danny8522003 Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 Why do you think you cant have it on the 21st? If i dont send it back on the 20th then how can i find it on the 15th? Therefore, if i dont find the painting, i dont have the painting on the 15th. Oh wait, i just realised that i still would have painted it, maybe. Quite right, i would have it on the 21st unless i keep sending it back. Or... Although if i find the painting on the 15th but when it comes to the 20th i dont send it back, then there would be no painting to be found on the 15th and i wouldnt have it on the 20th. But i obviously do have it on the 20th if i dont send it back because the fact is that i did find it on the 15th and didnt send it back when it got to the 20th.
wormholeman Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 Danny: This is all based on your assumption that the painting would disappear.
danny8522003 Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 Well no - i dont think the painting would disappear. Im trying to prove to yourdadonapogos that it would have to disappear for it to work properly, which cant be possible. Otherwise we get something from nothing.
wormholeman Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 Have you considered the possibility that something can come from nothing, in a time line?
danny8522003 Posted July 30, 2005 Posted July 30, 2005 Yea but it violates Conservation of Energy, unless there are parallel universes which would resolve the paradox. Like i posted in another thread.
wormholeman Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Who cares! So it dose violate. When applying knowledge to new unproven ideas or theorys, like associated with time travel. It may break certain laws.
darkkazier Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 that's true to a extent, their could still be physics we do not understand that apply to time travel. And your paradox is not a paradox. It's string theory resolves it with parallel universes.
ydoaPs Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Well no - i dont think the painting would disappear. Im trying to prove to yourdadonapogos that it would have to disappear for it to work properly, which cant be possible. Otherwise we get something from nothing. no, it wouldn't. you are still making it circular and changing moments. after you paint it, you will have two until you send the one.
ydoaPs Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 Yea but it violates Conservation of Energy, unless there are parallel universes which would resolve the paradox. Like i posted in another thread. no, it doesn't. does moving an object through space violate conservation of energy? no? then why would moving it through time?
danny8522003 Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 after you paint it, you will have two until you send the one. This is where it falls down. I cannot have 2 of the same painting at the same time. That is where Conservation of Energy comes in because the energy/mass for the second painting cannot come from nowhere. If i keep repeating what your saying over and over and over again, i get an infinite number of paintings that are the same painting. Needless to say that isnt possible.
danny8522003 Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 no, it doesn't. does moving an object through space violate conservation of energy? no? then why would moving it through time? Because moving through space doesnt involve the object having to exist at the beginning AND end point at the same time. Something cant come from nothing, it has to come from somewhere in the Universe be it this time or another time.
Sayonara Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 This is where it falls down. I cannot have 2 of the same painting at the same time. That is where Conservation of Energy comes in because the energy/mass for the second painting cannot come from nowhere. If i keep repeating what your saying over and over and over again' date=' i get an infinite number of paintings that are the same painting. Needless to say that isnt possible.[/quote'] I have already successfully destroyed the conservation argument in another thread (well two actually, but a better argument in one than in the other). It collapses because it is self-contradictory.
danny8522003 Posted July 31, 2005 Posted July 31, 2005 It collapses because it is self-contradictory. Could you please explain how so? I did a search but i dont fancy trailing through 163 threads
wormholeman Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 Sayonara! I dont believe you have destroyed anything..When you say that, I wonder about the purpose of a science forum, this is great because it is a place to draw Idea's, words cannot omit an idea, the thread and thought still exists. It's a place where people can think and come to conclusions on what we agree and disagree with. Thats my two cents.
wormholeman Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 Danny, you think the painting will disappear because you believe it dose! If you dident believe that, you would think otherwise. You have no poof the painting will. We do not have a time machine and all we can do right now is speculate on it. Words cannot prove anything no matter what order you put it in. You can say "the painting will disappear", but the fact is you do not know 100% and until we have a time machine, than we can test the theory!
danny8522003 Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 I havent drawn any conclusions, i do not think that the painting will just disappear. I believe it is a paradox and because of that i have absolutely no idea the real outcome, im just speculating, as you suggested, on what i know. I dont think there is a right or wrong answer on whether the painting disappears because we just dont understand what happens with time travel, all we can do is try to steer clear of such paradoxes.
Daecon Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 Let's say the painting that you send back is painting "A". The one you recieved on the 15th will be called painting "B", because you already have a painting "A" - the one you're currently painting! On the 20th, painting "A" will vanish, leaving you with only painting "B" and then causality will carry on from there... The energy and material that painting "B" is made of is 'borrowed' by quantumn-ness, being 'paid back' to the universe from out of painting "A" on the 20th.
TheProphet Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 To me it looks like a paradox.. If we change someting in the past it - acording to my view - would change the future! If what danny says dosen't happen then the past and the future have no real connection. If i were to send something back to me, that i have in possesion in the future, i would end upp with the same object in the future too, but this time it would come from the past but sent from the same future... So when i send it back to me, and my past me hangs it on the wall, it must correclty apear on my future wall too. If not our current understanding - or mine - is not enough.
wormholeman Posted August 1, 2005 Posted August 1, 2005 Seems like pure logic to me. "Alas! No more confusion!"
Stumblebum Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 I think everyone has missed one important point. In one of his posts Danny indicated that he personally never went on the trip to the future but that his future self supposedly painted the picture the machine brought back. Danny's time line never alters, he did not go into the future to paint. In order for the painting to be painted, Danny would have had to go along for the ride. He cannot exist in a time he hasn't been to yet. If he makes the temporal leap forward he can can look forever and never find another Danny or painting waiting for him. Its situations like these that convince me that travel into the past is impossible. At great speeds it is possible to end up in the future but it won't be yours as you would still exist in the now (timeline intact). Any machine that travels at great speeds to go into the futue doesn't miss the time it supposedly skips across. That 'skipped' time is actually not skipped, its just jammed into what is a very short time for you and the machine.
Sayonara Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Could you please explain how so? I did a search but i dont fancy trailing through 163 threads Put "conservation" in the search for field, and my name in the username field. I think that should turn up fewer than 20 threads, which narrows it down a lot. I did start looking for it myself but after 5 pages or so of pseudoscientific waffle from every man and his dog wanting to point out the problem of causality "paradoxes" (lol) my eyes started to cross. You scare me Sayonara I dont believe you have destroyed anything..When you say that, I wonder about the purpose of a science forum, this is great because it is a place to draw Idea's, words cannot omit an idea, the thread and thought still exists. It's a place where people can think and come to conclusions on what we agree and disagree with. Well, that's certainly nice and warm and fuzzy but it doesn't change the fact that statements can be refuted (nor does it change the fact that my "destruction" of the prior argument is just as open to being refuted by a more logically consistent argument).
wormholeman Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Here it is from a different perspective: If Danny has a painting, and a time machine, that he painted and built on the 10th, and it is the 20th and on that day at 12:00 pm in his living room he decides and sends the painting and the time machine to the 15th day at 12:00 pm (the past). Ok, and lets say now it is the 15th at 11:30 am, and when the clock strikes 12:00 pm on this day (the 15th) now, A painting and a time machine appear in his living room while he is sitting on his sofa. So now he has a painting and the time machine, and also the painting, and the time machine he built on the 10th (now there is two). So being that it is the 15th and days go by he reaches the the 20th at 11:45 Am and he is in his living room, Now this is where it gets tricky! Playing with the if word! If Danny decides and sends the painting now on the 20th at 12:00 pm to the 15th at 12:00 pm, he would then only have one painting and one time machine left (lets say the left over one was the one he built on the 10th). Another "if" is if he dosen't send the painting on the 20th at 12:00 pm to the 15th at 12:00 pm then it would not appear in his living room on the 15th. So It seems the give and get policy works here, at least that how my brain works it.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now