Silly Predator 2 question

augofett

Sr Member
On Neca´s packaging says that the predators are "travelers of both time and space".
So, should we think Elder obtained the Adolini flintlock because he travelled back to 1715 and killed it´s owner? Or is he so old that's being visiting earth for a couple of centuries or more? Think it´s a personal preference, but, what do you think?
 
technically if they travel in ships that can reach the speed of light or close to it, then time will pass more slowly for them then it would on earth for example

For example, if they leave from earth after a hunting trip in the year 1715, then when they travel back to their home planet and come back in what might have only bee a few years for them, several hundred years could have passed on earth

So in that respect, they traveled both time and space?
 
technically if they travel in ships that can reach the speed of light or close to it, then time will pass more slowly for them then it would on earth for example

For example, if they leave from earth after a hunting trip in the year 1715, then when they travel back to their home planet and come back in what might have only bee a few years for them, several hundred years could have passed on earth

So in that respect, they traveled both time and space?
I've never understood this explanation, as whenever it is explained the example used describes things the other way around to me. There was an example of a 4 hour trip, but when they checked the travelers' clocks, they showed they had traveled for less time. So: time goes normally for everyone else - the trip takes 4 hours, everyone but the travelers experience it as 4 hours - but it takes less time for the traveler to travel the distance. But then for some reason it is then turned around so that time is perceived as 4 hours for the travelers and then time is added onto the time of everyone else. Can anyone explain why that is?


To answer the original question: I just took it that the Elder Predator is that old... and the filmmakers are using that reverse adding time thing that everyone else does that makes no sense.
 
I like this theory from the awnsers:
Elder is just old, and visited earth several times, elapsing time through travelling at light speed.
 
Yea, I've always taken that phrase to mean that they are very long lived, and that it's possibly an extension to how time can warp with space travel.


I've never understood this explanation, as whenever it is explained the example used describes things the other way around to me. There was an example of a 4 hour trip, but when they checked the travelers' clocks, they showed they had traveled for less time. So: time goes normally for everyone else - the trip takes 4 hours, everyone but the travelers experience it as 4 hours - but it takes less time for the traveler to travel the distance. But then for some reason it is then turned around so that time is perceived as 4 hours for the travelers and then time is added onto the time of everyone else. Can anyone explain why that is?

it's easier if you think of NONE of the time being normal, because it's all about relative differences between the "clocks". time flows differently in different circumstances. A clock moving at a faster speed, relative to the person viewing it, will tick slower. So, a human on the surface of earth, is moving X thousands of miles an hour as the earth rotates. but things in orbit move MUCH faster around the earth. so you put a clock in orbit, and it's moving through space even FASTER than the a clock on the ground. so when the you look from the clock on the ground, to the clock in orbit, the one orbiting, appears to be ticking slower; while the opposite applies. if you look down from the clock in orbit, the clock on the ground appears to tick faster.

it's not about slow or fast, is about slowER and fastER
 
I've never understood this explanation, as whenever it is explained the example used describes things the other way around to me. There was an example of a 4 hour trip, but when they checked the travelers' clocks, they showed they had traveled for less time. So: time goes normally for everyone else - the trip takes 4 hours, everyone but the travelers experience it as 4 hours - but it takes less time for the traveler to travel the distance. But then for some reason it is then turned around so that time is perceived as 4 hours for the travelers and then time is added onto the time of everyone else. Can anyone explain why that is?


To answer the original question: I just took it that the Elder Predator is that old... and the filmmakers are using that reverse adding time thing that everyone else does that makes no sense.


It's part of the theory of relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

"As a result of the nature of spacetime, a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference.

Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated, for instance by small disparities in a pair of atomic clocks after one of them is sent on a space trip, or by clocks on the Space Shuttle running slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, or clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites running slightly faster. Time dilation has also been the subject of science fiction works, as it technically provides the means for forward time travel."

Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to him will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in his frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with the rate of time reaching zero as one approaches the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s). This causes massless particles that travel at the speed of light to be unaffected by the passage of time.

Theoretically, time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to advance further into the future in a short period of their own time. For sufficiently high speeds, the effect is dramatic For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years on Earth. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel through the entire known Universe in one human lifetime. Space travelers could then return to Earth billions of years in the future."


There is a Queen song from "Night At The Opera" that Brian May wrote about the relativistic nature of time called '39

Most people mistake it for taking place in the in the past and about coming to America or something, but it is actually about a group of astronauts who leave earth, but when the return, they have the horrible realization that generations have passed and everyone they loved is gone


In the year of thirty-nine assembled here the volunteers
In the days when lands were few
Here the ship sailed out into the blue and sunny morn
The sweetest sight ever seen
And the night followed day
And the story tellers say
That the score brave souls inside
For many a lonely day sailed across the milky seas
Ne'er looked back, never feared, never cried
Don't you hear my call though you're many years away
Don't you hear me calling you
Write your letters in the sand
For the day I take your hand
In the land that our grandchildren knew
In the year of thirty-nine came a ship in from the blue
The volunteers came home that day
And they bring good news of a world so newly born
Though their hearts so heavily weigh
For the earth is old and grey, little darling went away
But my love this cannot be
For so many years have gone though I'm older but a year
Your mother's eyes, from your eyes, cry to me
Don't you hear my call though you're many years away
Don't you hear me calling you
Write your letters in the sand for the day I take your hand
In the land that our grandchildren knew
Don't you hear my call though you're many years away
Don't you hear me calling you
All your letters in the sand cannot heal me like your hand
For my life
Still ahead
Pity Me
 
On Neca´s packaging says that the predators are "travelers of both time and space".
So, should we think Elder obtained the Adolini flintlock because he travelled back to 1715 and killed it´s owner? Or is he so old that's being visiting earth for a couple of centuries or more? Think it´s a personal preference, but, what do you think?

Nope since the comics already gave a canon answer for the duel between the Elder Predator and the Pirate Captain it obtained the pistol from. Predator's just have long life cycles if they aren't killed.
 
Yea, I've always taken that phrase to mean that they are very long lived, and that it's possibly an extension to how time can warp with space travel.

it's easier if you think of NONE of the time being normal, because it's all about relative differences between the "clocks". time flows differently in different circumstances. A clock moving at a faster speed, relative to the person viewing it, will tick slower. So, a human on the surface of earth, is moving X thousands of miles an hour as the earth rotates. but things in orbit move MUCH faster around the earth. so you put a clock in orbit, and it's moving through space even FASTER than the a clock on the ground. so when the you look from the clock on the ground, to the clock in orbit, the one orbiting, appears to be ticking slower; while the opposite applies. if you look down from the clock in orbit, the clock on the ground appears to tick faster.

it's not about slow or fast, is about slowER and fastER

Exactly my point. The guy in orbit is spending less time traveling the timed distance, basically time traveling ahead, so WHY is the time added to the guy on the ground, when talking lightspeed or traveling instead of subtracting time to the guy traveling. THAT's what doesn't make sense, because, THAT is exactly what's happening in the examples people use when trying to explain why... and it's the exact opposite of what they are claiming.

It's part of the theory of relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

"As a result of the nature of spacetime, a clock that is moving relative to an observer will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in the observer's own frame of reference.

Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated, for instance by small disparities in a pair of atomic clocks after one of them is sent on a space trip, or by clocks on the Space Shuttle running slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, or clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites running slightly faster. Time dilation has also been the subject of science fiction works, as it technically provides the means for forward time travel."

Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to him will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in his frame of reference. This case is sometimes called special relativistic time dilation. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with the rate of time reaching zero as one approaches the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s). This causes massless particles that travel at the speed of light to be unaffected by the passage of time.


You are proving my point. When talking light travel you should NOT ADD time for those not traveling, you should subtract time from those traveling: ergo: a 4 light year flight will appear to take less time for the traveler, but it still takes 4 years for everyone else. The EXACT OPPOSITE of what people say and even their examples for proving their point proves mine.


Theoretically, time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to advance further into the future in a short period of their own time. For sufficiently high speeds, the effect is dramatic For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years on Earth. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel through the entire known Universe in one human lifetime. Space travelers could then return to Earth billions of years in the future."
Now you are saying exactly the opposite of what you said before. Why are you adding time to those not traveling, when you yourself stated that time moved slower for those traveling: ergo... subtract from the travelers time like you did above, instead of now adding time to those not traveling. Unless the original travel time was always 10 years and the travelers managed to travel that time in 1 year instead of experiencing the full 10 years - that means they travel forward in time, not that everyone else traveled forward in time.

Measure time from the POV of those not traveling and subtract their time to get the travelers' experienced time for that duration.
 
Last edited:
Since time is relative, it progresses as we experience as we are not traveling. But from the perspective of one traveling at near light speed, time progresses to them, as they would experience it as if they were not traveling. However, the difference between the two could be substantial, as we sit static, we observe the traveler, and the travelers clock seems to move slower than the static clock next to us.

Due to this, the static clock will tick "normally" for us, but the travelers clock we observe ticks slower. So an hour for us, passes as maybe only six minutes to the traveler. So we have aged an hour to the travelers six minutes. We are ahead of the travelers time by fifty four minutes. The traveler isn't moving forward in time, like in a Back to the Future type conundrum. We are. To us, time progresses in the same linear fashion as it always has. To the traveler, time progresses in the same linear fashion as it always has. We would both experience the passage of time similarly, but our experiences are relative to our position.

So if an hour passed for us, during the six minutes it passed for the traveller, then how much difference would there be if he travels for one year?

If I'm doing the math right, and he experiences time at one tenth speed (six minutes versus our sixty), then one year to him would be like 876 years for us. So one year of travel away from earth, at a constant speed, and one year of travel back at a constant speed, he has experienced two years passage of time, while those on earth have experienced 1752 years.
 
Since time is relative, it progresses as we experience as we are not traveling. But from the perspective of one traveling at near light speed, time progresses to them, as they would experience it as if they were not traveling. However, the difference between the two could be substantial, as we sit static, we observe the traveler, and the travelers clock seems to move slower than the static clock next to us.

Due to this, the static clock will tick "normally" for us, but the travelers clock we observe ticks slower. So an hour for us, passes as maybe only six minutes to the traveler. So we have aged an hour to the travelers six minutes. We are ahead of the travelers time by fifty four minutes. The traveler isn't moving forward in time, like in a Back to the Future type conundrum. We are. To us, time progresses in the same linear fashion as it always has. To the traveler, time progresses in the same linear fashion as it always has. We would both experience the passage of time similarly, but our experiences are relative to our position.

So if an hour passed for us, during the six minutes it passed for the traveller, then how much difference would there be if he travels for one year?

If I'm doing the math right, and he experiences time at one tenth speed (six minutes versus our sixty), then one year to him would be like 876 years for us. So one year of travel away from earth, at a constant speed, and one year of travel back at a constant speed, he has experienced two years passage of time, while those on earth have experienced 1752 years.

And see, that's where things make no sense for me.

Your example shows a time traveler.

The research always observe time from the perspective of the bystander in these instances and subtract time for the traveler. Then suddenly people switch it to the traveler and start adding time to the bystander instead.

People use this kind of calculating to describe a one year journey - to a destination Y 1 year out from where we are now at point X. That is wrong. The journey is 1 year, but the traveler will experience that journey transpiring quicker than one year. In your example the traveler doesn't travel out one light year from us, he travels out 876 light years from us and he only experience it as taking 1 year. I don't know why people add to the bystander's clock, when all examples used subtraction from the bystander's clock to find the traveler's instead.

For instance. All examples describe A-bystander and B-traveler. All examples point out that time for A is normal, but moves slower for B. Which means you are subtracting from A's time when finding B's travel time.

Distance to new location is 1 light years. That's from the perspective of A. So A=1 light years. For B it is less. That means B travel 1 years out, but they experience it as less.

Then why switch perspective from A to B when extrapolating from the research, when all the research has the perspective squarely on A.

Then suddenly the 1 light years is placed in the perspective of B-traveler and the people start adding time to A-bystander's time instead. But we just established that the 1 light years is what A-bystander experiences and B-traveler experience it as less than 1 year, so why the switch in perspective and time?

That's what I don't get.
 
I don't pretend to understand the physics of it, but that perspective shift is how it has always been explained to me.

As we're talking about velocities that are purely theoretical, there's way to test it to find out who is right.
 
I don't pretend to understand the physics of it, but that perspective shift is how it has always been explained to me.

As we're talking about velocities that are purely theoretical, there's way to test it to find out who is right.
Yeah, but... the one explaining it clearly can't be trusted... because... logically it is wrong. Spock would disapprove.
 
they're not theoretical speeds. the clock on the space shuttle ticks faster, because it's moving faster in orbit around the earth. period. dot.

I think the problem may be, that whoever told you "yea, but what actually happens is the opposite of all that", was simply wrong.

a clock moving faster than you ticks slower, a clock moving slower than you, ticks faster. neither of them moves into the past, neither of them has "time added" or "time taken away". one simply gets to the future sooner (the one moving faster).
 
For instance. All examples describe A-bystander and B-traveler. All examples point out that time for A is normal, but moves slower for B. Which means you are subtracting from A's time when finding B's travel time.

There is no normal time, there is no "now"/"present". Time is different everywhere. It "moves" faster/slower all depending on where you are and at what speed and so on.

Just like there is no past or future. Just made up concepts. Time is very, very weird.

The faster YOU are moving, the slower time passes compared to everything around you. But YOU experience time just like normal.
Same reason why clocks on satellites run at a different rate compared to clocks on the surface of the Earth. Other wise GPS etc wouldn't work.

So in actuality, a person travelling at light speed would age faster than those on earth?

The other way around.

Two Twins, Aaron and Bob. Aaron is a farmer. Bob is an astronaut. Bob goes on a mission to space. Where he travels at 90-something% of the speed of light for a period of time.

When Bob comes back to Earth, he goes to visit Aaron. Only to find he now doesn't just look it, but has actually aged 15 years. Meanwhile Bob has only aged 4 months Bob has in fact "time travelled into the future".
 
The other way around.

Two Twins, Aaron and Bob. Aaron is a farmer. Bob is an astronaut. Bob goes on a mission to space. Where he travels at 90-something% of the speed of light for a period of time.

When Bob comes back to Earth, he goes to visit Aaron. Only to find he now doesn't just look it, but has actually aged 15 years. Meanwhile Bob has only aged 4 months Bob
has in fact "time travelled into the future".


This is how I have always heard it explained, but was told a few posts ago that I was wrong.
 
In a way and in a way not.

The problem was always that it was shown that it was a x amount of years distance, the traveler traveled that x amount of years to that distance... instead of arriving there faster than that which is what all the experiments confirm would happen.

The changed perspective when talking about light travel was what I was arguing about and giving the bystanders x amount of years to that distance to the traveler instead, which many seem to do when explaining things.
 
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top