@ ein-7919

the contradiction is something like an answer to a yes and no-question
sure your right from your point of view. it is and will be a contradiction

but my point of view has two sides if you read the text closer:

---

infinities have 2 sides i think, they do and they don't exist
infinity is a word us humans () use to explain a ridiculously large number
(the number 1.10^99^99 for instance) so it doesn't exist but if that number were to annihilate and procreate itself (presumably happenings in history in an "X" number of history's-) then you WOULD have infinities

---

the beginning says:

---

infinities have 2 sides.

---

but then it says:

---

but if that number were to annihilate and procreate itself(presumably happenings in history in an "X" number of history's-) then you WOULD have infinities

---

with this I want to state that theory. because if it annihilates and procreates itself it would go on and on and on

Locutus: Erm, if it annhilated itself and procreated itself it would have an overall effect of zero, unlessit did one action more than the other, if you get what I mean...

no, it would not.

because if one thing annihilated itself (I.E. nuclear war) and the other procreated itself (I.E. peace) it would not have an effect of zero

if the effects were not to change like in example 2 peace : 1 war then the total number of possible futures and histories would multiply, but if it were the other way round it would decrease exponentially. it's a sort of yin yang business

i'm now opting out of this discussion.
debating the existence of infinities is where i draw the line

-arcon
------

Arcon, pity. You was good...

Locutus...

I create myself, I destroy myself, I create myself, I destroy myself. I've not to 2, let alone infinity...

how can you create yourself! you already exist...

Bad choice of words... I duplicate myself. I die. Duplicate duplicates it self, dupliacate dies, duplicate 2 duplicates itself...

...

Am I missing what you're tryign to say...?

I think so

you mean procreate yourself like a cell (of somesort). and I think this discussion has reached a peak and we should not continue.

I too am now quitting this discussion. it was fun while it lasted and lutz you make a fun and good discussion go forth me lad

Cheers Louctus.
I'm going for a record of getting all 4 of my threads in the top , erm... 4!

/needs to think of more debating material.

If it wasn't for the inky blackness of the night you wouldn't appreciate the brilliance of the stars...

Damn, after rading this my brain gave up and left for ten minutes. I kinda sat staring at the screen, with just a little drool hanging out. After wiping it away, I decided to present my own useless theory:

The future cannot be changed. I will use the Terminator explaination. In Terminator 1, Nuke war is predicted. In T3 Nuke war happens, regardless of what happened in T2. You may think you've changed the future, but you haven’t. Same for if you killed Hitler (Why bother, get Saddam!), quite possibly, someone or something would stop you, because Hitler died in April 1945. However, history depends on it's observers. The soviet troops claimed Hitler commited sucide and then had some of his remaining troops burn his corpse. (Yes, he ordered them before he died, it wasn't some spooky, beyond the message grave). For all we know, you could have gone back in time, shot Hitler in the face and then char-grilled him. History is opinion and hearsay, not fact.

Wow, my longest ever post. I'm *sniff*, so emotional. *Runs away, crying, before yelling*

Cardamine rules!!

A littel theory of my own;

a vessel that move's at a speed close to the speed of light (even at lower speeds) exepriance that the time for him goes slower then for something that doesnt move. This is cause by the lightspeedbarrier, since you cant go faster then light the enery you put in your speed needs to go some where and since einstein figured that space and time were a combination of both you move faster in space but slower in time because something that moves has more enery and that needs to be proppeld not only in space but in time aswell, but because its heavyer(has more enery) it slows down in time.
If time slow's down for the vessal that moves at near light speed but doesnt loose any velocity it speed increases for him but not for the world around him because if he travels at 100m/s normal world(not near light but easyer) and it's seconds are 1.5 of a velocoty meter would record a speed of 150m/s.

Can some one comment this?

ok, now were not talking about infinities and devine intervention...i will pick up again.

@Aceaz: what you said is pretty thin to be honest. T3 isnt conforming to the rules of time travel like T2 and T1 before it, although you were right in that i believe the future cant be changed. T3 Kept the war in but changed the dates, in theory there was nothing the conners could have done to prevent the war and i was quite pleased that they itterated this in the film (although i came up with a far better plot for T3)
And hitler CANT have been killed by a time traveler purposefully, else it would create a paradox..sorry

@Artic: i'm still not understanding the link between time travel and the speed of light. ok so things would be slower for the person traveling at nearly the SOL, but surely to everyone else he is moving normally, and its just perceptions that would think he was moving slower or whatever?

-arcon
------

If you're going near the speed of light, then time for you is different than time for an observer. To an observer, you would look as if you're frozen in spot, or at least moving VERY, very slowly.

Now, to you, everything outside is going the opposite: Very quickly. Therefore, if you took a mere month trip around the solar system at 99.3% the speed of light, when you get back everything's changed a couple hundred (or thousand) years.

Voila! Time travel! (Only in one direction, however, and no returning.)

It is theorized that something opposite to that happens at a black hole. (But, no, no going backwards in time.

To an outside observer watching you get sucked into a black hole, you'd be like *plip* (or *slurp*) and you're gone, inside that black hole. (No, don't get started on how there's no sound in space.) The observer would get sick imagining the horror you'd go through - getting stretched out by gravity longer than you're supposed to be... becoming nothing more than long strands of spagetti, then reaching the 'surface' of the black hole and becoming nothing more than a mere pinprick of packed matter. They couldn't imagine what experiencing that first hand would be.

But, neither would you. Time would start to dilate the nearer you got to the black hole. It would take a very long time to actually start to strech out. In fact, you'd probably die of starvation or old age before the black hole kills ya.


I think that's what he means.


And, about movies, I've never seen a movie that portrays the consequences of time travel logically. (As in, no loopholes, no paradoxes, and no things dynamically changing in accordance to the audience's time.)

--------------------------------
Why make your own mistakes when someone else has already made them for you?
-Learn from the skeletons floating in the piranha pool: NO SWIMMING!

@arcon
clocks that move high speeds go relativly slower in time then stationary clocks. This gets significant at near light speed.
Although its not really time travel if your in the vessel you just live slower then the rest of the world and you can see the futere.

@Whasp
If you see some one jump in a black hole you would see him get streched out and he would start fading slowly because the gravity slows down time so the light wave's he emits get more long wave and turn in to radio wave's (hence first human on radio )

The person that jumps in it would see the world behind him exelerate but his feet would slowdown for him while he streched out.

But like einstein said its all relative, so nothing changes exept for the observer.

Edited by - Artic on 28-07-2003 12:11:01