|
Post by the light works on Jan 3, 2015 0:52:44 GMT
In honor of 2015, last night I watched Back to the Future Part II. There are plenty of plot holes, bit the the largest ones is as follows. They make a point of establishing the rule that you cannot meet and/or interact with your past or future self. Doing so would cause both subjects to go into shock and pass out. The other option is that the meeting would cause a paradox that would cause the destruction of space/time and destroy the universe, or at lease our galaxy. They then go on to confirm the first one is what happens when Jennifer meats her future self, causing both to pass out in shock. So if that is the rule, how is it that Biff is able to go back in time and not only meet but interact with his younger self to extended lengths? They established earlier that this is not possible. Biff's brain is so dense it is invulnerable to the shock.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 3, 2015 0:59:44 GMT
I still favor the "persistent timeline" model - in which time travel may be possible - but rewriting past events is not.
I.E. you could go back and try to shoot Hitler - but you would not be successful in shooting him. however, you could go back and be the second gunman shooting JFK. (note this is just an illustration and I don't actually believe there was a second gunman)
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 4, 2015 13:34:28 GMT
But that idea supports pre-destiny. I dont agree that our actions can be predetermined to fail, unless, of course, we are looking at the bottom end of the field where yokels are fixing quad bikes by hitting them with large bits of wood......
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 4, 2015 14:56:56 GMT
But that idea supports pre-destiny. I dont agree that our actions can be predetermined to fail, unless, of course, we are looking at the bottom end of the field where yokels are fixing quad bikes by hitting them with large bits of wood...... not so much - you might call it pre-past-iny. to put it in simple terms - you can take a hammer and hit yourself in the thumb with it tomorrow. but assuming you did not suddenly walk up to yourself yesterday and hit yourself in the thumb with it; then you cannot hit yourself in the thumb with a hammer yesterday. unless you travel to yesterday and hit your current self in the thumb. I guess the best summary is to say what is done is done. that is not to say someone didn't come back from the future and do it - but it happened when it happened and it is not going to undo itself and redo itself just because someone got it in their mind to twiddle. saying you can't go back in time and prevent Hitler from coming to power is no more an expression of predestiny than saying you can't make an over-unity engine by bolting an electric motor to a generator.
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Jan 5, 2015 0:48:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 5, 2015 9:13:10 GMT
Happy to oblige... but what I have is more conversation not direct evidence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomalyHowever, they are still at this, have announced they may have been wrong or miss-calculated, but have since stated that CERN have seen "Something". As in, the neutrino's they were looking for had been travelling at light speed. "Something else" that they had not been looking for had "maybe" triggered the sensing equipment?... Now all they need is to find out what it was. That wikapedia site is out of date, From a BBC news story here, www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17560379and then this... www.newscientist.com/article/dn21899-neutrinos-dont-outpace-light-but-they-do-shapeshift.html#.VKpSksnxocUNow they are doing research into exactly what may have caused that error. As they checked their facts more than once but could find no significant error, "Something" caused an anomaly on the first detection, just what, they just dont know, as yet, it hasnt replicated its self, but then again, the fault that causes your engine to miss-fire on starting doesnt always happen, but if it does it more than twice in a year, you expect to find a fault somewhere?.. for that reason, they theorise "Something" may be capable of faster than light, they just dont know what it is. Cross thread this with the Quantum cat thread, and just maybe, something "quantum" happened.... did a dark matter shape shift and become known matter on the travel?.. that we just dont know. But from your story at Near light speed, CERN have confirmed that hey now have actual light speed travel protons, so there is a speed jump... They are not releasing anything else "Officially" at the moment, as they need verification from other sources this time. There are other sites that discuss this matter, but, as they are not "Official", much like us discussing it here, you cant take anyone's word for it, nullus in Verba?... We are not the ones doing the research, so we can be wrong, and right, at the same time, dependant on what further research brings... So this conversation is "quantum" dependant on whats happening at CERN right now... (which I believe is doing maintenance, according to my Kid who was there recently... ) My own belief is that as they are trying their hardest to work on this at the moment, "There is no smoke without fire", and I believe they are on to something. Just what remains to be seen. But I believe they have worked out there is "Something" at faster than light..... But at the moment, they dont have the power to create that, so have to wait for one to come along from wherever they originate.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 5, 2015 15:09:22 GMT
anyone who has been to a drag race knows there can be smoke without fire.
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Jan 5, 2015 17:10:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 7, 2015 16:37:56 GMT
I had a day I dumped 48 rounds in 2 hours and didn't hit anything but scenery. the real question is how Han and Luke can be so accurate without ever aiming. That was going to be my second gripe about the film once the inaccuracy of the stormtroopers had been dealt with. (one debate at a time) Though I suspect that some people will no doubt say something corny like ‘the Force was with them’ as a blanket cover all for anything that the ‘hero’s’ do/pull off that is seemingly impossible/miraculous. & on that point how can most ‘hero’s’ in films be so darn accurate without ever aiming? I think you've hit the nail on the head there. In general, can it be said that the general principle within movies is that the hero is a pot-shot regardless of aim? The hero (or other protagonist) can be traveling in a car going 90 mph and still dot the i on a speed limit sign by just sticking the gun out the window and pulling the trigger. Keeping up appearances? Giving the audience what it wants/expects?
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 8, 2015 4:43:59 GMT
Not always.
For example, the anime series Lost Universe makes a running gag out of how perpetually broke the main characters are. As part of it, one episode has it that they have to settle for "discount" missiles when buying munitions for the ship, with the discount being due to the fact that the guidance systems didn't quite pass inspection.
Of the three characters on board the ship, only one of them was skilled enough at marksmanship to make the missiles actually hit the target.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2015 4:49:19 GMT
Not always. For example, the anime series Lost Universe makes a running gag out of how perpetually broke the main characters are. As part of it, one episode has it that they have to settle for "discount" missiles when buying munitions for the ship, with the discount being due to the fact that the guidance systems didn't quite pass inspection. Of the three characters on board the ship, only one of them was skilled enough at marksmanship to make the missiles actually hit the target. but in that plot, THAT is what is expected. in Star Wars it is expected that the heroes be unrealistically good and the villain's minions be incompetent.
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Jan 8, 2015 9:31:42 GMT
Not always. For example, the anime series Lost Universe makes a running gag out of how perpetually broke the main characters are. As part of it, one episode has it that they have to settle for "discount" missiles when buying munitions for the ship, with the discount being due to the fact that the guidance systems didn't quite pass inspection. Of the three characters on board the ship, only one of them was skilled enough at marksmanship to make the missiles actually hit the target. but in that plot, THAT is what is expected. in Star Wars it is expected that the heroes be unrealistically good and the villain's minions be incompetent. EXAXTLY!!!!!! So what I'd like to know does this 'perfect shot' ability of the hero's to hit their 'targets' every time without aiming work out in the real world? (or rather see tested as I sincerelydoubt it does) Can someone really be that accurate (or lucky) & get the perfect shot off every time WITHOUT EVER AIMING at the target?
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 8, 2015 10:05:59 GMT
On the subject of faster than light.... The general theory of the big bang relies on faster than light. In the initial act of creation, however you look at it, there was a period of, how do they term it, exponential expansion?... as it it expanded faster than anyone could measure even if we were around to experience it anyway.
So there is proof positive that if you have enough energy it is possible. The proof is our own existence.
I therefore theorise that faster than light, as already proved by many theories, relies on an act that creates far more energy than perhaps we are capable of replicating on our own at this time. Without extreme acts of nuclear type reaction.
It has been theorised that nuclear explosions may have part faster than light expansion, for a millisecond, when it first reacts.... I think the latest on that (Last time I tried to understand it) was that it was "Close" to light speed, but as they didnt have the measuring equipment, no one was certain.
I go back to the "You cant do that" of the past and the theory that faster than the speed of a galloping horse you would suffocate complaints at train travel. We have managed 300mph trains now. And sent people to the moon at many times more than the speed of sound.
I firmly believe that faster than light is real, it exists, its just we (Human race) havnt discovered how its done yet.
Anyone Remember the research being done to get a jet engine plane faster than sound?...
Speed of light is just on the scale of things we didnt master yet. Sooner or later we will all be doing that. Like sending E-Mail....
Now remember I am older than the Internet, I was there (And a small part of it) when it was "invented", back in the days when programming was in Kilobytes and 56k modems were the in-thing.
And lastly, I remember the first jet engine built by Frank Whittle, it was the size of a small car. Now I can get a functioning Mach 1 capable engine in the size I can carry home from the workshops....
Energy requirements will drop as we understand the science better. Maybe not in my lifetime, but soon, we will have faster than light travel. But only one way... no you wont go there and get back before you left.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 8, 2015 13:56:58 GMT
but in that plot, THAT is what is expected. in Star Wars it is expected that the heroes be unrealistically good and the villain's minions be incompetent. EXAXTLY!!!!!! So what I'd like to know does this 'perfect shot' ability of the hero's to hit their 'targets' every time without aiming work out in the real world? (or rather see tested as I sincerelydoubt it does) Can someone really be that accurate (or lucky) & get the perfect shot off every time WITHOUT EVER AIMING at the target? Perhaps a good reference for this would be the History Channel show Top Shot. Marksmen would be placed through various challenges using various forms of weaponry. But, to your inquiry, some of the challenges included using a revolver or rifle to hit targets while riding or being dragged behind a horse. I believe the average success rate was around 70%. Then again, these were not your average schlubs, these were guys who were picked because they were accomplished competition or exhibition shooters.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2015 14:46:03 GMT
but in that plot, THAT is what is expected. in Star Wars it is expected that the heroes be unrealistically good and the villain's minions be incompetent. EXAXTLY!!!!!! So what I'd like to know does this 'perfect shot' ability of the hero's to hit their 'targets' every time without aiming work out in the real world? (or rather see tested as I sincerelydoubt it does) Can someone really be that accurate (or lucky) & get the perfect shot off every time WITHOUT EVER AIMING at the target? There are people who have a knack for shooting "from the hip" it is more innate talent than anything else, and it relies heavily on confirmation bias. I.E. I remember the time a return shot from the hip hit my opponent, but not the fact that I averaged one hit for every six shots fired.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2015 14:48:17 GMT
On the subject of faster than light.... The general theory of the big bang relies on faster than light. In the initial act of creation, however you look at it, there was a period of, how do they term it, exponential expansion?... as it it expanded faster than anyone could measure even if we were around to experience it anyway. So there is proof positive that if you have enough energy it is possible. The proof is our own existence. I therefore theorise that faster than light, as already proved by many theories, relies on an act that creates far more energy than perhaps we are capable of replicating on our own at this time. Without extreme acts of nuclear type reaction. It has been theorised that nuclear explosions may have part faster than light expansion, for a millisecond, when it first reacts.... I think the latest on that (Last time I tried to understand it) was that it was "Close" to light speed, but as they didnt have the measuring equipment, no one was certain. I go back to the "You cant do that" of the past and the theory that faster than the speed of a galloping horse you would suffocate complaints at train travel. We have managed 300mph trains now. And sent people to the moon at many times more than the speed of sound. I firmly believe that faster than light is real, it exists, its just we (Human race) havnt discovered how its done yet. Anyone Remember the research being done to get a jet engine plane faster than sound?... Speed of light is just on the scale of things we didnt master yet. Sooner or later we will all be doing that. Like sending E-Mail.... Now remember I am older than the Internet, I was there (And a small part of it) when it was "invented", back in the days when programming was in Kilobytes and 56k modems were the in-thing. And lastly, I remember the first jet engine built by Frank Whittle, it was the size of a small car. Now I can get a functioning Mach 1 capable engine in the size I can carry home from the workshops.... Energy requirements will drop as we understand the science better. Maybe not in my lifetime, but soon, we will have faster than light travel. But only one way... no you wont go there and get back before you left. so you are positing light speed like hull speed of a boat. (Hull speed = a boat cannot go faster than it can shove the water out of the way - which results in a calculated top speed based on the displacement and hull design of the boat) hull speed can be overcome by the application of massive amounts of thrust - you are positing that similarly, with massive amounts of thrust a starship could exceed the speed of light.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 8, 2015 16:15:19 GMT
Yes and no, Quantum, we dont know because no one has done it yet.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 8, 2015 16:30:40 GMT
EXAXTLY!!!!!! So what I'd like to know does this 'perfect shot' ability of the hero's to hit their 'targets' every time without aiming work out in the real world? (or rather see tested as I sincerelydoubt it does) Can someone really be that accurate (or lucky) & get the perfect shot off every time WITHOUT EVER AIMING at the target? There are people who have a knack for shooting "from the hip" it is more innate talent than anything else, and it relies heavily on confirmation bias. I.E. I remember the time a return shot from the hip hit my opponent, but not the fact that I averaged one hit for every six shots fired. Could it be attributed to muscle memory? People who are shooters by profession or recreation and shoot frequently have arm muscles that "know" where the gun needs to be to make a shot?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2015 16:55:13 GMT
There are people who have a knack for shooting "from the hip" it is more innate talent than anything else, and it relies heavily on confirmation bias. I.E. I remember the time a return shot from the hip hit my opponent, but not the fact that I averaged one hit for every six shots fired. Could it be attributed to muscle memory? People who are shooters by profession or recreation and shoot frequently have arm muscles that "know" where the gun needs to be to make a shot? yes, very much like basketball players being able to (or not being able to) hit free throws. shooting from the hip is as much a trainabele skill as throwing sports are. - the catch is, it requires a bit more training than a mythbusters episode allows for.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 8, 2015 17:01:33 GMT
Could it be attributed to muscle memory? People who are shooters by profession or recreation and shoot frequently have arm muscles that "know" where the gun needs to be to make a shot? yes, very much like basketball players being able to (or not being able to) hit free throws. shooting from the hip is as much a trainabele skill as throwing sports are. - the catch is, it requires a bit more training than a mythbusters episode allows for. I wonder...What if the MBs recruited two distinct groups of shooters: professional/frequent shooters and recreational/occassional shooters*. Have both groups perform: 1) Control Task: Shooting at targets with time to aim & correct. Record accuracy. 2) "Shoot from the hip": Raise the gun and shoot at the target with no time for aiming or correction. Record accuracy. Run the tests with both pistols & long guns (rifles or shotguns)? *I would assume they would want to avoid using new or entirely unexperienced shooters for safety reasons.
|
|