Talk:1716: Time Travel Thesis - Revision history

172.69.194.182: Whoops. Typo. Or forgetting where me and my broken Google Glass currently are...

2024-02-27T16:49:52Z

Whoops. Typo. Or forgetting where me and my broken Google Glass currently are...

172.69.194.217 at 16:48, 27 February 2024

2024-02-27T16:48:09Z

Kynde at 12:13, 15 August 2016

2016-08-15T12:13:04Z

Tahg at 22:27, 11 August 2016

2016-08-11T22:27:41Z

Davidy22 at 02:22, 10 August 2016

2016-08-10T02:22:37Z

172.68.59.9 at 21:11, 9 August 2016

2016-08-09T21:11:30Z

162.158.133.66 at 07:32, 8 August 2016

2016-08-08T07:32:21Z

162.158.133.66 at 07:13, 8 August 2016

2016-08-08T07:13:18Z

162.158.133.66 at 07:11, 8 August 2016

2016-08-08T07:11:43Z

173.245.56.65 at 23:45, 5 August 2016

2016-08-05T23:45:09Z

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 Alright, anyone who is willing to make the claim that "Google Glass will probably become popular in the 2010's" is living in a fantasy world. I've edited it to make the far more accurate claim that it could be either because Glass became popular or because Glass was an esoteric piece of hardware that lived (and died) in the 2010's. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.122|172.68.34.122]] 15:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
-:2014 here, and definitely the latter. (Also "2010's" can only mean "belonging to the year 2010". So, whilst I won't correct the actual title text, I just want to say that one should really write of "the years 2010 through to 2019" as "the 2010s", a simple plural, or "<foo> of the years 2010-2019" as "the 2010's <foo>". No, it isn't an 'abbreviating apostrophe', as it just makes it one character longer. I have no sympathy at all for any of the needless pluralising uses. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.217|172.69.194.217]] 16:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
+:2024 here, and definitely the latter. (Also "2010's" can only mean "belonging to the year 2010". So, whilst I won't correct the actual title text, I just want to say that one should really write of "the years 2010 through to 2019" as "the 2010s", a simple plural, or "<foo> of the years 2010-2019" as "the 2010's <foo>". No, it isn't an 'abbreviating apostrophe', as it just makes it one character longer. I have no sympathy at all for any of the needless pluralising uses. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.217|172.69.194.217]] 16:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 Can someone include the explanation what a closed timelike curve is? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.66|162.158.133.66]] 07:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 27 February 2024
Line 28:		Line 28:

	Alright, anyone who is willing to make the claim that "Google Glass will probably become popular in the 2010's" is living in a fantasy world. I've edited it to make the far more accurate claim that it could be either because Glass became popular or because Glass was an esoteric piece of hardware that lived (and died) in the 2010's. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.122\|172.68.34.122]] 15:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)		Alright, anyone who is willing to make the claim that "Google Glass will probably become popular in the 2010's" is living in a fantasy world. I've edited it to make the far more accurate claim that it could be either because Glass became popular or because Glass was an esoteric piece of hardware that lived (and died) in the 2010's. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.122\|172.68.34.122]] 15:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
		+	:2014 here, and definitely the latter. (Also "2010's" can only mean "belonging to the year 2010". So, whilst I won't correct the actual title text, I just want to say that one should really write of "the years 2010 through to 2019" as "the 2010s", a simple plural, or "<foo> of the years 2010-2019" as "the 2010's <foo>". No, it isn't an 'abbreviating apostrophe', as it just makes it one character longer. I have no sympathy at all for any of the needless pluralising uses. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.217\|172.69.194.217]] 16:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

	Can someone include the explanation what a closed timelike curve is? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.66\|162.158.133.66]] 07:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)		Can someone include the explanation what a closed timelike curve is? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.66\|162.158.133.66]] 07:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
		+	:Well, {{w\|Closed timelike curve\|the wiki article}} explains all, if you're still here and needing to know, but could be boiled down as:
		+	:*A timelike curve is a path of existence through spacetime. Typically either 'stationary' (by any given frame of reference), and experiencing time at standard rate, or moving (ditto), whilst apparently experiencing less time-per-time. It must lie within an event's "light-cone" (or violate relativity/etc).
		+	:*If you can 'trick' spacetime geometries such that it can become its own past (perhaps warping spacetime back upon itself, so that future-developments become past-events, or certainly something that somehow jumps frames of reference creatively, perhaps using weird masses that are moving, rotating and/or negative!) then the curve into a given point's future can arrive back into its past light-cone (all past events that can reach the current one).
		+	:*Should that be the case, then the line(s) going round in a temporal circuit is(/are) 'closed'. As in a closed electrical circuit (fully connected), ''not'' a closed door (blocking passage, preventing travel).
		+	:*This leads to a possible paradox (hopefully self-reinforcing, or we have to deal with the self-contradicting problems somehow!), but not ''actually'' known to be completely disallowed by physics.
		+	:...simple to imagine, once you know where we're going with it, but hard to summarise. As I've just proven to myself. :P [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.217\|172.69.194.217]] 16:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 : The true question is not whether there is an unsustainable time loop but rather if she has any evidence to say that conversation doesn't go anywhere with certainty, assuming that the time travel follows a closed time-like curve, as cueball talks about, then, (like marcus said) megan stops the conversation then goes back in time to stop the conversation because of the fact she stopped the conversation in the first place, not because she had any knowledge that the conversation was important or not. Alternatively, if the time travel is more of an infinite universe type with branching pathways, then future megan could know the conversation doesn't lead anywhere because she either had it or because closed time-like curves are not in effect. But we're probably over analyzing this. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 20:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 :While she expresses relief at the conversation not going anywhere, what's to say she stops it? Her continuing the conversation regardless of whether it goes anywhere would I think be the simplest way to resolve/avoid this potential paradox. [[User:Tahg|Tahg]] ([[User talk:Tahg|talk]]) 22:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 Alright, anyone who is willing to make the claim that "Google Glass will probably become popular in the 2010's" is living in a fantasy world. I've edited it to make the far more accurate claim that it could be either because Glass became popular or because Glass was an esoteric piece of hardware that lived (and died) in the 2010's. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.122|172.68.34.122]] 15:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 Can someone include the explanation what a closed timelike curve is? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.66|162.158.133.66]] 07:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 :I added a little bit explaining what I think is a way for the comic to not be a paradox. While it does seem like the grandfather paradox at first glance, so long as the cause interrupting the conversation is preserved in the effect of the interruption, there's no logical problem (at least, that I've been able to think of). So long as the Megan who didn't have the conversation knows that it doesn't go anywhere and travels back in time to tell her younger self and preserve the loop, it can be easily sustained. [[User:Marcus4742|Marcus4742]] ([[User talk:Marcus4742|talk]]) 19:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 : The true question is not whether there is an unsustainable time loop but rather if she has any evidence to say that conversation doesn't go anywhere with certainty, assuming that the time travel follows a closed time-like curve, as cueball talks about, then, (like marcus said) megan stops the conversation then goes back in time to stop the conversation because of the fact she stopped the conversation in the first place, not because she had any knowledge that the conversation was important or not. Alternatively, if the time travel is more of an infinite universe type with branching pathways, then future megan could know the conversation doesn't lead anywhere because she either had it or because closed time-like curves are not in effect. But we're probably over analyzing this. [[User:Lackadaisical|Lackadaisical]] ([[User talk:Lackadaisical|talk]]) 20:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 Alright, anyone who is willing to make the claim that "Google Glass will probably become popular in the 2010's" is living in a fantasy world. I've edited it to make the far more accurate claim that it could be either because Glass became popular or because Glass was an esoteric piece of hardware that lived (and died) in the 2010's. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.122|172.68.34.122]] 15:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~-->
 '''''-BZZZZT!-''
 You can skip this comic and discussion page. It doesn't turn out to be important.''' {{unsigned|172.68.59.18}}
@@ Line 28: / Line 26: @@
 Alright, anyone who is willing to make the claim that "Google Glass will probably become popular in the 2010's" is living in a fantasy world. I've edited it to make the far more accurate claim that it could be either because Glass became popular or because Glass was an esoteric piece of hardware that lived (and died) in the 2010's. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.122|172.68.34.122]] 15:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ::Well she does try to let him know that he do not have to ask if she knows it, just begin talking about it. It is annoying when people assume that just because they just read something no one else has read about it. And even worse if he doesn't understand that she has used years of he life studying the subject. And if he actually understand but continues that's just bad... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 ::I don't see why it has to be mansplaining - Cueball just learned about it and thinks its exciting, so he wants to tell others about it. And in most conversations between a noob and an expert, the noob usually needs a point reclarified (especially if the book they just read wasnt written by that expert.) FutureMegan knows this isnt the case though… [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 12:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 I don't think the title text mentions a TimeTravel to 2010. Rather there was a party themed 2010 in the future (Like there are 90's and 80's themed parties nowadays)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:32, 8 August 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~-->		<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~-->
		+	Can someone include the explanation what a closed timelike curve is? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.66\|162.158.133.66]] 07:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

	'''''-BZZZZT!-''		'''''-BZZZZT!-''

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 Did someone really decide ''mansplaining'' was the right word to use here? Not only is it entirely inappropriate, but it's not exactly a well-known term, so it's liable to confuse people. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.147|162.158.142.147]] 08:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 :Yeah. Cueball's just trying to have a conversation, not trying to act like he knows more than her. If anything, she's being rude by not letting him finish what he was saying. Sure, I know more about computers than my dad, but I let him tell me about his new discoveries. I'm a music major, so I know more about music than a lot of people, but I still let them talk. She not only keeps interrupting him, but goes back in time to avoid the "boring" conversation altogether--and says it all right in front of him. We're not supposed to think she's a decent [person], unlike when Randall stood up for people who happened to have not learned something. [[User:Trlkly|Trlkly]] ([[User talk:Trlkly|talk]]) 09:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
-::That's my general problem with the term "mansplaining" anyway. It just assumes malintent where there might be none and is really just an incredibly sexist term.
+::That's my general problem with the term "mansplaining" anyway. It just assumes malintent where there might be none and is really just an incredibly sexist term.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.133.66|162.158.133.66]] 07:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 ::Well she does try to let him know that he do not have to ask if she knows it, just begin talking about it. It is annoying when people assume that just because they just read something no one else has read about it. And even worse if he doesn't understand that she has used years of he life studying the subject. And if he actually understand but continues that's just bad... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 ::I don't see why it has to be mansplaining - Cueball just learned about it and thinks its exciting, so he wants to tell others about it. And in most conversations between a noob and an expert, the noob usually needs a point reclarified (especially if the book they just read wasnt written by that expert.) FutureMegan knows this isnt the case though… [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.87|108.162.221.87]] 12:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 Any possibility that future Megan actually uses time travel to assist present Megan to exit? [[User:Plm-qaz snr|Plm-qaz snr]] ([[User talk:Plm-qaz snr|talk]]) 07:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
-:Yes for sure --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 11:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
+:Yes for sure --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 07:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 I don't feel like it's ''mainsplaining'' and I don't think ''not have a bad problem that will make it so she will not go to 1812 today.'' is relevant (maybe an joke, but nothing to do with the comic). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.114.230|162.158.114.230]] 08:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)