Time Travellers are real? or were in 1928...

[ssgt splatter]

Huh. Very interesting.

 

[randomsix]

The guy's just scratching his ear.

 

[Terramax]

She's not holding anything. The black between her face and hand is her hand's shadow.

She's putting her hand to her face because she's camera shy.

 

[Wedlock49]

welcome to Viral Marketing 101.

jesus, am I seriously the only person who reconises this for what it is? The Director is trying to get his name out there so he's found an obscure clip of a woman walking and talking and then only shows said clip after name dropping himself and his work and then advertising the Charlie Chaplin box set.

EDIT:

Also, Chaplin is a comedian, for all you know he pretdicted that phones would eventually become portable and held devices and so he put that into there to fuck with peoples heads when they saw his work later on.

 

[SinisterGehe]

99,99...% (calculate the change it being something else) change that the woman is using...
http://hearing.siemens.com/sg/10-about-us/01-our-history/milestones.jsp?year=1924

She couldn't be talking to Phone because there was no Antennas, grid or satellites. And have you ever tried to get a walkie-talkie to work while being surrounded be heavy stone buildings...

 

[BrownGaijin]

I think it's more strange that I saw this video last night before going to this thread this morning...

Also aren't most people right handed? Isn't that her left?

 

[Canid117]

By any chance, was it the premier of Modern Times? (That being, of course, the Chaplin film on modernization and so forth.) Because if it WAS...and they had a guy walking around with a thing that was meant to seem like a phone that would operate cordlessly...then it could have been deliberate.

Nope, take a look at the article, people are baffled buy it, cynics have been looking at the video and cannot find an explanation other than"time traveller"

Those aren't cynics those are conspiracy theorists. There is more than one reason to hold your hand to your face. People know that right?

 

[interspark]

How would a mobile phone work before all the cell towers were built?
She was probably just a crazy person talking into her wallet, or something.

unless she was talking to someone from her own time!! the phone could make audio contact between the user and another at a pre-input time, and then runs both timelines parralel to each other so that the conversation goes at the same speed on both ends of the phone!!! of course no two people should ever use such a phone at any one time because that would put strain on the fabric of the space-time continuum. as it happens she was probably just telling her spouse that she would be home late

 

[interspark]

Also aren't most people right handed? Isn't that her left?

i hardly thing that's such a jaw-dropper, i think it's more than 1 in 10 people are left-handed so it's hardly unheard of

 

[Ranooth]

Love how im reading this while watching Back to the Future

She could be talking into a bar of soap, it was the in thing back then i believe.

 

[Nannernade]

I'm not seeing any proof of a cell phone, sure it is the gesture of holding a phone that we are all used to seeing every day but there isn't enough evidence in the video to say that it is a cell phone.

 

[Krion_Vark]

By any chance, was it the premier of Modern Times? (That being, of course, the Chaplin film on modernization and so forth.) Because if it WAS...and they had a guy walking around with a thing that was meant to seem like a phone that would operate cordlessly...then it could have been deliberate.

Look in the background towards the beginning and you see its for the Movie Charlie Chaplin at the Circus.

 

[esperandote]

No cellphone towers, no cellphone.

 

[Buizel91]

No cellphone towers, no cellphone.

Then explain Rose Tyler...

 

[zfactor]

No you wouldn't have failed.
Either you explained it too poorly or you failed to take into the accounts of alternate dimensions.

To put it simply, here are 3 timelines;

In Timeline 1; We defeated the Nazis, the nuclear deterence were in place and we are as we are today.
In Timeline 2; The Nazis won, the cold war never happened.
In Timeline 3; The Nazis gave up after Hitler was assassinated, the cold war resulted in Russia and America being bombed away, and the rest of the world cooping.

Infintive possibilities and uncountable events.

Heck, in some timeline the holocaust possible never happened. And in another, Nazis went to live on the Moon and another, the meteor that carried our genetics went to Venus instead than Earth so now we're really all crablike sentinent heatresistant spacebugs from Metroid (Space Pirates) instead!

Well, I said earlier that I don't believe in alternate dimensions because time is one-dimensional. There would be no way to get there because doing so requires two dimensions, and there is only one for time.

But I've apparently already pissed off all the quantinum physisists here, so I'll just go with "Time travel requires negative t, currently unattainable, maybe if you go at the speed of light (or fuck with gravity to make the speed of light less, therefore easier to exceed)." Feel free to argue with my theory, but I've already posted twenty variations of it, and I think it is pretty good. So that means I will probably ignore all of you because it's the internet and I can.

 

[Koganesaga]

To assume it's a time traveller is foolish. Granted nothing is technically 100% impossible, just extremely unlikely.

My theory is it's just someone with an itchy ear and they're muttering profanities about it.

 

[zfactor]

That wasn't my point though. I was just pointing out the Stephen Hawking argument with a tiny twist. If time travel is possible, why haven't we been flooded with time travellers trying to stop the major catastrophes in history?

I just attempted to point out that travelling back in time would create huge paradoxes like that. Unless of course we assume that timelines can branch off, but then we wouldn't be able to see the lady with the cellphone in this timeline in any case.

OT: I'm going with the hearing aid.

Yeah, timelines don't branch off (see above post...), and I was saying it is impossible to change anything because of the linearity of time. What happend happened, you were already there to try to stop it and failed because it happened.

A strange theory, I know. But it's off to class, so you will have to be confused on you own.

Do you really, conclusively know that timelines don't branch off?

Spoiler: Here's an interesting video:

Well, I suppose the only way to know about branching timelines is to time travel. So I think there are no alternate timelines, but nobody can prove it either way...

 

[FakingVanity]

She could just be scratching her head? Playing with her hair/hat? Or just plain crazy?

The thing is, the more it zooms in on her the more it doesn't look like a mobile phone and it just looks like distortion of her middle and index fingers...

A mobile phone I did not see.
Thus a time-traveller I did not see.

Unless she's using a Codec...

*presses select to recieve call*

Gotta take this, excuse me...

[Posted on behalf of Archemetis]

 

[zfactor]

I don't think approaching c would cause a mass increase... But if you could exceed it (which is what this thread is about) t would reverse.

Yet, space itself can travel faster than light (according to an outside observer). This is because it may be impossible to travel faster than light locally (velocity = c), it is possible to make space velocity > c. (Your local v would be 0, the space you are in would move really fast, but seem to be still...) This is the priciple of the warp drive (yes, Star Trek) and the reason nobody is effected by inertia (if you jumped to lightspeed, wouldn't you get flung bakcwards?)

But blargh, I've got a class to get to soon...

acctually it does.
that is why traveling faster then light is impossible under general relitivity.

at the Speed of Light, Light itself has mass.

FTL travel is some what paradoxical in itself as at the speed of light energy itself has mass. so trying to accelerate yourself faster by simply putting more energy into pushing you only gets you to have a higher mass.

Then don't use your energy to propel yourself. Use gravity or some external force acting on everything; it's still energy, but it is not your energy, so would that add to your mass? Still, that seems to be the answer to the energy-mass problem, just don't use energy, use space itself or something...

Yeah, kinda fucked up and currently impossible, but I'm just thinking and typing...