which one comes first? And it almost sounds like traveling from
present to future rather than present to past. Worst case, present to
present.

Let's say the machine was already invented. How does one test it given
the limitation mentioned in the article?

1) Build a machine (A) at a point in time (t)
2) Build a second machine (B) a week later (t +7).
3) The next day (t+8), send e.g. a newspaper published that day, from
B to A (at t+3).
4) If the experiment is successful, the newspaper published on t+8
will appear in A five days earlier

Pfft. That's so fuken Hollywood.





It sounds simple. Recalling your post and Cat's post, I see that past,
present and future exist, and they have to exist in order for the
concept of the construction of a working time machine not be thought
absurd. That being, there is first the single time machine (the first)
that is and goes nowhere (or does nothing) but sit (exist) until the
second machine is constructed (in the future, though the machine will
not exist until it is constructed, the future exists). Assuming time
travel works where the past can be "visited", in order to "come back"
to the present, the future must be attainable ... and can be if all
three exist (but it has to be at points that can be reached ... and
the "travelling" is "between these points" where probably this
(unclear to me) idea of folding the fabric happens. If two points
meet, according to one of your statements in the other post, they are
not the same point (in time) past ---> future, BUT (and this sounds
like a big but ...) if you mean the paper to travel that paper sounds
like, at some point in time, it IS the same point in time as past and
future if it represents the X or intersection of past and future...

(suddenly I feel self-conscious about some error in thinking PLEASE
feel free to point out the inconsistencies or have me think of
something I haven't possibly considered due to limited education or
what-have-you ... Oh! and thanks for playing!)

Sherrie

"Time travel is not theoretically possible, for if it was
they'd already be here telling us about it!"
- Stephen Hawking

Using Dance's Time Machines A and B and newspaper, let's say you plan to
build Time Machine A on Monday and Time Machine B on Wednesday, and the
cost of material and labor to build and operate each is $10 (cheap, eh?)
and all you have is $20 and a nickle to buy the Wednesday newspaper
you're going to time travel back to Tuesday.

On Monday, you build Time Machine A (TMA. Hey, I like initialisms too!)
in the left side of your lab. $10 is spent and TMA is empty because you
haven't sent the Wednesday newspaper yet.

On Tuesday, one of two events occur. One: the Wednesday newspaper (WN)
did not appear in TMA because you haven't sent it yet or TMA and TMB
(Time Machine B) failed to work as hoped. Two: the WN appears because
you successfully time traveled it back from Wednesday. If so, at that
point you have to ask yourself is it necessary to build TMB, which will
bring you near financial ruin by spending your last $10 (leaving you a
nickle) to prove your theory that time travel is possible when you've
already proven it is? And if you decide not to build TMB because you
would rather eat than prove something already proven, what happens to
the WN? Does it disappear?

Let's say event one occurred: the WN did not appear on Tuesday (which,
if you think about it, proved time travel is not possible so why even
continue the experiment?) and on Wednesday you build TMB in the right
side of your lab and put the WN in it at noon. At 11:59:59, the WN is
still not TMA. At noon you hit the switch on TMB and the WN disappears
from TMB and appears in TMA. Did the time travel experiment work? You
can't prove the WN went back to Tuesday because Tuesday is gone (that
was yesterday and yesterday no longer exists). Could you have marked the
WN on Tuesday to prove it did time travel back? No because the WN did
not appear on Tuesday where it would have if your time travel experiment
was successful. The best you can do is prove the WN can be transported
(in the /Star Trek/ sense of the word) across the lab from TMB to TMA.

Now let's say event two occurred: The WN did appear on Tuesday and it's
sitting in TMA, and you build TMB. Can you buy the WN from the
newsstand? No because the WN is lying in TMA and if the WN in TMA is
truly the WN you time traveled back, it can't be at the newsstand and in
TMA simultaneously. So if you can't buy the WN you can't time travel it
back to Tuesday. Damn it! Paradoxes are a kick in the ass, ain't they?

Let's ignore that and say you can buy the WN. Can you take the WN(a) out
of TMA and hold it next to the WN(b) you just bought? (Remember, WN(a)
and WN(b) are one and the same WN.) If you can and you leave the WN(a)
out of TMA and place the WN(b) into TMB and hit the switch, will the WN
(b) appear in TMA? No because if the WN did appear in TMA, it blows your
time travel theory out of the water. What? Well, yeah, your time travel
theory is you can send something, one object or person, back in time,
not that you can duplicate something. Duplication should/can not be a
result of true time travel, eh? There's a 'consistency' clause.

Do I believe time travel is possible? Yes, kind-of-sort-of, but not the
way most people I've discussed it with believe it is possible, mainly
because their reasoning of it has been corrupted by their having watched
too many science fiction television shows and movies. My belief is based
more on the ideas of the universe, according to Quantum Theory, doesn't
have just one time line and that space-time is an agreed-upon illusion.
Yes, you'd be right in thinking I'm just as nutty as everyone else is.

If you really want to get into why or how time travel may or may not be
possible, start off by getting yourself a copy of the book /What the
Bleep!? Down the Rabbit Hole/ or better yet, get the movie on DVD (I
have and recommend the 'Quantum Edition'), then get Stephen Hawking's
book /Brief History of Time/, DVDs /Universe/, and his public lecture
/Space and Time Warps/, and Carl Sagan's DVDs /Cosmos/ (it only touches
on the subject but hey, the rest of the series is outright delicious).


http://tinyurl.com/23xa52

http://preview.tinyurl.com/23xa52


Super! You opened the door for me to plug a book. My Uncle Phil wrote
the above book, Forty Rabbit Holes. Some people might like it. Some
people might think they could have simply written their own stories.
I'm thinking I'll plug the book, see if it helps people find it and
him sell it, and make a connection to your comment, Down the Rabbit
Hole.

Last night I was watching an episode of Season Six, The Sopranos. You
know the one where Tony is in the hospital and he meets a rocket
scientist who talks about Quantum Physics, that we're all the same, or
something (perceptions differing)?

Don't you think our physical state (bodies), as we know it, would have
to be altered in order to withstand the stress of the extremes of Time
"travel", as we imagine "travel" to be? We'd have to be like how the
Star Trek beaming machines show us, like television snow. We wouldn't
be able to obscure the Prime Directive, and the way to ensure that
would be through only the act of receiving the "past", not
transmitting it. All along (the time line), this receiving of the past
has been happening, and that's the reason "it is what it is", because
the act of observation forces an influence (the future), whether we're
aware of this influence, or not.

Anyway, I think we have to call it (time) faith and invent very
efficient weapons in order to protect our families and territories
from those who would impose an influence, while, in the meantime, we
figure ways of adapting (morphing to fit the situation ... "agreed
upon illusion").


--
Cm~

"The experience of each new age requires a new confession,
and the world seems always waiting for its poet."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.