Poll: Do you believe in time travel?

[Berethond]

No. Because if the universe is infinite, and there is time travel, then probability dictates that I have already met a time traveler.

And I haven't met a time traveler.

 

[harvz]

our perception of the 4th dimension is just that, a perception.
if you get knocked out before realizing it and you wake up an hour later, you may have believed to travel 1 hour into the future, despite your body aging.

following this, if you were to be frozen in stasis for 1 year, in which your body's aging slows down to 1/300 (just a wild estimate), you will have aged a day and a bit while outside has proceeded 1 year, you would not even realize that so much time has passed.

this may as well be time travel, sure there are multiple other possibilities, alternate dimensions with different time speeds, actual transportation through time, etc. but this one is the closest and most practical to traveling forward.

 

[Hooded.Gamer]

Hmmmmm . . . . I think that Thyme Travel will be possible one day, but it's many many decades off.

 

[countrysteaksauce]

There's also the whole "time is a human construct" thing.

No. It isn't.

For example, for any chemical reaction to go from point A to point B, it needs time.
A good idea to prove this:
Light a candle.
Leave the room.
If the candle has continued to burn after you have left the room, time isn't a human construct, its a physical law. Which it is.

Judging by the lack of coherence in your response, it seems as if this greatly offends you.
I could argue with you, but Leibniz and Kant have already formulated such treatises on the matter.

Because the great physicists care.
I honestly don't care what you believe, you could believe that gravity is God's way of punishing us for being fat.
philosophers represents the irrelevant, like arguing that God cares about what color or form his praise is cast as. Does someone who had a significant portion of their life formulating their opinion matter? No. Does said guy gain Godhood by stating that one position is wrong and theirs is the only opinion that matters? No.

Ergo, if candles burn while I'm not watching, you are wrong.
I can't believe that someone would argue the 'arrow of time' Steven Hawking version because some 'philosophers' disagree.

Enjoy your F-, idiot.

Whoa, so much for rational discourse. No need for insults. Judging by your rambling and admittedly rather incoherent post, I'm starting to suspect that English isn't your native language. I shall be less harsh in my response as a result. I simply need to know, Do you believe that all of human achievement not based on mathematical proofs and scientific evidence is worthless?

Because your belief that 'philosophers' have better knowledge than a goddamn scientist is considered more 'rational' than blahing about Kant and co. Do we not build on the shoulders of those who come before us? Of course we do, like the first monkey who 'tried the red berries first', we continually build on those ideas/experiences, but we are, for lack of better genetics, still human, and will continue to do stupid things until we advance sufficiently to realise that what we are doing is not helpful, merely stupid.
I highly suspect that you are not some reasoned person, instead you merely exist to troll those who don't think with their rectum.

Amusingly, we also thought the sun orbited the Earth. gg on previous human achievement.

I feel as if I'm being trolled with your posts. Beginning with putting words in my mouth in your pseudo-intellectual style, I never said that anyone was more rational than anyone else. I was merely putting forth an alternative explanation, which you could accept or reject. You have obviously chosen the latter. Moreover, by your definition, any kind of scientific testing or experimentation that does not lead to a conclusive benefit must not be helpful, therefore making it "merely stupid." For someone that regards science with such esteem, stifling experimentation seems rather odd. Furthermore, your red herring examples do not add anything to the conversation and only draw away from the argument at heart.
Also, you have yet to answer my previously posed question.

As a side note, I actually believe in the concept of time. I was just putting forth an alternative.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

I feel like a quote from "Men in Black" is appropriate.

"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

Not that I'm saying there are aliens on Earth(there aren't) just, you know...time travel.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

I think Time Travel technically is possible, but I also feel it will never be achieved because of a simple rule:

Anyone who has the desire to really work on a Time Machine will, most likely, be doing it so they can return to the past to right some wrong in their life. But if they right that wrong, their motivation for building the Time Machine won't exist, so it will never get made.

Hooray for paradoxes!

 

[Paksenarrion]

How many times do I have to tell you? There is no such thing as time travel, and certainly not time travelers. Please go back to your televiewers and play Final Fantasy XXX: Grand Theft Cooking Mama.

...on a totally unrelated note, what century is this?

 

[Calo Nord]

Time travel being theoretically possible is still not good enough for me unfortunately. I really do wish it were possible, i absolutely love anything to do with time travel, but i don't see it ever becoming a reality. If it ever did however, i don't see how it could be practiced without colossal consequences of various types.

 

[Nouw]

Since we would have laughed at the idea of the internet 100 years ago, anything is possible really.

If it was possible, we would have seen some by now

They aren't going to let idiots go into Time-Machines. Think about it, if an object or person from the future enters the past, we are going to realize something is wrong and there will be a paradox with horrendous results.

If they did, we wouldn't know about it.

 

[bassdrum]

You are time travelling right now, we all are. We are currently traveling at 1 second per second intervals into the future by our relativity to ourselves.

Damn, beaten to it

You beat me to getting beaten to it.

OT: No--not in the sense that you mean, at least. Time moves forward, and that's just the way that I think that the world works. If someone can prove to me that it's possible to move somewhere else in time, or make it run backwards, then I'll stand corrected. Until then, however, the only time travel I'll be doing is the kind that I've already been ninja'd a few times over about.

 

[FarleShadow]

There's also the whole "time is a human construct" thing.

No. It isn't.

For example, for any chemical reaction to go from point A to point B, it needs time.
A good idea to prove this:
Light a candle.
Leave the room.
If the candle has continued to burn after you have left the room, time isn't a human construct, its a physical law. Which it is.

Judging by the lack of coherence in your response, it seems as if this greatly offends you.
I could argue with you, but Leibniz and Kant have already formulated such treatises on the matter.

Because the great physicists care.
I honestly don't care what you believe, you could believe that gravity is God's way of punishing us for being fat.
philosophers represents the irrelevant, like arguing that God cares about what color or form his praise is cast as. Does someone who had a significant portion of their life formulating their opinion matter? No. Does said guy gain Godhood by stating that one position is wrong and theirs is the only opinion that matters? No.

Ergo, if candles burn while I'm not watching, you are wrong.
I can't believe that someone would argue the 'arrow of time' Steven Hawking version because some 'philosophers' disagree.

Enjoy your F-, idiot.

Whoa, so much for rational discourse. No need for insults. Judging by your rambling and admittedly rather incoherent post, I'm starting to suspect that English isn't your native language. I shall be less harsh in my response as a result. I simply need to know, Do you believe that all of human achievement not based on mathematical proofs and scientific evidence is worthless?

Because your belief that 'philosophers' have better knowledge than a goddamn scientist is considered more 'rational' than blahing about Kant and co. Do we not build on the shoulders of those who come before us? Of course we do, like the first monkey who 'tried the red berries first', we continually build on those ideas/experiences, but we are, for lack of better genetics, still human, and will continue to do stupid things until we advance sufficiently to realise that what we are doing is not helpful, merely stupid.
I highly suspect that you are not some reasoned person, instead you merely exist to troll those who don't think with their rectum.

Amusingly, we also thought the sun orbited the Earth. gg on previous human achievement.

I feel as if I'm being trolled with your posts. Beginning with putting words in my mouth in your pseudo-intellectual style, I never said that anyone was more rational than anyone else. I was merely putting forth an alternative explanation, which you could accept or reject. You have obviously chosen the latter. Moreover, by your definition, any kind of scientific testing or experimentation that does not lead to a conclusive benefit must not be helpful, therefore making it "merely stupid." For someone that regards science with such esteem, stifling experimentation seems rather odd. Furthermore, your red herring examples do not add anything to the conversation and only draw away from the argument at heart.
Also, you have yet to answer my previously posed question.

As a side note, I actually believe in the concept of time. I was just putting forth an alternative.

So instead of adding to the 'discussion', you decide to make it more complex but do not add to it. Wow. I bet you're a real star. Did I stifle experimentation? No, experimentations are the proverbal sauce to science's main course, to prove an idea wrong is merely a novel way of saying 'no way cowboy'. Alternative explainations are the pointless quests that 'philosophers' justify their purpose, like posing the question that 'gravity pulls only those who's faith is 100%', the answer is no and stop wasting rational people's time.

wDidn't answer your question? Self-esteem issues aside, your question aren't worth answering. If I didn't read history, would I continue to make the same mistakes?
(And for your benefit, yes).

Enjoyably, your suggestion that you are 'no less rational than anyone else' gave value to the fact that 'you have an alternative theory' is laughable. Just because the world doesn't orbit the sun doesn't make your theory anymore valid.

Also, 'putting forth an argument against current time theory' does not instantly give you kudos against current scientific theory, all it does is make you insufferably more arrogant than the standardised anti-science peon.

 

[joebthegreat]

Traveling backwards in time? Fun but not real.

Faster than light travel? Fun but not real.

And countrysteaksauce better be trolling, but that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

[TWRule]

I feel as if I'm being trolled with your posts. Beginning with putting words in my mouth in your pseudo-intellectual style, I never said that anyone was more rational than anyone else. I was merely putting forth an alternative explanation, which you could accept or reject. You have obviously chosen the latter. Moreover, by your definition, any kind of scientific testing or experimentation that does not lead to a conclusive benefit must not be helpful, therefore making it "merely stupid." For someone that regards science with such esteem, stifling experimentation seems rather odd. Furthermore, your red herring examples do not add anything to the conversation and only draw away from the argument at heart.
Also, you have yet to answer my previously posed question.

As a side note, I actually believe in the concept of time. I was just putting forth an alternative.

So instead of adding to the 'discussion', you decide to make it more complex but do not add to it. Wow. I bet you're a real star. Did I stifle experimentation? No, experimentations are the proverbal sauce to science's main course, to prove an idea wrong is merely a novel way of saying 'no way cowboy'. Alternative explainations are the pointless quests that 'philosophers' justify their purpose, like posing the question that 'gravity pulls only those who's faith is 100%', the answer is no and stop wasting rational people's time.

wDidn't answer your question? Self-esteem issues aside, your question aren't worth answering. If I didn't read history, would I continue to make the same mistakes?
(And for your benefit, yes).

Enjoyably, your suggestion that you are 'no less rational than anyone else' gave value to the fact that 'you have an alternative theory' is laughable. Just because the world doesn't orbit the sun doesn't make your theory anymore valid.

Also, 'putting forth an argument against current time theory' does not instantly give you kudos against current scientific theory, all it does is make you insufferably more arrogant than the standardised anti-science peon.

I don't think you are even reading/comprehending his posts, but I thought it worth mentioning that he didn't say he was anti-science, nor is philosophy necessarily anti-science. If you believe that all philosophers do is pose impractical questions, then I suggest you educate yourself more on the discipline.

In the meantime - it's really not appropriate to be jumping down country's throat. Relax.

 

[SoranMBane]

It actually is possible, under certain conditions (like traveling near the speed of light or standing in close proximity to a black hole), to effectively travel forward in time. I'm pretty certain backwards time travel is impossible, though; everyone's already pointed out the whole issue of paradoxes, and I'm sure there are a few other problems with the idea as well.

 

[TeeBs]

I think time travel is possible, but I feel humans will never reach this point.

By that do you mean we will not survive long enough to reach a conclusion about it/manage it?

I think its possible through accidental natural occurrence due to black holes.

I don't think we would ever have the ability to control when we end up.

 

[FarleShadow]

Welcome to the internet.
If you aren't at war, you're gunna get raped.

 

[joebthegreat]

Welcome to the internet.
If you aren't at war, you're gunna get raped.

With no sarcasm or ill will intended I want to say this:

You're awesome... and I've been enjoying your side of the argument so far.

 

[Grigori361]

No but I believe in death squads.


Get EM boys!



More realistically, I'd say not, or not exactly, time is a measure of change between something and something else, while I think it might be possible to view different times, I think actually traveling in time, or attempting to rather would only be possible in ways that didn't affect it (like say viewing) unless of course time is more of a bubble then a non linear measurement, in which case it would be possible, but it would run the risk of destroying the stability of time as we know it. And I seriously doubt that as a realistic possibility.

I like to think reality has a bit more stability then that, or... no that wasn't the right word, but I can't think of the one I want to so will have to do.

See ya'll in limbo.

 

[shotgunbob]

As long as there are DeLoreans there can be time travel.

Personally I think it may be possible but I would hope it never happens, humans are to stupid to use it for good.