I think I may be on to something here.

[Felixaar]

Okay, so - and stop me if I've forgotten something - we put all our scientists in the world towards creating a two-way time machine, and then when it's completed, go to the future, find out how all the new technologies and stuff we always wanted (cure for cancer, anyone?) work, and then bring them back here.

I know it's a paradox, but... interesting, no?

[Dallas-Dakota]

They wouldn´t give it to us, because they would fear we would use it to turn it into weapons. Which we actually might.

[Keris]

They wouldn´t give it to us, because they would fear we would use it to turn it into weapons. Which we actually might.

Nah, we know we wouldn't turn it into weapons, because we already wouldn't have.

[Grail]

Nah, we know we wouldn't turn it into weapons, because we already wouldn't have.

Remember that good ol' Paradox.... we wouldn't know didley squat or his mate jack crap.

[Felixaar]

Nah, we know we wouldn't turn it into weapons, because we already wouldn't have.

Unless we arrive in the future and get blasted by new weapons.

But, that's why they invented the phrase "Ladies First."

I AM KIDDING GIRLS! NO MORE BEATINGS, PLEASE!

[Player_Zero]

If time travel to that capacity isn't possible then you will waste the time of every scientific mind for years until we're tfinally able to prove it or prove that you can't prove it.

This will result in a huge medical science backlash not to mention other necessary scientific whatnots.

Protip: time travel in any non-quantum capacity is most likely impossible without exception.

Bad plan.

Also, that would be a paradox. If we obtain technology from the future then where did it originate? We didn't create it therefore it doesn't exist.

[bosssmiley]

What makes you think the future would want anything to do with us?

"Don't have anything to do with those foul-smelling, diseased pre-23nd century maniacs. They'd shoot a posthuman as soon as look at one. Crazy SoBs are always screaming something about 'blobs' or 'probing' or 'BEMs' and blazing away with their popguns. Just as well we put a temporal lock on their lunatic era."

Look at how we talk about the Dark Ages. Heck, look at how we talk about flyover state rednecks and the Celtic fringe. :smallwink:

[The Rose Dragon]

If time travel to that capacity isn't possible then you will waste the time of every scientific mind for years until we're tfinally able to prove it or prove that you can't prove it.

Only physicists. Chemists, biologists and mathematicians are not likely to get involved but for peripherally.

Other than that, yeah, you're wasting time on a madman's fantasy.

[unstattedCommoner]

Okay, so - and stop me if I've forgotten something - we put all our scientists in the world towards creating a two-way time machine, and then when it's completed, go to the future, find out how all the new technologies and stuff we always wanted (cure for cancer, anyone?) work, and then bring them back here.

I know it's a paradox, but... interesting, no?

The first person to invent a working time machine will promptly be sued for patent infringement by first the person to actually use it.

As a consequence, the first patent ever granted will have been for a time machine.

[WalkingTarget]

The first person to invent a working time machine will promptly be sued for patent infringement by first the person to actually use it.

As a consequence, the first patent ever granted will have been for a time machine.

I never got around to getting a copy of that game (http://www.boardgameratings.com/game/2198/). Like most Cheapass Games titles it looked interesting.

[Eldan]

Unless we arrive in the future and get blasted by new weapons.

But, that's why they invented the phrase "Ladies First."

I AM KIDDING GIRLS! NO MORE BEATINGS, PLEASE!

Actually, that would be a nice twist:

An expedition team arrives in the future. They emerge from the time machine, only to look into the barrel of some kind of high-powered futuristic artillery gun, with a high-ranking officer kindly explaining that they now have to shoot them and send the time machine back with coordinates and time of arrival to prevent paradoxes.

[Player_Zero]

Only physicists. Chemists, biologists and mathematicians are not likely to get involved but for peripherally.


This was not the premise.


We put all our scientists in the world towards creating a two-way time machine

[The Rose Dragon]

From a logical standpoint, what's the use of putting the friggin' biologists to create a time machine? Increase the efficiency of the physicists working on it?

[Player_Zero]

From a logical standpoint, what's the use of putting the friggin' biologists to create a time machine? Increase the efficiency of the physicists working on it?

Because science can be taught, see. People who specialise in one science aren't instantly useless at every other science. They can learn about the matter and then contribute.

Furthermore, that doesn't matter. The postulation was such that every scientist was specified. We are talking about the original postulation here as that is what the topic is about.

[13_CBS]

From a logical standpoint, what's the use of putting the friggin' biologists to create a time machine? Increase the efficiency of the physicists working on it?

Testing to see the effects of time travel on organic material? See how human minds/brains/certain organs are changed through time travel? Study the psychological effects of time travel?

[The Rose Dragon]

Because science can be taught, see. People who specialise in one science aren't instantly useless at every other science. They can learn about the matter and then contribute.

It just depends on how quickly you can learn the said thing. After all, some people are naturally predisposed towards certain disciplines, and it takes them time to learn about others.

You can certainly change the majors of every science student and scientist to physics, but not a lot of the converts would necessarily want to continue their education and work in a field they don't want.


Testing to see the effects of time travel on organic material? See how human minds/brains/certain organs are changed through time travel? Study the psychological effects of time travel?

Well, the last one doesn't require biology.

Besides, we're talking about creating it, not improving.

((I suppose we will improve it through our paradoxically stolen knowledge.))

[RTGoodman]

I can tell you that time travel probably isn't something we'll see in my lifetime. You see, back about 4 years ago a group of students at MIT hosted a Time Travel Convention, with the intention being that there only needed to be one - if time travel is ever perfected, then folks from the future can just return to that specific day in 2005. Unfortunately, there were no CONFIRMED visitors from the future to appear.

Now, as long as I live, if I were to EVER find out that someone was time traveling, I would try my hardest to get them to go to that, and since it did happen, I can assume it won't.


Also, I need to stop thinking about time travel paradoxes - it gives me a headache. :smalltongue:

[Keris]

You see, back about 4 years ago a group of students at MIT hosted a Time Travel Convention, with the intention being that there only needed to be one - if time travel is ever perfected, then folks from the future can just return to that specific day in 2005. Unfortunately, there were no CONFIRMED visitors from the future to appear.

I think that if Time Travel is discovered/invented, then the Time Machine wouldn't be self contained, but would require a receiver and a transmitter. And so, we can't go any further back than when the receiver was created.

[Telonius]

There is simply no such thing as time travel.

Other than the standard 1 second per second, of course. :smallbiggrin:

[Player_Zero]

It just depends on how quickly you can learn the said thing. After all, some people are naturally predisposed towards certain disciplines, and it takes them time to learn about others.

You can certainly change the majors of every science student and scientist to physics, but not a lot of the converts would necessarily want to continue their education and work in a field they don't want.


You entirely missed the point of considering a theoretical scenario.

We're talking about if every scientist was put to work at inventing a time machine. It is not possible for this to occur but we're talking about it anyway. We are not talking about why it can't occur. Because that isn't how theorizing works.



There is simply no such thing as time travel. Any talk about it is simply mental exercises which stifle the imagination but lead to no practical solutions within real life.

Relativity is well established. Time dilation does occur. There is evidence to support it. Time is relative.

Also, Stephen Hawking disagrees that you can't time travel and I reckon he knows quite a lot more than any of us.

[The Rose Dragon]

You entirely missed the point of considering a theoretical scenario.

We're talking about if every scientist was put to work at inventing a time machine. It is not possible for this to occur but we're talking about it anyway. We are not talking about why it can't occur. Because that isn't how theorizing works.

We are talking about whether we can invent a time machine or not. I thought that was also assumed.

What are we discussing, then, if not what is wrong with the theory? The plan is already set before us. We can get back to our lives!

[Player_Zero]

We are talking about whether we can invent a time machine or not. I thought that was also assumed.

What are we discussing, then, if not what is wrong with the theory? The plan is already set before us. We can get back to our lives!

We're talking about the theoretical situation in which we put every scientist to work at inventing a time machine. Like I said.

This would be impossible what with the fact that there would have to be worldwide collaboration and many people would be opposed, but that is completely immaterial to the postulation. So, by you saying that some people wouldn't want to become physicists you're contradicting the premises of the matter and elimating the point bothering to consider it.

It's like me saying 'what if sound waves were part of the electromagnetic spectrum' and you saying 'they aren't so what's the point in considering it?'

[Keris]

While it is nice to believe time travel works like radio waves, it makes no sense. If I want to travel from point a to point b, I do not have to send a radio message between the two points first. According to the above poster, however, if I have a time machine I have to send a message back to another time machine to get the go ahead to use said time machine. This would be the equivalent of a car being unable to start because my starting point and destination have not sent a signal to one another.
Radio waves do not require a receiver to exist for them to be sent. You can set out in your car at any time you want, but you need a parking space at your destination (not a great analogy, and a mixed metaphor, I know).


few questions also need to be answered. What prevents me from sending the signal further back? If can I send energy back in time freely, why not matter? If no receivers are ever created, what happens when I time travel? Do I disappear?
Consider not simply transmitting the matter back in time, but creating a gateway that allows the transmission of matter back in time. This gateway could require an anchor point at each end, and hence would require a receiver. This explains why we haven't had anyone arrive from the future yet. If no receiver is created, then the gateway couldn't form.


There is simply no such thing as time travel. Any talk about it is simply mental exercises which stifle the imagination but lead to no practical solutions within real life.
Yeah, but we can have fun while discussing it. Let us pretend for a while.

[WalkingTarget]

I think that if Time Travel is discovered/invented, then the Time Machine wouldn't be self contained, but would require a receiver and a transmitter. And so, we can't go any further back than when the receiver was created.

Assuming that you haven't seen it already, I recommend you find and watch an independent film called Primer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film)). Given the above statement, I think you'd find it interesting. :smallsmile:

[Rutskarn]

If this theory was viable, the time machine could have already arrived.

It hasn't.

Chances are, it won't.

Besides, there's evidence (read: wild conjecture from smart people) to suggest that time travel really just means traveling to parallell timelines, not further along or behind our own.

[Flame of Anor]

Perhaps it would work, but if we didn't have the future just as the time-travelers found it when they arrived, they would find something different and go back with something different, thus changing the past (i.e. present day) which would of course change the present (i.e. the future), and so the time travelers would find something again different, and it would sort of oscillate like that--basically, they go to future A, then go back to the past which evolves into future B. Then the past travelers take future B and it evolves into future C. I don't know, however, if it would stabilize and settle down into a timestream where the time travelers returning from future X would create future X, or if it would oscillate more wildly yet and destroy the universe.

If you understood that, please say so.

[Player_Zero]

Besides, there's evidence (read: wild conjecture from smart people) to suggest that time travel really just means traveling to parallell timelines, not further along or behind our own.

Are you basing your scientific knowledge on Dragonball Z again?

[The Rose Dragon]

We're talking about the theoretical situation in which we put every scientist to work at inventing a time machine. Like I said.

This would be impossible what with the fact that there would have to be worldwide collaboration and many people would be opposed, but that is completely immaterial to the postulation. So, by you saying that some people wouldn't want to become physicists you're contradicting the premises of the matter and elimating the point bothering to consider it.

It's like me saying 'what if sound waves were part of the electromagnetic spectrum' and you saying 'they aren't so what's the point in considering it?'

We're also talking that the time machine is created, as it is under a "when" clause, not "if". We're talking about unerringly traveling to the future and taking their knowledge and returning safely.

All the other discussion has been debating about whether it can happen. About whether time travel is possible, whether the future folk will give us the knowledge we want, or if it will indeed exists.

You, however, seem to be selectively applying an "if" clause to all the points but the one I've mentioned. Either apply it to the entire situation or don't apply it at all.

[Phaedra]

While it is nice to believe time travel works like radio waves, it makes no sense. If I want to travel from point a to point b, I do not have to send a radio message between the two points first. According to the above poster, however, if I have a time machine I have to send a message back to another time machine to get the go ahead to use said time machine. This would be the equivalent of a car being unable to start because my starting point and destination have not sent a signal to one another.



There is some kind of scientific theory based on wormholes that argues you couldn't go back beyond the time the wormhole was created. It bends back on itself or something, creating a loop in time. I think time dilation was involved at some point. I'm really very vague on the details. Still, you'd never be able to go beyond a certain point in time.

[Player_Zero]

We're also talking that the time machine is created, as it is under a "when" clause, not "if". We're talking about unerringly traveling to the future and taking their knowledge and returning safely.
All the other discussion has been debating about whether it can happen. About whether time travel is possible, whether the future folk will give us the knowledge we want, or if it will indeed exists.
You, however, seem to be selectively applying an "if" clause to all the points but the one I've mentioned. Either apply it to the entire situation or don't apply it at all.

Sense. You need to make it for people to be able to understand you.

Let me summarise your post:

We're talking about when a time machine is created.
People have posted about time travel.
[Incomprehensibilities concerning "if clauses" which I believe you just made up.]

[Linkavitch]

Nah, we know we wouldn't turn it into weapons, because we already wouldn't have.

Unless they knew we already had, in which case they wouldn't, in which case we would invent the weapons, and then use them to destroy the future.

[The Rose Dragon]

Sense. You need to make it for people to be able to understand you.

OK, let's give you the short form, then.

You are comfortable bringing up whether time travel is possible or not, but you are not comfortable with me bringing up whether all the scientists in the world coming together to work on a physics project is possible or not. Even though the first post assumes both will happen.

Double standard, much?

[Player_Zero]

You are comfortable bringing up whether time travel is possible or not, but you are not comfortable with me bringing up whether all the scientists in the world coming together to work on a physics project is possible or not. Even though the first post assumes both will happen.

Double standard, much?

No, no it isn't. Where does it say that we are assuming time travel is possible?


Okay, so - and stop me if I've forgotten something - we put all our scientists in the world towards creating a two-way time machine, and then when it's completed, go to the future, find out how all the new technologies and stuff we always wanted (cure for cancer, anyone?) work, and then bring them back here.


Where does it explicitly state it? When he said 'when'? 'When' could quite easily mean never.

"When hell freezes over."

Since time travel is not assumed to be possible it is concerning the situation we are considering. But since we already assumed that we put all the scientists to work at it, which is explicitly stated, saying that this won't happen is irrelevant since we're talking about when it does.

In before last word.

[The Rose Dragon]

"When" assumes something will happen. "When hell freezes over" is an idiom which refers to a place of fiction in the first place. You don't actually see someone's arm twisted when someone twists their arm, do you?

[Felixaar]

Are you basing your scientific knowledge on Dragonball Z again?

Actually I believe this would be basing it on Timeline, which is a somewhat more reputable standard.

I'll admit the main problem in my theory was the ultimate question of whether or not time travel - in the sense of travelling through time FASTER than we do now - is possible.

[Anuan]

Course it is! All you have to do is find all the dragonballs!

[tashiun]

If we built a time machine to go into the future and learn everything there could be learned and returned to give it to the people of today and it totally messed everything up, then you'd think that the /US/s of the future would be like "We've got to prevent that!"

So when we tried to make the time machine in the first place, the future us's would be like "*Appears to smack our hands and say 'no.'*"

HOWEVER.

If we did that and learned a lot and brought it back to the present us's and it brought a lot of good into the world and made everything peaceful, then the future us's would probably bring back their technology even FARTHER back into the past, to make it peaceful from way earlier, and by NOW, we'd have had our time machine and ultimate knowledge, HMMMMM?

[Pyrian]

I guess that proves we're inherently evil - pursuant to the other assumptions, of course. :smallcool:

[Felixaar]

Course it is! All you have to do is find all the dragonballs!

It all makes sense now!