[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The Terminator Time Paradox (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/11/2013 7:28:19 PM EDT
|
I love putting on this movie only to watch as my wife violently screams at the TV about how Reese should/should not exist.
Ah the hilarity. |
|
Quoted: Even better: If Sarah Connor dies, then the Terminator doesn't get blown up, then his parts aren't used to build Skynet and Judgement Day never happens, then there's no need for John Connor or Reese. That's not how the terminator timeline works. Terminator 0 - Mankind eventually builds with no external influence a AI that destroys humanity. Reese & Connor are not related Terminator 1 - Terminator from 0 gets sent to this reality, is destroyed and moves up timetable of judgement day. Reese becomes connor's father and has a major impact on him growing up.
Terminator 2 - Terminators from timeline 1 get sent back, judgement day still has happened however it was somewhat different on the time tables. (Then the cannon forks between TSC and T3, of which I believe TSC is better). |
|
My hair started to hurt after reading that. 
|
|
Quoted:
My hair started to hurt after reading that. Time is not linear and can go in circles. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
My hair started to hurt after reading that. Time is not linear and can go in circles. i shouldn't have read that
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My hair started to hurt after reading that. Time is not linear and can go in circles. i shouldn't have read thatGo back and unread it. Time is not linear and can go in circles. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My hair started to hurt after reading that. Time is not linear and can go in circles. i shouldn't have read thatGo back and unread it. Time is not linear and can go in circles. There are theories of faster-than-light travel which rely on bending the fabric of space to "jump" between two points. Why can't we hypothesize the same could be done with time? |
| But it did cause a time loop as Reese has to be born to go back in time to get John's mom pregnant then die before he was born(?) only to be born and become a soldier against Skynet, meet his son/leader John Conner, then get sent back in time to meet and save John's mom, impregnate her, die (before he was born) only to be born and become a soldier against Skynet, meet his son/leader John Conner, then get sent back in time to meet and save John's mom, impregnate her, die.... |
|
Quoted:
Even better: If Sarah Connor dies, then the Terminator doesn't get blown up, then his parts aren't used to build Skynet and Judgement Day never happens, then there's no need for John Connor or Reese. But if Sarah dies then in the future like you said there is never a Skynet or a Judgment day so therefore they would of never sent a machine back in time to kill her so she would of never died But yeah like they said time is not linear and there may or may not be an infinite number of alternate and parallel universes |
|
Quoted:
But it did cause a time loop as Reese has to be born to go back in time to get John's mom pregnant then die before he was born(?) only to be born and become a soldier against Skynet, meet his son/leader John Conner, then get sent back in time to meet and save John's mom, impregnate her, die (before he was born) only to be born and become a soldier against Skynet, meet his son/leader John Conner, then get sent back in time to meet and save John's mom, impregnate her, die.... No. We can avoid time paradoxes in many ways. Granted, there must be many assumptions. Whenever you run into a paradox, just change your assumptions. As far as I know, no one has proved, yet, that any given set of assumptions will ALWAYS result in a paradox. 
Below is a time-loop theory: Think of it like this: at any given instant, there are infinitely many possible futures. 
One of these futures occurs (becoming the past  ). In this future, an old Reese and a Terminator go back in time.
Then a new future is created by the first future's effects on the past. 
Questions remain (but this is where you make assumptions): Can there only be 1 timeline in "existence" at a time while all other timelines are just probabilities? Is time relative? I.e. does the timeline depend on frame of reference of the viewer? When multiple people travel back in time, do they go to the exact same "time"? (It would make sense if they did because they came from the same past... or did they?) |
|
Quoted: Quoted: But it did cause a time loop as Reese has to be born to go back in time to get John's mom pregnant then die before he was born(?) only to be born and become a soldier against Skynet, meet his son/leader John Conner, then get sent back in time to meet and save John's mom, impregnate her, die (before he was born) only to be born and become a soldier against Skynet, meet his son/leader John Conner, then get sent back in time to meet and save John's mom, impregnate her, die.... No. We can avoid time paradoxes in many ways. Granted, there must be many assumptions. Whenever you run into a paradox, just change your assumptions. Below is a time-loop theory: Think of it like this: at any given instant, there are infinitely many possible futures. http://i49.tinypic.com/2lm49ol.png One of these futures occurs (becoming the past ). In this future, an old Reese and a Terminator go back in time. http://i48.tinypic.com/1zclklx.png Then a new future is created by the first future's effects on the past. http://i48.tinypic.com/nb822d.png Questions remain (but this is where you make assumptions): Can there only be 1 timeline in "existence" at a time while all other timelines are just probabilities? Is time relative? I.e. does the timeline depend on frame of reference of the viewer? Seperate universe for every single probability..... |
|
Quoted:
But it did cause a time loop as Reese has to be born to go back in time to get John's mom pregnant then die before he was born(?) only to be born and become a soldier against Skynet, meet his son/leader John Conner, then get sent back in time to meet and save John's mom, impregnate her, die (before he was born) only to be born and become a soldier against Skynet, meet his son/leader John Conner, then get sent back in time to meet and save John's mom, impregnate her, die.... Maybe if he sends himself a message for the next loop, he can prevent the violently catastrophic ending and get to meet Kelsey Grammer. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted: By definition any FTL drive will also be an time machine. Because of the relative nature of time, if you fly out to Alpha Centauri at FTL speeds and then fly back, if you take the right angles you will arrive before you set out... Here read this:Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My hair started to hurt after reading that. Time is not linear and can go in circles. i shouldn't have read thatGo back and unread it. Time is not linear and can go in circles. There are theories of faster-than-light travel which rely on bending the fabric of space to "jump" between two points. Why can't we hypothesize the same could be done with time? "However, in the case of a hypothetical signal moving faster than light, there would always be some frames in which the signal was received before it was sent, so that the signal could be said to have moved backwards in time. And since one of the two fundamental postulates of special relativity says that the laws of physics should work the same way in every inertial frame, then if it is possible for signals to move backwards in time in any one frame, it must be possible in all frames. This means that if observer A sends a signal to observer B which moves FTL (faster than light) in A's frame but backwards in time in B's frame, and then B sends a reply which moves FTL in B's frame but backwards in time in A's frame, it could work out that A receives the reply before sending the original signal, a clear violation of causality in every frame. An illustration of such a scenario using spacetime diagrams can be found here. The scenario is sometimes referred to as a tachyonic antitelephone." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Via_faster-than-light_.28FTL.29_travel |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
By definition any FTL drive will also be an time machine. Because of the relative nature of time, if you fly out to Alpha Centauri at FTL speeds and then fly back, if you take the right angles you will arrive before you set out... Here read this:
There are theories of faster-than-light travel which rely on bending the fabric of space to "jump" between two points. Why can't we hypothesize the same could be done with time? "However, in the case of a hypothetical signal moving faster than light, there would always be some frames in which the signal was received before it was sent, so that the signal could be said to have moved backwards in time. And since one of the two fundamental postulates of special relativity says that the laws of physics should work the same way in every inertial frame, then if it is possible for signals to move backwards in time in any one frame, it must be possible in all frames. This means that if observer A sends a signal to observer B which moves FTL (faster than light) in A's frame but backwards in time in B's frame, and then B sends a reply which moves FTL in B's frame but backwards in time in A's frame, it could work out that A receives the reply before sending the original signal, a clear violation of causality in every frame. An illustration of such a scenario using spacetime diagrams can be found here. The scenario is sometimes referred to as a tachyonic antitelephone." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Via_faster-than-light_.28FTL.29_travel But I didn't say you actually went faster than light. You just bent space and hopped over the artificially created shortened distance of travel. However, if you calculated the "speed" at which you traveled, it would be faster than light because you arrived before light leaving from your starting point would have reached your destination. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
My hair started to hurt after reading that. Time is not linear and can go in circles. One of my favorite quotes from Red vs Blue Caboose: time line? Time isn't made of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round |
|
Watch this for something us simpletons can sorta wrap our minds around.. Actually, watch the entire series, it's very entertaining..
And +1 for more Summer Glau... "I'm a bitch whore.." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html#fabric-time |
|
Quoted: Doesn't matter whether you physically exceed the speed of light (impossible), or use a work around. Once you break down c, causality goes out the window. This is because there is no such thing as linear time, only frames of reference.Quoted: Quoted: By definition any FTL drive will also be an time machine. Because of the relative nature of time, if you fly out to Alpha Centauri at FTL speeds and then fly back, if you take the right angles you will arrive before you set out... Here read this:There are theories of faster-than-light travel which rely on bending the fabric of space to "jump" between two points. Why can't we hypothesize the same could be done with time? "However, in the case of a hypothetical signal moving faster than light, there would always be some frames in which the signal was received before it was sent, so that the signal could be said to have moved backwards in time. And since one of the two fundamental postulates of special relativity says that the laws of physics should work the same way in every inertial frame, then if it is possible for signals to move backwards in time in any one frame, it must be possible in all frames. This means that if observer A sends a signal to observer B which moves FTL (faster than light) in A's frame but backwards in time in B's frame, and then B sends a reply which moves FTL in B's frame but backwards in time in A's frame, it could work out that A receives the reply before sending the original signal, a clear violation of causality in every frame. An illustration of such a scenario using spacetime diagrams can be found here. The scenario is sometimes referred to as a tachyonic antitelephone." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Via_faster-than-light_.28FTL.29_travel But I didn't say you actually went faster than light. You just bent space and hopped over the artificially created shortened distance of travel. However, if you calculated the "speed" at which you traveled, it would be faster than light because you arrived before light leaving from your starting point would have reached your destination. By definition any work around the speed of light is also a work around causality. That's relativity... eta: Once c is no longer a barrier (even if by a "jump" work around scheme), then time is no longer a barrier. Any technology that allows space to be bent to allow jumps will also allow time to be bent to allow jumps. Thats why in relativity there is no Space and Time, its just "Spacetime". You can't bend space and not time, you could just bend "spacetime". eta II: 1. FTL (jumps apply) 2. Relativity 3. Causality You can only have two.... |
|
Quoted:
My thought is that in whatever the original timeline happened to be, Connor did not exist and he was born when Reese was sent back in time for some other purpose, ultimately leading to a timeline in which Connor sends back Reese, knowing Reese is his father. Either: 1) Sara's child had another father, who was replaced when Reese was sent back in time. Or 2) Sara's child was created and then replaced whoever originally sent Reese. |
|
Awww man, that's just mean. Really effin' mean. /puts Primer on netflix for when GF gets home. |
|
Quoted:
If skynet could send 1 terminator to kill one woman, why couldnt skynet send an army of termanators back to destroy the human race earlier? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile In the first movie it stated Skynet didn't have time before the rebels overtook and destroyed the facility. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If skynet could send 1 terminator to kill one woman, why couldnt skynet send an army of termanators back to destroy the human race earlier? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile In the first movie it stated Skynet didn't have time before the rebels overtook and destroyed the facility. Here's question : why make robots with guns instead of robots with biological weapons? Answer: the movie would be very short. |
|
All the movies can be explained away as God allowing loopholes to allow humanity to survive while learning a lesson about high powered computing.
First Apocalypse-Humans invent Skynet on their own, John fathered by random guy in a bar. Second Apocalypse-Events caused by Reese cause Cyberdyne to be destroyed Third Apocalypse- Skynet is created by a different company again allowing Reese to exist in this timeline confirming that JD is always INEVITABLE. |