Monday, April 21, 2014
Time Travel And "The City On The Edge Of Forever?"
Please write a critique of The City On The Edge Of Forever using the Traveling Through Time and/or Carl Sagan Ponders Time Travel
articles. Challenge at least one idea within your notes that the
article seems to debunk or challenge. Please defend your response and
use quotations to support. This blog response is due the day we finish
viewing the film.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The articles and Star Trek episode, argue that time is a continuum that means the present and future is effected by its past. Much like a butterfly effect, the smallest changes of the past has the capacity to completely alter the present. Although humans are the ones who label time... whether it be a year, month, or hour, time still remains to be one chronological stretch. This means that it is possible to travel forwards and backwards other than just by a minute or day, but for people travel faster or slower through space, while everything around it is changing at a different pace.
ReplyDeleteIn the articles, star trek episodes argue that in time as a continuum that kinda means that the present and the future is affected by the past.
ReplyDeleteThe one issue i see with the story is the man the got beamed with Docs communicator. He couldn't get beamed because the technology wasn't even invented yet. The communicator should of done nothing, because it has nothing to communicate with.
ReplyDeletethe face that 3 people could travel through a time portal and be perfectly fine. I think that the molecules in their bodies would at least be affected because your traveling back in time. I believe that it's unrealistic to have these people come back perfectly fine and healthy. if they would have made some more health problems then I think it would make more sense than it already does.
ReplyDeleteTime travel seems possible, it maybe be hard to understand or believe but there has to be some way to travel in time such as a black hole or something man mad
ReplyDeleteThe Star Trek episode, and the article quoting Carl Sagan both present the issue of the grandfather paradox. If we are to perfect time travel to the past there is the significant possibility that we may ruin something that led to our current existence. I think that this is very interesting and it hasn't been something I consider when I think about time travel. I personally feel that time travel to the past is not something that should be pursued because of this reason. There are too many unforeseen consequences to the possibility of time travel as the Star Trek episode showed. There is the possibility of one person throwing off the entire path of history as we know it and millions of people would suffer the consequences for the rest of time. The power is too great for any person to hold and there are too many unknown variables for time travel to be safe for history and humanity.
ReplyDeleteThe episode of Star Trek and the articles both talk of the butterfly effect where even the littlest change in time travel can alter the future like killing a butterfly. The articles seem to debunk this because the odds of killing one butterfly are not likely to change events in the future because there are so many of them that one wouldn't matter unless it was the last of its species.
ReplyDeleteThe most obvious unrealistic idea from the Star Trek episode it the idea that a being, on a foreign planet possesses the ability to make beings travel in time. If time travel were to ever become possible it would happen through modern science (the most common theory is going forward by traveling the speed of light). One topic that the Star Trek episode and the Carl Sagan article disagree on is the idea of traveling backwards in time. In City on the Edge of Forever, Captain Kirk and Spock travel from the future into the past to rescue McCoy. In the article, Carl Sagan says, "It might be possible that you can build a machine to go into the future, but not into the past." While the idea of time travel is already fairly far-fetched, the article makes a better case for it then Star Trek did.
ReplyDeleteThe "Star Trek" episode and the Carl Sagan article are both very mind boggling when it compares time travel. Star Trek gives the idea that when some one goes back in time and they mess with something in the past, that another could go before them and redo the past. Carl Sagan's response to the possibility relates to the movie because he says that if time travel were ever possible it would become an experiment of what we could do to change our present. ""For one thing, history would become an experimental science, which it certainly isn't today." That is definitely a topic I think differs between film and response, Mr. Sagan is interested in experimenting with history, Spok and the Captain want to restore history and return to their time.
ReplyDeleteIf we were to time travel could we actually affect the out play of history?
ReplyDeleteThe City on the Edge of Forever states a point that time travel is totally possible, jumping forward and backward. It also states that the "butterfly effect" is totally possible, like if Kirk saves Edith, the Nazis will win WWII. The fact that one person can govern millions of people will die if one person lives is an unimaginative thought.
ReplyDelete"The City On the Edge of Forever" and the articles hold conflicting ideas in that the episode conveys the ability to travel through time with the help of a talking rock while the articles, though supportive of the time travel theory, convey that time travel would be considerably difficult considering that we are "stuck" in time. In the episode, the time travelers use a fairly simple( albeit very far-fetched) method time travel. It is not described in full detail how the rock holds the ability to transport others and how the time travelers were able to get back to their original time zone. The articles were very specific and concluded indirectly that the Star Trek time travel would be impossible.
ReplyDeleteIn the film, "The City on the edge of forever" it shows how time travel could/might be very dangerous to do because it ripples into time, changing history and all that has happened in it. One mistake or one thing out of place, it could change the future forever and have a huge impact on it, either good or bad.
ReplyDeleteIn the article he debates whether backwards time travel is possible, but before he mentions that light speed is how to travel into the future so since light speed is a measure of distance, and there is no such thing as negative distance, then by looking at those facts he answered his own question. no backwards time travel is not possible
ReplyDeleteThe articles and the Star Trek episode discuss that time is conducted by the past. Everything that happens now and in the future is because if the past. Carl Sagen says that because we can't we travel close to the speed of light we can't time travel. But I believe that it doesn't have to do with speed of travel. In Star Trek they were gone in the future for moments even though they were in the past for days. I don't believe that has todo with speed but with the way we trick travel time.
ReplyDeleteIn the film the city on the edge of forever they travel backwards in time to try and save their past. Although time travel isn't impossible you never know if we might one day create a machine to do it. But traveling backwards in time is still pondered on how it can be done. So the one problem with the story is that we cant at this point go back in time.
ReplyDeletein the star trek episodes, and articles that we read it argues that everything we do effects our future, we our constently affected by the past. The future becomes more extreme or distinct.
ReplyDelete