Metanet Forums

At this point in time, I'm a person who believes it's pretty much impossible to travel to the past. Not only have you got to get there (which in it's own right is quite possibly impossible.), then you've got a whole manner of problems, such as paradoxes.

And yet, this appears: A woman with a mobile phone in the 1920s.

Now, I'm not sure about this video. I'm as of yet to cross-reference it with an earlier video of the same content. Even still, I'd like to hear others' views on this video, and on the idea of backwards time travel in general.

This is the most retarded thing I've ever seen. Are you serious?

I saw this, and found it interesting, but you are easily the dumbest person ever to exist on Earth.

Did Cellular coverage ALSO go back in time? How was AT&T in the 1930s doing for 4G? iPad supercool?

Don't tell me, there was a time when cell phones didn't exist?

Clearly, it's a hearing aid. At first I thought walkie-talkie, but I doubted they were made in the 1920s and they actually came a few decades later. Siemens had a new hearing aid product back in 1924.

Yeah, this is retarded.

Despite that, though, I have to say, one thing I've thought about in regard to time travel, is whether time occurs at a speed; that is to say, there is a definable gap between one instance of time and another, even if it is infintismally small. I figured that if so, then traveling forward through time would merely be a case of moving at a speed greater that "the speed of time". It's a similar concept to that of the lightspeed/time travel one (which I admit, is retarded. Light and time are totally unrelated. (Also, on that note, why is lightspeed seen as a speed barrier? That is also retarded.)), however what it does mean is that travelling backwards through time would be impossible. Or at least extremely complicated. I've not put so much though into it to discern between the two.

Gonna put my on time travel.

It's an impossible theorem since even the slightest, most minute action/effect has the potential to forever change history. What would've happened if Benoit Pouliot scored on that penalty shot last night?

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:

squibbles wrote:Yeah, this is retarded.

Despite that, though, I have to say, one thing I've thought about in regard to time travel, is whether time occurs at a speed; that is to say, there is a definable gap between one instance of time and another, even if it is infintismally small. I figured that if so, then traveling forward through time would merely be a case of moving at a speed greater that "the speed of time". It's a similar concept to that of the lightspeed/time travel one (which I admit, is retarded. Light and time are totally unrelated. (Also, on that note, why is lightspeed seen as a speed barrier? That is also retarded.)), however what it does mean is that travelling backwards through time would be impossible. Or at least extremely complicated. I've not put so much though into it to discern between the two.

I'll use my standard reply here:

wat

Well, it's more of a spacial take on the concept of time, where there is a minimum possible unit that can not be broken into anything smaller, much like the quark, or whatever they're made of, or whatever they are made of, so on and so forth. Let's go with String theory as the comparison, just to make it simpler. Let's say that time can be broken down into it's smallest possible unit - the time equivalent of strings. The ramifications of time being in such a state would be that in the interchange between between each of these units, as nothing could fill that infintismally small space, time would effectively stand still. This would be happening billions of times every second, but the relevance of it would be that were you to travel at the same speed with which one instance of this smallest unit changed, you would travel alongside it, so to speak. The world would appear stationary, as you are moving at the same speed as time itself. Were you to travel any faster, however, you would reach a point before time itself, meaning that you had -- wait. Ok, yeah, I got myself confused. This would make forward time travel impossible, and only allow backward time travel. Anyway, yeah, you would reach a point before time collided with it, to cause the effect of aging, on a universal scale.

It's based off a very hippie sort of view on time, however, where time is a kind of stream, constantly flowing over the universe, and as the next particle of time hits the universe, the universe ages.

Do you have anything to suggest that your theory might be rooted in facts, squibbles, or are you just brainstorming for your next sci-fi novella?

oeuvre wrote:Don't tell me, there was a time when cell phones didn't exist?

Clearly, it's a hearing aid. At first I thought walkie-talkie, but I doubted they were made in the 1920s and they actually came a few decades later. Siemens had a new hearing aid product back in 1924.

Yes, I'm aware of the hearing aid. But she's talking, and that's the thing that I don't get. She may be testing it, but I'm not too convinced to be honest.

oeuvre wrote:Gonna put my on time travel.

It's an impossible theorem since even the slightest, most minute action/effect has the potential to forever change history. What would've happened if Benoit Pouliot scored on that penalty shot last night?

That's if we can change the past: the Novikov self-consistency principle gives the possibility for time travel, but nothing can be changed. For instance, if I went back in time to kill my grandfather, any and all attempts of mine will inevitably fail, so that I will eventually later on go back to kill him.

=w= wrote:I saw this, and found it interesting, but you are easily the dumbest person ever to exist on Earth.

Did Cellular coverage ALSO go back in time? How was AT&T in the 1930s doing for 4G? iPad supercool?

Yes, becaused we won't later on have the capability to send messages from phone to phone directly? Who's to say, in the incredibly slight chance that this video is legitimate, that this woman/man in drag hasn't come from a point later on in time, when this kind of technology is developed?

squibbles wrote:Light and time are totally unrelated. (Also, on that note, why is lightspeed seen as a speed barrier? That is also retarded.)

I'll take Steven Hawking's word over yours.

squibbles wrote:It's based off a very hippie sort of view on time, however, where time is a kind of stream, constantly flowing over the universe, and as the next particle of time hits the universe, the universe ages.

http://forum.droni.es/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6898

Drathmoore wrote:For instance, if I went back in time to attempt to kill my grandfather, any and all attempts of mine will inevitably fail, so that I will eventually later on go back to attempt to kill him.

Edited for correctness.

=w= wrote:Yes, becaused we won't later on have the capability to send messages from phone to phone directly? Who's to say, in the incredibly slight chance that this video is legitimate, that this woman/man in drag hasn't come from a point later on in time, when this kind of technology is developed?

Because if we reach the point where we can magically connect two devices, ignoring time and space in between them, I seriously doubt it is going to be in a cell phone (like device). More likely we'll just get A/V streamed in to our brain.

smartalco wrote:

=w= wrote:Yes, becaused we won't later on have the capability to send messages from phone to phone directly? Who's to say, in the incredibly slight chance that this video is legitimate, that this woman/man in drag hasn't come from a point later on in time, when this kind of technology is developed?

Because if we reach the point where we can magically connect two devices, ignoring time and space in between them, I seriously doubt it is going to be in a cell phone (like device). More likely we'll just get A/V streamed in to our brain.

Space, yes. Time, no. If she's communicating on a phone, I'd more likely think that she didn't go back alone.

The woman may be old and senile, just blabbering to herself... I've seen it many times in Manhattan

oeuvre wrote:The woman may be old and senile, just blabbering to herself... I've seen it many times in Manhattan

Mmm. She would most likely have to be rich or have good connections to get to the premiere of a Charlie Chaplin film, but that doesn't outrule that possibility.

hairscapades wrote:Do you have anything to suggest that your theory might be rooted in facts, squibbles, or are you just brainstorming for your next sci-fi novella?

The whole "teleportation of electrons" thing I believe somewhat argues for evidence of spaces in time where there is a standstill, such as that I described, because, well, what is teleportation other than moving from one point to another before time progresses. Other than that, no, but really, there are plenty of theories that have less supporting them.

Jesus Christ.

Drathemoore, I could go into detail about how each of your increasingly ludicrous defenses of this are all wrong but none of this really matters because you can't actually see anything in the goddamn video! It's footage of a weird, old lady holding something to her face and moving her mouth. How do you get from there to time travel? I can't rule out the possibility that that person is a time traveler in the same way that you can't rule out the possibility that I'm a time traveler.

Carl Sagan once said that, ""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This is some bullshit and you aught to be ashamed of yourself for being such a sucker.

How Mobile Phones Work

Your phone negotiates with a nearby radio tower designed explicitly for the purpose of relaying mobile phone traffic. Most conversations you have are subsequently beamed into fucking space to be caught and relayed by a satellite sent up by a phone company. That signal is relayed back through the appropriate radio tower and sent to the other party's phone.

There were no radio towers that could speak to modern cell phones in the 1920's, and there wouldn't have been any man-made satellites orbiting Earth for another three decades, much less a space program to launch them.
For your claim to be accurate, the people who sent the lady back to the 1920's must have previously sent a fucking satellite back in time as well and trained the lady to modify a radio tower to negotiate her mobile phone's connection to the satellite and to build a mission fucking control center to orient and set up the satellite in the first place... all so she could talk to her time-travelling BFF in the 1920's on her iPhone.
(Time-travelling Soviets just used walkie-talkies.)


squibbles,

You are attempting (and failing) to talk intelligibly about Planck time.

squibbles, I think your theory is a cool idea for a science fiction novel, and I legitimately mean that with no disrespect to it's standing as a theory.

I occasionally get the feeling there's an intelligence gap in this community. Half of you have taken leave of your senses in this thread, and the other half are having a field day with it.

T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư wrote:squibbles,

You are attempting (and failing) to talk intelligibly about Planck time.

Fuck, I hate when people preemptively steal my ideas. Chill Peppers did it too with a song I wrote. Assholes.

But yeah, I didn't realise the concept already existed, and I suppose my poor explanation has something to do with it being only in it's infancy as a concept (in my mind, at least (well, not anymore >_>)), and me not having any knowledge of science past year 11 chemistry and physics.

What I do like about this revelation is that it does somewhat validate my headthoughts. :)

=w= wrote:squibbles, I think your theory is a cool idea for a science fiction novel, and I legitimately mean that with no disrespect to it's standing as a theory.

Slaps, I think your poisonous ignorance of what constitutes a theory is adorable and all, but it's ignorance all the same.
What squibbles said is nowhere close to a theory. If it did have the status of "theory", we'd be very silly to challenge it.

T̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư wrote:

=w= wrote:squibbles, I think your theory is a cool idea for a science fiction novel, and I legitimately mean that with no disrespect to it's standing as a theory.

Slaps, I think your poisonous ignorance of what constitutes a theory is adorable and all, but it's ignorance all the same.
What squibbles said is nowhere close to a theory. If it did have the status of "theory", we'd be very silly to challenge it.

Well, it's a theory as far as common vernacular goes. It's more ignorance on your part to not know that.

hairscapades wrote:Jesus Christ.

Drathemoore, I could go into detail about how each of your increasingly ludicrous defenses of this are all wrong but none of this really matters because you can't actually see anything in the goddamn video! It's footage of a weird, old lady holding something to her face and moving her mouth. How do you get from there to time travel? I can't rule out the possibility that that person is a time traveler in the same way that you can't rule out the possibility that I'm a time traveler.

Carl Sagan once said that, ""Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This is some bullshit and you aught to be ashamed of yourself for being such a sucker.

...

When have I said that I believed this video to be fact?

Drathmoore wrote:At this point in time, I'm a person who believes it's pretty much impossible to travel to the past...

Now, I'm not sure about this video...

My defenses are not because I believe "OH MY GOD I CAN BE DOCTOR WHO NOWES!!!!". I'm only counter-arguing on the theoretical basis that this video could be true, but at this point I'm still doubting that possibility in my mind quite heavily. If I'm coimng across as a blind fool who utterly believes everything they read on the internet, then I believe I have not been clear enough with my arguement, and I apolgise.

The video is definitely a factual video. It's an old Charlie Chaplin movie. My father owns it on VHS.

Molar-fucking thorax wrote:I occasionally get the feeling there's an intelligence gap in this community. Half of you have taken leave of your senses in this thread, and the other half are having a field day with it.

I'm confused on how you only get this feeling occasionally.

At this point in time, I'm a person who believes it's pretty much impossible to travel to the past. Not only have you got to get there (which in it's own right is quite possibly impossible.), then you've got a whole manner of problems, such as paradoxes.

And yet, this appears: Napoleon with a mobile phone (under his jacket) in the 1810s.


Now, I'm not sure about this painting. I'm as of yet to cross-reference it with an earlier painting of the same content. Even still, I'd like to hear others' views on this painting, and on the idea of backwards time travel in general.