The Flash >> View Post
·
Post By
Ancient One 
Manager

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,833
In Reply To
JS

Member Since: Thu Oct 29, 2009
Subj: Re: Writers confrim next years crossover deals with the future Newspaper headline
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 at 01:32:18 pm GMT (Viewed 762 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Writers confrim next years crossover deals with the future Newspaper headline
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 at 10:26:34 am GMT (Viewed 753 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:
    Lol! Hey, if you start out today, and tomorrow you're 500 years in the future - you've time travelled. It doesn't matter if you've experienced the 499 years at a much faster rate, or skipped them altogether.

By that logic, everyone is always time travelling into the future at a rate of one second per second. But that's not really how the term "time travel" is typically used, now is it?


    Quote:
    No, it's not guesswork. It's taking the evidence we have (the physics we're sure of, and the physics we're pretty sure of) and working forward from that point.

Which is just guesswork.


    Quote:
    And when you do that, you find that time travel couldn't possibly work the way 'The Flash' presents it. It would have to involve parallel (divergent) timelines, or the single timeline becoming a mobius strip.

According to what? This has never been verified by experimentation. You have nothing to base this claim on. Nobody has any idea how it would work. The physics involved might be far beyond human comprehension for all we know.


    Quote:
    And yes, I'm qualified to make a judgement (and so is everyone else) because we can clearly see how poor and contradictory the writing is in many other areas of the show.

That is irrelevant. That's a different topic entirely.



By that logic, everyone is always time travelling into the future at a rate of one second per second. But that's not really how the term "time travel" is typically used, now is it?

Yes, of course everyone and everything is travelling through time all the... er, time. And I don't really care how it's 'typically' used. The public seem to have a low grasp of how terms are used scientifically as opposed to in everyday use (See: 'It's only a theory' for example).


Which is just guesswork.

Rubbish. It's constructing a logical chain of events from the available data. Granted, you can get it wrong, but most of the time you'll be on pretty solid ground.

According to what? This has never been verified by experimentation. You have nothing to base this claim on. Nobody has any idea how it would work. The physics involved might be far beyond human comprehension for all we know.

According to physics. It's never been verified by experimentation, no. But then neither had gravity waves or the Higgs boson until recently. All we had for over half a century was mathematical evidence for both. If your maths are good, you're on the right track.

As for it being '...beyond human comprehension...' I grant you that's possible. But as the physicist in the video I linked to showed, that's been said many times on many subjects by many people including some very eminent scientists. So believe that if you want, but be prepared to have that belief overturned.

That is irrelevant. That's a different topic entirely.

Really? How so? I can say with complete confidence their understanding of other scientific subjects has been pretty bad. Basic physics that they get wrong. Good entertainment, but lousy science. So why not this topic?



Posted with Google Chrome 64.0.3282.140 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software