Time Traveller on Mobile Phone in 1920's - Page 2

28-10-2010, 19:19

As i said man in drag doing something and whatever that was it was clearly not something that unknown for the time otherwise i am sure a crowd would have built up pointing out the person.

Gary L · 28-10-2010, 19:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

As i said man in drag doing something and whatever that was it was clearly not something that unknown for the time otherwise i am sure a crowd would have built up pointing out the person.

I'm in suspense. what is he doing?

Some people don't get this thing about time travel anyway. I've read comments where people are saying we don't have good coverage as it is in this age, so it must have been worse in the 20's.

who's to say he was there from today, and not our future?
the technology then would probably be significantly superior to what it is today, and allowed the phone to work.
and who's to say that outer space where the satellites are would be affected by time travel? how far out from earth would time travel affect?

**Hugh** · 28-10-2010, 20:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

I'm in suspense. what is he doing?

Some people don't get this thing about time travel anyway. I've read comments where people are saying we don't have good coverage as it is in this age, so it must have been worse in the 20's.

who's to say he was there from today, and not our future?
the technology then would probably be significantly superior to what it is today, and allowed the phone to work.
and who's to say that outer space where the satellites are would be affected by time travel? how far out from earth would time travel affect?

Are you saying that the Earth of 1940 was taken forward to the putative time-travellers home time (thus putting it in the same time-frame as the satellites, allowing the communications), or are you saying that the area around the Earth in the putative time-travellers present was taken back to the 1940s (taking the satellites with it to allow communications)?

Hom3r · 28-10-2010, 20:46

Its not a earing aid, my nan had an old style one and the "mic" thing in it was huge, every now and then you would get a feed back whistle, that she couldn't hear.

Gary L · 28-10-2010, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Are you saying that the Earth of 1940 was taken forward to the putative time-travellers home time (thus putting it in the same time-frame as the satellites, allowing the communications), or are you saying that the area around the Earth in the putative time-travellers present was taken back to the 1940s (taking the satellites with it to allow communications)?

I'll try and explain it a bit. is it like a rewind thing where everything goes backwards to the point you press Stop and Play?
if you could just go back in time, the future would still be there for you to return to. so the 'satellites' would still be there in the futures space time.

so unless it's a distance thing then the only problem would be contacting the satellites that are there in the future? and if it's not a rewind tape thing then why does space have to be affected by what's happened to the earth?

how far out would time travel expand in the way that millions of miles have to go back with the time on earth?

**Hugh** · 28-10-2010, 20:56

But only the "traveller" went back (supposedly) - how would he take the satellites with him, and not all the atmosphere, buildings, planes, spaceships, birds, etc, between him and the satellites?

Gary L · 28-10-2010, 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

But only the "traveller" went back (supposedly) - how would he take the satellites with him, and not all the atmosphere, buildings, planes, spaceships, birds, etc, between him and the satellites?

Yes, only he went back. I'm not saying he took the satellites with him. they stayed in the time he went from and returned to.

**Hugh** · 28-10-2010, 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

Yes, only he went back. I'm not saying he took the satellites with him. they stayed in the time he went from and returned to.

But that would be a clear violation of causality - even if you tried to support this proposition by proposing quantum entanglement using the Bohm Interpretation of quantum mechanics as the method of communication between the traveller in the past and the satellites in the future, the fact that causality is preserved in quantum mechanics is a rigorous result in modern quantum field theories, which makes that supposition non-viable.

Gary L · 28-10-2010, 22:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

But that would be a clear violation of causality - even if you tried to support this proposition by proposing quantum entanglement using the Bohm Interpretation of quantum mechanics as the method of communication between the traveller in the past and the satellites in the future, the fact that causality is preserved in quantum mechanics is a rigorous result in modern quantum field theories, which makes that supposition non-viable.

Good point. totally agree with whatever it is you said.

**Hugh** · 28-10-2010, 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

Good point. totally agree with whatever it is you said.

If you are interested, here is a bit more information.

Bohmian Mechanics

Student Friendly Quantum Field Theory

Enjoy....

**Maggy** · 28-10-2010, 22:22

It's very hard to see anything clearly..

If only someone could do a CSI Miami on the film and clean it up I suspect it was a pair of gloves and she was shielding her eyes against the sun..

vanman · 28-10-2010, 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

But that would be a clear violation of causality - even if you tried to support this proposition by proposing quantum entanglement using the Bohm Interpretation of quantum mechanics as the method of communication between the traveller in the past and the satellites in the future, the fact that causality is preserved in quantum mechanics is a rigorous result in modern quantum field theories, which makes that supposition non-viable.

But if time were to be in dimensions. And the mobile phone frequencies happened to travel through the dimensions.
The time traveller would have got a connection.
As we are not in her/his dimension or the dimension, which he or she came from we will never know.

watzizname · 28-10-2010, 23:00

It didn't look like this person was shielding her / his eyes from anything, unless of course their eyes are located in their ears? (might go some way to explain why it would require a hearing aid) but then this would mean we're talking aliens, aliens that probably walk sideways.. it didn't look like it was walking sideways.

The guy said he filmed the portion we were seeing off his tv, so all we really need for a better view is the dvd.. i'm holding out for a 1080p release

Gary L · 28-10-2010, 23:05

I read that it's not on the DVD.

Quote:

What amazes me is that so many newsagencies are reporting on this and not one journo has bothered to go out and buy the DVD in question. I’ve only seen one comment one news.com.au so far from someone that has the DVD, and he claimed the woman isn’t in the original. It’s a clever publicity stunt for George Clarke’s film company.

Stephen · 28-10-2010, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Are you saying that the Earth of 1940 was taken forward to the putative time-travellers home time (thus putting it in the same time-frame as the satellites, allowing the communications), or are you saying that the area around the Earth in the putative time-travellers present was taken back to the 1940s (taking the satellites with it to allow communications)?

You are a few years out lol. It was the 1920s