View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Axonite Super Ostrich
Joined: 01 Sep 2005 Posts: 1560 Location: NEPA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I enjoyed "Time And Again" by Jack Finney, though I haven't read it in a while. I may have started the sequel, but I don't remember finishing it. More recently, I liked "Doomsday Book" and "To Say Nothing Of The Dog" by Connie Willis. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
dph_of_rules Ostrich
Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 359 Location: theoritically and only theoritically somewhere in this universe
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adam_Y wrote: |
That is still deterministic though. It's just a chaotic system which means that 20 different variables can have a huge effect of the process. Randomness truly does happen in nature but the only thing I could think of off the top of my head is quantum mechanics. |
In a sealed container (inside is a vacuum) in space, far enough away from objects where you have no outside objects having any microscopic impact on gravity, you can get predictable results. Why? you would have absolutely no outside forces acting on your sealed container. Since there's no air molecules inside the container the coin encounters no friction in the air. Since we're away from anything big, we have no outside influences. Thus the results have to be predictable since there are no variables left to deal with it. Quantum mechanics works on a very small level and it's not responsible for the randomness in flipping a coin. _________________ Whatever happened to simplicity? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Adam_Y Egg
Joined: 02 Jun 2008 Posts: 32
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dph_of_rules wrote: |
In a sealed container (inside is a vacuum) in space, far enough away from objects where you have no outside objects having any microscopic impact on gravity, you can get predictable results. |
No you wouldn't because there are still many variables that you can't neutralize.
Quote: | Since we're away from anything big, we have no outside influences. |
If you have no outside influences the coin is just going to sit there and do nothing. You have to impart some momentum to the coin and there is no way that you will ever be able to consistently impart the force which means you will never be able to accurately predict where the coin will land. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dph_of_rules Ostrich
Joined: 20 Dec 2007 Posts: 359 Location: theoritically and only theoritically somewhere in this universe
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Everything, including the coin flipping mechanism, would have to be installed in my sealed container.
Are you using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to say that I can't duplicate the conditions every time?
In a vacuum sealed container in space, you can position the object so far away from anything that they are virtually no outside forces working on it. Things like gravity, solar wind, etc. Within that box, with no air friction, you get repeatable experiments, aside from interference from the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. _________________ Whatever happened to simplicity? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ronald Hatching
Joined: 21 Oct 2011 Posts: 78
|
Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:56 am Post subject: Re: Time travel |
|
|
dph_of_rules wrote: | If this isn't in the appropriate forum, feel free to move it.
Elaboration in my beliefs in time travel
a)if time travel is relatively 'cheap', history should immutable. If I could things back in forth through time cheaply (common place), basic intellect demands we use this as a means of getting military intelligence. Simply put, send messages to the past to relay coordinates of enemy movement and double agents. Everything turns into a stalement since sneak attacks and double agents became as revelations from the future would give advance warning. Talk a dull universe.
b)if time travel is relatively 'expensive', I can live with history being mutable. What do I mean by expensive is time travel costs the person wishing to travel through time would have to give what he/she cares about most. Yes, that price. Money is cheap, giving up your most valuable position isn't. |
What's your point here? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|