V8TOYTRUCK
Flashlight Enthusiast
Go see it! this tops the other Terminator movies and to me is the best action movie of the summer. Actually, it might be the best action movie ever!
T3 = Awesome
- Thread starter V8TOYTRUCK
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
FC.
Flashlight Enthusiast
WaltH
Enlightened
That's one nice looking truck!
Rothrandir
Flashaholic
i wanted to go see it last night, but couldn't /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif
maybe friday....are the theaters open on the 4th?
maybe friday....are the theaters open on the 4th?
Screehopper
Enlightened
[ QUOTE ]
MenaceSQL said:
Anyways, Tundra's are cool and I bet it's gonna be a cool movie. I wanna see how that upcoming T3 Edition Tundra looks like. Can't wait.
[/ QUOTE ]
I saw the T3 Tundra at the LA Auto Show back in January 2003. Too bad it isn't available in a manual transmission. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif
In other countries you can get Land Cruisers and Tundra variants in a manual transmission. But noooooo, it's not available in the US.
MenaceSQL said:
Anyways, Tundra's are cool and I bet it's gonna be a cool movie. I wanna see how that upcoming T3 Edition Tundra looks like. Can't wait.
[/ QUOTE ]
I saw the T3 Tundra at the LA Auto Show back in January 2003. Too bad it isn't available in a manual transmission. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsdown.gif
In other countries you can get Land Cruisers and Tundra variants in a manual transmission. But noooooo, it's not available in the US.
LEDagent
Flashlight Enthusiast
Was it really that good? I thought it wouldn't come close to T2...which i thought was the best movie ever! Now i really want to see T3!
V8TOYTRUCK
Flashlight Enthusiast
LED Agent, that is exactly what I said to my friend. I also thought T2 was awesome. T3 is really that good.
shrap
Enlightened
I still think both T1 and T2 are better than T3. T3 strayed too far from the formula.
Rothrandir
Flashaholic
what bothers me...
is that none of this is possible!
the hole movie plot time-travel thing contradicts itself...
is that none of this is possible!
the hole movie plot time-travel thing contradicts itself...
Thanks Roth for adding something that might make this thread interesting (speaking only for myself). It's not that the thread isn't of interest, it just doesn't spark mine. Discussions of time travel though, great! A thread of its own would be interesting. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif
Rothrandir
Flashaholic
well...it's just a giant loop(plot?)hole!
i admittedly no very little on the real subject, but from the whole "how can you unhappen something that happened, because once you unhappen it, how do you know that it happened in order to unhappen it?"
i admittedly no very little on the real subject, but from the whole "how can you unhappen something that happened, because once you unhappen it, how do you know that it happened in order to unhappen it?"
Graham
Flashlight Enthusiast
It's called a paradox, and is what all the arguments about time travel are based on. Some say that time travel must be impossible for the simple reason that if it was possible, someone would have already come back in time and told us about it... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
One of the arguments, though, is based on the assumptions of an infinite number of parallel universes, where different decisions and outcomes cause different timelines.
Like, say, the parallel universe where DavidW never created CPF, and many of us live our lives in ignorance, thinking about how great Maglites are... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Graham
One of the arguments, though, is based on the assumptions of an infinite number of parallel universes, where different decisions and outcomes cause different timelines.
Like, say, the parallel universe where DavidW never created CPF, and many of us live our lives in ignorance, thinking about how great Maglites are... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Graham
NightStorm
Flashlight Enthusiast
First, let me state that I have thoroughly have enjoyed T1 and T2 and look forward to seeing this one early next week. While I know that over analyzing movies of this genre generally detracts from their enjoyment, I have never been able to get completely past the temporal paradox presented in T2. If John and Sarah Conner were able to prevent the construction of Skynet, then the chain of events that lead to Reese's time travel, Sarah's impregnation by Reese, John's birth and the creation of the Terminators (and their subsequent time travel) would never occur and this would lead to the construction of Skynet, anyway. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif Crud....I just gave myself a headache.
Dan
Dan
MichiganMan
Enlightened
Here Empath, see if this grabs you.
Time travel doesn't appear to be an option for us because we are four dimensional beings, we only exist in the four dimensions of space/time: 1:up&down 2:right&left, 3:depth (aka 3D) and 4:Time. ie. You can't truly identify a position of something without includine when along with the x,y, and z coordinates. (and then there's also "Speed," and the annoying Uncertainty Principle but I can barely spell it correctly much less coherently regurgitate it)
SO, imagine a 2 dimensional being, a stick figure man on a sheet of paper, however since the he is only 2 dimensional the sheet (and our stick figure) actually has no depth. The sheet is only used as an aid to help you picture it. Our stick figure can only go right and left, or up and down, not forward. Similarly since his world lacks depth he cannot perceive the world only an inch above his sheet of paper, much less step outside of it since that would require that he suddenly be granted depth.
Similarly we are stuck in our four dimensions as surely as he is limited to his two. Time seems to only flow forward, but since we are part of the 4th dimension we wouldn't notice if it flowed backwards since we would go backward as well. So to travel to a different time we would have to step outside of the timestream or fourth dimension, which we are as unable to do as the stick figure, lacking depth, is able to leave his two dimensions.
This is a concept I saw put forth some time ago. I'm sure someone better versed in the theoretical physics of the whole thing can point out where my already limited understanding has been clouded by time. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Time travel doesn't appear to be an option for us because we are four dimensional beings, we only exist in the four dimensions of space/time: 1:up&down 2:right&left, 3:depth (aka 3D) and 4:Time. ie. You can't truly identify a position of something without includine when along with the x,y, and z coordinates. (and then there's also "Speed," and the annoying Uncertainty Principle but I can barely spell it correctly much less coherently regurgitate it)
SO, imagine a 2 dimensional being, a stick figure man on a sheet of paper, however since the he is only 2 dimensional the sheet (and our stick figure) actually has no depth. The sheet is only used as an aid to help you picture it. Our stick figure can only go right and left, or up and down, not forward. Similarly since his world lacks depth he cannot perceive the world only an inch above his sheet of paper, much less step outside of it since that would require that he suddenly be granted depth.
Similarly we are stuck in our four dimensions as surely as he is limited to his two. Time seems to only flow forward, but since we are part of the 4th dimension we wouldn't notice if it flowed backwards since we would go backward as well. So to travel to a different time we would have to step outside of the timestream or fourth dimension, which we are as unable to do as the stick figure, lacking depth, is able to leave his two dimensions.
This is a concept I saw put forth some time ago. I'm sure someone better versed in the theoretical physics of the whole thing can point out where my already limited understanding has been clouded by time. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
highlandsun
Enlightened
There's another interesting facet from the 2D stick figure: That 2D sheet can rotate around at will through 3 ( or 4, or however many) dimensions, and so the occupants of that 2D universe can actually travel thru 3+ dimensions, but they cannot perceive it. If this stick figure were observing his surroundings while his 2D plane was passing through a 3D sphere, for instance, he'd see a point that expanded and then contracted again with the intersection of the sphere and the plane.
Maybe there are time travelers, or creatures that exist on even more dimensions, but unless they try very hard to restrict their own motion to just our 3 dimensions, they will mostly just breeze through our awareness, the same as the sphere passing thru the 2D plane.
Maybe there are time travelers, or creatures that exist on even more dimensions, but unless they try very hard to restrict their own motion to just our 3 dimensions, they will mostly just breeze through our awareness, the same as the sphere passing thru the 2D plane.
Tomas
Banned
You guys HAVE to read Flatland if you haven't ...
I like the theory that "timetravel" is really the traveling between close parallel universes.
It couples with the theory if each 'cusp' (decision point) creating a branch point - assume that each possible decision was made, and each result is it's own universe (remember, infinite parallel universes). Some, of course, have already ended from poor decisions, etc.
Anyway, travelling back in time and changing something that "already happened" would not be a paradox of the same sort in that you were actually generating a new sheave of universes based on that change, and your presense there.
In the universe you are 'from' you would not be making that change.
So, going back and killing your grandfather would not make you vanish (POOF!) and not create a paradox of the first sort where you could not have done that because as soon as you do you are not present to do it (which would actually simply prevent you from doing the paradoxical thing in the first place and cleans up the problem in another way in another theory).
There is a lot of good theory floating about on various possible scenarios, but one thing in common to most is that a 'future' would not change suddenly if a traveller went back and changed something in the past - that thread is already set, and that change did not happen. The "change" observed by the traveller is at most his switching tracks to one of the futures where that cusp resolved in that manner.
Sort of a "you can never go home again" played out completely.
One other final point, is that in most of these thories it is impossible to tell which one is actually operative, because the "subjective" results are all the same, and the "how" of it can only really be determined by an "outside observer" able to see the entire working of the actions, and by definition in most theories that position is not available ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif
I like the theory that "timetravel" is really the traveling between close parallel universes.
It couples with the theory if each 'cusp' (decision point) creating a branch point - assume that each possible decision was made, and each result is it's own universe (remember, infinite parallel universes). Some, of course, have already ended from poor decisions, etc.
Anyway, travelling back in time and changing something that "already happened" would not be a paradox of the same sort in that you were actually generating a new sheave of universes based on that change, and your presense there.
In the universe you are 'from' you would not be making that change.
So, going back and killing your grandfather would not make you vanish (POOF!) and not create a paradox of the first sort where you could not have done that because as soon as you do you are not present to do it (which would actually simply prevent you from doing the paradoxical thing in the first place and cleans up the problem in another way in another theory).
There is a lot of good theory floating about on various possible scenarios, but one thing in common to most is that a 'future' would not change suddenly if a traveller went back and changed something in the past - that thread is already set, and that change did not happen. The "change" observed by the traveller is at most his switching tracks to one of the futures where that cusp resolved in that manner.
Sort of a "you can never go home again" played out completely.
One other final point, is that in most of these thories it is impossible to tell which one is actually operative, because the "subjective" results are all the same, and the "how" of it can only really be determined by an "outside observer" able to see the entire working of the actions, and by definition in most theories that position is not available ... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
highlandsun
Enlightened
Yeah I first read Flatland in high school, went back to it again once or twice since then.
That's one problem with saying that time is just a 4th dimension, because we really don't have the ability to move forward and backward along its axis as we do in 3-space. Continuing with the 2D plane, we'd have to call it a 3-space too if we consider time as its 3rd dimension. Take any object in either 2D or 3D and rotate and translate it however you wish in its coordinate space. All of its dimensions remain the same, but throughout all of these manipulations its coordinate on the time axis has only moved forward. So even though we are 3D beings, if we encounter a 2D world, we can't just deal with it in a straightforward way, using time as its 3rd dimension. That luxury doesn't exist, no matter how many dimensions we perceive.
The idea of multiple branching decision trees has great appeal to me. It reinforces the idea of free will, but also allows for the concept of "fate" - at any point along the fanout of the tree, you can choose any number of directions. But some choices will take you closer to one destination and much further from others. Eventually, some destinations are unreachable - you'd have to pull a 270 degree turn or something to arrive there. Some outcomes look inevitable, because so many of your choices send you closer to it. That's fate.
That's one problem with saying that time is just a 4th dimension, because we really don't have the ability to move forward and backward along its axis as we do in 3-space. Continuing with the 2D plane, we'd have to call it a 3-space too if we consider time as its 3rd dimension. Take any object in either 2D or 3D and rotate and translate it however you wish in its coordinate space. All of its dimensions remain the same, but throughout all of these manipulations its coordinate on the time axis has only moved forward. So even though we are 3D beings, if we encounter a 2D world, we can't just deal with it in a straightforward way, using time as its 3rd dimension. That luxury doesn't exist, no matter how many dimensions we perceive.
The idea of multiple branching decision trees has great appeal to me. It reinforces the idea of free will, but also allows for the concept of "fate" - at any point along the fanout of the tree, you can choose any number of directions. But some choices will take you closer to one destination and much further from others. Eventually, some destinations are unreachable - you'd have to pull a 270 degree turn or something to arrive there. Some outcomes look inevitable, because so many of your choices send you closer to it. That's fate.
