+- CDBZ Archive (http://alex.zulenka.com)
+-- Forum: Out of Character Forums (http://alex.zulenka.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: The Legendary Asylum (http://alex.zulenka.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=133)
+--- Thread: Mothafuckin' time travel (/showthread.php?tid=14837)
Mothafuckin' time travel - Jack - 11-02-2009
After watching Terminator Salvation, I've come to the conclusion that time travel is fucking confusing. The idea in this case, is that John Connor grows up to send a man named Kyle Reese back in time to have sex with his mother and give birth to him. Which makes absolutely no sense to me, AT ALL. But I'll roll with it. What I don't understand is that this is NOT one time line. This shit will happen over and over again forever (depending on perspective). If you are following Reese (like, with a camera/fly on the wall), then you follow John, then Reese again, who goes back in time and starts the loop all over again, then you see that it's a constant loop. Someone, who shall remain nameless, believes that this is wrong, and that all this only happens once. BS.
My theory is that Kyle Reese is perpetually "unstuck in time", destined to be born, go back in time, die, then be born again to do the shit all over again. Now, I made a diagram, using an example of a diamond. Basically, if Kyle Reese is born in 2004 (random number) and finds a diamond in the ground in 2018, and is then sent back in time in 2020 to 1984, and gives this diamond to the mother of his child (John Connor), who then passes it on to John Connor, WHO THEN GIVES IT TO REESE TO TAKE WITH HIM BACK IN TIME. But, Reese has also found the diamond in the desert, so he goes back in time with not only the diamond he found, but the diamond he was given. So this time, he goes back with 2 diamonds, giving both to dat bitch, who then gives both to John Connor, who then gives BOTH to Kyle Reese, who has found the diamond in the desert anyway, WHO THEN GOES BACK IN TIME WITH 3 MOTHAFUCKIN' DIAMONDS. So, it's a constant loop. This happens enough times and the one diamond becomes a bag of diamonds, a stadium of diamonds, etc. I made a diagram:
![[Image: time.jpg]](http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b74/supahypahmegad00d/time.jpg)
Photobucket and paint always end up in smaller images. But anyway. What do you think?
Mothafuckin' time travel - Saz - 11-02-2009
You have way too much time on your hands, is what I think.
But yeah, on time travel I was watching a show a few weeks ago where a physicist was defending time travel, and how there is nothing in our current knowledge of physics that says time travel is impossible. But the catch is you couldn't go back to the stone age or anything, you could only travel back to the time you or whoever, created the time machine. So if somebody creates a time machine in 2010, and wait until 2011, they could only travel back to 2010. Which, kinda sucks.
He didn't explain all the many, MANY, paradoxes that time travel brings though.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Jack - 11-02-2009
Wow! I totally didn't expect that response! From anybody! On here! (gtfo)
I'm going to watch Primer, it's kind of a documentary on time travel. I find time travel fascinating.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Josh - 11-02-2009
You're assuming the first John Conner was fathered by Reece, it's very possible that John Conner sent Reece back to protect him mom and then inadvertently created a new timeline where Reece is his father.
And because John believes that he keeps sending Reece back in the new timelines.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Jesper - 11-02-2009
I didn't make any attempts to follow it, but I laughed at "DAT NIGGA DEAD."
Mothafuckin' time travel - Vad - 11-02-2009
You also forgot to mention that in the 3rd Terminator, Arnold mentions that he was sent back by Katherine, Connor's wife, because he killed John.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Vad - 11-02-2009
To add, Salvation takes place early on in the war when Skynet was still developing the model that Arnold represented in previous movies. That's why our main character was a partially organic machine.
EDIT: What's even more fucked up is that in Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Cameron is supposedly a love interest to John or something. She (in the present and as a machine) malfunctions and they pin her between two trucks to remove the chip, she manages to tell John that she loves him. Pretty crazy shit, but they did use most of the original storyline for that show. The Insane Asylum and other past events were still accounted for.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Ashe - 11-02-2009
Ok, you are operating on a few assumptions. Not sure how many I feel like addressing.
One of them. You state that the diamond MUST be found under a rock, in your example. Then he goes back, gives it, it travels forth, and a new diamond MUST be found. Its the only way to work that example. However, what would be more likely and fitting is a self fulfilling prophecy, in the manner that he gives the diamond, etc etc, it goes through the people's hands, and then the diamond is given to Reece, who then goes back in time and sends it through circulation.
But the entire movie series is a big grandfather paradox as the basis of the plot. Its pretty common.
Want real time travel? Light travels from distant stars to reach your eyes. You take in this light through your optical nerves and process it into an image. However, the image that you see is NOT what the current star looks like. That star could have fucking super nova'd by now, we won't know. Because if its far enough away, we will see it as being entirely there as a star for 5000 years if it needs to, depending on how far away it is (and operating under the assumption that it was big enough to send light to us that far).
So this star hasn't been in existence for 5000 years. Regardless, it will be on every star map, and even in the days of space age travel (if such a day is possible), it will become known as a planetary illusion. While on specific planets that are far enough apart (let's say one is closer to the star by a few hundred light years than the other), one will see the super nova taking place in real time, the furthest will see the star still there, and the closest will see absolutely nothing there anymore. It will be widely known that this star no longer exists, but people will INSIST that it clearly IS there due to the "common sense" that anyone can go out and see it with their own two eyes.
Setting all that aside, realize that anyone, anything, anywhere, will always be a ghost of the past. Even if its by fractions of fractions of fractions of a second, it still requires the time for the light to bounce off of the image and reach your eyes. This means that no matter how good your reflexes are, you will always be just a tiny bit behind perfect response time. And you'll never see what anything technically looks like in present day.
You are the only thing that exists in the present.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Vad - 11-02-2009
I have no idea why I suddenly starting thinking of relativity in your post Ashe. Was that what you were trying to get at? The theory states that the faster you travel the slower time is. If I were to travel around space at light speed for one year, I would come back to Earth having only aged a year while Earth would have aged, maybe 25-30.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Jack - 11-02-2009
I don't think how fast you go changes the pace at which your cells age.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Vad - 11-02-2009
Quote:Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock. To illustrate this further, imagine an observer sitting beside an oval race track, with a motorcycle rider traveling close to the speed of light for several years around the track.The sitting observer will age faster because time for the motorcycle rider will elapse relatively slower.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Josh - 11-02-2009
Bil Baer Jaxx Wrote:I don't think how fast you go changes the pace at which your cells age.
It doesn't, but because you are traveling close to the speed of light your time frame reference is different. So while you may experience a year of time from your frame of reference, the world is experiencing many years.
They have actually proven this to be true, the took two atomic clocks that were synchronized down to like the pico second and found that those on the space station were out of sync with the rest of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Edit: Even better is that all dimensions change during relativity, so while you measure something on a ship traveling the speed of light it might be 20cm long but to a person in a different refference frame it could be 200metres long.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Jack - 11-02-2009
How would that affect cell decay and shit? I don't agree with that. A clock works differently than the human body.
EDIT: So if somebody were to be moving at the speed of light, they could reach another planet and end up not having aged the actual amount of years it took to get there? Or are we talking about consciousness, like you would be seeing things in bullet time?
Mothafuckin' time travel - Vad - 11-02-2009
One simple phrase. Time slows down the faster you go.
EDIT: The first statement. If someone travels 186,000 MPS for 10 years, they age 10 years. Someone going 93,000 MPS (half the speed of light) would age 20 years going that same distance.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Josh - 11-02-2009
Bil Baer Jaxx Wrote:How would that affect cell decay and shit? I don't agree with that. A clock works differently than the human body.
You don't seem to understand, when you travel at the speed of light. Time in your reference frame is slower than outside of it, you are literally experiencing time differently then the rest of the universe.
Bil Baer Jaxx Wrote:EDIT: So if somebody were to be moving at the speed of light, they could reach another planet and end up not having aged the actual amount of years it took to get there? Or are we talking about consciousness, like you would be seeing things in bullet time?
If you traveled 4 light years, at the speed of light, you would age 4 years. But the rest of the universe would have aged hundreds of years outside of your frame of reference.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Jack - 11-02-2009
I see.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Rem-13 - 11-02-2009
![[Image: taylor.jpg]](http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/PlanetoftheApes/taylor.jpg)
Mothafuckin' time travel - Josh - 11-02-2009
rem-13 Wrote:
![[Image: taylor.jpg]](http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/planetoftheapes/taylor.jpg)
IT'S PEOPLE!!
Soylent Green that is.
Mothafuckin' time travel - Jack - 11-02-2009
Rem-13 Wrote:
This picture says a lot more a lot clearer than anything else in this thread.
2006 years = 18 months is kinda eeeeeeh, though
Mothafuckin' time travel - Ashe - 11-03-2009
Jack: Room of Spirit and Time. That's a fantastic example of what he means.
Look at this basic point.
It is proven that the faster something goes, the more mass it gains. In doing this, it exerts a greater influence onto relativity, most often noted in objects as the larger object having "more gravity". What is happening is that it is distorting space time to a greater extent.
Now, in doing that, we understand that if you are distorting space time, there is a "time" factor that is distorted as well. The problem is that its very difficult (and I don't know of it being done) to accurately put a definition on the concept of "time". I think the best way I could think to define it off the top of my head would be to say it is "a measurement of change from one instant to another." So we understand that time is distorted because the very foundation its connected to, space time, is distorted by this (the event horizon of a black hole, for example, stretches time out greatly).
Now that we've established that time can be distorted by mass (and thus the speed an object is moving), we know that things can exist theoretically in different time frames. The example of a RoSaT is a complete fictional thing, however, it is not impossible by the laws of physics for that effect to take place.