Pet Peeve - Time travel movies.

anyone else notice this? time travel movies are a great concept, but damn, they should get someone with basic causality theory or continuity basics on the set for severe inconsistancies.

example :
terminator - droid sent back to kill future leader, after discovery of the bold machine plot, humans send a human defender.
as soon as the driod was sent back the "present (future)" would have been altered, no chance for the humans to send a defender. because it's things that would have already happened. let alone - ok .. driod goes back, kills mom, in order for the humans to send a defender, the droid would have needed to leave a document stating he was the future capt. etc, for the humans to know to send a defender. but, in that instance, the machines would have already won, so .. what humans would have sent back a defender.
BUT - ok .. take parallel realities. one exists without the effects of the others.. fine, the humans can send the defender, but in this instance, what's it matter? it's altering a different future.
and the real kicker, john is the spawn of a future human, someone that doesn't exist yet. In order for the future to exist, timeline wise, certain events would have had to have completed FIRST before the alternate could come into play ( like if we were to go back in time to change something, the past would have had to have happened once before in order to go back in time ) so who was the father the first time around, or how did he become the famed resistance leader without the experiences as a child depicted in the movies.

here's some food for thought.. what if mom decided not to name her kid "john conner" after the events of the first movie to protect him from the future.. then what?

on the other hand ( ad crudy as it was ) time-cop -
they had a police force to basically stop and correct the effects on history, ok, they are there to fight and correct the things that are trying to be changed in the past from happening. that works out alot better logically, by trying to maintain the origin path, although it might get some shifts in it, for the most part it's maintained and the future is intact.

Well, if everyone had to be so damn politically correct on all this we wouldn't have such great movies like the Terminator. So screw all the crap about what is wrong with the movies and enjoy it for what it is.

You have to not think about stuff like that to enjoy a time travel movie.

If they sent the Terminator back to kill Sarah Connor, then John Connor wouldn't exist in their present. If John doesn't exist, they don't need to send a Terminator back. If they don't send a Terminator back, John does exist.

And changing John's name would create the same exact timeline, just with a different name.

As for the parallel realities theory, they're just worrying about themselves. Their reality would change as they would like it.

Everyone has a different view on time travel. If you want some food for thought think about this-

You go back in time with the Mona Lisa. You go see Da Vinci the night before he supposed to unveil it, but he doesnt have anything to show. You give him the one you brought back from the future and he unveils it as his own. Now who really painted the Mona Lisa? It wasnt you you brought it from the future. It wasnt Da Vinci, you gave it to him? So who painted it?

Unless its a time travel movie where history can not be changed, then its best to not thing about the major plot holes and just enjoy it as it is.

Yeah i think that time movies need to get ****ing cool or else they suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

heres the thing. Time travel is an impossibility. Shit, even einstien said time travel was impossible. So you automatically have to suspend reality more so than other movies when watching time travel movies.

you have a very linear view of what these movies portray as "time"...........who's to say that fate doesn't exist........all "time" is already mapped out........that time isn't linear, moreso a loop...connecting at both ends..........you think the past affects the future based on your linear view, how do you know that the future does not affect the past? you don't. nobody does. this subject is science fiction as it falls well beyond the parameters of the scientific method.

in real, every day terms..........."time" does not mean past, present or future. It's merely motion. We judge our "time" by the motion of the earth against our sun/solar system......and motion of the earth itself (rotation).

Here's a scenario:

Say you invent a working time machine. You go back to a time before you invented it. You kill your past self. Are you really dead?

You would be eliminating your present self from existence. If your present self doesn't exist, you couldn't have possibly went back in time. If you didn't go back in time, you wouldn't have been killed.

Another thing is like in Time Cop 2, in which the villain goes back in time and causes people to "cease to exist". However, when they "cease to exist", they merely disappear, and their friends even comment that the villain caused that to happen. If that person "ceased to exist", then everyone would have no memory of that person and even the events in the timeline would change.

Originally posted by Evil Dead

in real, every day terms..........."time" does not mean past, present or future. It's merely motion. We judge our "time" by the motion of the earth against our sun/solar system......and motion of the earth itself (rotation).

The concept of being able to physically go back to another functioning time period is the comic books of science. Traveling into the future could be possible if you were able to travel faster than the speed of light. However, that still isnt actually traeling into the future, just travelling faster than time.

time travel is all science fiction nonsense but I feel I must point out...

if you travelled faster than the speed of light, you would be travelling "back in time".....not to the future. Theory of relativity. As you approach the speed of light, everything else appears to slow down in relation. Since a person could never reach the speed of light (would require infinite energy to propell the now infinite mass) the subject is all comic book but once you were to pass the speed of light...all other objects would appear to come to a stand still around you........and as your speed kept increasing, actually moving backwards........

maybe i missed somthing, but i thought that you would continue going forward in time, just moving slower than everything around you. Isnt that why einstien said that if you were able to spend four years travelling at the speed of light and stopped, you would have only aged four years, but everyone else would have aged considerably?

you would be moving faster..........so aging slower...........don't get the two confused.

to you, they would appear to be standing still........then moving backwards. to them, you wouldn't even be visible with the naked eye.

If you didn't reach the point of "them moving backwards".....time would just simply appear to stand still.

Now.......you would age slower, that is correct.........but nonetheless if you were to travel at lightspeed for 10 years.....leaving earth in 2005 and returning in 2015, you would not have time travelled. The same 10 years would have passed no matter what..........you would have just aged slower....perhaps you're physical appearance may have only aged 2 years in the time you were gone........the date on the calender however would still be 10 years later. The only way "light speed" or above actually works in theory is if you travel fast enough as to make everybody else appear to be moving backwards.........ala the end of Superman 1 when he flies fast enough to turn the entire earth back in time so he can save Lois Lane.

maybe i missed somthing, but i thought that you would continue going forward in time, just moving slower than everything around you.

think about what you just typed very carefully.........how could you just be "moving slower than everything around you" if you're moving at the speed of light? Everything else would have to be moving faster than the speed of light. yeah........me thinks you got time and physical affects of aging confused.

The affects of aging (slower) would be caused by being outside the earth's atmosphere and intense gravitational pull.........moving at the speed of light would facilitate the speed to break any gravitational pull by other objects in our universe. The only mass that would exert a gravitational pull on you would be your ship.......who's mass would be infinite, the same as your own....basically cancelling out any gravitational affect on you. That is why you would age slower physically......but if you left in 2005 and returned in 2015......you would still be gone 10 years. Perhaps the ten years may not seem to be as long to you (having no other objects moving at your speed to compare motion with) but 10 years it would be none the less.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
ala the end of Superman 1 when he flies fast enough to turn the entire earth back in time so he can save Lois Lane.

See, now your using lingo i understand 😉

Your right though, i was confusing physical aging with actual time. Thanks for the exaplanations. You should be a teacher, or atleast a moderator
😄

😕

ummm, yeah.................