Who beat Frieza on Earth in Future Trunks' timeline?

Discussion, generally of an in-universe nature, regarding any aspect of the franchise (including movies, spin-offs, etc.) such as: techniques, character relationships, internal back-history, its universe, and more.

Moderators: Kanzenshuu Staff, General Help

User avatar
Bussani
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 8041
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:35 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Who beat Freeza on Earth in Future Trunks' timeline?

Post by Bussani » Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:42 am

p123 wrote:That's why for this situation I think it's best to just take the manga implications as is... It's implied that Goku used IT to beat Freeza in Trunks timeline, why not just take it. Easiest way. The hypotheticals are fun, but the likelihood of this being true is very high, I mean the author hints at this being the answer does he not.
I do think that's what's implied, yeah.
And Trunks does imply perhaps that Cell arriving here is what has changed the timeline, although we may disagree with the logics behind it, it is what the author implys is it not, since he has a character suggests this approach and not one of our theories I would find what Trunks is suggesting to be the most likely in the manga...
Olivier might not be with me on this one, but I'm kind of okay with this... If it's what the author had in mind, then that's that, really. I'm just saying that it doesn't really make sense, but that's Dragon Ball for you.
Anyway, back to the fun stuff. I liked the stuff they did on the time travel to the past on the Morgan Freeman science show. What's that called again...
Through the Wormhole? I've never seen it, but that stars Morgan Freeman and sounds right.
I like the POV that traveling to the past would be an impossibility. Something that has happened has happened, it's time has come and gone already. Even though time isn't a real thing as well. The issue with time is perhaps the most interesting. Something of the sort as the two varying perspectives of someone who is going through a black hole while the other is observing from a distance... The one going through the black hole would feel the immediate feel of gravity and disappear/die rather quickly... Meanwhile, the observer would watch the person falling into the black hole for an eternity, the person would never fall in or it would take a ridicolously long time due to the effects gravity has on light and yea the rest of the stuff was pretty much beyond me. Or at least beyond my recollection...
That sounds more or less right.
Traveling to the future on the other hand, is totally possible. Something of the sort that we actually do that on a day to day basis. The earth seems to squish up at times throughout the day and this change in gravity alters how time is perceived. Which could help explain why sometimes 2 or 4 minutes seems to go so fast and why at other times goes so slow...But anyway, if you travel around the Earth just outside the atmosphere and hit certain speeds in the spaceship the time on your body would be less than the time for someone on Earth.. Which is amazing stuff...
I'm not sure about the thing about Earth squishing up, and the important thing to remember is that gravity and velocity can't affect how you personally experience time. A tick on your clock will always be the same for you, but you may see other distant clocks moving at different speeds. The real reason (or one of the real reasons) time sometimes seems to take longer for you is that the human brain measures time using interesting events it experiences; if you go hours without doing anything, time seems to drag.

It is true that time moves at different rates in different parts of the universe, though. Gravity causes a time dilation, so clocks at low altitudes (closer to the center of the Earth) will tick slower than clocks at a high altitude. It's a very minor difference in the case of Earth, but you can at least imagine a scenario where you have a person living at a high altitude and their identical twin living at a low altitude, leading to the low altitude twin aging ever so slightly slower. Similarly, a person who travels close to the speed of light will end up younger than their twin at home who didn't, even though as far as both of them are concerned, time was moving normally. It's similar to the difference in time experienced by someone inside the Room of Spirit and Time and someone outside it, if you think about it.

That was me trying to make this relevant to Dragon Ball...
On the time travel past, another option was creating a huge pole throughout the universe that had something that can wing you inside the loop of time. Can't really go into detail here it was a while back, but they said it was technically possible judged by their approach, but the pole would have to be as big as the universe, which would be an impossibility..
There are tons of theories, but it's generally thought to be impossible. Like you said before, the past has already happened. If time travel to the past is possible, Dragon Ball's approach (similar to the many-worlds interpretation in quantum physics) is actually the one that would make the most sense, at least as far as we as humans can imagine it.
Was some amazing stuff...
I recommend another similar one called Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking.
If TPP passes in your country it will be illegal for you to watch an imported DVD. Click here to learn more!

p123
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1358
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:34 am

Re: Who beat Freeza on Earth in Future Trunks' timeline?

Post by p123 » Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:56 am

Bussani wrote:I'm not sure about the thing about Earth squishing up, and the important thing to remember is that gravity and velocity can't affect how you personally experience time. A tick on your clock will always be the same for you, but you may see other distant clocks moving at different speeds. The real reason (or one of the real reasons) time sometimes seems to take longer for you is that the human brain measures time using interesting events it experiences; if you go hours without doing anything, time seems to drag.

No I meant that person A is aging slower than person B due to gravity influecing time.. It sounds crazy doesn't it? Since time isn't real in all reality.. But, on that show for that episode it does... Now I'm talking about nanoseconds here, and perhaps the feeling of time was a bit overstated by me as in hey those two minutes went fast! Maybe not to that extent, although something of that matter was mentioned I forget how exactly it was potrayed..


But this is just the same thing as a guy going in a ship with massive g forces or whatnot... If you travel at certains speeds time moves slower for you than for others, and I'm talking aging process wise as well... Which is where the whole point of flying real fast outside of the earth without gravity influences would allow you to age 10 years and have earth age 100 years or so. This issue with the earth squishing up in just on a much much smaller scale..

From this theory or POV or whatever, it makes life/time seem like such a game doesn't it? I mean at our stage of evolution we are only able to manipulate by nanoseconds and what not, which mean nothing, but eventually when we can manipulate things by minutes hours years, it can get real interesting, and makes life almost a joke. Imagine if you could just perhaps say hey I'm going to deposit my check into a bank and let the interest accumulate for say 1,000 years come back and be rich as eff! Lol... One could plausible do that regarding todays theories about stuff like that..Now obviously there would be obstacles if the bank was still in business , hell is humanity was still in charge, around etc... But things like that being possible or at least possibly possible are incredibly fascinating...

Reminds me of that twilight zone episode where they do that to an astronaut and he chooses he rather age than stay young and have to live life without knowing anyone, only to find out that his love actually was able to stay young and he when he returned realized the faults of his ways...

Olivier Hague
I Live Here
Posts: 2171
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:09 pm

Re: Who beat Freeza on Earth in Future Trunks' timeline?

Post by Olivier Hague » Sun Dec 26, 2010 6:33 am

p123 wrote:time isn't real in all reality..
?
this is just the same thing as a guy going in a ship with massive g forces or whatnot... If you travel at certains speeds time moves slower for you than for others, and I'm talking aging process wise as well... Which is where the whole point of flying real fast outside of the earth without gravity influences would allow you to age 10 years and have earth age 100 years or so.
While it's true that gravity has an effect, the reason those scenarios involve ships in outer space is simply that near-light speed travel would be somewhat... impractical on our planet.
(also, "massive g-forces" would be pretty bad news for the passengers, really...)

p123
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1358
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:34 am

Re: Who beat Freeza on Earth in Future Trunks' timeline?

Post by p123 » Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:07 pm

Olivier Hague wrote:?

There's no such thing as time. It's a popular POV in the scientific community. Never heard?

Olivier Hague wrote:While it's true that gravity has an effect, the reason those scenarios involve ships in outer space is simply that near-light speed travel would be somewhat... impractical on our planet.
(also, "massive g-forces" would be pretty bad news for the passengers, really...)


I don't think near light speed was neccessary for that to be possible... We would have to display probably 10-20x the speed that we possess now if I recall correctly. But of course, near light speed would make the issue a hell of a lot easier...

Maybe I can try to find that episode and post some of the stuff. They were saying if we use the speed we have now and travel around Earth, we could cause less aging on the ship than on Earth. It wasn't by all that much, but the change was already starting using our low level of technology..

Olivier Hague
I Live Here
Posts: 2171
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:09 pm

Re: Who beat Freeza on Earth in Future Trunks' timeline?

Post by Olivier Hague » Sun Dec 26, 2010 3:27 pm

p123 wrote:There's no such thing as time. It's a popular POV in the scientific community. Never heard?
I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it sound, really...
I don't think near light speed was neccessary for that to be possible... We would have to display probably 10-20x the speed that we possess now if I recall correctly.
There's no "time barrier" to break or anything. The greater the speed, the more obvious the results, that's all. Hence the near-light speed scenarios.

p123
Advanced Regular
Posts: 1358
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 2:34 am

Re: Who beat Freeza on Earth in Future Trunks' timeline?

Post by p123 » Sun Dec 26, 2010 4:05 pm

Olivier Hague wrote:I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it sound, really...

Well of course not. I just put out the POV, if your unfamiliar with that logic then I can see how you could misunderstand.. The theory has a lot of popularity behind it, Einstein has a popular saying and there are many popular saying about it. Every heard of the son of the watchmaker that heard of Einsteins' POV on time and immeditaley quit making watches? It's pretty popular POV didn't know I would have to explain it I'm sure you have at least heard about it..

Olivier Hague wrote:There's no "time barrier" to break or anything. The greater the speed, the more obvious the results, that's all. Hence the near-light speed scenarios

The point is, you wouldn't need near light speed to accomplish the differing aging process. It is something that we will be quite capable of in the near future. You appear to make it out as this impossible thing, when it's really not, and will be within our grasp quite soon..

Olivier Hague
I Live Here
Posts: 2171
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:09 pm

Re: Who beat Freeza on Earth in Future Trunks' timeline?

Post by Olivier Hague » Sun Dec 26, 2010 4:35 pm

p123 wrote:if your unfamiliar with that logic then I can see how you could misunderstand.. The theory has a lot of popularity behind it, Einstein has a popular saying and there are many popular saying about it. Every heard of the son of the watchmaker that heard of Einsteins' POV on time and immeditaley quit making watches? It's pretty popular POV didn't know I would have to explain it I'm sure you have at least heard about it..
I would certainly like you to post some sources about the scientific community agreeing that there's no such thing as "time"... That should be interesting...
Olivier Hague wrote:There's no "time barrier" to break or anything. The greater the speed, the more obvious the results, that's all. Hence the near-light speed scenarios
The point is, you wouldn't need near light speed to accomplish the differing aging process. It is something that we will be quite capable of in the near future.
No, the point is, we've always been capable of that. You only need speed. Any speed. But if you want significant results (on a human scale, I mean), you're going to need terrifying speeds, hence the near-light speed scenarios.
I'm not sure how I could make it clearer than that, really.

User avatar
Bussani
Kicks it Old-School
Posts: 8041
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 2:35 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Who beat Freeza on Earth in Future Trunks' timeline?

Post by Bussani » Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:28 pm

p123 wrote:Every heard of the son of the watchmaker that heard of Einsteins' POV on time and immeditaley quit making watches?
I think what you're thinking of is how relativity tells us there's no such thing as absolute time. This is simply because time passes differently in different places at different speeds, as you already understand. It isn't that time doesn't exist--it's that it isn't static.
The point is, you wouldn't need near light speed to accomplish the differing aging process. It is something that we will be quite capable of in the near future. You appear to make it out as this impossible thing, when it's really not, and will be within our grasp quite soon..
What Olivier's saying is that the difference in time experienced/aging process happens at any difference in speed. A person in a fast moving train is "aging less" than a person standing at the station it's going past. It's just ridiculously small. The effect becomes exponentially greater as you get closer to the speed of light. Which means...doubling you velocity at low speeds won't change the time dilation effect much at all, but doubling your speed closer to the speed of light increases the time dilation by a lot.
This issue with the earth squishing up in just on a much much smaller scale..
What I meant in my previous post was that I didn't know what you meant by the Earth "squishing up".
If TPP passes in your country it will be illegal for you to watch an imported DVD. Click here to learn more!

Olivier Hague
I Live Here
Posts: 2171
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:09 pm

Re: Who beat Freeza on Earth in Future Trunks' timeline?

Post by Olivier Hague » Sun Dec 26, 2010 9:37 pm

Bussani wrote:What Olivier's saying is that the difference in time experienced/aging process happens at any difference in speed. A person in a fast moving train is "aging less" than a person standing at the station it's going past. It's just ridiculously small.
Yup, you'd need to go at at least one tenth of the speed of light for the time dilation to become somewhat relevant. I'm not sure what p123 is referring to when he says that such speeds -over 30 000 km/s- would be "within our grasp quite soon", considering our current record for a manned vehicle is 11 km/s...

Post Reply