Wizz Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 ow my head hurts :wall: :wall: Wongton is better than me in anyway~~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluff Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Yes. If a there is an infinite beginning and infinite end, where's the middle? Traveling back in time to fix a problem is not plausible. I just made those up, so I hope they work. Personally (I don't know if this goes with any theory, it's just random conjecture), I believe that if we went back in time and changed something, and went back to our own time, nothing would change. The reason being that one can't go back in time in their own dimension, so they instead end up going to another dimension that's at the time period they desire, and change the course of history in that dimension. It's weird and complicated, and I'm not even in college, so it's probably bull :-w . Oh well. Here's my thoughts on the time travel paradox thingy. Every-thing in the past has hapened. The future is the further future's past. You could go back in time and kill every one you met, but you could not kill you parents etcetera becuase your parents have already made you, in the future's past. If you go back in time and do some-thing, then go back, nothing will change, because you already went back in time before you went back in time. [YAY]If you go to the future, you may or may not be there: If you are, then you are going to go back in time, grow up and meet yourself. If you aren't, then A) You have died in the past. You can still go backwards and meet your future self before you die. You will then start again from every-thing after the [YAY] (note, future meaning from your original time) OR B) You do not get back to your present time. You can still go forward and look for yourself, if you do, go back to the [YAY] Yes. It's not about the other people, its about shooting cute furry things that explode. I sincerely hate any-one who replies to a quote in their signature.Amen to that! Preach it brother! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 ^See, but for that theory to be correct ("we couldn't kill our parents", "we would then go back and time and grow up") we would have to have no free will. Something would have to gain control of our body and force us not to do those actions, which is proposterous. It's like a step up from destiny- you would have to lose any and all ability to make choices. Oh, and isn't there some theory against being able to meet yourself? [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Eggz Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 ^See, but for that theory to be correct ("we couldn't kill our parents", "we would then go back and time and grow up") we would have to have no free will. Something would have to gain control of our body and force us not to do those actions, which is proposterous. It's like a step up from destiny- you would have to lose any and all ability to make choices. Oh, and isn't there some theory against being able to meet yourself? What do you mean? Going back in time and seing your younger self - OR - just looking in a mirror or talking to yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanosauromo Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I belive that, if time travel existed, it would be impossible to change the past because anything that happens in the past already happened. Anything you do in the past is what you already did. Nothing can be changed, because everything is already the way it was. Does that make sense? It works in my brain, but doesn't translate to words well. You only have to type four extra keys for me to not think "ur" an idiot.solardeathray.teensupergenius.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonimu Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 What happens, if you are going at the speed of light in a car, and you turn on the headlights? Since light will never go faster than 186,000 miles per second, and you would be going 186,000 mps, what would happen? Everything is relative (I think), you should still be able to see it. The light emitted from the headlights would still be travelling away from you at the speed of light. Even though the car is travelling at the speed of light, the light can still escape relative to the car. To someone outside of your car, you appear to be travelling with the speed of light, while the light emitted from your headlights would appear to be travelling *twice* the speed of light to him. Compare it to sitting in a train and somebody walking down the path away from you. To you he appears to be walking 5mph. To someone outside of the train, his speed = speed of train + 5 mph. (feel free to correct me, my theoretical physics is a bit rusty) Completely wrong: Losers...Are you blind or ignoring me on purpose?Even though I sometimes side with religious people in some debates, I no longer consider myself religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jak722 Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Can Schroedinger's cat be considered a paradox? The Enrichment Center reminds you that the weighted companion cube will never threaten to stab you and, in fact, cannot speak. In the event that the weighted companion cube does speak, the Enrichment Center urges you to disregard its advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchdreams Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 What happens, if you are going at the speed of light in a car, and you turn on the headlights? Since light will never go faster than 186,000 miles per second, and you would be going 186,000 mps, what would happen? Everything is relative (I think), you should still be able to see it. The light emitted from the headlights would still be travelling away from you at the speed of light. Even though the car is travelling at the speed of light, the light can still escape relative to the car. To someone outside of your car, you appear to be travelling with the speed of light, while the light emitted from your headlights would appear to be travelling *twice* the speed of light to him. Compare it to sitting in a train and somebody walking down the path away from you. To you he appears to be walking 5mph. To someone outside of the train, his speed = speed of train + 5 mph. (feel free to correct me, my theoretical physics is a bit rusty) Completely wrong: Quote the whole article: specially where it says this velocity addition formula simplifies in the case of colinear velocities (which we have in the case of light emitted from a car): v = (v1 + v2) / (1 + v1v2) with all speeds noted as fraction of c and v = relativistic sum velocity (also in fraction of speed of light). Speed of car = c, so v1 = 1. Carlight speed = c, so v2 = 1. Relativistic sum velocity is v = 2/2 = 1. Which means the carlight photons move at the speed of light away from the car, relative to the car. Which is what I said. So, nope, not *completely* wrong :P. Or, as Wiki says it: One feature of the formula is that no summation of velocities ever exceeds the speed of light. In addition, if either of the velocities is the speed of light, the sum is also the speed of light. If observer B is moving at any speed relative to observer A and observer B observes photons moving in front of him/her at the speed of light, the photons are also moving at c relative to observer A. Photons, unlike most objects, always appear to (and do in truth) move at the speed of light regardless of the reference frame. So, I went wrong in reasoning that the observer outside would see the carlight at twice the speed of light. This because the simple addition formula I used for the 'train-example' doesn't hold for speeds close to or at the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluff Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Yes. ^See, but for that theory to be correct ("we couldn't kill our parents", "we would then go back and time and grow up") we would have to have no free will. Something would have to gain control of our body and force us not to do those actions, which is proposterous. It's like a step up from destiny- you would have to lose any and all ability to make choices. Oh, and isn't there some theory against being able to meet yourself? There is free will, we just don't have it. Free will belongs to the orginals. The ones where there is no future, they get to make it with the decisions. The only thing is, there is always a future, so there is free will, it is just an infinite number of time...Thingies away. Yes. It's not about the other people, its about shooting cute furry things that explode. I sincerely hate any-one who replies to a quote in their signature.Amen to that! Preach it brother! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue_Eggz Posted April 3, 2007 Author Share Posted April 3, 2007 Can Schroedinger's cat be considered a paradox? PM me the paradox and I will confirm it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabola Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Are you an authority on paradoxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebdragon Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Yes. ^See, but for that theory to be correct ("we couldn't kill our parents", "we would then go back and time and grow up") we would have to have no free will. Something would have to gain control of our body and force us not to do those actions, which is proposterous. It's like a step up from destiny- you would have to lose any and all ability to make choices. Oh, and isn't there some theory against being able to meet yourself? There is free will, we just don't have it. Free will belongs to the orginals. The ones where there is no future, they get to make it with the decisions. The only thing is, there is always a future, so there is free will, it is just an infinite number of time...Thingies away. What's to stop you from going killing your parents when you go back in time, spare your emotions? I myself don't believe in "free will" (as everything we do is a reaction to environment), but that's not only taking away free will, it's taking way the human perception of free will and choice. If one has a gun pointed at their parent-from-the-past, what's to stop them from pulling the trigger? (again, once they get past emotions) [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupportMage Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 This sentence is false. Deal or no deal? phree st00f pl0x? Still alive, still alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now