Proof there's no time travel?

[SomeUnregPunk]

Time travel is possible. So easy, even you can do it.
You need patience and a watch.
Take 1 watch.
Watch as 1 minutes pass.
You have now traveled through time.

 

[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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timecop

 

[NBSRDan]

Time travel is nothing more than a concept, nonexistent without the imagination of humans. Isn't that proof enough?

 

[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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timecop

Any lawyer worth their legal fees would very easily be able to mount a defense saying that the events the defendant is being prosecuted for happened before the law forbidding the changing of history was enacted, thus getting any case of this nature instantly thrown out of court.

 

[internetzealot1]

I don't think time travel is possible because it breaks a fundamental scientific law: The mass and energy in the universe stays constant.

 

[lenin_117]

Look at it this way: if we had a time machine now, would we travel back to the great depression? Would we travel back to WW2? Probably not. Even the question is an answer: why haven't we seen anyone from the future? We want to know about the future, what the future holds, all that. If we had a time machine, more than likely we'd go forward to see what awaits us. Cures to diseases like AIDS and cancer aren't in the past. We know that North Korea didn't nuke us yesterday. We want answers, tomorrow has them.

Yes but you could go back in time to prevent WW2 and all that crap. The real proof you can't have time travel are paradoxs. If i go back in time and shoot my mother, I won't exist, but then who shot my mother preventing my birth?

 

[Deadarm]

well lets say you could travel back in time you couldn't do anything. ok lets say you go back in time and kill Hitler then he would never do all of the stuff that caused you to go back in time to kill him so you would have never gone back that means you would never kill him so he is now alive and has done all the stuff he did so you would go back to kill him so he would be dead and so on and so on.

That's the best written out TIME PARADOX explanation I've seen.

Same here. I think I am going to play that demo though lol.

 

[Aur0ra145]

I would use a time machine to see who won what election and what big sports games, then bet loads of money on them and win.

 

[Guitar Gamer]

Look at it this way: if we had a time machine now, would we travel back to the great depression? Would we travel back to WW2? Probably not. Even the question is an answer: why haven't we seen anyone from the future? We want to know about the future, what the future holds, all that. If we had a time machine, more than likely we'd go forward to see what awaits us. Cures to diseases like AIDS and cancer aren't in the past. We know that North Korea didn't nuke us yesterday. We want answers, tomorrow has them.

you wisdom of time travel is only surpased by the fact that your avatar is a terminator................................wait a second.................. *gasp* you don't want us to know! your here to kill whoever builds it aren't you!

 

[Guitar Gamer]

you wisdom of time travel is only surpased by the fact that your avatar is a terminator

I hadn't even realized that.

I hereby proclaim every opinion but my own contained within this thread to be false!

BLAST!!
we are powerless, you have a monocle and a tophat after all, and a glass of brandy to top it off! we are surely futile in this thread

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If there truly a such thing that as time travel wouldn't we have seen people form the future by now?

Who says you haven't?

 

[the1ultimate]

As I have stated before on similar posts: are you sure that you know what a time machine (or traveller) would look like?

It is an interesting point, however the argument that time travel doesn't exist because we can't see time travellers is an inductively weak argument; there are many equally likely reasons that we can't see time travellers (like they all are extremely careful not to disturb the past, or invisibility cloaks are the latest fashion trend).

I do like to think that a time machine could theoretically be built. Although understanding how time works is going to take another Einstein. Seriously, some of the effects of relativistic travel rule out the concept of a universal now. How would time travel work if there isn't a clear universal timeline, or if the whole universe doesn't seem to be on the same track?
[Edit: Of course! As Macgyvercas said: wibbly wobbly, timey wimey]

But still if one of latest scientific theories discovers a way to tap into another universe, or dimension of time, then time travel could well be possible.

 

[lenin_117]

The real proof you can't have time travel are paradoxs. If i go back in time and shoot my mother, I won't exist, but then who shot my mother preventing my birth?

Quite simple my good man. Before you go back you tell me you are going back to shoot your mother. Then you go back and shoot her, cease to exist, then re-exist having stopped existing before going back in time to shoot her. I will then shoot both of you, travel back in time before I shot you both, you will travel back before you went back in time, kill your other paradox self, so that once you've gone back and shot your mother and come back and been shot by me and traveled back in time, your paradox self will have been shot by the not you not time traveling who ceased to be after I shot his mother before traveling back to not tell you not to not shoot her.

Well fucking said. Now, when should we do this? Are you free on- wait, nevermind. Lets just do it. Sometime in the future. I hope to not see you then. I think.

 

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED

 

[ice232]

Well, I'd like to welcome you to the string theory. Essentially it works like this: the reason we haven't seen any people travelling back in time is because hypothetically; if someone were to travel back in time, they wouldn't be returning to what they would call "their" time. It would instead be a seperate dimention so to speak, where all the things that will happen from that point on are accounted for.

For the people who are like "Wtf is he talking about?" I have the perfect example. In Dragonball Z, Trunk goes to the past to try and stop androids from destroying the world, in doing so he has seperated that past from his present, which is to say that there would then be 2 futures that would exist.

Essentially the string theory works by saying that every possibility that can and might happen has it's own dimention in which it happens. Which means there's an infinite amount of universes, many being exactly identical to the one we live in in almost every aspect; except purhaps someone turned left instead of right.

 

[ice232]

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.

Well, the funny thing is you actually mentioned the one thing that proves that time is in fact not an illusion: light.

Here's an example: When driving down the road, if you're going 50, and another car is going 60, the car will appear to be passing you, but at a rather slow rate. Now, to say that you were going 20, and another car was going 200, then the car would appear to pass you in an instant. This is a fairly standard rule of motion.

Light though doesn't work like this. If we were to say for examples sake that light travels at 50, if we were to follow the above rule, if you were to be going at 40 then you should see light pass you very slowly, but you don't. At any speed other then the speed of light, light will pass you instantaniously, much like it does when you turn on the light in your house. From this we can determine that there is another element in play other then simple physics; this element would be time.

I don't think time travel is possible because it breaks a fundamental scientific law: The mass and energy in the universe stays constant.

Theoretically, if you were able to convert yourself to energy; specifically light, you would then be able to travel through time, and you wouldn't be breaking the law of conservation.

 

[dark-amon]

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.

I will defend my bad grammars on the fact that there is alot of words in this debate that I only know in norwiegen, secondly my comment was written when I was working nightshift and had been awake for the amount of time that would probably equalise a large amount of alchohol so I belive that commenting on my bad grammar is like telling a drunk that he's affected by alchohol.
On to the topic. I asked that you define time, not as a measurement but as it's existance and in what form it exists.
BTW: It is a reference in the discusion, but not an argument to use Einstein and Hawking. But when you say that they should be trusted on theyre IQ instead of what logical statements (I know they have some. But logical dosen't always mean that it is correct. As in sciense and philosophy logical arguments can contradict each other, meaning that only one or none is correct.) But saying high IQ = correct is as saying big d*** = stronger man.

Edit: Okay, that was immature of me. I was working dobbel nightshif tand was a little grumpy when I wrote this.
I know Einstein and Hawking is so smart I look like a complete retard compared to them, but that dosen't mean that they are right. Also I think that they don't use the term possible, more likely plausible.

 

[TheLefty]

That's part of the discussion. Who knows if we have or haven't?