Proof there's no time travel?

[dark-amon]

By the theory I supprt, timetravel is impossible as the timeaspect we refer to when talking about time is just a system we invented to have a somewhat accurate control of knowlegde of the planets position to the sun.
people who belive in timetravel always refer to it as waves or something else defineable. But who decided that the abstract of time can be defined?

For anyone who do belive in timetravel I ask you: Can you define to me what time on the univeral stadium is? Can you give me a definition wich is 1)consistant (in no way contradicts itself) 2)weel argumentet 3)koherent (drawing lines to find coexistens with other theses and logical arguments to validate your own possition)? In that case please show it to me.
For as Socrates said: And I will follow him on this but follow up with:<even as I know nothing, I still belive)

 

[Ciarang]

Spoiler: My thoughts

Ugh, personally I think that if we would get time travel we would have bumped into future humans by now.
But do me a favour, do not try to read these theory's at 4am, I swear my brain melted trying to read these...

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

Time travel is such a mindblowing thing to talk about, I just try not to think about it.

 

[A teenage old man]

If there is ever going to be a machine with the ability to go back in time, some would have used it in the future to go back and kill Hitler, or Stalin, or at least stopped them from sending out the Titanic. There's no way there's going to be backwards time travel, but according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, forward time travel is theoretically possible, through the application of Quantum physics, or if you could some haw travel at 99.9% of the speed of light time would slow down inside of your vehicle while you would perceive it to be moving normally and the outside to be moving to quickly. Theoretically of course.

 

[nerd51075]

A negative cannot be ultimately proven. No one can truly say something could never happen. No matter how much evidence you get, you cannot prove time travel (other than moving forward at a slow, steady rate we all experience Simply by passing time) impossible. Under the conditions that existed in the short time after the Big Bang and near black holes, the laws of physics tend to break down, and thus can possibly be subverted, making time travel potentially possible. Time travel may be possible, but our minds simply cannot comprehend the concept appropriately to control it. To sum up my argument, never say "never."

 

[THEMILKMAN]

My...mind has...been...blown.

 

[Cavouku]

Time travel theory has been marked theoretically impossible, or it would've happened. Besides, ontological paradoxes, or something. Your future self comes back to meet you, so his future self had to have gone back to meet him, etc.

Problem is, there's not possible origin. This theory got Paradoxed, which I am proposing as a new show idea.

And even if you don't go to meet yourself, there's still going to be a problem with where everything else came from.

The only way to reverse time (as I don't think there's a future, but that's my personal idea), would be to isolate an area from time reversal, while keeping it from interfering with any physical matter while "rewinding"

And then even after that, you either go forward again, or you interact and lose the ability to go back.

No do-overs

 

[A teenage old man]

By the theory I supprt, timetravel is impossible as the timeaspect we refer to when talking about time is just a system we invented to have a somewhat accurate control of knowlegde of the planets position to the sun.
people who belive in timetravel always refer to it as waves or something else defineable. But who decided that the abstract of time can be defined?

For anyone who do belive in timetravel I ask you: Can you define to me what time on the univeral stadium is? Can you give me a definition wich is 1)consistant (in no way contradicts itself) 2)weel argumentet 3)koherent (drawing lines to find coexistens with other theses and logical arguments to validate your own possition)? In that case please show it to me.
For as Socrates said: And I will follow him on this but follow up with:<even as I know nothing, I still belive)

If your going to argue with all those big, inaccurate words, you might try spelling a few of them right. Time is the dimension that affects where things are. When you measure an object, you have to measure it in length, width, depth, position, and TIME. The theorized Time Travel (note how it is two words) is having the time dimension either not effect the object as much, or for it to effect it more. By those terms both Einstein and Steven Hawking, (the two non-autistic people that have the highest recorded IQ's in history) Agree that Time travel is theoretically possible.

 

[Julianking93]

I thought scientists already determined that the universe would explode if we tried time travel.

 

[dantheman931]

If your going to argue with all those big, inaccurate words, you might try spelling a few of them right. Time is the dimension that affects where things are. When you measure an object, you have to measure it in length, width, depth, position, and TIME. The theorized Time Travel (note how it is two words) is having the time dimension either not effect the object as much, or for it to effect it more. By those terms both Einstein and Steven Hawking, (the two non-autistic people that have the highest recorded IQ's in history) Agree that Time travel is theoretically possible.

Might want to work on your own spelling and grammar before you start casting stones there, bub; you hurt your credibility when you don't hold yourself to the same standard as those you wish to argue against. Also, I'm not sure I follow your argument about travel as a function of time affecting or not affecting objects; please explain.

I thought scientists already determined that the universe would explode if we tried time travel.

How would they go about proving that?

 

[Julianking93]

If your going to argue with all those big, inaccurate words, you might try spelling a few of them right. Time is the dimension that affects where things are. When you measure an object, you have to measure it in length, width, depth, position, and TIME. The theorized Time Travel (note how it is two words) is having the time dimension either not effect the object as much, or for it to effect it more. By those terms both Einstein and Steven Hawking, (the two non-autistic people that have the highest recorded IQ's in history) Agree that Time travel is theoretically possible.

Might want to work on your own spelling and grammar before you start casting stones there, bub; you hurt your credibility when you don't hold yourself to the same standard as those you wish to argue against. Also, I'm not sure I follow your argument about travel as a function of time affecting or not affecting objects; please explain.

I thought scientists already determined that the universe would explode if we tried time travel.

How would they go about proving that?

Not exactly sure, but I remember seeing an interview where they said that.

It makes sense though. You're basically ripping through time and space.

 

[A Weary Exile]

This is my theory:

Time is an illusion, it's just a way for us to measure the progression of the universe. "Time"
doesn't actually exist like gravity or light, not in the physical universe anyway, it's just an concept.

 

[A teenage old man]

If your going to argue with all those big, inaccurate words, you might try spelling a few of them right. Time is the dimension that affects where things are. When you measure an object, you have to measure it in length, width, depth, position, and TIME. The theorized Time Travel (note how it is two words) is having the time dimension either not effect the object as much, or for it to effect it more. By those terms both Einstein and Steven Hawking, (the two non-autistic people that have the highest recorded IQ's in history) Agree that Time travel is theoretically possible.

Might want to work on your own spelling and grammar before you start casting stones there, bub; you hurt your credibility when you don't hold yourself to the same standard as those you wish to argue against. Also, I'm not sure I follow your argument about travel as a function of time affecting or not affecting objects; please explain.

My spelling was perfect, thank you, and sorry if my grammar confused you. What I was said about time not effecting an object as much is like, Hypothetically a time machine is made to travel into the future, (it would have to be traveling at 99% of the speed of light to do so) time would have less of an effect on it, meaning that anyone inside the vehicle would be experiencing time (as a dimension not clock time) changing at a slower rate than the rest of the world.

 

[BonsaiK]

Time travel backwards in the traditional sense (going back to the past, changing it) isn't possible. We know this because we haven't met any time travellers. We also haven't had to rewrite any history books lately because of any of their actions.

Time travel to the future is definitely possible. In fact, you're doing it right now.

If you want to get to the future quicker though, well, according to relativity theory, time slows down for objects approaching the speed of light. So if you were in a really fast spaceship you could fly around really quick and travel 50 years into the future. Problem is you couldn't go back if you got there and decided that it sucked.

 

[Master_Fubar23]

http://www.darkestofdaystv.com/ That got me thinking. If there truly a such thing that as time travel wouldn't we have seen people form the future by now? If time is simultaneous then the creation of the time machine would have happened at the same time as the creation of the universe, meaning, in theory, that people would have gone back in time and done something that would shout "TIME MACHINES!" at the top of it lungs.

Though you could say that time is not simultaneous and so we would have to pass into the time when we do have time machines in order to go back and change but then (taping into that 10 minutes of philosophy a substitute teacher after school) you could also say that we could have passed that time only not noticed it because...and that's when I left.

Back on topic though, what's your opinion on this subject?

why would anyone from the future do something in the past (our present or past) that shouts out "TIME MACHINES!". i read history books and think wow there were some stupid ppl in the past. so why would some1 from the future come back to show off technology thats highly adv that can also cause some major damage in the wrong hands. we are not only extremely dangerous to ourselfs but every1 around us. just as my friend says theres no aliens since they should of showed themselfs by now. i always reply how do we know they are alrdy watching us from somewhere else and are chooseing not to show themselfs becuz they see a species that steals, rapes, and kills itself all over the world. its like do u really want to hang out with a serial killer? this applys with ppl of the future... would u want to visit a time period where bad shit is happening everywhere.

 

[dantheman931]

My spelling was perfect, thank you, and sorry if my grammar confused you. What I was said about time not effecting an object as much is like, Hypothetically a time machine is made to travel into the future, (it would have to be traveling at 99% of the speed of light to do so) time would have less of an effect on it, meaning that anyone inside the vehicle would be experiencing time (as a dimension not clock time) changing at a slower rate than the rest of the world.

"Affect" (verb), not "effect" (noun). "You're" (contraction), not "your" (possessive). But I'll grant you that your theory is sound.

Time travel backwards in the traditional sense (going back to the past, changing it) isn't possible. We know this because we haven't met any time travellers. We also haven't had to rewrite any history books lately because of any of their actions.

Time travel to the future is definitely possible. In fact, you're doing it right now.

If you want to get to the future quicker though, well, according to relativity theory, time slows down for objects approaching the speed of light. So if you were in a really fast spaceship you could fly around really quick and travel 50 years into the future. Problem is you couldn't go back if you got there and decided that it sucked.

But if someone changed the past, would we know about it? For instance, imagine an alternate universe where Elvis is still alive. A time traveller goes back and sneaks into his bathroom (somehow), and kills Elvis in such a way that it looks like he had a heart attack or whatever it was. Hey presto, the future is changed and the rest of us don't know any different, because as far as we know, Elvis died on his own. Coincidentally, that universe has been transformed into the one in which you and I now live. *dah-dah-dunnnnnnn* And as for having not met any time travellers, you could have passed a dozen of them today and not known it if they were disguised. Maybe all those hipsters we see wearing every popular trend they can cram onto their bodies are actually time travellers who are trying way too hard to blend in.

 

[BonsaiK]

But if someone changed the past, would we know about it?

Well, if you were going to go all the trouble to make a time-travel machine and go into the past, what's the point of being subtle about it? You might as well not even bother.

 

[dantheman931]

But if someone changed the past, would we know about it?

Well, if you were going to go all the trouble to make a time-travel machine and go into the past, what's the point of being subtle about it? You might as well not even bother.

Maybe in the future, changing history is illegal or something. Hell man, just be glad I didn't go with my first illustration, or I would have invoked Godwin's Law to an unholy degree. lmao

 

[BonsaiK]

But if someone changed the past, would we know about it?

Well, if you were going to go all the trouble to make a time-travel machine and go into the past, what's the point of being subtle about it? You might as well not even bother.

Maybe in the future, changing history is illegal or something. Hell man, just be glad I didn't go with my first illustration, or I would have invoked Godwin's Law to an unholy degree. lmao

But if you're going into the past, it's not the future.