Author Topic: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?  (Read 4583 times)

Offline JMart

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
    • View Profile
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2009, 06:13:41 PM »
i dont know what you mean by 'earlier' ONTHEISLAND

because the faraday/des hatch thing was after 1954



but what LOST is showing, is what was supposed to happen. Nothing that they are showing us is an alternate or new thing that the island moving began.

the island was always supposed to move... and all these actions were supposed to happen. as they are.

Offline WhatThe

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1421
    • View Profile
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2009, 06:15:05 PM »
i dont know what you mean by 'earlier' ONTHEISLAND

because the faraday/des hatch thing was after 1954



but what LOST is showing, is what was supposed to happen. Nothing that they are showing us is an alternate or new thing that the island moving began.

the island was always supposed to move... and all these actions were supposed to happen. as they are.

Definitely plays up the whole fate/destiny angle that Locke was always going on about with Jack in seasons 1 and 2.

Offline JMart

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
    • View Profile
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2009, 06:15:39 PM »
He has always talked to the Others in 1954?  but not Des a couple of years earlier?

That line of thinking would explain that "it is because it was" but doesn't explain "it isn't because it wasn't". It should either be one rule or neither.

sawyer isn't talking to desmond because he wasn't supposed to.
faraday is talking to desmond because he was supposed to.

Offline JMart

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
    • View Profile
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #18 on: January 30, 2009, 06:16:19 PM »
i dont know what you mean by 'earlier' ONTHEISLAND

because the faraday/des hatch thing was after 1954



but what LOST is showing, is what was supposed to happen. Nothing that they are showing us is an alternate or new thing that the island moving began.

the island was always supposed to move... and all these actions were supposed to happen. as they are.

Definitely plays up the whole fate/destiny angle that Locke was always going on about with Jack in seasons 1 and 2.

agreed.. the whole destiny stance

Offline Staggerlee

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1151
  • Karma does not announce itself, it just happens.
    • View Profile
    • In Praise of Shadows
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #19 on: January 30, 2009, 06:38:50 PM »
Am going to post this here and maybe in the Timeline thread.

Have not read all of it yet, but it is something that a few para's in seems interesting at least...



http://www.timelooptheory.com/the_timeline.htm
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion.

F. Bacon

Offline MangoBingo

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
    • View Profile
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #20 on: January 30, 2009, 06:46:17 PM »
Have not read all of it yet, but it is something that a few para's in seems interesting at least...

http://www.timelooptheory.com/the_timeline.htm

This has the same theory as me - about the Island time being in the mid-1990s around the time that Cooper was killed on the Island! Wow!!!

Offline Staggerlee

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1151
  • Karma does not announce itself, it just happens.
    • View Profile
    • In Praise of Shadows
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2009, 06:53:04 PM »
I think I pulled something trying to read it and it wasn't a fun thing to pull either.....
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion.

F. Bacon

Offline xrayeck

  • Red Shirt
  • **
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #22 on: January 30, 2009, 07:36:30 PM »
A few time travel observations:

Listen to JMart.

Try not to think of time as a line, at least not a horizontal line, but rather as a whole unit with past, present and future all "occurring" at once. Only our human minds can't/don't perceive time that way. Our minds "live" in the present and remember the past. By changing the way our consciousness works, your mind can time travel as Desmond's did in the constant. By harnessing the unlimited energy source provided by the island, your body can time travel as Sawyer, Locker, Juliet, etc., are doing now.

Consider that the "rules" of time travel may be arbitrary rules that were agreed upon by those involved in unlocking the secret rather than scientific, set in stone rules.

Question: Was Room 23 a place to recondition one's consciousness for mental time travel?

The best argument I can think of in favor of the idea that the island exists in the past is the fact that Locke could walk when he arrived.

Then again, if it WAS 2004 on the island when the Losties crashed and Jack's estimate that the Adam and Eve skeletons had been deteriorating for 40-50 years that would put their DOD in the range of, um, 1954. Hmmmmmmmm.

Offline Staggerlee

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1151
  • Karma does not announce itself, it just happens.
    • View Profile
    • In Praise of Shadows
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #23 on: January 30, 2009, 07:53:56 PM »
A few time travel observations:

Listen to JMart.

Try not to think of time as a line, at least not a horizontal line, but rather as a whole unit with past, present and future all "occurring" at once. Only our human minds can't/don't perceive time that way. Our minds "live" in the present and remember the past. By changing the way our consciousness works, your mind can time travel as Desmond's did in the constant. By harnessing the unlimited energy source provided by the island, your body can time travel as Sawyer, Locker, Juliet, etc., are doing now.

Exactly as per the idea of relativity, in being the only way the equation works is if time is a dimension that exist as space does too. I put that somewhere else, my question regarding that and how it would fit...

So far there has been no bunny rabbit moments for the Lostinians, which begs was that video a "fake" made by Chang et. al. to scare future/other people from messing with their discovery, or is it a possibility?

With time also being equal to space on the dimensional manner, is it even possible to run into oneself at the magazine rack at the corner shop perusing the naughty books? Is the paradox somehow eliminated...?
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion.

F. Bacon

Offline MangoBingo

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1510
    • View Profile
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #24 on: January 30, 2009, 07:56:48 PM »
With time also being equal to space on the dimensional manner, is it even possible to run into oneself at the magazine rack at the corner shop perusing the naughty books? Is the paradox somehow eliminated...?

Do you mean how two masses can't occupy the same space at the same time; or how two masses can't occupy the same time within the same space? Because that'd be the same thing, wouldn't it?

Offline Staggerlee

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1151
  • Karma does not announce itself, it just happens.
    • View Profile
    • In Praise of Shadows
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2009, 08:10:30 PM »

Except it may not be a kink or loop or paradox, if time is as Minkowski (the real one) an Einstein figured that time is a dimension to be experienced as space is, i.e. it is all always there we just cannot experience more than one spot at anyone time, but we can hop about them (the casimir effected wormy hole) and dance about them as we please if we find a way to do so, as the isle and it's inhabitants apparently have....


*whew*
Here's my original post pulled from the synapses of sledgeweb...

Do you mean how two masses can't occupy the same space at the same time; or how two masses can't occupy the same time within the same space? Because that'd be the same thing, wouldn't it?

Where's my Ace bandage...Mango made me pull another Axon....off to get some Cuervo Black then I'll be right back with ya...
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion.

F. Bacon

Offline Staggerlee

  • In the Loop
  • ****
  • Posts: 1151
  • Karma does not announce itself, it just happens.
    • View Profile
    • In Praise of Shadows
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2009, 12:03:06 AM »
OK Mango, I think I've got what you're thinking....maybe....

Do you mean how two masses can't occupy the same space at the same time; or how two masses can't occupy the same time within the same space? Because that'd be the same thing, wouldn't it?

From what I've read it is the exclusion principle that states the above.....but something that is interesting and pertains to our jumpers here in Lostinia...one adds an "or" to it...Two or more objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time...you and your traveling self...an object cannot occupy the same space at the same time as another object including itself...so you cannot run into your self...


Here is something that says it in a probably better fashion...

http://www.helium.com/items/887566-is-time-real-or-relative
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion.

F. Bacon

Offline ukslim

  • Red Shirt
  • **
  • Posts: 122
    • View Profile
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2009, 06:19:09 AM »
Actually, *do* think of time as a horizontal line. Don't think of it as a tree with branches, or as a line that you can bend by behaving differently. What happened, happened, even if it was done by a 'future' you.

So let's say I'm a time traveller who likes parlour tricks: at dinner parties I put the salt cellar in my pocket, I instruct a fellow diner to tear open a bread roll, and to their astonishment the salt cellar is inside. After the party I set up the trick, by taking the salt cellar back in time and baking it into the bread roll.

Now in the Lost model, the whole thing is set in stone. The fact that the salt cellar is in the bread roll determines that I *do* go back in time, and once there I *do* bake the cellar into the bread.  It's not like there's options you can work around as long as key points resolve themselves. The future is just as solidly set in stone as the past.

This means all free will is an illusion. Uncomfortable stuff: what we've done can't be changed. What we're *going to do* can't be changed. Even if we're hopping around in time and can therefore see the consequences of our actions before we've done them.

But that illusion of free will is still there. Faraday reasoned about what he knew about the future (= his past) and made the decision to talk to Desmond. But he hadn't changed anything.  It had already happened / was always going to happen.

Offline xrayeck

  • Red Shirt
  • **
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2009, 09:05:35 AM »
Actually, *do* think of time as a horizontal line.
I agree with everything you wrote, except this. Let's go to an expert:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY_Ry8J_jdw
 ;)

Offline Gmonkey

  • Background Extra
  • *
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: The time travel rules - Was the past changed?
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2009, 09:15:25 AM »
But in the very end, free will is going to show its face in a climactic way.  At least, I hope so!

Im just going to say that rules are meant to be broken...