Richard and other thinkers

Costs are rising and times are tough.
Please consider a donation to keep this
place going.

Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.

This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.

We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.

You are logged in as Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >>Discussions >>Off Topic >>

Page: [1] 2 3 > >>

Message

<< Newer Topic Older Topic >>

Ruphus

Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010

Richard and other thinkers

Having special problems with overcoming the passing away of fine fellow people, the one thing that frustrates me the most since the age of 14 is the fact that events are being so darn mercilessly irretrievable.
No way to go back in time and prevent bad blows, or at least convey something ...

Now, aside from diverese practical unfittings with the idea of manipulating the past ...
There is something that got stuck in my head since a couple of months.

On German TV there is a serial with a prof. who elaborates and philosophizes about diverse matters.
Once, referring to time travel he claimed that realizing such would be impossible alone for the much too complex task of accurately dissolving all the occurances ( and setting them back to the individual status of back in time).

My thought:
Why ought a travel back in time require the active undergoing of the practical path of events?
If there be thesis and hypothetical ways of going back, couldn´t it be only related to time with the practical aspect then unsolving self-evidently / just consequently?

Ruphus

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 2 2014 10:29:48

BarkellWH

Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

Brian Greene covers this topic in his excellent book, "The Fabric of the Cosmos." In physics, nature is considered symmetrical, with the exception of the notion of "The Arrow of Time," which suggests that, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in a closed system time is asymmetrical and can only move forward, not backward toward the past. This touches on the notion of "irreversibility" and the phenomenon that entropy always increases with time (such as found in our expanding universe) but can not decrease. this would seem to suggest the impossibility of time travel to the past.

But I think the most interesting and practical explanation suggesting the impossibility of time travel to the past comes from Stephen Hawking, who suggested that the absence of tourists from the future visiting our present is an argument against the existence of time travel. Of course, that in itself does not prove the impossibility of time travel to the past (in their case, our present), but I think the concept of "The Arrow of Time" would cover it, as well as our present inability to visit the past.

Cheers,

Bill

_____________________________

And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."

--Rudyard Kipling

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 2 2014 12:16:58

estebanana

Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

This thread called for thinkers so I will abstain.

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 2 2014 23:58:59

BarkellWH

Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to estebanana)

quote:

This thread called for thinkers so I will abstain.

I thought about doing that as well. Then I thought, why not crash the party and be an embarrassment to all. I remind myself of Winston Churchill's description of then-Secretary of State John Foster Dulles: "He was a bull who carried his own china shop with him."

Cheers,

Bill

_____________________________

And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."

--Rudyard Kipling

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 0:29:52

Ricardo

Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

quote:

Why ought a travel back in time require the active undergoing of the practical path of events?
If there be thesis and hypothetical ways of going back, couldn´t it be only related to time with the practical aspect then unsolving self-evidently / just consequently?

Without getting mathematical, scientific, or philosophic about it, remember the space AND time together aspects. For example let's say I invent a machine that can slice through the fabric of space and time so that I can "jump" backwards say several hours or a full day, in hopes to fix the mistake I made. Well, at the moment of my time jump I will be at once sitting on my pretty blue ball called "earth" and then suddenly find myself floating in empty space, or at least seeing my little blue green home flying out in the distance as I travel away from her at the same speed she is moving. See, I forgot that earth is spinning, and going around the sun, and even the sun is going around the galaxy and finally the entire Milky Way speeding toward Andromeda....so there is not a way to stay grounded in other words if you try to go BACK in time suddenly. You would have to literally experience time in reverse from this moment, and all else you already experienced bit by bit until you finally arrive at the time you wanted to jump to so that you can change things or otherwise re experience the event. But that rewinding is in itself YOUR forward movement.

_____________________________

CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 5:35:49

Ruphus

Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

Everyone who has some considerations is welcome, naturally.

Thank you, Bill, for the pointers.
In my superficial view even just the question of how to appear in a past where you be physically present already produces a contradiction.

Yet, regarding my question I think Ricardos good ol´Einstein example to come closests to my question. - Which however is still not specifically answered.

Would hypothetical returning in time inevitably have to mean practically unrolling / desolving processes backwards?

( I don´t think so.)
-

Ricardo, I think you could contradict the twistings within the solar system without needing to be anchored, as long as you topologically return. ( Which you could do with or against earths twisting direction.)

- I suppose the problem ( under so far known means) in that aspect would first be the travelling at such high speeds which should dessolve oneself physically.

Further, what about space tunnels ( snatching up space)? Overcoming space / effecting time as well? ... Scratch that. Not thought through question. It won´t effect time.

Ruphus

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 7:30:54

ptmikulski

Posts: 14
Joined: Oct. 31 2011

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

The spring board for considering the possibility of time travel traces back to the interconnectedness of space and time in the theory of special relativity. For any observer of an event, that observer can give that event a stamp (x,y,z,t) but each observer marking the event would give a stamp based off of his frame of reference consisting of his spatial grid and his stopwatch. The mathematics of showing the connection between any two stamps of the same event (the rules for transforming from one frame to anothers) is pretty mind blowing for a few reasons that come to mind:

1) It requires that we abandon the notion of an absolute frame of reference (a kind of "God's point of view"). While we might be accustomed to working in different frames practically, most of us prior to Einstein had no problem with the idea of marking up the universe with one absolute grid and stopwatch with rules for connecting to that absolute frame keeping space and time separate.

2) The rules for transforming from one frame to another mix space and time together mathematically. The equations look so symmetric that we can make the misstep here of thinking that in some sense time is "just another dimension". That is very misleading, the connections between dimensions (the metric is the lingo) is very rich with unsymmetric structure in it).

My view on this is that the way to wrestle with this new perspective is to shift ones center, meaning special relativity forces us to shift what one holds as a kind of understood assumption about things. In the past, the notion of absolute space and time was there, but now it is more about that metric: points of view are seamlessly, mathematically connected in a consistent way. Our universe is infinite set of events, all that has happend and that will be. While our universe is seamlessly connected: any entity be it an observer or a particle of light traces a particular and restricted path through space-time, paths that never wind back on themselves. This is not an edict, it is just what happens according to the rules when an entity can not travel any faster than light in vacuum. This puts restrictions on events that can have a direct effect on one another and pretty much shuts down the possibility of time travel.

To put it all another way: While the space-time stamps that any individual may put on whatever events may vary from person to person, the essential connectedness between events is unaltered, you can stretch, compress, bend, rotate, translate, speed up, slow down according to the transformation rules of special and general relativity but you can not cut and restitch (or at least according to the rules that got our imaginations running wild to begin with).

There is nothing to stop us from wondering if the rules are in fact the rules, that is the job of anyone with an imagination including physicists and this wondering has thankfully no end. But so far there is not anything that I am aware of that in anyway suggests I may need to consider the possibility of time travel in order to make sense of my world. It is still fun to think about though, but when I do, I think I quickly get tied in a knot because it actually is not possible. But then again maybe my mind doesn't see the new required shift of center.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 14:34:22

gj Michelob

Posts: 1531
Joined: Nov. 7 2008
From: New York City/San Francisco

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ricardo)

If you could travel faster than the speed of light, then you could "observe" the past unfold -images of the past, that is.

To intervene and change any event, however, that appears to be impossible. However, yet, to untangle that conceptual knot could help explain the inexplicable, such as God, or other ideas we are still too primitive to conceive or grasp.

On the other hand, I find the unpredictable future more fascinating, and I enjoy, each day, traveling through it...

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

gj Michelob

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 15:17:11

Ricardo

Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

quote:

as long as you topologically return.

You can't. You can guess about the earth moving around the sun, maybe even sun around galaxy, and MAYBE even with Galaxy moving toward Andrameda as reference points and correct for all that to actually appear on earth at the time you wanted in the past...but you can't account for the ENTIRE universe expanding too....you would need a "God reference" from which to make the map so that you can give the precise coordinates of where earth was hours ago relative to YOU time jumping.

_____________________________

CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 15:17:15

Ruphus

Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

Ptmikulski,

Well said.

One of my many relicts of unthinkable items is something as "ordinary" like the storage medium CD.

Had you told me before its emerge that one day there be storage media be functioning by a layer of aluminium which again be impressed through a laser beam ... And not enough, be rewirtable even, I would had thought you be in delirium or something.

This is not to say that I would consider time travel possible, only that we have been seeing too many surprises to be all too certain about potential eventualities.
( Just see black material now, or even just material duality under quantum physics before that.)
-

You fellas ( admittedly understandably so) don´t overcome the unlikeliness of time travel to yet answer my actual question.

Could we however tweak on time, ought it to be meaning desolving of physical proceeses in the same time?

I estimate: No, not inevitably.

Ruphus

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 15:28:41

Ruphus

Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ricardo)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gj Michelob

However, yet, to untangle that conceptual knot could help explain the inexplicable, such as God, or other ideas we are still too primitive to conceive or grasp.

This isn´t really that tricky ( as romantics like it to be).
Status quo proves logically that there exists no such.
Not as consciously preciding entity.

Its only option would be in kind of buddhist model as passive and growing with the events. Type of an energy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricardo

quote:

as long as you topologically return.

You can't. You can guess about the earth moving around the sun, maybe even sun around galaxy, and MAYBE even with Galaxy moving toward Andrameda as reference points and correct for all that to actually appear on earth at the time you wanted in the past...but you can't account for the ENTIRE universe expanding too....you would need a "God reference" from which to make the map so that you can give the precise coordinates of where earth was hours ago relative to YOU time jumping.

Why should these factors be incalculable?
I know. Practically you can´t precisely calculate humble occassions even like just those on a billiard table.

But theoretically, as long as the material and movement could be tracked first a hyper computer should be able to predict kinetics and position.

... But maybe what you mean with "you can´t" is specifically considering foreseeable means in our range, right?

Ruphus

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 15:46:13

gj Michelob

Posts: 1531
Joined: Nov. 7 2008
From: New York City/San Francisco

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

quote:

This isn´t really that tricky ( as romantics like it to be).
Status quo proves logically that there exists no such.
Not as consciously preciding entity.

I feel that I am too young and immature to pass judgment on a universe that is infinitely older than I am.

_____________________________

gj Michelob

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 15:54:35

BarkellWH

Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

Whether one considers the "Arrow of Time" as moving forward, not backward; or the Space-Time continuum in Special Relativity with its relative frames of reference; or if one imagines travel at faster than the speed of light (impossible, but imagines it) and looks back at images of events unfolding in the "past"; it would still be impossible to insert oneself (the observer) into the past and influence it to produce a different outcome. Think of our observations of images of events that occurred at the furthest limits of the universe millions of light-years away. What we see on earth is not the event itself as it is occurring. Instead, we see the light-image of the event as it occurred millions of light years ago. Were it possible to instantaneously travel to the point where the event actually occurred, there would be nothing there to see or influence.

Cheers,

Bill

_____________________________

And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."

--Rudyard Kipling

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 16:03:10

Ruphus

Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to BarkellWH)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gj Michelob

I feel that I am too young and immature to pass judgment on a universe that is infinitely older than I am.

A take that may work individually when preferring to not look at it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BarkellWH

Whether one considers the "Arrow of Time" as moving forward, not backward; or the Space-Time continuum in Special Relativity with its relative frames of reference; or if one imagines travel at faster than the speed of light (impossible, but imagines it) and looks back at images of events unfolding in the "past"; it would still be impossible to insert oneself (the observer) into the past and influence it to produce a different outcome. Think of our observations of images of events that occurred at the furthest limits of the universe millions of light-years away. What we see on earth is not the event itself as it is occurring. Instead, we see the light-image of the event as it occurred millions of light years ago. Were it possible to instantaneously travel to the point where the event actually occurred, there would be nothing there to see or influence.

That is valuable and interesting consideration ( though I am not certain whether passed source of visible light makes for a prove against TT. - Because that´s when you remain in the here and now).

Different from the unquestionable obstacle of decomposing material beyond certain speed. ( Which again could possible be overcome by say an hypothetic equivalent to what tunnels could be to space, or like teletransport where there actually occures no movement etc.)
-

But what about the question:
However hypothetical TT = inevitably involving derangement / backwards unrolling of physical processes?

Ruphus

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 16:18:12

BarkellWH

Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

quote:

But what about the question:
However hypothetical TT = inevitably involving derangement / backwards unrolling of physical processes?

Not sure I understand, Ruphus. Do you mean something in the real, physical world analogous to running a film backwards? So that instead of a man shown walking forward down a street and entering a pub, he is shown backing out of the pub and walking backwards to his point of origin?

If that is what you mean, let's take the example of wanting to fry an egg in the kitchen. You accidentally drop the egg on the floor and it breaks and splatters. Are you asking if you could travel back in time five minutes ago, would it be possible for the egg at the same time to reconstitute itself as the whole egg it was five minutes ago, so you could put it in the frying pan instead of dropping it? I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but I don't think it would be possible under any laws of physics we know of today.

Cheers,

Bill

_____________________________

And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."

--Rudyard Kipling

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 17:52:41

Ruphus

Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

Yes, around that.
I think that provided there was a way of shifting in time, there is no categorical reason to precondition a physically active running backwards .

Remember: The prof I quoted claimed that TT would require disassembling of physical processes. After all, he meant that ( the complexity of such a task) would be what made TT impossible.

Such active dismantling however to me appears not inevitable to hypothetical TT.

Do you think it ( hence an active physical unrolling backwards) would be inherent to TT?

Ruphus

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 18:06:55

Pgh_flamenco

Posts: 1506
Joined: Dec. 5 2007
From: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

Ruphus, there is a US television series entitled "Through the Wormhole" that has covered time travel in several episodes. Here is a list of episodes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through_the_Wormhole

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 18:45:06

Ruphus

Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

The list reads great.
Should be wonderful material for to lean back and let yourself be taken on excursion.

Albeit, seeing from the titles it could be leaning a bit too much towards metaphysics than I prefer, but there should still be a lot of valuable info for grabs in there.

Thanks for the link, Pgh!

Ruphus

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 19:00:04

Dave K

Posts: 155
Joined: Mar. 29 2006

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to BarkellWH)

See, this is how it works;

http://assets.amuniversal.com/9f09f6106f350131eb9b005056a9545d

you're welcome.

Cheers,
Dave

_____________________________

Avise La Fin

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 3 2014 21:33:57

Ricardo

Posts: 14797
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

quote:

However hypothetical TT = inevitably involving derangement / backwards unrolling of physical processes?

Ruphus, you keep asking the same thing. Answer would be "yes" and the reason is as described (space coordinates not known relative to motion). So unrolling also means the "unroller" is also "unrolling" and thus not learning anything rather LOSING his info too...unless you accept the "unroller" is actually observing this unrolling whilst actually moving forward in time himself. being a "god" of sorts. So it makes no sense really, or rather, would serve no purpose.

There used to be a theory of universe evolution that space-time might be slowing expansion and therefore might either slow forever never stoping, or it might stop and stay that way, or, because of gravity, REVERSE .... eventually coming back to a singularity. THey called this "big crunch". This process would mean "unrolling" as you say, experienced by everyone and everything. It is illustrated in Hawkings "brief history of time". Observation shows accelerated expansion, so that Big Crunch idea has been dropped by most.

THe more complex metaphysical idea is that each event is a junction where ALL possible out comes actually occur in DIFFERENT universes, and THIS universe is only ONE Of the possible pathways. Quantum leap was a sci fi series where the main character jumps into this alternate path universes via those junction event points, and tries to "fix" things so that the pathways converge with "our" universe. Again, anything outside of OUR universe is the "god perspective" and therefore impractical.

I for one am happy enough with FORWARD time travel.

_____________________________

CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 4 2014 8:11:27

Ruphus

Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

You mean there would still be some around who consider a big crunch possible?
I though that was clearly sorted out for everyone.
-

What my question is concerned, thank you all for trying to help.

Either it is difficult to be understood, or much rather my English not sufficient to make clear what I meant.

Anyway, even if I be right, there would remain still too many obstacles to realize any TT.
-

I am glad for your contentment in life.
Mine is full with wishes to repair or prevent something, and I know that it is no healthy condition.

Besides, be glad that I can´t travel in time.
For you ( or me) would be living somewhere on another continent or eventually even not be around at all if I had a time machine.
For, among the things I´d do if I had one would be to visit the America of the 16th century and tell my brothers of what white shippers are going to bring over them.

Today that continent would likely be still rather naturally in tact with some of the tribes probably conducting some incredibly profitable tourism.
- And we would likely have some hundred million people less, which would not be bad either.

... And as I might have visited some other spots in time and locations as well like for instance Cyrus ( which alone might well have prevented the later Iberian impoverishment / financing of Columbus / Cortez), could be some more of humane history would had come about and we´d now be hardly two billion heads anyway.

... And Paco might have been quitting cigs only gradually ( provided tobacco had made its way from America ) and taking up some well dosed fitness for to stay with his family, with us keep enjoying his presence.

Yeah, the default estimation on thelike must trigger `no good / naive / better not touch´. But sometimes a better course is just that. A better course.

Ruphus

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 4 2014 8:59:17

Kevin James Shanahan

Posts: 407
Joined: Oct. 10 2010
From: Wooli, NSW Australia

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

To ask this question of mere humans is like asking the apprentice to find a tool that is not there . I believe in time travel ! in the sense that an individual can change firmly entrenched cycles that keep repeating themselves . If time creates a cycle that repeats it is as if time is constantly repeating ( going back to the beginning , going back in time ) If an individual can recognise a changeable repeating cycle and make action to throw that cycle off course he / she has effectively changed the past . Perhaps by recognising time, time travel is possible .

_____________________________

Peace.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 4 2014 9:03:26

BarkellWH

Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

Ruphus, yours is an interesting question and it brings up a whole "universe" of problems, speculation, and in some cases near-certainties that physics and cosmology have been grappling with and continue to grapple with today. I would suggest two books that you might enjoy and find interesting. One is Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." The other is Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos," subtitled "Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality." Both are excellent.

Cheers,

Bill

_____________________________

And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."

--Rudyard Kipling

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 4 2014 12:08:10

Ruphus

Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

To say the truth, I am way too restless currently to dive into overly demanding lecture.
Have not even started reading that book about the poacher-killing Siberain tiger which should be a very easy, digestable and pulling read.

Could not even convince myself yet to start meditating and calm down ( which I had decided on already).

In fact the things left for me to go through yet are so many; I feel like in a kind of bottleneck.
( - Just the less, besides, understanding a lifestyle around here with a majority loafing around without interest or questions, only voyeuristically waiting to see some `entertaining´ accident and pain, far from even sensing that there could be bits and thoughts / passion waiting somewhere to be engaged with. Which is the way of wading through the centuries.)

For now and for me it is crawling to the island.

Ruphus

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 4 2014 12:51:25

Richard Jernigan

Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

I don't know. Beats me.

RNJ

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 4 2014 20:54:05

tele

Posts: 1464
Joined: Aug. 17 2012

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to BarkellWH)

People who say complicated things like time travel is impossible are impossible. I think we are very primitive still in terms of technology.

_____________________________

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 5 2014 21:16:17

gmburns

Posts: 157
Joined: Nov. 20 2012

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to tele)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tele

People who say complicated things like time travel is impossible are impossible. I think we are very primitive still in terms of technology.

I once had an astronomy professor who was apparently something of a name back in the day (Neal something or other) who said the first day of class that 99% of what we know about this stuff is wrong. My hope of arguing a better grade as a consequence of knowing this failed miserably.

The final episodes of Spin City saw Michael J Fox's character sit with a therapist played by Michael Gross. During the conversation they kept referencing an off-stage character named Mallory. Soon after that the character moved to D.C. and met a junior Republican Senator named Alex Keaton. So Fox not only traveled back in time, he also referenced his sister to his dad who were both neither, and then he met himself in the present. Shouldn't we be asking if parallelism is possible instead?

Besides, I'd prefer the fountain of youth / immortality possibility... and the whiskey thread.

_____________________________

Greg Mason Burns - Artist

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 6 2014 20:35:51

estebanana

Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to Ruphus)

quote:

I once had an astronomy professor who was apparently something of a name back in the day (Neal something or other) who said the first day of class that 99% of what we know about this stuff is wrong.

Are you meaning the famous astronomer who is related to the Tyson chicken dynasty? The one who talks like Carl Sagan and Jim Kirk mixed together?

_____________________________

https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 6 2014 23:40:58

gmburns

Posts: 157
Joined: Nov. 20 2012

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to estebanana)

No. By "something of a name" I mean "he had a spot on an NPR radio show for about 10 years or something". Had to look it up. Neil Comins is his name. I guess he's a superstring theory guy, and has been on the fringes of nobel prize work. apparently he asks a lot of "what if" questions and writes about those.

anyway, no, I don't have that kind of claim to fame; just a few steps down and several paces to the left of it.

_____________________________

Greg Mason Burns - Artist

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 6 2014 23:56:21

gmburns

Posts: 157
Joined: Nov. 20 2012

RE: Richard and other thinkers (in reply to gmburns)

my only good claims to fame are getting to know Steven King while working at the UMaine athletic games (of which he and his wife were big fans) and getting to do camera work for interviews that Mel Gibson did after the movie "The Man Without a Face" came out. I interned for the local TV station and we got hired to do that work. Got to meet Downtown Julie Brown, too, but honestly I can't even remember who she was (MTV?).

Remember, parallelism. You could be doing two things at the same time and you don't even know it.

REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE | Date Mar. 6 2014 23:59:32