Back to the Future v. My Physics Class (2123 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: 0.6 on 94 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by d_prime <dprime.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2005-11-25 16:27:21 EST
Half of my Physics class (the part that got it) as well as my physics teacher seemed to really like my Time v. Time (opposed to Position v. Time) graph as it applies to Back To The Future.
After my breakthrough in Math, it's time for a scientific breakthrough:
Note that if you measured the lines it'd be as though he spent months in the 50s, not days. I did this so the difference would be noticeable.
I also did another one 'Time Spent in the Machine vs. Years Left to Live' which explains how much the radiation poisoning from having plutonium processed behind will reduce his life span. I really don't know how this works, but it was still nifty. It wasn't worth putting together in paint though.
User Reviews
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2005-11-28 13:39:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2005-11-28 08:29:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
Children should not be mocking those great science documentaries as back to the future and war games. You have no right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Average_Dan (user info) at 2005-11-28 08:39:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Pretty funny.
Submitted by Bellebrown (user info) at 2005-11-28 08:29:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Children should not be mocking those great science documentaries as back to the future and war games. You have no right.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-27 20:16:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The moral of this story: Don't make movies with Michael J Fox.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-27 18:37:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Things that appear intuitively obvious often are not.
Everyone here should read or google what Einstein
said about time.
Submitted by CanucksFan (user info) at 2005-11-27 18:29:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:51:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Time travel is impossible. We can physically only influence the future. No matter how many weird, new, exciting ways we find to influence the future, that's all we'll be able to influence. Thinking that time travel will be possible one day is like thinking that we'll be able to make 1+1 = 3 'one day.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the fuck are you trying to say here man? Re-read next time, this doesn't even make sense...
Not to mention very biased of you..
Submitted by Xcuses (user info) at 2005-11-27 17:21:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
You're a canuck.....makes more sense
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-27 16:43:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
October 21? Mine is October 20. Only 40 years earlier.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-27 16:35:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm 16, as of October 21st.
Submitted by yuvalset (user info) at 2005-11-27 15:44:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Fuck that.
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2005-11-27 14:59:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
You beat me in the hit race. More older? How old are you d-prime?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-27 12:10:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You know I'm Canadian, eh?
Submitted by Xcuses (user info) at 2005-11-27 11:08:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I can see why we are falling behind every other country when it comes to educating our youth
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-27 10:52:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-26 18:17:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
Zak is an ass sometimes? Try 24/7.
Prime is sitting on his ass snickering at what he started.
-
I'm obviously not as interested as you guys, but, if you enjoy it, why not expand the discussion?
The real problem with B2TF is that so long as his parents have a kid, he turns out exactly the same, and that in the second one, when the older version of the antagonist goes back in time and comes back, he doesn't come back to the changed version of time.
I'm sure Einstien could tell me a whole lot of shit about physics that I don't know, and about the nature of reality. However, if he told me that 1+1 could equal three, I'd tell him to fuck off.
Submitted by Garrik (user info) at 2005-11-27 06:18:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Mostly correct A-Daamage but his memories wouldn't necessarily alter since the events he changes in the past would already have been changed in his former life by himself in the future, however it is all irrelevent as you said time does not exist and reversing the "flow of time" is not possible since it is an irreversible process (and I mean that in the physical sense not the dictionary definition of the word sense) and whoever said Einstein would cry, wrong, he didn't believe in time travel, the only person who does is Stephen Hawking, who can kiss my ass, except, he can't.
Submitted by A-Daamage (user info) at 2005-11-27 04:03:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Time doesn't exist.
For argument's sake, though, if Marty went back in time, why didn't he regress in age and disappear at his birth date? And what controls what part of the time machine (in this case, the Delorian) actually travels through time? Wouldn't whatever is connected to the time machine ONLY travel, leaving everything else behind? In terms of the movie, wouldn't only the flux capacitor and whatever is directly connected to it travel through time? I ask this because if it only has to be what the Delorian is touching, which is what the case would be with Marty - he's not part of the machine itself - wouldn't it take whatever the tires are touching with as well when it makes the jump, i.e. the asphalt, gravel, etc.?
Also, as soon as Marty changes any events in the past, why isn't his memory instantly altered, since his former memories never actually existed after that point? I ask this, because when he wakes up back in his own time, he's completely surprised by all the events - his parents are good looking, the car isn't wrecked, etc.
12 Monkeys is a better movie about time travel, but it's still faulty, since as I said before, time doesn't exist anyway. It's just a word to describe our perception of motion and decay.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-11-26 20:25:27 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2005-11-26 20:19:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:51:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Time travel is impossible. We can physically only influence the future. No matter how many weird, new, exciting ways we find to influence the future, that's all we'll be able to influence. Thinking that time travel will be possible one day is like thinking that we'll be able to make 1+1 = 3 'one day.'
---------------------
einstein would kick your butt if you said that. and there's probably something in some random higher math that would allow 1+1=3 as a truth, i never got past linear algebra though.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-26 19:55:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2005-11-26 19:47:11 (#)
Ranking: -1
The earth actually revolves around the sun, not the other way around.
_____________________________________________________________________
You think so? Fuck, you is so intilijent. Dipstick.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2005-11-26 19:47:11 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
The earth actually revolves around the sun, not the other way around.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-26 18:17:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Zak is an ass sometimes? Try 24/7.
Prime is sitting on his ass snickering at what he started.
Submitted by FunnyAsCancer (user info) at 2005-11-26 17:54:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think the real issue here isn't about physics, or relativity, or how zakalwe's an ass sometimes...
But just exactly how big a dork do you have to be to argue the fundamental physical properties of Back to the Future?
Mellow yellow, baby.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-26 08:27:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
General Relativity? Wasn't he over the brigade
led by Major Fuckup?
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-26 08:25:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:38:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
a more accurate version:
a clock moving at velocities approaching the speed of light in the lab (rest) frame will be observed to run more slowly than a second clock that is stationary in the lab frame. the factor by which it is slowed is dependent on its speed, and the slowing effect typically becomes significant at speeds greater than 3 * 10^7 m/s (0.1c).
__________________________________________________________________
The man is brilliant, but I'm an idiot for putting it in laymen's terms.
Spook, what do you do with your four years of calculus?
Those and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee, free refills. . .
Submitted by Garrik (user info) at 2005-11-26 04:19:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
+1 because it was mildly amusing
No one here has studied General Relativity I see though (other than from popular science sources)
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-11-26 03:57:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i love c1ndy's love of drama
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-11-26 03:57:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ill agree with ignorance.
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2005-11-26 03:48:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:38:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
a more accurate version:
a clock moving at velocities approaching the speed of light in the lab (rest) frame will be observed to run more slowly than a second clock that is stationary in the lab frame. the factor by which it is slowed is dependent on its speed, and the slowing effect typically becomes significant at speeds greater than 3 * 10^7 m/s (0.1c).
---
cool.
+2 graph drama
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-26 01:30:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-11-26 01:22:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:42:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
lick my taint bubba. you and d-prime are talking about things you clearly don't know shit about. that's arrogance.
================================
no, take a look at how you are acting, then look up the word arrogant.
I think you'll find you fit the definition better than anyone else here.
I think he's looking for "Ignorance"
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-11-26 01:22:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:42:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
lick my taint bubba. you and d-prime are talking about things you clearly don't know shit about. that's arrogance.
================================
no, take a look at how you are acting, then look up the word arrogant.
I think you'll find you fit the definition better than anyone else here.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-26 01:00:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 19:20:55 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-25 19:00:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Take some fucking calculus godammit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:59:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
A clock and the speed of light are not measurements of the same thing.
A clock measures time in seconds (s).
The speed of light is the distance traveled by light over a time period: meters/second (m/s) or distance traveled/second.
______________________________________________________________
I didn't say they were the same. I said one has an effect on the other.
Before you take more calculus you should learn to read.
I've taken 4 years, Bubba. Perhaps you should research what the fuck you're talking about before you type meaningless crap.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 23:57:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-11-25 21:43:54 (#)
Ranking: 1
Bubba, aren't you meant to be in your mid 40s?
________________________________________________________
No, my mind doesn't work at the speed of light,
You, on the other hand, must be about 625. . .
Submitted by Serious_Melvin (user info) at 2005-11-25 23:52:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
The graph makes sense to me, but I'm drunk.
Submitted by jimmiss (user info) at 2005-11-25 23:23:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Zakalwe, your an ass. All i know is i could follow what he is. And I know a fair amount about this type of thing. I'm not an expert, but I understand what I understand.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-11-25 21:43:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Bubba, aren't you meant to be in your mid 40s?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-11-25 21:43:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 21:09:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
OK, find a fucking reputable site on fucking Google
and fucking look up time at the speed of light.
Or don't bother.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 21:01:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
The metric system is only 70% as long as it was in the 60s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least d_prime understands the basic concept I was referring to.
Submitted by knucklesnelson (user info) at 2005-11-25 21:18:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 21:09:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
OK, find a fucking reputable site on fucking Google
and fucking look up time at the speed of light.
Or don't bother.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 21:01:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The metric system is only 70% as long as it was in the 60s.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-11-25 20:59:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:14:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Clocks run slower near the speed of light. That's a fact.
-----------------------------------------------
"Time" can run "slower" now?
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 20:10:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Also, look at this http://www.ubersite.com/m/79832
and give me an intelligent response.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 20:07:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Prime, I've done very little deep reading on relativity, but I've seen
the explanations for laymen. If Zak and others want to get deep into
the electronics branch of science, lemme know.
"McFly, anybody home?"
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 20:06:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ah, me and my repeated comments.
I've been browsing people's comments, and I DID in fact forget something. It depends on your definition of time, which isn't quite clear.
Oh, and that the speed of light slows something down (including a clock)doesn't mean that time is changing?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 20:04:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I already thought of this one, so I'm compelled to tell you: I didn't say 'more older than he was before my last note.' He is more older than he was before it happened.
And, they weren't really the same age. Marty was slightly older, though that's not important. You just didn't notice that the lines aren't right on top of eachother (maybe the format and sizing made it unoticeable?)
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 20:02:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Ah, Zakalwe, this is my fault for responding. I'd love to argue about anything other than the semantics of what I've said earlier.
You should stop trying to give me suggestions.
Bubba: You always have something interesting to say.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 19:39:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You know more in a highly specialized area. My stating something
in laymen's terms doesn't make it wrong.
Perhaps you would like to discuss electronics hardware and how
it functions sometime?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 19:37:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I know more than you and d-prime. though it's highly unlikely that I earn more.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 19:35:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Zak, I guess you know more than everyone about everything. What do you
do for a living? I suppose you even make more money? Heh, I doubt it. . .
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 19:33:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I've already explained that your comment was poorly formulated, bubba. but as noted below, that's ok. it takes years of education to think about and express advanced physical concepts like time dilatation and relativistic mechanics.
it's obvious you lack all that, so stop trying to argue something you can't win.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 19:27:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Zak, I said nothing that was wrong. Show me.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 19:25:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
don't beat yourself up over a little thing like being wrong, bubba.
we can't all be scientifically literate, it make the world a better place or something!
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 19:20:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-25 19:00:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Take some fucking calculus godammit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:59:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
A clock and the speed of light are not measurements of the same thing.
A clock measures time in seconds (s).
The speed of light is the distance traveled by light over a time period: meters/second (m/s) or distance traveled/second.
______________________________________________________________
I didn't say they were the same. I said one has an effect on the other.
Before you take more calculus you should learn to read.
Submitted by Kindred (user info) at 2005-11-25 19:19:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for bringing up the subject.
However it is quite arrogant to assume that this could never happen. Time can be defined as a physical entity (through space/time), and therefore can theoretically be influenced and manipulated through the physical world.
For a very simple example, look at black hole theory. Time slows down in relation to the extreme density and gravity associated with the black hole. To you, "stepping over the edge" into a black hole would happen in real time (right up until you are "spaghettified" and become a singularity), but to anyone witnessing you crossing the edge, you would appear to be frozen there forever, due to the extreme warping of the space/time fabric around you. Essentially, your time has stopped while the universe moves on.
How's that for a paradox?
--------------------------------------
Zakalwe, you seem to have some decent knowledge in the field. Kudos from a fellow space geek.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-25 19:00:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Take some fucking calculus godammit.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:59:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
A clock and the speed of light are not measurements of the same thing.
A clock measures time in seconds (s).
The speed of light is the distance traveled by light over a time period: meters/second (m/s) or distance traveled/second.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:55:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
hey, I'm trying to be nice here. I didn't even hand d-prime a -2, because I like it when people post about science, however trivial it may be.
it's not my fault you're an ignorant fuckwit.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:47:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Who started with the personal attacks? YOU DID.
Prime put up a chart that was most likely meant to be taken
lightly. It will get him tons of hits, which was probably
his objective. You hop in and become the professor. We have
a term for you: Sexual intellectual--- Fucking know-it-all.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:42:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
lick my taint bubba. you and d-prime are talking about things you clearly don't know shit about. that's arrogance.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:39:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:23:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:14:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Clocks run slower near the speed of light. That's a fact.
====
a misleading fact. tell someone this and they will just get confused. you need to explain concepts like proper time and inertial frames before you start making statements like this. and based on what I've seen of your comments around here, bubba, you don't know that much about anything.
______________________________________________________________
Misleading? Possibly. Incorrect? No.
Teach me, Oh Wise One. It's a fucking website! I'm not here to postulate
the meaning of life. You have the audacity to call D_Prime arrogant?
Read your own comments.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:38:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
a more accurate version:
a clock moving at velocities approaching the speed of light in the lab (rest) frame will be observed to run more slowly than a second clock that is stationary in the lab frame. the factor by which it is slowed is dependent on its speed, and the slowing effect typically becomes significant at speeds greater than 3 * 10^7 m/s (0.1c).
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:32:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:23:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:14:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Clocks run slower near the speed of light. That's a fact.
This makes no sense at all.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:31:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's still a Time vs. Position In Time graph.
I was decent at Physics, but it involves too much speculation and theory for my blood. I prefer engineering knowledge.
You're that asshole in class who asks questions when everyone was trying to learn and get the fuck out of class aren't you?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:23:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:14:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Clocks run slower near the speed of light. That's a fact.
====
a misleading fact. tell someone this and they will just get confused. you need to explain concepts like proper time and inertial frames before you start making statements like this. and based on what I've seen of your comments around here, bubba, you don't know that much about anything.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:20:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
in your note: "he was older before. he still is, but more so."
this doesn't make sense. before the time-travel he was the same age as mr red-line. when he comes back (position of upward arrow) he is older by some amount, call it one unit. at the point of your starredd note he is still one unit older. thus your note makes no sense, because the amount by which he is older jumped up once and then remained at a constant amount i.e. there is no "more so" happening.
"I don't see how putting information about a movie about time travel on a graph as a joke is a way of showing off that I know a lot about physics."
idiot. I was talking about this comment in the reviews:
"Similarily, I don't know a lot about cosmology, but there are some things that I just can't accept, such as the thoery that there's something that 'causes time.' The whole concept of cause and effect requires time in the first place. Its one of those things that has to be.
However, I heard that in passing, and I don't know whether or not any reputable cosmologists actually think that."
in which you declare nothing but your ignorance. also your later comments about relativity and other things just show how little you know.
word of advice, stop using the words "irrefutable" and "self-evident" in physical (or indeed any) arguments. that's nothing but arrogance.
and whoever that guy who asked was, no I'm not 14. cretin.
Submitted by Oleannder (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:18:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I hate you for having enough time to screw around with this crap.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:15:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I wish I had as much free time as you.
Oh, who am I kidding. I have just as much free time as you, if not more. I'm just too stupid to come up with stuff like this.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:14:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Clocks run slower near the speed of light. That's a fact.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:10:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
(I don't want to say 'I believe,' and 'If I'm not forgetting anything' over and over, so take everything I say about physics in stride.)
You're context-dropping the concept of 'direction,' which is spatial doesn't apply to time, because it can only move one way. The reason we can never find a way to reverse the influence is that it is this way, and any actions humans can make are within it. It's like trying to move without moving.
Now, speed is relative, and time is nothing but the movement of objects, but the concept of time and of physical objects taking up space in reality is self-evidence and irrefutable.
Submitted by 501LatinVerbs (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:08:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Nice graph, but I think Einstein kinda happened upon this topic a little while ago.
Submitted by Unbound (user info) at 2005-11-25 18:04:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
+1 just for the attempt to make physics class look semi-cool.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:55:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Didn't old Al Einstein say something about the passage of time
being different at certain speeds? Have we learned more since
he died in 1955? Yep. If speed affects time in one direction,
why not in the other? There is a Yin for every Yang.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:54:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Man, I keep on making these slips. I meant to say 'This is not a statement.'
Now I really have to go. Thanks all (not Zakalwe) for the intelligent comments etc.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:53:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Among things like A=A, 1+1=2, 'I am alive.'
Things that can't possibly be changed based on the whole concept of 'change' as we currently see it, in which any statement against it assumes its validity ('This is not a quesiton.')
It's possible (but sort of arbirary to predict) that one day a lot of our theories about gravity and motion will be proved wrong, however, some things are simply irrefutable self-evidence.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:50:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v327/dprime/lines.jpg
The rate at which they get older doesn't change, but he is more older because he jumped ahead during his time spent in the 50s.
I spelt 'axis' 'access' a couple times. I guess you're going to say minor English mistakes like that make me unreliable in applying high school physics to movies.
Submitted by nahnoneofit (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:48:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Its one of those things that has to be.
___________
amoung what else, prime?
(just curious, dont take it as an attack)
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:43:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bubba, here is a partial explanation of what I believe to be justified: An airplane flying is just things happening very differently from what we had evidence to believe was true. It doesn't contradict the whole concept of 'happen,' which time travel does.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:38:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Zakalwe, stop talking like a social worker/psychology expert. I'm obviously joking when I call these things breakthroughs. One was a nifty acknowledgement and one was a joke about a movie.
And, as you can see on the chart, he is 'more older.' Though they're increasing in age at the same rate when he isn't time traveling (obviously,) he is further ahead on the age-axis at the same point on the date-axis, unlike before.
I don't see how putting information about a movie about time travel on a graph as a joke is a way of showing off that I know a lot about physics.
So when a 7 year-old writes a story for his Grade 1 class he's 'making out like he's some sort of noble prize-winning writer.' ??????
-
Bubba, I currently believe that that's differerent. It's difficult to explain and I have to go, but please don't take it as a cop out. I'll explain later.
Submitted by SPECIALk (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:31:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
stupid physics..i barely passed that shit in highschool
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:30:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I hated physics twent five years ago and I have less interest in it now.
Submitted by XFile (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:26:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Isn't time nothing more than the measurement of change?
Submitted by quack (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:17:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
zakalwe, aren't you like... 14?
but your observation was right. "math breakthrough." hahahaha!
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:08:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't understand your "more older" note. once he comes back with his extra "50's" time, the difference in ages remains constant (as is demonstrated on your graph, which shows constant seperation between blue and red lines). so he is older, but he doesn't get any more older as you so poorly put it. thus your note is not just redundAnt, but erroneous.
plus, what's the deal with your "breakthrough" in maths? all you really did was note that 1*(a/4) = (1/4)*a. ie, you did nothing.
and, and, you clearly don't know very much (if anything) at all cosmology and (extremely) small scale quantum mechanics, so stop sounding off on it like some kind of authority rather than the high school pupil you are.
your interest is laudable, but your arrogance is not.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 17:03:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
A flat statement that something is impossible will not endear
you to open-minded people. A thousand years ago no one dreamed of
an airplane because they couldn't interpret the required physics.
Have we learned all there is to know about physics? I doubt it.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:54:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
...now that I think of it, I doubt that any do.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:54:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Similarily, I don't know a lot about cosmology, but there are some things that I just can't accept, such as the thoery that there's something that 'causes time.' The whole concept of cause and effect requires time in the first place. Its one of those things that has to be.
However, I heard that in passing, and I don't know whether or not any reputable cosmologists actually think that.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:51:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Time travel is impossible. We can physically only influence the future. No matter how many weird, new, exciting ways we find to influence the future, that's all we'll be able to influence. Thinking that time travel will be possible one day is like thinking that we'll be able to make 1+1 = 3 'one day.'
Submitted by Dante_Alighieri (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:42:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Interesting.
Submitted by Bob_Dole (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:41:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
i feel edumacauted
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:40:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Comes back older but no time has passed." One of the paradoxes
of time travel. Paradox. . .two wharves.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:35:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
To comprehend, that is.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:35:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I forgive you. I'll consider it a deduction for not making Age on Y and time on X, which would have made it a lot easier.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:33:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Scroll wheel...sorry
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:30:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I like it
Submitted by Foonbo (user info) at 2005-11-25 16:28:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Boo for fancy book learnin'.