bonesiii

The triangular kind.

My only problem is with your Point #2 about speed. I agree that as of now, we aren't able to do any of that, but it's not necessarily "impossible". I once read about the possibility of stretching space. Your spacecraft encases itself in a "bubble" of dark energy (which has properties that keep it from phasing into our universe completely), and compresses space in front of you and expands space behind you while you travel at a given speed. Whenever you reach your destination, you disengage the dark energy and release space back into its normal shape (but you remain at your destination). Under this theory, you could travel at sublight speeds for, say, 10 days and traverse a distance of 10 lightyears.

Actually, I agree with that. It's just that, even with that idea, we don't know of any way to actually harness the means to do it. I've got a couple different semi-fictional-semi-speculative ways of my own that I use in my own non-Bionicle fiction that it would be possible. One would be modifying space to increase the max speed limit, and of course, there's always the Stargate solution -- wormholes. Plus I've got another classified method that would allow instant travel...

My only point is, it's a lot less likely than an aircraft built by humans, flown by humans, launched here, flown here, etc.

Well, GB, first of all, I said "many, many" -- the minority who liked the older styles obviously wouldn't be included in that (at least not as much, although this can probably help everybody at least a little). Remember, I said that was a generalization, so not universal. And here's my quotes:

Obviously the weakness of this is that even if you're open for it, sometimes things are just not going to swing back towards your natural preferences (like if someone is wired to be the uberfan of Technicism, they're not going to ever be quite as happy now, since that failed experiment was mostly dropped). Still, even here it can improve things.

And last sentence here:

A simple trick is to pretend that every year, you are coming into it like a new fan, who doesn't remember the old years, and just let your own tastes judge the new year freely, in the same way your tastes judged the old year. Doesn't mean you'll necessarily like new as much as old, but perhaps it can help.

That is basically the same thing you said.

Several videos and reports were quite convincing to me, I do believe that we are not alone in the universe, it is so huge, how could we be the only intelligent life? I have never had any kind of sighting or encounter with a UFO, but there is just too much information out there to dismiss it. Indeed, I believe the people would panic and religion would be thrown into turmoil if this info was made public and proof of UFOs was revealed. Perhaps the government is waiting for the proper time, I do not think society is ready for these things yet myself.

But why do you jump to the conclusion that it is aliens? When that is the least likely explanation? Isn't it a lot more likely that UFOs (which simply means unidentified flying objects) are simply classified aircraft?

If you think the mere sighting of an aircraft implies aliens from lightyears upon lightyears away, I think you don't understand the incredible difficulties any aircraft would have to overcome in order to cross such a huge distance. Especially if you assume they weren't from the nearest star system -- that would be unlikely anyways. And Mars is pretty much old hat now, lol.

And if you pay attention to US aircraft history, you know that from time to time the military de-classifies aircraft that it's had all along. So isn't it logical to assume they've currently got some aircraft that are still classified? And are in operation?

*hates them both*

I dunno. It never occured to me to count them. I'm curious why you are curious.

Oh, just thought you might be pulling one on us.

 

It is a good idea...

Lol -- I'm bonesiii, savvy?

Good entry, but you fail to acknowledge that nostalgia can help one appreciate the sets when continuity is present. Therefore, it is better not to invariably ignore one's past experience with BIONICLE, but rather to selectively appreciate the familiar aspects of sets while likewise appreciating what is generally good about them to an unbiased eye.

That's a fair point. I think a good way to say it, then, is nostalgia can certainly be a good thing as long as what you've "locked in" does stick around. But if it doesn't, it can be a bad thing. Also, don't forget that sometimes we get bored with the same old thing even if we would get nostalgic for it if it was taken away (like the boredom complaints about Mata Nui).

Nostalgia is only one of the reasons I dislike the new sets. I also dislike them because I think they are uninteresting, due to using the same old body construction, and just plain old ugly, and I don't think any type of cranial unlocking will change that.

No, in your case, probably not. Also, you seem to be pretty fair about nostalgia, for example, you have many times given the example of the Toa Hagah as to your tastes -- and those aren't 2001.

I dunno. It never occured to me to count them. I'm curious why you are curious.

I would go so far as to generalize that for many, many older fans, we could be just as pleased every year if we would simply unlock our brains to allow ourselves to be so.

Er you might wanna rethink that bones because if somebody liked 2001 type of situation it has not happened since therefore not possible to have the same pleasure. Sure they might like some new things but they could not experience the same emotion unless their tastes drastically changed.

Read what I said more closely, GB. Everything you said was accounted for (and I think I said what you just said, at least twice ).

That's sort of how I think when I first see/ get the sets.

 

I like every year for the good things about it; I don't drone on and on about how every year is different from the first. If every year were identical, then everyone would complain about the sets/ story always being the same, and thus, it just wouldn't be as interesting if it didn't change every year.

 

Now, I'll admit, I'm not as nuts about today's sets as 2001's, but that's probably because I'm older than I was back then, and don't jump all off the walls and act all hyper whenever I get a new set, or comic, or something. So as a result, I don't have that whole... crazy-about-it-feeling or whatnot that I had before.

 

So it's not just because of people being attached to older sets, but also because of maturity, and becoming fond of more "serious" things. Because when someone is younger, he/she finds less serious things more serious, which is why they think it's missing things.

 

And to be honest, I actually think Bionicle is becoming a bit more geared towards older fans, at least in '07 it was. Really, think about it.

Yeah, if I'd had more time I would have talked about how this relates to aging. But you basically summed it up.

Okay then.

Is it just me, or does anyone actually know that people who purposefully dress to stand out actually steal more than normal-seeming people? I mean, think about it, if I wanted to rob a place, wouldn't I dress as inconspicuously as I could?

I indeed noticified it and have pointed it out before; people often "shield" an incorrect opinion by framing it as a supposed joke.

Ya gotta be on time for these things man.

Disagreement between friends can be a good thing because sometimes two friend can both agree on a bad thing and not know it, and the alternative, in which one of the friends has a correct opinion can be much healthier since he/she can talk to the other about it, presuming that he/she is willing to listen.

Excellent excellent point.

The meaning of friendship, the way I see it, is to love and care for each other. A friend wants the best for other, otherwise they would not truly be a friend, true? In this way, if a friend does not agree with another friend, than it should not ruin their friendship because, should they discuss their opinions witheach other, than they are actually helping each other out by trying to improve each other. I'm not saying that one person is going to have a totally wrong opinion, but when there are two opinions one of them is usually going to be better in some ways than the other, or perhaps they are both flawed but combining them through discussion strengthens them.

Yep, that's basically what I often talk about with "truth-seeking debate", a "search between friends for the truth." It's a great point that if both friends happen to already agree on the wrong view of something (especially if it's something important), neither of them are likely to have such a debate, or find the truth. That is sad, yes.

That puts a whole 'nother perspective on it, doesn't it?

How would they know if they had? It would still exist in the current time, it would just be x much older...sending things forward would be the only way to tell, in my point of view.

Basically, their sensors at the destination showed it arriving slightly before they fired it.

You say you'd freeze going at the speed of light, Bones? I was thinking you'd pass infinitely through all time.

Different words, same meaning.

Afterall, as 0 seconds go by, you're experiencing 0/0 seconds...which is infinity imo (mind you, I know nothing of calculus, so this is very primitive thought). But then, it might be 0. *shrug*

It's been a while since I aced calc 1, but I'm pretty sure division by zero IS a different thing than infinity. Again, this might be where my ignorance of the actual formula is messing me up, but what I said about time freezing is what I've always heard.

I can totally understand that, as I too, am a very logical thinker, but one thing about science that really bugs me is that logic can sometimes lead you astray (something that I truly found out when learning about DNA, RNA, Mitosis, Meiosis, and all that stuff).

That's true of all life if you don't use logic properly. The things you mentioned are very complex -- so it's easy to get misled, logic or not, if you don't work very hard to understand the whole thing. Temporal mechanics is in some ways actually fairly simple in comparison, at least the basics.

An inconsistency, maybe, but as of now, I don't believe we're capable of proving either theory of timelines.

No, we probably aren't.

An inconsistency, maybe, but as of now, I don't believe we're capable of proving either theory of timelines. A possible "true paradox": You approach a black hole in a spacecraft capable of avoiding it's immense gravimetric pull. You fly just outside of the event horizon, and then turn around and follow the same course back. We know that black holes bend space, so then, logically, we can also assume that black holes bend time (usually by slowing it down around the event horizon). Wouldn't it be possible, then, for you to see a time-delayed image of your craft moving across the event horizon, just as you did the first time? (Purely speculative, BTW, but it provides an interesting view on the whole discussion.)

From my understanding, that's plausible. I don't see how it would be a paradox, though?

First off, we'd have to assume the spacecraft had near-miraculous survivability powers. Secondly, assuming you could actually do this with speed relative to an outside observer, despite the time dilation (through a warp drive perhaps, as some ST episodes have actually featured), the light reflecting off of, or being given off by, the spacecraft would be slowed down in time, and incredibly red-shifted, so that if you could warp-speed away, you would see the light from just before the EH slowly coming out at you (though you might need a radio, microwave, or infrared camera to see it). So that might provide such an image.

All of that seems like simple cause and effect; I don't think it's paradoxical at all.

The whole antimatter thing is just an educated guess on my part, as there is no reason for alternate universes to be antimatter, but there are. I, quite frankly, find it hard to believe that time would split every time multiple reactions could occur from a single action. IMO (which could totally be wrong), it makes much more sense, logically, to assume that there is only one timeline right now, and a new timeline would only branch off when someone (or something) traveled through time.

That could be a fair alternative, yes. Either way, it would solve the Grampadox. My reasoning behind the "choice split" concept is another thing that gets into topics we can't discuss. But the basic idea is, most things are complex chemical reactions, but when it comes to human beings (and possibly many other life forms) making choices, chemically speaking it could actually go either way, and something about us not contained totally within the 3 dimensions of space comes into play when we make a choice, thus sending the universe onto one fork in the road, as it were, as opposed to the other. But of course this too is highly speculative. It's a pretty common idea in scifi though, used in ST and SG often.

Time right now, through all of its distortions, etc., is still uniform and flowing, no matter what choices occur on Earth and elsewhere. IMO, time would become nonuniform and corrupt when it's altered in some way (probably by something traveling through time). It's when this happens, that I believe a new (and different) timeline branches off. Does any of this make sense, as I find it hard to describe

Makes perfect sense.

I was under the impression that it is currently impossible for us to contain antimatter in a stable form because of its extreme reactivity with matter.

I'm talking about basically single atoms of it. It can be contained in vacuum chambers, held in place with magnetic fields. It is produced in certain nuclear reactions sometimes (usually just a positron if I recall correctly). Usually these instantly react with an electron, instantly destroying both. We don't store it in huge amounts like they do on Star Trek, no, that would be planetary suicide if the magnets ever failed, lol.

That's my basic understanding of traveling at the speed of light as well, but you also get into E-mc2, which suggests that matter and energy are transmutable, so it could just be that once we get to the speed of light, we turn into energy.

Yes, I was gonna get into that but ran out of time. Basically, if a teleporter could do that without destroying the pattern for rematerialization, that could be another "cheating" method. But personally I'd never travel on one if I could help it lol.

Oh, right, I heard about that. Going into a black hole in just the right way may result in time travel.

Technically going in at all, no matter how you go in, seems to result in backwards time travel. But there's basically no way to go in without dying (unless you get really wackily unlikely fictional technology or power or the like...).

bonesiii - You've got some very intriguing thoughts, and you sound a lot like the friend that I first discussed this with. Your "argument" (shall we say), hinges on the belief that alternate time-lines exist. Unfortunately, there is no way for us to prove that true or false, so for now, this entire discussion remains, to some degree, hypothetical. Assuming that alternate time-lines exist, you, as a human, would only be able to perceive one of the possible outcomes of your actions, which is why we are unable to prove their existence, but you in another time-line (in another universe (antimatter, probably, which is a whole new discussion) parallel to our own) could, and would observe a different outcome (a cool thought).

 

The problem with the theory of alternate time-lines is that they would probably have to interact with each other. The existence of alternate time-lines is similar to the existence of alternate universes in the way that things exist (some matter, others anti-matter), and (in theory) pass occasionally from one universe to another via items like massive gravity wells, black holes, and neutron stars. These interactions are why we know that anti-matter exists. In theory, if alternate time-lines existed, they too would interact with each other, and we'd more than likely be able to detect those interactions in one way or another.

 

I'm enjoying this; I don't know too many people who could carry on a discussion like this. Thanks bonesiii!

 

-Xai

 

EDIT: Nukora - A lot of the symbols used in the equations aren't on the keyboard, and I wouldn't know how to find them. You are right about bonesiii though, he's got good points.

~ShadowBolt~ - Lol.

I'd like to use a point-style reply here:

1) I know, it's so fun, idn't it?

2) Yes, this is all "theoretical/hypothetical", whatnot.

3) Also, I'm not knowledgeable about the actual formulas of timespace and the like; I could understand them if I devoted time to it, but I try to approach it from a more "understanding-based" approach where I learn what the formulas mean in more logical, concrete ways that I can sorta visualize. I usually only get into the formulas when I'm writing a story that forces me to need to be accurate (of anything with formulas). So that part of this I'm no expert in. IMExperience, though, the formulas aren't necessary to think through the logic of the basic concepts.

4) Yes, the argument does hinge on that, but that belief hinges on logic and the fact that the grandfather paradox is, after all, an inconsistency in the alternative view.

3) To prove, no -- virtually nothing can be totally proven. I think more in terms of evidence and logic -- which isn't necessarily conclusive, but can point in the basic correct direction, and can seem to rule out some possibilities. Grampadox rules out, IMO, a single timeline setup. I apply this concept to everything too, not just timespace -- the rule that "there is no true paradox."

4) I'd like to discuss reasons why I wouldn't agree that I, as a human, would only be able to percieve one timeline, but I'd rather keep my reasons for that classified. In addition, it wander into topics not allowed on BZPower. Suffice it to say that I am 99% sure of something that isn't being factored in that statement.

5) I've never heard that alternate timelines would be antimatter -- what I have heard is that antimatter could possibly be normal matter that is basically traveling backwards in time. My understanding though is that it is simply a charge difference and probably not actually "traveling" since "travel" in time as we experience it every day is more of a perception than anything -- all forms of energy including matter and antimatter exist simultaneously, though sometimes in different forms, throughout all time. (Say if you have a lunchbox right now -- in five minutes, all the atoms in that lunchbox still exist, even if you hit it with a sledgehammer -- and even if you nuke it, all the energy of it still exists in some form.)

6) Also, since an alternate timeline would simply be what would have happened if a choice had been chosen differently, it seems implausible that this timeline would somehow be antimatter.

7) Well, again, do we know that alternate timelines aren't interacting with "our own"? But, I can imagine situations where alternate timelines don't interact (naturally). They would be visualized as strings branching off, and the "far ends" of each string (even though they have no actual ends) would move away from each of the other strings, in the temporal dimensions beyond the 5 dimensions we know of ("know" not being for sure in the case of subspace as far as I know).

8) Well, we know that antimatter exists because we have some of it, and we blow stuff up with it sometimes.

9) It's possible we wouldn't be able to detect the interactions. But again, I'm not discussing what I know about this.

I, personally, don't believe in the theory,'cause I think that it would just end, you would never have been born, and some other poor fool would be in the time machine....

 

Maybe.

I hope you were joking, lol. That would be incredibly unlikely.

*doesn't believe in time travel*

 

*would rather waste time believing in Cryptids*

 

BtB

I must say that I kinda agree with you about time travel not happening, but only in the time machine way. In theory, if you were to travel at the speed of light for a while, time would slow down for you, but not for anyone else. You'd drop out of the speed of light in a few hours, and find that Earth had aged several years. That, if believed to be time travel, would only take you forward in time, and you'd have no way of getting back.

 

-Xai

Oh, time travel is almost definately real, and it occurs constantly. Your example is more of speeding up the passage of time to go forward -- well, we're already moving forward. "Time travel" usually means backwards travel.

We can go back in time right now if we feel like it. (Well, almost right now, in the grand scheme of things.) It's just that our methods would turn us into an infinately small point of energy in the process, killing us. Talking about flying into a black hole, of course, lol. (And you'd have to factor in travel time at sublight speeds to arrive at a black hole, which could take quite a long time, with a rather useless result at the end.)

In theory, Xai? I'm pretty sure they were able to "prove" Einstein's time dilation equation with the use of atomic clocks in satellites orbiting Earth...

 

In theory, time would actually freeze for you at the speed of light, is my understanding, meaning you'd basically be stuck at the same moment, forever. Might be unwise. Also, if you could somehow go just over the speed of light, you'd start to go backwards in time. Faster, you go back faster.

In theory, Xai? I'm pretty sure they were able to "prove" Einstein's time dilation equation with the use of atomic clocks in satellites orbiting Earth...

They were, but if you're referring the the "traveling at the speed of light" part, the "in theory" was meant to describe traveling at the speed of light; something that nobody's been able to do, and something that no one really knows how to do right now.

 

-Xai

I have a fictional way -- basically by cheating. By modifying the spatial brane so that everything can stretch in a forward direction without actually going much faster in its own point of view. Of course, purely fictional.

According to Einstein, traveling the speed of light requires division by zero and going faster requires division by i ([-1]^1/2).

 

Still, I find it hard to believe that just because dividing by zero produces an imaginary number suddenly it's physically impossible for anything other than an electromagnetic wave to move at 186,000 miles per second. It just doesn't seem to make common sense. I know, the main part of time dilation has been proven, but no one has actually tried to move at such speeds to prove the "universal speed limit" that time dilation creates. Anyway, haven't they been able to speed up certain atoms up to the speed of light in a laboratory?

 

Also, there's no guarantee that faster-than-light travel is the only way to travel through time--correct me if I'm wrong, but Einstein himself also guessed at the existence of a wormhole, which would theoretically take us to a different point in time and space, thus time traveling. Better yet, it allows you to go backwards in time too, which makes the paradox possible. (For the record, I'm with bonesiii on that argument.)

Actually, it does make sense -- basically, the larger an object, the slower its max speed seems to be physicswise. This is why "tachyons" if I remember the term right are assumed to be (hypothetically) much smaller even than photons, allowing them to move even faster. Protons are much, much larger than photons, and atoms and actual objects like humans much much MUCH bigger. My sense is that this is tied into the nature of the brane itself; sortof like an object moving through water. A huge barge is going to have a lot more trouble zipping around than a small speedboat.

So again, it seems to me that only a "cheating" method would allow it. Is theme of Star Trek warp drive, and Stargate wormholes, BTW.

I've never heard that they've been able to speed up atoms to the speed of light. What I have heard is that they have seemingly sent some atoms back in time. I don't remember the details now, but I think the article I read on it basically said it was actually more of an illusion than actual time travel. Not sure.

I have a simple method for possible reverse travel, BTW. Simply hold a static field of intense levels of gravitons in place around an object, and it seems to me that the object should slow in time or go backwards if there's enough, without feeling the gravity as a directional pull. Of course, you'd need to generate enough that if something went wrong, you'd have an artificial black hole so would be dangerous. And let's not forget that as far as we know, holding gravitons still is impossible. But fictionally...

There are no such thing as temporal paradoxes. Those who falsely think there are ignore the simple (and well-established) concept of alternate timelines -- every event and choice splits off a new timeline, forming a branching setup of timelines.

So as soon as you go back in time, simply by appearing, you create a new timeline, different from the one you came from. Therefore, the "place" where you grew up is unaffected, except that it could now be considered an "alternate" timeline if you believe that only one timeline is the "real" one.

Therefore you remain in existence in the altered timeline, and the change you cause sticks around. Unless you go back a few seconds before, thus starting a new "real" timeline where you never came back and made the change, and don't make it again.

If you think about it, it's obvious that any actual paradoxes are nothing more than inconsistencies in a way of thinking, thus disproving the way of thinking. (Like the "Everything I type is false" one -- all this accomplishes is showing that the way of thinking behind the statement is false, which is why nobody uses that one seriously. )

Therefore, the fact that having a "non-alternate timeline" point of view creates this inconsistency disproves that point of view, showing that instead, there are alternate timelines.

Either that, or time travel or changes are impossible and there's no problem either way. But those seem unlikely.

Pet peeve.

And brain not hurt at all.

True, it was abrupt. But then, everything about you-know-who was always abrupt.

Not sure I see your point though -- this year is called "Final Battle," also Icarax seems to beat up anybody his eyes register, so I don't see why it would matter whether he knew who you-know-who was affiliated with.

The BoM is launching an attack on Karda Nui, and big plans seem to be coming to fruition, not to mention the whole incident with Mata Nui's life -- whether you want to call it a "war" at this stage or not, the BoM knows full well about what they're doing. They're the agressors here, not the OoMN or Toa or whonot. I don't see how my point is moot.

And even if it was, who says war is the only realistic cause of death? We have senseless violence everyday in our cities all over the globe, war or not. It would make sense even for this to happen in Bionicle, at least when you have villains like Icarax (or the Piraka, etc.).

I've edited out all references to which character just died -- we might be establishing a specific spoiler policy about this and it's probably too soon. Also, again, let's not discuss the worst details of what happened -- that's been edited out too.

I dunno... it seems to me like [the latest character]'s death was just thrown in there for shockers sake.

I hope they have more on it in the future.

 

BtB

Well, it's a war -- in wars, people die sometimes. I don't see that as shock tactics -- I see that as being realistic. There's a key difference there.

[the latest character]'s death seemed more to me like a lot of the deaths in the seventh Harry Potter book--- I think Greg's trying to prepare us for the upcoming "Final Battle", which could involve more like this. Greg could've paused to lament [the latest character]'s death the way he did for Matoro, but that woul 1) lessen the significance of Matoro's death, and 2) force him to pause that way for every death that may occur in this "final battle", which would slow down the action immensely.

I agree -- and the story serials are usually a lot more fast-paced than books; they're more like comics without graphics. So there really isn't time to do that in the serials, especially not for a side character as opposed to one of the main canister sets of the year, which is what Matoro was.

This is the first entry to have a header without the "Bones Blog" mark!

~SGT~

It's there. You might need a brighter screen to see it, lol. Think "LOST".

...Some people are prone to make banners with "R.I.P [the latest character]! We'll *fill in blank if this was even blank*" and some will see that as comparing [[the latest character]... *sniff*] so a Reformation-period martyr while the maker really only was comparing [the latest character] to a favourite toy, perhaps because he/she was a [the latest character] fangirl/boy. *shrugs*

 

Just sayin' that people are prone to over do their judgementality on he issue, especialy if they have seen alot of those banners.

Yes, I agree with that too. But I'm saying, this is why. In case it wasn't clear -- people with the first perspective can, of course, make that mistake too (of overdoing their judgement as you put it).

If there was any issue with your topic, it was that you didn't allow for much spoiler time, which I actually forgot about when I posted the topic, so no. That will be up to Artwork staff to sort out. (And I found your topic funny.)

There was some reaction to your topic that falls under what this says, but most of this is other stuff before that.

What gets me is when I disagree with someone's opinion, clearly show why, and they just answer "this is my opinion." XD Occasionally I feel like replying "and this is mine; what's your point?", but I don't.

In an ideal world, that would be the case. But since we don't live in one, I can understand why people want to say that, just so it's crystal clear. Personally, I always include the IMO acronym when I'm saying something people might think I think is fact. So I never need to say it.

You don't have to move to another folder to archive -- just select the folder they're in, etc. I don't see what the problem would be?

Just archive them.

For some reason, the blog software isn't letting me post my "Friends Can Disagree" entry, which is written. Although, I needed to cut down on some of it cuz it got too wordy IMO. I've had longer entries so glitch is something else. Hunting it down. smile.gif (Lol, this is the first image-free entry I've ever done I think -- I'm out of time.) For now, other updates I wanted to post:

You want that posted?

No thanks; see my edit; I'll post it Thursday.

Thanks for the comments, this helps, folks.

Must kill the paradox! We hates them, precious, yes we does!

You didn't say this -- you typed it!