Tweet
Originally posted by Robert
View Post
-
ok now you managed to give ME the creeps, and not the good ones, and i need a loot!
-
I'm not a scientist but time travel seems destined to remain in the realm of science fiction.Comment
-
There are theoretical physicists (who I know do important work but who I think often get payed big money just for dreaming stuff up) who say that if you traveled back in time and killed your grandfather, you would instantly create an alternate timeline in a parallel universe in which you would never be born, but the original timeline in which you do get born would still exist unchanged. Sounds as good as any other theory.
Comment
-
But this alternative universe presumably will contain me killing my grandad - my grandad wouldn't just keel over for no reason. And yet, if I don't exist in the alternative universe, how can I kill my grandad in it?Comment
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov...ency_principleOriginally posted by Robert View Post
Of course, Novikov was building on the earlier work of Blinovitch.Comment
-
Ah, Blinovitch. He should be compulsory reading!
Comment
-
I also just realised all this had been discussed before:
If I go to the end of that thread and post a link to the beginning of this one, will that make a Time Loop?Comment
-
I don't think that one can go back in time for the simple reason that it would imply the creation of matter from nothing. Whatever is taken back, is in the form of something elsewhere in the past, which brings two problems; the same two objects existing in the same space and time, and if not that, matter increasing to allow whatever is traveling back to be solid. In short, creating matter from nothing. So would guess that going back would instantly cause the object traveling to become anti matter in the form of a gamma ray, or one heck of a huge explosion the moment the increase in matter in the same point and time occurred. Just a guess, but I sure would not want to find out.I confess that altruistic and cynically selfish talk seem to me about equally unreal. With all humility, I think 'whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might,' infinitely more important than the vain attempt to love one's neighbour as one's self. If you want to hit a bird on the wing you must have all your will in focus, you must not be thinking about yourself, and equally, you must not be thinking about your neighbour; you must be living with your eye on that bird. Every achievement is a bird on the wing.
Oliver Wendell HolmesComment
-
Post #724 says it all really. Nobody from the future could have invented time travel (backwards) because as far as anybody knows, they haven't turned up yet.
On a slightly different note I've often wondered what it would be like to travel back to say 1900 and then try and explain to the scholars what life is like in 2011. They would never believe it!This is simply my opinionComment
-
SOOO Back to the future I-III!Originally posted by Robert View Post
This is so sweet.Originally posted by Chris View PostI also just realised all this had been discussed before:
If I go to the end of that thread and post a link to the beginning of this one, will that make a Time Loop?
With the possibility of time-travelling I'd go back to the fall of 1888 and attempt the following:
- Stalk Schwartz and Lawende.
- Stalk Le Grand (poetic justice).
- Stalk the victims and either witness who killed them, or, in an alternative possibility, save their lives. The latter would create an alternative reality without the existence of Ripperology on my return to 2011, so you people would all of a sudden experience memory loss AND lose your main interest in life... :-)Best regards,
MariaComment
-
If I could travel through time I'd go back to the beginning of August 1952 and warn the Drummond Family not to park in that particular spot. (The family were massacred on the night of the 4th - re: The Dominici Affair).
Then I'd got back to the beginning of September 1961 and plead with Hanratty not to bother with his bogus 'I saw three men in Liverpool' alibi - but to stick with the truth - that he was in Rhyl.This is simply my opinionComment
-
Time Travel
Unfortunately, I think time travel is impossible, given all the inherent physics problems- eg. anti-matter, creation of conflicting realities and contradictions.
But, despite that, I do admit to a bit of crime-buff fantasizing: what if I were there in a dark corner of Mitre Square at just the right moment to see JTR's face? What if I followed William Herbert Wallace on the night his wife Julia was killed? Etc., etc., ad infinitum...
But then, on the other hand, it's the mystery and the not knowing that makes so many of these crimes interesting. If we were all busy time traveling we'd solve all the mysteries and have nothing left to discuss! Come to think of it, how could any murderer hope to get away with it if the police were time traveling as well and returning to the time of the crime to catch them? But then, why wait for the crimes to be committed at all- like in the film Minority Report, why not stop the murder before it even happens?
Well, you see all the problems with time travel.
Nevertheless, in my weird crime-buff mind I'm waiting there in the parlour to see how Lizzie looks when she comes in with the axe.Comment
-
I seem to recall discussing my views on this - maybe on the previous Casebook's thread. My guess is that I would try to save (of all the five) Mary Kelly - nobody should end up like she was. But I could just see all kinds of complications - ending with me being a suspect who disappeared.
There were several time travel stories on the TWILIGHT ZONE, the best recalled with Russell Johnson ("the Professor" on Gilligan's Island) inventing a machine and trying to stop Lincoln's Assassination (only to be cleverly drugged by Booth). My guess is, despite the "pieties" of various writers, one could change history. We like to imagine changing for the better, but the chain reaction can become all for the worst. On a STAR TREK episode, Kirk fals for this woman played by Joan Collins who is a pacifist (and a sweet person), but he knows she will be killed by a car accident. He plans to rescue her, only to discover (this is in the 1930s) that she lives to force FDR not to assist England against the Nazis. So he has to allow to die.
JeffComment
-
Yes, alongside Euler, Clerk Maxwell, Rutherford, and several other prominent theorists, mathematicians and scientist. Literally bedside reading.Originally posted by Robert View PostAh, Blinovitch. He should be compulsory reading!
Give me the summaries of what they say.
JeffComment
-
Hi Jeff
Here's Euler :
Note that Euler didn't provide any music when advancing his equation.
Comment
Comment