I fantasize about taking my Xbox 360 to the 1980s and seeing people's reactions

Man ive always had this thing about traveling back in time, i think about it all the time when im bored at work.. Its just so awesome to think if you could take your PS3,Xbox 360 and the Iphone, get in a delorean and go back to say 1985 or 1988 when the NES first came out, go to a high school or college and ask a group of kids if they would like to see the future. I would then plug in the xbox 360 and put in a game like Gears of war 2 or MW2 and see what their reactions would be..

I would also love to show them the iphone, now grant it you couldnt use the phone features of the Iphone in the 80s due to no towers but just to see people's reactions on the apps and just the face its a touch screen phone.. Its just so fascinating to think about it.. Or how about when VHS where like $80.00 to buy in the 80s because they where so rare, and taking some blu ray movies and DVDs to the 80s and seeing the reactions.. Man i could go on forever, it would be so awesome.

imagine the kind of technology we'd have right now if scientists back then got their hands on a 360

would the tvs have the proper inputs?Dman0017

Horrifying technology is developed from your 21st century junk, video games are viewed only as evil, and humanity ends up wiping itself out.

I'd rather take my computer back to 1808.

would the tvs have the proper inputs?Dman0017

I'd rather take my computer back to 1808.

vaultboy_ninja

Suck on this Super computers of the 1980s :P.

Haha I imagine taking a PSP back with Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy 7 just as they were being released for PS1 I would've been the coolest kid in school :) and I could also pass it off as my own and make millions :O

Imagine taking technology back farther in to the past than that...

Nintendo DSi in the 14th century? Ftw.

Imagine taking technology back farther in to the past than that...

Nintendo DSi in the 14th century? Ftw.

Obliabo

BURN THE WITCH!

[QUOTE="Obliabo"]

Imagine taking technology back farther in to the past than that...

Nintendo DSi in the 14th century? Ftw.

BURN THE WITCH!

Its just so awesome to think if you could take your PS3,Xbox 360 and the Iphone, get in a delorean and go back to say 1985 or 1988 when the NES first came out, go to a high school or college and ask a group of kids if they would like to see the future. I would then plug in the xbox 360 and put in a game like Gears of war 2 or MW2 and see what their reactions would be..Kennysolidsnake

Oh my, I think about this all the time.

Would it mean that gfx were better today, 'cause people had seen what they were working towards, and tried to improve?

Hmmmm.

I must admit, I've has similar thoughts >__> But I also thought about the consequences.... Would doing so destroy the current timeline (therefore you would disappear a la Back to the Future) or would it branch off into it's own timeline? I'd like to think the latter. What am I saying here? [QUOTE="Dman0017"]would the tvs have the proper inputs?martialbullet

Totally off-topic, but I've always hated the "Back to the Future" time travel rules wherein it is possible to destroy the universe by going back in time and causing a time paradox. For starters, if it's possible to go back in time, then someone SOMEWHERE has probably gone back in time LONG before you did. If WE can do it, then there's probably some alien race in a distant galaxy that has developed time travel long before we did.

So...why hasn't the universe ended in a cataclysmic paradoxical ****storm of the very nature of causality being violated, with nothing making sense?

Answer: Because time travel to the past is likely impossible. Either that, or time travel to the past IS possible, but it's just impossible to cause a temporal paradox. I like to think of the universe making sense. The universe LIKES to make sense. The notion that the universe makes sense is probably the single most important assumption of scientific inquiry. And if something could cause the universe to suddenly NOT make sense, then chances are that such a thing CAN NOT HAPPEN.

So..."Back to the Future" time travel rules sort of piss me off.

If we have to go with time travel, then I much prefer the time travel rules of "The Terminator" or "12 Monkeys" or "Lost". You can go back in time, but only if YOU WERE ALREADY THERE. And if you do manage to go back in time, you cannot CHANGE anything. You are only capable of doing WHAT YOU ALREADY DID.

[QUOTE="martialbullet"]I must admit, I've has similar thoughts >__> But I also thought about the consequences.... Would doing so destroy the current timeline (therefore you would disappear a la Back to the Future) or would it branch off into it's own timeline? I'd like to think the latter. What am I saying here? [QUOTE="Dman0017"]would the tvs have the proper inputs?MrGeezer

Totally off-topic, but I've always hated the "Back to the Future" time travel rules wherein it is possible to destroy the universe by going back in time and causing a time paradox. For starters, if it's possible to go back in time, then someone SOMEWHERE has probably gone back in time LONG before you did. If WE can do it, then there's probably some alien race in a distant galaxy that has developed time travel long before we did.

So...why hasn't the universe ended in a cataclysmic paradoxical ****storm of the very nature of causality being violated, with nothing making sense?

Answer: Because time travel to the past is likely impossible. Either that, or time travel to the past IS possible, but it's just impossible to cause a temporal paradox. I like to think of the universe making sense. The universe LIKES to make sense. The notion that the universe makes sense is probably the single most important assumption of scientific inquiry. And if something could cause the universe to suddenly NOT make sense, then chances are that such a thing CAN NOT HAPPEN.

So..."Back to the Future" time travel rules sort of piss me off.

If we have to go with time travel, then I much prefer the time travel rules of "The Terminator" or "12 Monkeys" or "Lost". You can go back in time, but only if YOU WERE ALREADY THERE. And if you do manage to go back in time, you cannot CHANGE anything. You are only capable of doing WHAT YOU ALREADY DID.

Say for instance if I was to bring a 360 back in time and show it to the people, what if then people research it and improve on their technology at that point? It just seems way too convenient that there's some force that would try to stop someone from changing history.

But it seems that conventional fiction is more drawn into "history can't be changed" time travel rules. Not a bad thing, I like when they put a twist on what caused a certain historical piece to come out that way.

[QUOTE="martialbullet"]I must admit, I've has similar thoughts >__> But I also thought about the consequences.... Would doing so destroy the current timeline (therefore you would disappear a la Back to the Future) or would it branch off into it's own timeline? I'd like to think the latter. What am I saying here? [QUOTE="Dman0017"]would the tvs have the proper inputs?MrGeezer

Totally off-topic, but I've always hated the "Back to the Future" time travel rules wherein it is possible to destroy the universe by going back in time and causing a time paradox. For starters, if it's possible to go back in time, then someone SOMEWHERE has probably gone back in time LONG before you did. If WE can do it, then there's probably some alien race in a distant galaxy that has developed time travel long before we did.

So...why hasn't the universe ended in a cataclysmic paradoxical ****storm of the very nature of causality being violated, with nothing making sense?

Answer: Because time travel to the past is likely impossible. Either that, or time travel to the past IS possible, but it's just impossible to cause a temporal paradox. I like to think of the universe making sense. The universe LIKES to make sense. The notion that the universe makes sense is probably the single most important assumption of scientific inquiry. And if something could cause the universe to suddenly NOT make sense, then chances are that such a thing CAN NOT HAPPEN.

So..."Back to the Future" time travel rules sort of piss me off.

If we have to go with time travel, then I much prefer the time travel rules of "The Terminator" or "12 Monkeys" or "Lost". You can go back in time, but only if YOU WERE ALREADY THERE. And if you do manage to go back in time, you cannot CHANGE anything. You are only capable of doing WHAT YOU ALREADY DID.

They would laugh at you for paying for online play.

I think they'd have trouble getting used to the whole dual analog thing. It's second nature to use because we've been doing it for the past decade.

Oh man Im starting to love this thread - my two biggest loves: time travel (theories) and computer games.

How about this little conspiuracy theory just to make things even more interesting - it is said by some people that the human race was gifted computer chip technology by an alien race (think Transformers the movie). Which kind of makes sense as look how much development has come about in the last century compared to previous centuries. It looks like we have been given a helping hand somewhere.

So, to some people, the xbox 360 could be in debt to special advanced alien people. Just a thought!

Well there are theories that if it possible to time travel, then by simply going back in time, history has already been changed in which that timeline branches off and becomes an alternate, parallel timeline/universe. (Funny thing is, the time travel rules in Dragonball Z are exact to that theory)

Say for instance if I was to bring a 360 back in time and show it to the people, what if then people research it and improve on their technology at that point? It just seems way too convenient that there's some force that would try to stop someone from changing history.

But it seems that conventional fiction is more drawn into "history can't be changed" time travel rules. Not a bad thing, I like when they put a twist on what caused a certain historical piece to come out that way.

martialbullet

That seems to mostly be a variant of the "many worlds conjecture", in which that everything that CAN happen will happen in some alternate universe. This viewpoint allows changing the past, but the important thing is that it is not YOUR past. And even if it creates a NEW timeline, then it cannot erase or undo or invalidate the timeline from which you came.

Yes, this is a third possibility for time travel that would allow the universe to "make sense". But it is worth noting that if you do CHANGE the past, then you are not affecting the timeline from which yo came. You're in a different universe, which has no impact on your own. By these rules, The Terminator COULD kill Sarah Connor before she gave birth to Humanity's Saviour. But that wouldn't mean that John Connor DOESN'T destroy Skynet. It simply means that Skynet finds a NEW UNIVERSE in which to dominate. But the "original" universe is lost. John Connor wins, end of story.

I'd rather take my computer back to 1808.

vaultboy_ninja

they would kill you for wicth craft on the spot LOL

imagine the kind of technology we'd have right now if scientists back then got their hands on a 360

adv_tr00per

I fantasise about taking my Xbox to Satansoft HQ

or

watching some junkie athlete run 100 m in 2.4 sec

Ive definately had thoughts similar to this. and the witch part lol

You should go back in the time the 1500's, take a digital photo of someone and show them the picture on the screen.

Tell them you captured their soul and laugh hysterically, then run away.

You should go back in the time the 1500's, take a digital photo of someone and show them the picture on the screen.

Tell them you captured their soul and laugh hysterically, then run away.

PetJel

Actually, I sort of doubt that. Some of the principles behind photography have been known for about at least a thousand years (such as "camera obscura").

Photography is basically largely about optics, something which has been studied LONG before the 1500s. The only difference between a permanent photograph and a mere optical projection is the chemistry involved in the film. One can reason that if people in the 1500s were willing to study optics, that people would have also been receptive to a chemical process that enabled optical projections to be permanently maintained. It would simply be a matter of explaining the chemistry, and people wanting to have access to that kind of technology.

And I think that photography fits both criteria. Sure, it has "magical chemical properties", but by that point people were receptive to such magical things as gunpowder. Because gunpowder was useful. And I like to think that photography would have also been useful (had it actually existed).

Anyway, digital photography is clearly different from film photography in that the sensor is different. But the OPTICS are relatively the same, and I think that the actual image-making capabilities would be well-received.

I'm not saying that superstitions haven't led to tragedy. I'm just saying that the people of long ago weren't generally much dumber than the people of today. By the 1500s, people weren't exactly all mouthbreathing idiots. Life back then SUCKED for a lot of people, and a lot of people would welcome most things that would make their lives easier. Simultaneously, there was a LOT of "knowledge for the sake of knowledge" going on, in which people did research not for any practical benefit, but simply to learn more.

I have similar thoughts, but i think more about taking .50 caliber handguns, automatic rifles, grenades, tanks and fighter jets to 18th century to wtfpwn Napoleon and take over the world in the process. Imagine the possibilities.