Re: Time Machine

On Aug 26, 7:19 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



Obviously you've forgotten what whas in the original aticle:
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


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!)


But of course you have no clue why. Here's one: In most cases they're
easier to write than full names, and less confusing than pronouns.


in the left side of your lab. $10 is spent and TMA is empty because you
haven't sent the Wednesday newspaper yet.



Actually, TMA(Monday) would be empty because nothing has been sent
TMA(Monday). That might not be true any way; it could be that the
first time you run the machine, you start receiving things from the
future


On Tuesday, one of two events occur. One: the Wednesday newspaper (WN)
did not appear in TMA because you haven't sent it yet


Again, that wouldn't be a reason for WN failing to appear.


or TMA and TMB
(Time Machine B) failed to work as hoped.


The more likely explanation.


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


Well, is it? How else would WN have got into TMA?


, 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?



You'd better hope so. Otherwise you're left explainging how it got
into TMA(Tuesay).


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


Oh, bull***. When you actually did think about it, for a minute, you
admitted that all it proved was that TMA didn't work as planned. The
failure of the first heavier-than-air craft didn't prove that heavier-
than-air flight was impossible, did it?


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've proved that space-time can be bent. Otherwise how did the
paper get from TMB to TMA? That's a promising start.



You
can't prove the WN went back to Tuesday


How clever: If WN does not appear on Tuesday, you can't prove it
appeared on Tuesday. And if you never say anything sensible, no one
can prove you did.


because Tuesday is gone (that
was yesterday and yesterday no longer exists).


At least now you're admitting that Tuesday existed. 8)


Could you have marked the
WN on Tuesday to prove it did time travel back?


No, because you're assuming that WN did not appear on Tuesday. If you
didn't see it on Tuesday, you couldn't have marked it.


No because the WN did
not appear on Tuesday


Brilliant; just brilliant.



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.



The most reasonable explanation of which is that Orie's experiment
works, and space-time lines can be bent to allow movement from one to
the other; though the math is off.


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?


Obvously you had to buy it from somewhere.


No because the WN is lying in TMA


That's not a reason you can't buy it. If WN is lying in TMA, then
someone had to buy it on Wednesday in order to send it back - so you
had to buy it.


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.


Why not?


So if you can't buy the WN you can't time travel it
back to Tuesday.


Of course. But (you're now assuming that) WN was time travelled back
to Tuesday; and therefore it was bought on Wednesday.


Damn it! Paradoxes are a kick in the ass, ain't they?



Sure. Let's prove that cellular division is impossible. "Say a cell
divides. Now it's in two different places. But it can't be in two
places simultaneously. Therefore cellular division is impossible."
What fun, let's try God next.


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?


Why not?


(Remember, WN(a)
and WN(b) are one and the same WN.)


Then why are you using (a) and (b) to refer to them? Obviously, like
the divided cell, they don't exist in the same place; that's one
difference. But otherwise they'd be identical, AFAICS..


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?


Presumably it already did, on Tuesday. Otherwise, where did WN come
from?


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.


So what? The theory's been upheld in this scenario; WN appeared in
TMA on Tuesday. What does the fact that you now have two WNs on
Wednesday have to do with that?


Duplication should/can not be a
result of true time travel, eh?


Why not?


There's a 'consistency' clause.



There's a "'consistency' clause" in what? WN?


Do I believe time travel is possible?


Who cares? You haven't cared enough to even look at the theory under
discussion; why do you think anyone would care to read your opinion of
it?



snip


.