Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
36 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Faith, GDR, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Pressie (7 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,951 Year: 18,987/19,786 Month: 1,407/1,705 Week: 213/446 Day: 11/98 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time traveler caught on film in 1920?
ringo
Member
Posts: 17444
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 31 of 104 (588996)
10-29-2010 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
10-29-2010 10:27 AM


Re: not hiding face, and something in the hand
Catholic Scientist writes:

... I think you can tell that there's something there and it looks like they're talking into it, especially after they turn towards the camera and their hand starts moving downward.


People seeing the video in the 60s would have said she was holding a "transistor radio".

The only time I see her talking is when she turns to say, "Hello," to somebody off-camera to her left.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2010 10:27 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 104 (589006)
10-29-2010 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by onifre
10-29-2010 12:50 PM


It's not that time travel is impossible, it's that there is no such thing as time outside of experienced time to travel to or from. It's nonsensical.

No, I disagree. Relativity makes the notion of time travel not only possible, but inevitable. The notion of time travel to the future is that you experience the passage of a certain amount of time, but everyone else experiences the passage of a much larger amount of time. The notion of time travel into the past is that you experience time in a backward direction, but everyone else experiences it in a forward direction.

All of these things are experimentally-verified consequences of general relativity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by onifre, posted 10-29-2010 12:50 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2010 6:12 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 36 by onifre, posted 10-29-2010 6:40 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 33 of 104 (589013)
10-29-2010 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
10-29-2010 4:58 PM


Back In Time
Crash writes:

The notion of time travel into the past is that you experience time in a backward direction, but everyone else experiences it in a forward direction.

I have never heard of any physics experiment that actually involves experiencing time backwards. Is there such a thing?

Crash writes:

All of these things are experimentally-verified consequences of general relativity.

Has backwards time travel been experimentally verified? I thought time travel to the past was fraught with all sorts of logical and practical conundrums?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 4:58 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 6:17 PM Straggler has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 104 (589014)
10-29-2010 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Straggler
10-29-2010 6:12 PM


Re: Back In Time
I have never heard of any physics experiment that actually involves experiencing time backwards.

We have experimental evidence of creating negative curvature of space, and general relativity indicates that this is the same thing as backwards time travel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2010 6:12 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Straggler, posted 10-29-2010 6:32 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 35 of 104 (589016)
10-29-2010 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
10-29-2010 6:17 PM


Re: Back In Time
Is that true?

Do you have a link or anything that explains that? (I did a cursory google and didn't find anything that said negative curvature - whatever that means? - pertains to backwards in time)

I'm intrigued.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 6:17 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1241 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 36 of 104 (589017)
10-29-2010 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by crashfrog
10-29-2010 4:58 PM


Relativity makes the notion of time travel not only possible, but inevitable.

Not in the sense that you're thinking of - as in, sci-fi time travel where you can actually go back or forward to a date "in time." There are no "dates in time."

Since time is a unit of measuring distance, you can shorten the distance (with worm holes, black holes, etc.) and reduce the amount of experienced time.

The notion of time travel into the past is that you experience time in a backward direction

First, there is no universal time to go backward from. You experience time at 300,000,000m/s temporally, that is, not moving at all. If you increase you speed spacially, you will (hypothetically) go no faster than the speed of light - or, 300,000,000m/s - (obviouslly nothing with mass can do that so you will go as fast as 99.999etc, the speed of light. Never actually reaching that c.) Time is experienced relative to the speed travelled by any object with mass, that is all "time" is. Currently you are travelling (temporally) at the speed of light, spacially maybe you're sitting down.

Second, time doesn't have directions because it is only experienced and not an actual 'thing." So there is no forward or backwards "in time," that is nonsensical to express.

All of these things are experimentally-verified consequences of general relativity.

If I'm not mistaken I believe Special Relativity deals with the speed of light and time.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


"I am sure all of your friends are charmed by your flavored words, but they hardly are of any use in a discussion among gentlemen. ~ JBR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 4:58 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2010 7:25 PM onifre has responded
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 8:53 PM onifre has responded
 Message 46 by Just being real, posted 10-30-2010 2:05 AM onifre has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 104 (589021)
10-29-2010 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by onifre
10-29-2010 6:40 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by onifre, posted 10-29-2010 6:40 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by onifre, posted 10-29-2010 7:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1241 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 38 of 104 (589024)
10-29-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by New Cat's Eye
10-29-2010 7:25 PM


This is what a virgin looks like
I did retain some info from back in my school dayz, I haven't burnt every cell out. Plus thanks to cave and Son I got to brush up on it.

But if you want a nerd, something I have never been described as so thanks? Here's one of your kind:

Don't you play this game?

- Oni


"I am sure all of your friends are charmed by your flavored words, but they hardly are of any use in a discussion among gentlemen. ~ JBR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-29-2010 7:25 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 8:53 PM onifre has responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 104 (589027)
10-29-2010 8:27 PM


Imaginative Speculation
Who knows how far into the future she is from? If 3,000+ years, it could be very easy that the decade-specific details so obvious to us are mere blurs to folk studying the past from her time period. In this respect, she may have not been aware of all the time-period relevant clothes and accessories she was supposed to bring with her on her trip; her and her friends probably brought their phones with, she whipped hers out, dialed the number, didn't hear anyone on the other end, started walking about shouting at them 'CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW!?', and then looked toward the camera to figure out what the hell that strange-ass archaic-looking crank-box thingy was with which some guy was busy playing. It would certainly explain why the man walking in front of her was walking away from her so quickly!

The problem is that we can come up with millions of such ways to explain this as a time traveler from the future and an equal number of ways to explain it as something else, none of them possessing the slightest shred of evidence. So while it makes for endless speculation, it is not something we can answer definitively, and so instead of drawing ANY conclusions on this woman and what she is up to, the furthest we can go is to say this: she is walking; she stops walking; her hand is by her head; she is talking; she looks at the camera.

Anything more than that is just imaginative speculation.

Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 104 (589031)
10-29-2010 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by onifre
10-29-2010 6:40 PM


Since time is a unit of measuring distance, you can shorten the distance (with worm holes, black holes, etc.) and reduce the amount of experienced time.

Right. And so, if I take ten minutes but the world around me spins forward for ten years due to a time dilation effect from speed or high gravity, that's functionally time travel to the future. Similarly, if a closed timelike curve loops you around to the beginning of the curve, that's time travel too.

We live in a universe where "time travel", to some points in the future and perhaps some in the past, is a physical possibility. But my guess is that the engineering is prohibitive (to say the least.) Further, my guess is that at the very moment that anyone creates a time machine (or, well, will, since I don't think anyone has done it yet), someone from the future pops out of it to kill them. Otherwise we'd be up to our balls in time tourists all over the place.

First, there is no universal time to go backward from. You experience time at 300,000m/s temporally, that is, not moving at all. If you increase you speed spacially, you will (hypothetically) go no faster than the speed of light - or, 300,000m/s - (obviouslly nothing with mass can do that so you will go as fast as 99.999etc, the speed of light. Never actually reaching that c.) Time is experienced relative to the speed travelled by any object with mass, that is all "time" is. Currently you are travelling (temporally) at the speed of light, spacially maybe you're sitting down.

Ok, I don't understand what you're trying to say at all, not least of which because you're trying to measure time with speed, which makes no sense at all. But suffice to say that speed-related time compression is very much a real thing, and accelerating at great speed to take advantage of dilated time to "arrive in the future" - that is, experience a short passage of time while the rest of the universe experiences a great passage of time - is experimentally verified.

Second, time doesn't have directions because it is only experienced and not an actual 'thing."

Time is a very real component of the universe; it's a characteristic of the spacetime which the universe is comprised of.

If I'm not mistaken I believe Special Relativity deals with the speed of light and time.

Yes, but general relativity is the theory of which closed timelike curves are a consequence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by onifre, posted 10-29-2010 6:40 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by onifre, posted 10-31-2010 2:48 PM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 41 of 104 (589032)
10-29-2010 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by onifre
10-29-2010 7:48 PM


Re: This is what a virgin looks like
Don't you play this game?

I play WoW.

With my wife.

Who I bang.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by onifre, posted 10-29-2010 7:48 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by frako, posted 10-29-2010 9:49 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Nij, posted 10-30-2010 1:50 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 62 by onifre, posted 10-31-2010 2:26 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 42 of 104 (589036)
10-29-2010 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Omnivorous
10-29-2010 10:19 AM


Omnivorous writes:

Lighten up and laugh a little.


You somehow make all creationists disappear and I'll lighten up. In the mean time, I'm always on the verge of a breakdown.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Omnivorous, posted 10-29-2010 10:19 AM Omnivorous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Jon, posted 10-30-2010 1:01 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2814
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 43 of 104 (589039)
10-29-2010 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
10-29-2010 8:53 PM


Re: This is what a virgin looks like
I play WoW.

With my wife.

Who I bang.

and i play chess whit god

evidence

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 8:53 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 104 (589049)
10-30-2010 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taz
10-29-2010 9:11 PM


You somehow make all creationists disappear and I'll lighten up. In the mean time, I'm always on the verge of a breakdown.

They clearly have a hold on you. Makes you wonder who's in control

Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 10-29-2010 9:11 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 3180 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 45 of 104 (589051)
10-30-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
10-29-2010 8:53 PM


Re: This is what a virgin looks like
Pics. Or it did not happen.

That goes for you too, frako maybe the notation for what should be called the God gambit? COuld be useful if I have to play the folks down at the Square again.
Next time you play him, ask him to solve a Rubik's cube. Then you can film it and figure out the God algorithm too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2010 8:53 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019