Why do you wish WW2 was prolonged 10 years? So another 60 million would die?
If you could go back in time, where would you go?
- Thread starter Megahurtz400
- Start date
Why do you wish WW2 was prolonged 10 years? So another 60 million would die?
Pfft. You're all thinking in such small terms...
I'd go back about 4 Billion years or so, and find a pool where the first amino acids or single-celled organisms were developing ('primordial soup'). Then I'd drop my kecks and curl out a number two into it. The plethora of bacteria in my stool should give a kickstart to evolution, probably giving it a head start of a Billion years or so. Then, I'd get back into the time machine, head back forwards, and see what civilisations had arisen from the contents of my arse
As their creator, I would then have these civilisations declare me their God
I'd go back about 4 Billion years or so, and find a pool where the first amino acids or single-celled organisms were developing ('primordial soup'). Then I'd drop my kecks and curl out a number two into it. The plethora of bacteria in my stool should give a kickstart to evolution, probably giving it a head start of a Billion years or so. Then, I'd get back into the time machine, head back forwards, and see what civilisations had arisen from the contents of my arse
As their creator, I would then have these civilisations declare me their God
Pfft. You're all thinking in such small terms...
I'd go back about 4 Billion years or so, and find a pool where the first amino acids or single-celled organisms were developing ('primordial soup'). Then I'd drop my kecks and curl out a number two into it. The plethora of bacteria in my stool should give a kickstart to evolution, probably giving it a head start of a Billion years or so. Then, I'd get back into the time machine, head back forwards, and see what civilisations had arisen from the contents of my arse
As their creator, I would then have these civilisations declare me their God
That seem like a good Idea... although I'd knock one out in there.... that'd make me the daddy!
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Because it would be fun
Singly handedly platinum? How
When you have a time machine, things become pretty easy
I always wonder about this, what if 2 time machines are switched one say 2 days apart, which one takes priority? Time is said to be relative to the observer so if 2 time travellers enter their time machines at the same time and visit the same place but at 2 different time eras then what change takes priority if both of them make a change? Surely logically the changes would have to spawn off different time lines to continue that relative change and the future that the time travellers came from remains as is for them?
This should make Time Travelling impossible
Actually, quantum mechanics does not preclude the possibility of time travel, but if it can exist there are only two possibilities.
1: Everything that has happened will happen; i.e. it's possible to go backwards, but any changes you make must neccesarily have been already accounted for. This pretty much blows the concept of 'free will' out of the water. IF time travel is possible, and the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, this appears to be the only viable outcome.
2: The Universe is constantly branching into a near-infinite number of possible alternative Universes which exist in parallel. Yes, this sounds like a bad science fiction plot, but it's actually the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which was first introduced by Hugh Everett in 1957, and is taken very seriously by leading physicists today. Anyway, in this interpretation you could go back and change whatever you like, and then go forwards to watch how the changes affect the world. The Universe you came from would be unaffected, and you would simply disappear from it. It would be impossible to return.
Anyway, to answer your question about two time machines... If option 1 is correct, then all effects resulting from the use of the two time machines (or three or ten million) would have already been taken into account. If option 2 is correct, then there will be NO apparent affect on the "current" Universe as experienced by everyone else except the person(s) who went through it, who would be able to see the changes made by their trip back in time. To everyone else the time traveller would simply disappear.
I love the idea of time travel
I hope it's at least theoretically possible, and while I don't expect that anyone will create a time machine in my lifetime, I'd love (at least) for theoretical physics to evolve to the point where we can figure out HOW it would work (i.e. 1 or 2 from above), or even if it's possible at all.
Last edited:
He doesn't. He just wants everyone to think he's "all hardcore and that". Quite sad really.
Does anyone have a copy of that cartoon handy?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
He doesn't. He just wants everyone to think he's "all hardcore and that". Quite sad really.
Does anyone have a copy of that cartoon handy?
dont be a moron
next time read
Your response to the question of why you would want to help Hitler, prolong a war by ten years and annihilate mankind was "because it would be fun", and I'm the moron?
You're so transparent, platinum, that it's almost laughable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
It would be a game, if it doesnt affect the present, then its no different than me playing HEARTS OF IRON 3 (which is a great game btw)
Quote me where i said i wanted to annihilate mankind, or remove it from your post
Ten years of nuclear war wouldn't annihilate mankind?
Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that you were simply going for "shock value" by explicitly saying that would "help Hitler". You expect that people, if they were sufficiently gullible, would think "ooh, that guy is eeevil if he wants to help Hitler! He must be a hard case!" or whatever else it is that goes through your mind.
The odd comment wouldn't be out of place, but I think that about 95% of the posts you've made here have been made with this same intention. You must think we're stupid if you think we don't all see through it. Why do you think that cartoon is so popular?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
Ten years of nuclear war wouldn't annihilate mankind?
? Now your just randomly making stuff up like i said it, i dont know what you are even talking about any more
Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that you were simply going for "shock value" by explicitly saying that would "help Hitler". You expect that people, if they were sufficiently gullible, would think "ooh, that guy is eeevil if he wants to help Hitler! He must be a hard case!" or whatever else it is that goes through your mind.
The off comment wouldn't be out of place, but I think that about 95% of the posts you've made here have been made with this same intention. You must think we're stupid if you think we don't all see through it. Why do you think that cartoon is so popular?
Thats what you think, I know what i think, not what you randomly say i have just said!
Edit: I think your all stupid if you can see through "it" which doesnt exist in the first place..
Do i still have the time machine or what?
Last edited:
It's not rocket science.
The US created nuclear weapons in mid-1945. If you're going to extend the war by ten years you will have ten years of nuclear warfare
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,581
- Location
- London
It's not rocket science.
The US created nuclear weapons in mid-1945. If you're going to extend the war by ten years you will have ten years of nuclear warfare
Time travel is too complicated, there is nothing to say they would even create a nuclear bomb in 1945 if you just go back to mid 1945