Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,653 Year: 4,910/9,624 Month: 258/427 Week: 4/64 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Time traveler caught on film in 1920?
Just being real
Member (Idle past 4024 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 46 of 104 (589052)
10-30-2010 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by onifre
10-29-2010 6:40 PM


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."
Don't you think the movies have made time seem as if it were a thing, or a place to be exact? And that this in turn has shaped so many misconceptions about time? I agree with you, time is not a place, but rather an experience. It is a man made invention to measure passage of space between events (distance). That is to say our form of measuring time is man made. (Space between events has always existed.) You can go to china, but you can’t go to a second ago. That second was merely our way of expressing the passing of an event. We have chosen to express it with man made increments called seconds. We can not travel back and view past events as they are happening, because they are not happening, but rather have already happened.
Only because of fictional movies have many taken to the notion that time is like trillions upon trillions of micro time frames, kind of like an old movie reel, and we merely experience the next frame as we pass forward through time. If that were true then it would seem logical that we could theoretically step backwards to a previous "time frame" and experience those frames again. And suppose that were true that you really could step back to say 1957? Then for you that would be your future. So would you really be traveling backwards in time or would you technically still only be traveling forwards?
I suggest that matter simply exists as it is, and it is time which is the man made allusion. As you said Onfire, the most we could do is possibly alter how we experience it. The aging that we are all experiencing is merely the results of real matter (ours) wearing out. The life processes of our own cells begins to break down and all the bodily deterioration that we call aging takes us back to the dust from whence we came. Time is not the culprit though. Time is merely our invention. It becomes our scapegoat. If only we could turn back the hands of timewe think to ourselves. It makes for a great movie, but that’s about it.
Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by onifre, posted 10-29-2010 6:40 PM onifre has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 4024 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 47 of 104 (589055)
10-30-2010 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by frako
10-29-2010 7:24 AM


I doubt time travle is possible to many paradoxses.
There is something else you may have not considered, which would allow you to peer into the past. We tend to think of light as being the fastest traveling commodity in our universe. But in the grand scheme of things it is really quite slow. Consider the fact that our own galaxy is so vast that traveling at the speed of light for 50 years would only put us about a quarter of the way across our own galaxy’s diameter. And now consider that there are billions of other galaxies in our universe that are millions of light years from our galaxy. Some of which are much more larger than our own. That means that even if you could travel at the speed of light it would still take you millions of years to reach another galaxy.
Well the next time you are peering into the night sky and looking up at the stars, some of the dimmest (furthest) stars, think about how their light actually left from their galaxy long ago. Provided of course the universe is really 16 billion years old. So then it may even be possible that some of those stars you are looking at aren’t even there anymore. They may have long since supernova-ed into oblivion. What that means, is that in a sense, every time we look into a night sky we are actually seeing into the past over several millions of years ago (if old universe conjectures are true).
So theoretically its possible to view past events on earth as they actually happened. That would require the development of at least two highly advanced technologies. The first would be to develop some advanced telescope that allowed you to focus in on and view a circling planet around one of those stars. One that was so good that it could focus right in on rocks the size of a baseball on that distant planet. That would mean that the view you are receiving of that rock is not a current view of it, but rather a view of how that rock looked several million years ago. The actual rock, planet, and star that it is circling may not even be there anymore.
Second, somehow develop a means of space travel that was millions of times faster than the speed of light. Then if you were to put your "super telescope" on this "warp" rocket and shoot it out into space, millions of times faster than the speed of light, and focus it back on earth, you would be seeing the light from the earth of the past, not the current light. That means focusing in you could theoretically, depending on rather you went further out or closer in, you could witness the Greek and Persian war, watch the Mayflower land on Plymouth Rock, or see George Washington cross the Delaware river.
That's about as close as anyone could ever come to backwards time travel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by frako, posted 10-29-2010 7:24 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by lyx2no, posted 10-30-2010 7:50 PM Just being real has replied
 Message 59 by Tanypteryx, posted 10-31-2010 12:23 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 104 (589069)
10-30-2010 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Species8472
10-28-2010 10:51 AM


Fail
I got all hyped up for that?
Let's analyze it.
1. She's wearing clothing corresponds with the time she's in (1920's). If she was a time traveler using a cell phone, what time frame does (s)he come from?
2. Please notice at about the time she disappears from morphing one scene in to the next, the gentleman with the hat. Her image is superimposed in to his hat, which simply means that it's editing and nothing more.
3. All we know is her hand is by her face and she's talking. Suddenly THAT means she's from the future and talking on a cell phone?!?!?
Lame.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Species8472, posted 10-28-2010 10:51 AM Species8472 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 10-30-2010 12:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 50 by Taz, posted 10-30-2010 5:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 51 by lyx2no, posted 10-30-2010 7:31 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 54 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-30-2010 9:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 500 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 49 of 104 (589083)
10-30-2010 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
10-30-2010 10:20 AM


Re: Fail
Hyroglyphx writes:
She's wearing clothing corresponds with the time she's in (1920's). If she was a time traveler using a cell phone, what time frame does (s)he come from?
It's Buzsaw logic. Everything about "the future" (wooo-eee-ooo) points to today.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-30-2010 10:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3379 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 50 of 104 (589123)
10-30-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
10-30-2010 10:20 AM


Re: Fail
I know this is a lite topic, but if this is your real attitude, then you have a long way to go to become a skeptic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-30-2010 10:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-31-2010 2:03 PM Taz has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4804 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 51 of 104 (589141)
10-30-2010 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
10-30-2010 10:20 AM


Re: Fail
1. She's wearing clothing corresponds with the time she's in (1920's).
Not entirely: she's not wearing her gloves. I wonder where they could be.
And I can hear her now; "A girl can't walk down the street these day without some nosy-parker sticking a cinemagraph in her face."

Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-30-2010 10:20 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 104 (589142)
10-30-2010 7:38 PM


Time traveler? What about space alien?
So the nut fringe has moved onto time travel? When I was a youngster, the claim would have been that this "woman" was from another planet, sent to earth to examine the natives.
But I guess as time goes on and the nuts get ever nuttier, even more implausible "hypotheses" have to be invented in order to stay competitive.

You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. -- Abbie Hoffman

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4804 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 53 of 104 (589146)
10-30-2010 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Just being real
10-30-2010 2:45 AM


Don't Forget the Rotary Plasmatron
There is something else you may have not considered snip So theoretically its possible to view past events on earth as they actually happened. snip [if we could] somehow develop a means of space travel that was millions of times faster than the speed of light.
Can you think of anything that isn't theoretically possible if we could "somehow" do it? We could theoretically build twenty mile high pyramids of cheese if we could somehow get cows to produce milk with the compressive strength of diamond.

Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Just being real, posted 10-30-2010 2:45 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Just being real, posted 10-31-2010 4:57 AM lyx2no has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 54 of 104 (589156)
10-30-2010 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Hyroglyphx
10-30-2010 10:20 AM


Re: Fail
3. All we know is her hand is by her face and she's talking. Suddenly THAT means she's from the future and talking on a cell phone?!?!?
Lame.
The obvious question would be what happens after that last frame, where she turns and it appears she is talking. Is there anymore footage after that frame? Is this where the gentleman chose to stop the film?
Sad skeptics dont think like creationist, you could have figured a simple thing like that for yourselves
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-30-2010 10:20 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by subbie, posted 10-30-2010 9:38 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 61 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-31-2010 2:08 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 55 of 104 (589157)
10-30-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dawn Bertot
10-30-2010 9:31 PM


Re: Fail
Sad skeptics dont think like creationist
Quite right, instead of thinking like a creationist, we look at the evidence. The film fades to a different scene. There is no more footage beyond the point you mention.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-30-2010 9:31 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-30-2010 9:48 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 56 of 104 (589159)
10-30-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by subbie
10-30-2010 9:38 PM


Re: Fail
Quite right, instead of thinking like a creationist, we look at the evidence.
You wouldnt know what evidence was if it was following you.
Shes simply probably shielding her ear from a noise we cant hear and cursing at that source at the sametime. I see nothing in her hand except shadows
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by subbie, posted 10-30-2010 9:38 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 4024 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 57 of 104 (589176)
10-31-2010 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by lyx2no
10-30-2010 7:50 PM


Re: Don't Forget the Rotary Plasmatron
Can you think of anything that isn't theoretically possible if we could "somehow" do it? We could theoretically build twenty mile high pyramids of cheese if we could somehow get cows to produce milk with the compressive strength of diamond.
Oh ouch... you really hurt me. I lost sleep over that one. No really I did. Since genetically altering a cow to produce diamond strength milk seems both far fetched and pointless, I doubt that any attempts will ever be made to advance there. But you can keep us all posted.
On the other hand when you consider the advancements humans have achieved just in flight, my "warp speed" rocket is more than just plausible. Considering that in 1783 the Montgolfier brothers invented the first hot air baloon and less than 200 years later the first space shuttle is being launched by NASA. At that rate "faster than the speed of light" travel is very possible in 2 to 3 hundred more years from now.
And of course the same can be said for the advancements of the telescope. From the first known telescope of Hans Lippershey in 1608 to todays Hubble Telescope. My ideas are not as ridiculous as you make them sound.
Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by lyx2no, posted 10-30-2010 7:50 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by lyx2no, posted 10-31-2010 9:55 AM Just being real has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4804 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 58 of 104 (589183)
10-31-2010 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Just being real
10-31-2010 4:57 AM


What you don't realize
is that we have the capacity now to know stupid when we see it.
Your 'superscope' at a distance of 390lys from Plymouth Rock would receive 1 Plymouth Rock photon per meter2 of aperture every 3.4 billion years per century. Bradford's shoe buttons wouldn't be resolved before all the protons in the Universe decayed. There isn't a method for detecting something that isn't there even in theory; and that's not something technology can compensate for.
I lost sleep over that one.
Well, maybe you should. Stay up a little later each night reading. Unless, or course, you're trying to figure out the structure of benzene.
AbE:
  1. I took a picture of Plymouth Rock and printed it on graph paper and used the half+ method to estimate the visual area (.97m2) using a penny (19 mm) for scale.
  2. The surface of the Earth receives 1kW/m2.
  3. Granodiorite has and albedo of .35.
  4. The surface area of a sphere with a 390ly (since 1620A.D.) radius is 1033m2.
  5. A yellow photon (570nm) has an energy of 3.5x10-19J.
  6. 342W/s divided by 3.5x10-19J gives the number of Plymouth Rock photons per second.
  7. 9.8x1020photons/sec divided by 1033m2 gives the photons/m2/sec received at the superscope.
Opps! Forgot to convert seconds to years (edit original post).
  1. The inverse gives the seconds/photon/meter2.
I'd appreciate criticisms of my method.
Edited by lyx2no, : A bit more time on my hands.
Edited by lyx2no, : Missed some 2.

Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Just being real, posted 10-31-2010 4:57 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4504
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 59 of 104 (589190)
10-31-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Just being real
10-30-2010 2:45 AM


Just being real writes:
Consider the fact that our own galaxy is so vast that traveling at the speed of light for 50 years would only put us about a quarter of the way across our own galaxy’s diameter.
Maybe you should do a little more research about our (Milky Way) galaxy. It is estimated to be over 100,00 light years across. Traveling at light speed for 50 years would not even get you out of our neighborhood (about 0.05 of 1% of the way across the galaxy).
Jbr writes:
Well the next time you are peering into the night sky and looking up at the stars, some of the dimmest (furthest) stars, think about how their light actually left from their galaxy long ago.
All the stars that can be seen with the naked eye, as individual stars, are in our galaxy. The only extra-galactic object that can be observed with the naked eye, from earth, is Andromeda Galaxy (our nearest neighbor) and it just looks like a very faint, hazy smudge.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Just being real, posted 10-30-2010 2:45 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 104 (589198)
10-31-2010 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taz
10-30-2010 5:16 PM


Re: Fail
I know this is a lite topic, but if this is your real attitude, then you have a long way to go to become a skeptic.
Meaning?

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taz, posted 10-30-2010 5:16 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024