Do you think time travel is possible? [Archive]

StuTheWise

4/25/02, 04:33pm

After watching a very interesting documentary on time travel on the PBS show Nova, then later reading an article about it in Popular Mechanics, I am swayed in the direction of yes, backward time travel is possible (it has already been proven that forward time travel is possible, if only we could go fast enough. It is said that one of the Russian cosmonauts aboard MIR traveled a few seconds into the future due to the high speed of travel onboard MIR).

However, Nova did bring up an interesting point:
If backward time travel is possible, why aren't we visited by time travelers from the future? There is of course the issue of creating a paradox, which Nova pointed out the possibility of there being some force that would prevent paradoxes.

For example, if you roll a billiard ball into a pocket (which contains a worm hole into the past) and the ball travels into the past to a point where it comes out another pocket, then hits itself before it is able to fall into the pocket containing the wormhole, then you have a paradox. How can the ball come out and hit itself, if it never enters the wormhole in the first place?

But the no-paradox theory (can't remember what it was actually called) dictates that something would have to happen that prevents the ball from hitting itself.

Anyway... interesting stuff.

greenfreak

4/25/02, 05:20pm

Gato, every day I find a new way to gain respect for you. Did you read it or did you see it?

kuulani

4/25/02, 06:35pm

Originally posted by StuTheWise
However, Nova did bring up an interesting point:
If backward time travel is possible, why aren't we visited by time travelers from the future?

Very good point. You would think that if it's possible, future time travelers would be all around us. (Maybe that's what aliens are) ;)

nalani

4/25/02, 09:09pm

Originally posted by Gato_Solo
Sorry. The Langoliers make SURE that going back in time is impossible... ;)

ooohhh .. I loved that book .. and the movie ... I was so afraid to not fall asleep on a plane for the longest time after that! hehehe

fury

4/26/02, 02:18am

By the time we figure out how to travel through time, we have established a temporal prime directive that explicitly denies us the pleasure of going back in time and making a fuss about it. In other words, there may already be some time travellers among us from the future, but they don't make it known.

If there are any here on earth right now, they are most likely here on a mission to prevent something bad from happening that seriously jeopardizes the future, and have found a way to evade the paradoxical situation that once they prevent that from happening, they were never sent back in time to prevent it from happening, thus it happened, which caused them to be sent back in time to keep it from happening, etc.

I doubt it, though. We are far from being advanced enough that anything we do now will have any effect on whether or when time travel technology is discovered, developed, and applied. There have been no hypotheses or blue prints or models of a time travel machine as of yet, so there is nothing about a time travel machine or the idea of a time travel machine to disturb, disrupt, or alter. So, coming this far back in time would be mostly pointless, unless this very thread, or even my post here is what causes the time travel machine never to be invented. *suspicious look* (I gotta get a smilie for that)

Luis G

4/26/02, 03:09am

I would doubt that time travel "backwars" is possible.

Forward is possible because your time goes slower than the "external" time when you reach high speeds. Therefore you're not actually traveling thru time, you're reducing the speed at which your time runs, you don't make a "jump in time" you just accelerate the external time speed. (it sounds confusing...and it is :D )

Gato_Solo

4/26/02, 08:44am

I've only seen the movie... :(

As for the truth in travelling backwards in time, ask me about it yesterday... :D

T W

4/26/02, 10:17am

If we travel fast enough and look back at earth we will see the past. (we all know this theory).
Maybe working on this concept, we can "see" the past but cant interact with it.
That would explain why we havent seen any travellers from the future.
And could also be another explanation for "ghosts".

StuTheWise

4/26/02, 12:50pm

Originally posted by T W
If we travel fast enough and look back at earth we will see the past. (we all know this theory).

Yes, the way that works is you travel away from the Earth at faster than light speed. Let's say you get 100 light years away then look at the Earth through a telescope. Since it takes 100 years for the light to reach you, you would see Earth as it were 100 years ago. That's not a theory, since it has been proven.

Because of the way that works, I don't believe it has any relation to ghosts. If it did, then it means that our ghosts are appearing on the sun everytime we look at it (the sun is approximately 8 light minutes away), or Mars or Jupiter, or Alpha Centauri... or whatever.

soniclos

4/26/02, 05:22pm

I think the real question should be, what happens to people that travel in to the past? Do you age? If so which way? It would seem logical that if aging comes into play then you age reverses as you travel. But maybe it does the oppisite, ever notice most lottery winners are old as dirt.

outside looking in

4/29/02, 01:46am

I personally put stock in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory, and also believe that there is no "motion" of or through time, but that time is just a perceptual trait of any intelligent life observing the webbed structure of our space-time uinverse.

In this framework, I believe that there are no physical principles which exclude the possibility of backwards in time travel, nor would there be any paradox generated from such travel (including killing your grandpa... no problems there).

In reality, I think that the amounts and type of energy required for any significant travel of scale would be impractical if not impossible to acquire and apply at the specified location.

I predict however that we will someday acquire the technical means by which we can achieve small scale backwards in time travel, i.e. we can send an electromagnetic signal or perhaps even a particle based signal through time. I think that any such achievement will be based on artifically created time travel devices, and not naturally occuring physical phenomena, so that the range of possible backwards in travel time is limited to the lifespan of the time travel device.

This is also an explanation as to why we haven't received any signals (or visitors, in that unlikely case) from the future. Without the discovery and utilization of a naturally occurring "time gate," such signals and/or visitors could only visit times during which the time gate has existed. Naturally, if we haven't invented the device yet, then we are not yet in a time during which we can recieve such signals. I predict that as soon as the first time gate is constructed in a lab, it will receive signals from the future, even before the scientist use it for the first time to try and send such signals.

:headbang: :confuse3:

sbcanada

4/29/02, 01:58am

:eek:

Bink

4/29/02, 01:43pm

Time doesn't exist, so I wholeheartedly believe traveling forward and backward at will through it is possible. If we just accept the fact that time is not a constant and derive any work we do on the fact that time has no hold on us, then anything is possible.

Sounds like something from a Warner Brothers cartoon. One doesn't become subject to gravity, until one actually knows what it is, and then has to face the consequences :D

I don't believe speed has any real relation to time, unless applied to light which isn't strictly time. As mentioned, if you travel fast enough away from an object, faster then the speed of light (not time!), then you can see into that objects past.

For example, a very loud rock concert is being played 5km away. The sound delay between the rock concert and yourself is about 20 seconds (if I did my maths right). You may be able to hear back in time, but it's simply an echo of an occurance, you are not experiencing the occurance itself.

If anything, I believe gravity caused by unimaginably dense mass may have an effect, but for one to make use of gravity for means of time travel, would first mean they'd have to stretch themselves into obvlivion, due to the effects of the incredible amount of gravity. Not to mention such a "device" would virtually consume any nearby solar system with it.

sunk

4/29/02, 01:45pm

i thought the past does not exist and the future hasnt happened and therefore does not exist and right now is now the past and we are now in the furtue wich is the now, which has passed to the past and damn we dont exist :headbang:

ihcra

4/29/02, 01:50pm

ahhh but start from a point of view of time being but a parenthesis of eternity and the possibilities become more simple.

if indeed life is a hologram version of an existance beyond that we are actually experiencing the the hologram needs a surface upon which to appear. a 5th dimensional existance will allow 4 dimesnions of space time to be played out as a separate entity - and given that it is possible to imagine more than one entitties in that 5th dimension this would allow not only for space time via the 5th dimensional flux but also to transfer to, not alternative, but additional and coincident realities

sunk

4/29/02, 01:52pm

my head hurts, lets discuss idle threats and sbc's poll :headbang:

CoffeePotUnit

4/29/02, 01:54pm

Sorry. The Langoliers make SURE that going back in time is impossible...
However, Nova did bring up an interesting point:
If backward time travel is possible, why aren't we visited by time travelers from the future? There is of course the issue of creating a paradox, which Nova pointed out the possibility of there being some force that would prevent paradoxes. For example, if you roll a billiard ball into a pocket (which contains a worm hole into the past) and the ball travels into the past to a point where it comes out another pocket, then hits itself before it is able to fall into the pocket containing the wormhole, then you have a paradox. How can the ball come out and hit itself, if it never enters the wormhole in the first place?
If there are any here on earth right now, they are most likely here on a mission to prevent something bad from happening that seriously jeopardizes the future, and have found a way to evade the paradoxical situation that once they prevent that from happening, they were never sent back in time to prevent it from happening, thus it happened, which caused them to be sent back in time to keep it from happening, etc.
I predict however that we will someday acquire the technical means by which we can achieve small scale backwards in time travel, i.e. we can send an electromagnetic signal or perhaps even a particle based signal through time. I think that any such achievement will be based on artifically created time travel devices, and not naturally occuring physical phenomena, so that the range of possible backwards in travel time is limited to the lifespan of the time travel device.
For example, a very loud rock concert is being played 5km away. The sound delay between the rock concert and yourself is about 20 seconds (if I did my maths right). You may be able to hear back in time, but it's simply an echo of an occurance, you are not experiencing the occurance itself.

nahh dont think thats right

CoffeePotUnit

4/29/02, 01:55pm

ooops forgot something...

CoffeePotUnit

4/29/02, 01:56pm

... :headbang:

ihcra

4/29/02, 01:56pm

not worried about the eternal changin history paradox?

sunk

4/29/02, 01:58pm

yes that could cause someproblems, sbc's martyr post may dissapear :headbang:

CoffeePotUnit

4/29/02, 01:59pm

hmmmm ??? ... nope :headbang:

CoffeePotUnit

4/29/02, 02:00pm

u realy love sbc right sunk?

:headbang:

sunk

4/29/02, 02:00pm

w00t :headbang:

CoffeePotUnit

4/29/02, 02:01pm

ur so damn right :headbang:

ihcra

4/29/02, 02:10pm

there must be an occaision where someone going back and deleting themselves from history is not a paradox but desirable

sbcanada

4/29/02, 02:14pm

SBC is in da house!! :headbang:

sunk

4/29/02, 02:17pm

only if sbc looks like your gramma :headbang:

ihcra

4/29/02, 02:21pm

get out of grandma's house - she has a vibrator set to stun and isnt afraid to use it

outside looking in

4/29/02, 05:26pm

There are no paradoxes resulting from actions taken after traveling back in time. Quite simply, you are affecting a universe different from the one in which you were born (if it makes sense to say such things... you were born in a universe different from the one in which you now live, if you insist on being clear about things). Changes to other universes do not affect the universe you came from.

For example: you go back in time and kill your father. Obviously, that event didn't occur, or your father wouldn't have been around to impregnate your mother. Therefore, the universe in which you kill some man is not the one your father was from; the man you kill is not your father, but a many-worlds extension of your father. In fact, there is no "your father" except as a blurring across universes. Killing one of them has no effect on your future, because obviously that one has no causal relationship to you at all.

StuTheWise

4/29/02, 07:01pm

Consider the following:

The past is in the past... ie: it has already occurred.

100 years ago, I stepped out of some strange portal and wandered around for awhile. It has already happened... happened 100 years ago. 20 years from now, I will have invented a time machine and use it to travel back in time 120 years.

I can't change history, because I was a part of it. Whatever I do in the past has already occurred.

outside looking in

4/29/02, 09:57pm

Originally posted by StuTheWise
Consider the following:

The past is in the past... ie: it has already occurred.

100 years ago, I stepped out of some strange portal and wandered around for awhile. It has already happened... happened 100 years ago. 20 years from now, I will have invented a time machine and use it to travel back in time 120 years.

I can't change history, because I was a part of it. Whatever I do in the past has already occurred.

It's not quite that easy. The idea of a paradox is a serious concern, but your solution is not the way out.

For instance, imagine that you have just created a time machine. You decide to play a game: if you (another you) walks out of the time machine within the next hour, then you destroy the time machine, and it is never used. On the other hand, if nothing happens inthe next hour, you step in the time machine, set the controls to go back an hour, and step out... and then witness yourself destroy the time machine.

Good pardox, no?

The solution isn't that history has already occured with any time travelers a part of it, as this example shows. The solution is that each scenario leads to a different branch of the multiworld universe. The "you" that steps out of the time machine (if he does) is not "you", but a "you" from a different universe... one in which no one stepped out of the machine, and the "you" there stepped in.

Time travel is not so much going back to earlier times of "this" universe, but rather going to different branches of the multiverse that are at earlier relative times.

It would not be at all illogical for you to go back in time, and find that your grandfather had already been killed. It's simply a different universe, and there's no reason to think you'll get extrodinarily close to the events in the universe you left.

:confuse3:

StuTheWise

4/30/02, 02:29am

You're right, my little ditty is not a solution to the problem of a paradox. I just wanted to get the ol' noggin' crackin'.

I tend to believe that backward time travel is possible in the real sense... as in traveling back to a time previous in our own universe. Traveling to another universe in an earlier relative time is not really time travel, but travel between other dimensional universes (Sliders style?) Traveling to another universe brings up a possible situation that you brought up about your grandfather already having been killed. In that universe, you are never born (even without interference from yourself), but in your own universe things remain the same.

I haven't always believed backward time travel within our own universe was possible. But recent study has changed my mind. From what I have read and seen on the Nova documentary, the world's top physicists seem to think that backward time travel is possible and many seem to agree on similar theories about how that is possible. Not being a brainiac myself, I can't even pretend to fully understand the stuff these physicists are spouting, but for the most part it makes a lot of sense.

And like I mentioned before, a popular theory among these scientists regarding paradoxes is that there is some unknown law of physics that would prevent a paradox... just like in the known laws of physics, experiencing 50 G's (50 times Earth gravity) would cause you to splatter, going back in time and killing your grandfather before he has the chance to father your father would be prevented by the "anti-paradox" law. Again, they cited the incident with the billiard ball as an example of this.

I saw an old Twilight Zone episode in which a time traveler travelled back and attempted to assassinate Hitler before the start of WWII. As he brought his rifle scope to bear on Hitler's head, he pulled the trigger, but the bullet was a dud. He rechambered and pulled the trigger again... another dud. Rod Serling's vision of the "anti-paradox" law?

CoffeePotUnit

4/30/02, 06:37am

if i could tuuuuuuuurn baaack time, i woouuuuuuldnt change a siiiiiiiiiiihhhhimmmple thing :headbang:

Bink

4/30/02, 08:02am

Interesting stuff :cool:

Does anyone have any legitimate links to studies on any of this?

outside looking in

4/30/02, 09:08am

Hmm... I'll have to see if I can come up with any links.

So far, although there is no fundamental reason why time travel shouldn't be possible, the necessary distribution of matter and energy to create such an even is not, well, easy to achieve.

One involves creating a wormhole and moving one end at near light speed. (yeah, easy, right?) Another involves a pair of parellel cosmic string (which we're not sure even exists) and a spaceship looping around the pair at near light speed. Another involves a rotating cylinder that has infinite lenght (seen one of these lately?).

That's why I don't think we'll ever achieve travel on any large scale. However, if the principles are sound, I can imagine in a laboratory environment enough energy being focused at a point to allow an EM signal to be sent through.

StuTheWise

5/01/02, 10:50am

Part of the article that appeared in Popular Mechanics can be found here. (http://popularmechanics.com/science/research/2000/10/unsolved_mysteries/index3.phtml)
A search for Kip Thorne at you favorite search engine will probably turn something up.

If you're interested, page two of the above link has a few words about faster-than-light travel as well as the theory that pulsars were actually built by aliens, and not naturally occurring phenomena.

rangeral

5/02/02, 03:14pm

Hi all,

Personally I don't think its possible, I was of the mind that you could but assessing articles I've read and personal opinion I find that most events in our universe are just pictures which go out and eventually come back which was spoken about decades ago and that its possible to see every moment as pictures come back. I haven't read anything that changes this whether speed or portals or dimensions.

For one thing even if you could see something that has happened doesn't mean you can interact with it, otherwise if aliens could do this life here would constantly be changing even deja vu feels like you've done this before but doesn't change anything as if pictures of what has happened mix with other universes or different planes of existence at times which I believe is possible but still doesn't effect change, might call it leakage but thats about it.

So whether we could jump time backwards or forwards still doesn't mean we could interact which is why I don't think time travel is possible. The human race is still evolving from a primeval time and that is a constant which doesn't change only intelligence or discovery causes change but not the act of time travel if it were possible. Jumping to another plane or dimension would only change that plane but not ours.

outside looking in

5/04/02, 01:57am

Originally posted by rangeral
Hi all,

Personally I don't think its possible, I was of the mind that you could but assessing articles I've read and personal opinion I find that most events in our universe are just pictures which go out and eventually come back which was spoken about decades ago and that its possible to see every moment as pictures come back. I haven't read anything that changes this whether speed or portals or dimensions.

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. There is a lot of discussion lately about the nature of time... and a popular opinion is that there is no flow of time, or motion through time. Instead, time is static, and by incorporating the multiverse explanation of quantum mechanics, you get a very nice (albeit very bizarre) description of reality.

Are you referring to this static nature of time, or something else?

StuTheWise

5/04/02, 11:38am

Here is a link to the NOVA website on the time travel episode:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/index.html

outside looking in

5/04/02, 12:57pm

hey, good link. :)

rangeral

5/06/02, 12:57am

Damn these pages take too long to load.

Static could be the word, I figure everything in this plane is just pictures, every nano is a pic of the moment of just electrons. I suppose if you moved them fast enough you would have a film of what happened but you wouldn't be able to interact just see the past since its already happened, going forward is a different problem since the pic hasn't been made yet. The only kink with the future is that somebody can predict what will happen but is it a coincidence one out of millions of people could get it rite. The spirit world from what we know gets hung up on one scene of events never a hint throughout history that they've had any effect on the past only that there on another plane of existence, that I can believe. Quantum mechanics et al is all theory as quite a few philosphers or scientists have mentioned and not enough to explain it which I agree with so it makes me look for an alternative approach or one professor forgot his name is teaching that you must look at it from as many different aspects as you can learn besides mathemmatics.

I can accept the belief in different planes of existence but none of it effects change in the past but more a leakage as with the philadelphia experiment, seeing sailors in a bar then disappearing at the same time of the experiment but still nothing that adds up to manipulating time. Just because I can grow a slower beard in space doesn't mean I can interact with time to the ends that we'd like to think we could.

Its an endless problem to approach.

Professur

7/26/05, 03:59pm

rrfield

7/26/05, 04:41pm

All I know is that our new system peak was set this weekend.

1.21 gigawatts!

No kidding. Southern Indiana produced enough energy to travel through time. God Bless Air Conditioning.

chcr

7/26/05, 09:55pm

Anything new to add?

Personally, I think it is possible, but not in any form which could effect the past. That is to say, were we able to travel backwards, it would be within our own timeline. We therefore would regress, and our knowledge would decrease to the point of our own birth. That would pretty well nix travelling back to kill hitler, wouldn't it?
Actually, I think there are several hypotheses whereby time travel is possible. My personal favorite is that if you were to change something, it would cause the creation of a parallel universe (where the change happened and everything subsequent was affected) and no one in the original universe would ever know. :nerd:

HomeLAN

7/27/05, 10:06am

A-la Heinlein.

Winky

11/29/05, 02:51pm

I travel time everyday.

catocom

11/29/05, 03:19pm

Gato_Solo

11/29/05, 03:34pm

I hear when people look at far away stars, they are actually looking back in time.
I don't think it is possible to "travel in time" so to speak, nor will it be in my lifetime,
but we may have been visited from someone in the future. I do believe it might be possible one day.
The parallel universe thing hurts my brain to think about though. :nerd:

Seeing a past effect is not the same as travelling back in time. The same way you see the lightning before you hear the thunder is a good analogy. They both occur closer together as you approach the point of impact.Whereas from 15 miles away there is a very distinct difference time-wise.

catocom

11/29/05, 03:54pm

Seeing a past effect is not the same as travelling back in time.
I didn't mean to imply that they were the same, just both time related.
Nothing is the same a "traveling" in time that I know of.

rrfield

11/29/05, 04:36pm

I saw a DMC today. It was shiney!

HeXp£Øi±

11/29/05, 07:17pm

Without going to exasperating lengths to explain the physics behind it all let me point out what should be the obvious. If time travel were possible, that is, if you could travel back in time and meet the you from twenty years ago we would be forced to conclude that there are an infinite number of planes which our 'other selves' exist on. So if there are an infinite number of planes of existance at the bare minimum there would have to be a nonillion, nonillion, nonillion to the nonillionth power (realistically it would be another infinite number but we'll round things down to make it simple)planes of existance where they had discovered the science of time travel. Therfor there would be that many time travelers going in and out of our plane at any point in time. In fact there would be so many time travelers that we would all know about time travel already because they would be everywhere.
No there is absolutely no such thing as time travel. We live in second the dark age of science.

chcr

11/29/05, 07:28pm

That's my take on it too, Hex. Been wrong before but rarely uncertain. ;) How do you feel about visitors from alien civilizations? I feel pretty much the same way about that.

Winky

11/29/05, 08:19pm

well now ain't you two prudy much
summed it up and put this issue to rest?

HeXp£Øi±

11/29/05, 08:48pm

That's my take on it too, Hex. Been wrong before but rarely uncertain. ;) How do you feel about visitors from alien civilizations? I feel pretty much the same way about that.

Well i'm pretty sure there are no alien life forms visiting earth(aside from a few otc members). :D
As far as life on other planets goes...imo odds of that are far less than popular scientific opinion would conclude.
In fact, from a purely scientific perspective, the fact that we are even here makes absolutely no sense at all whatsoever. The notion that a piece of inert matter can all of a sudden "have life" is Preposterous & absurd.

chcr

11/30/05, 01:21pm

The notion that a piece of inert matter can all of a sudden "have life" is Preposterous & absurd.

Well, that isn't really how it works. In any case though, I feel like given the size of the universe other life, even other intelligent life is nearly inevitable. In fact, given the wildly varying environments under which life exists on earth, I wonder if we won't find that life is much more likely than we expect. :shrug: If we don't discover warp drive or some other way to bypass the speed of light we'll never know though.

Are you familiar with Freeman Dyson?

Gato_Solo

11/30/05, 01:25pm

Well, that isn't really how it works. In any case though, I feel like given the size of the universe other life, even other intelligent life is nearly inevitable. In fact, given the wildly varying environments under which life exists on earth, I wonder if we won't find that life is much more likely than we expect. :shrug: If we don't discover warp drive or some other way to bypass the speed of light we'll never know though.

Are you familiar with Freeman Dyson?

Dyson was a quack. :D Most famous for his idea of using all the matter in the solar system to encase the sun in a shell, and live on the inside of said shell. Think about the episode of ST:TNG where Scottie appears...

HeXp£Øi±

11/30/05, 01:35pm

Well, that isn't really how it works. In any case though, I feel like given the size of the universe other life, even other intelligent life is nearly inevitable. In fact, given the wildly varying environments under which life exists on earth, I wonder if we won't find that life is much more likely than we expect. :shrug: If we don't discover warp drive or some other way to bypass the speed of light we'll never know though.

Are you familiar with Freeman Dyson?

As far as i understand science & physics something goes from inert to active. There's no way to minimize this absurdly profound conversion.

I'd be interested to know just how you think it works.

yes i am somewhat familear with Freeman Dyson.

chcr

11/30/05, 03:06pm

HeXp£Øi±

11/30/05, 03:39pm

We're not talking inert to active, we're talking not alive to alive. Are viruses alive? Even inert to active does not necessarily happen like flipping a switch. It takes an entire textbook to explain this, but quick and dirty. Chemicals to chemical compounds to complex chemical compounds to complex chemical compounds that can replicate to complex chemical compounds that can replicate quickly to complex chemical compounds that can replicate quickly and combine with others to primitive DNA to viruses to single celled organisms...

All over millions of years, and I've left out thousands of steps. Where or when life began is a philosiphical question. Without time travel (remember time travel? :D ) it's impossible to say. Even with. I think it likely that life arose and was destroyed many times before chance hit on a combination that worked and was lucky enough to survive. Unless you want to accept a mythical explanation, it is simply not possible to point to a moment in time and say, "Here, life began right here."

I have never understood why science cannot agree as to weather or not a virus is a life form. Imo it's clear.
It reproduces, it evolves, it needs a host(a host that must be a life form). I don't think there's any question that a virus is a alive. I've heard all the arguements and i just don't agree with them.
I don't think 'the big question' is a philosiphical question at all. I think simply that the answers are so profound that as scientists we simply choose not to accept them. Not sure how much farther i want to carry this discussion though. I have the opportunity to engage in oral debates on this subject every once in awhile and those are grueling and long winded enough as it is. Text is simply not sufficiant for all these concepts. Back in my mass posting days i might have attempted it but nowadays i just don't have the patience.
If we go much farther i think i'll try and keep it simple. I gather you comprehend where i'm coming from? :D

chcr

11/30/05, 03:50pm

Okay. I completely agree with the grueling and long-winded part BTW. This is an area in which we will never agree and that's okay. We don't have to, after all.

HeXp£Øi±

11/30/05, 04:00pm

Okay. I completely agree with the grueling and long-winded part BTW. This is an area in which we will never agree and that's okay. We don't have to, after all.

Now wait a second i didn't say that. Conform dammit! :la:

chcr

11/30/05, 05:46pm

Now wait a second i didn't say that. Conform dammit! :la:
I'd like to help you out there, really I would...

StuTheWise

1/10/06, 09:50pm

Well, it's been a long time since I posted a reply in this thread (near 3.5 years now), but it's time I set you all straight on this time travel question.

I thought it'd be cool to create a wormhole that would allow me to reach through and grab myself from behind. Then I could choke myself to death. Freaky cool, right?

But then I realized it would just be a whole lot easier to simply reach up with my hand and choke myself without the use of a wormhole.

But then it occured to me to create a wormhole that travels into the future. Then reach through and choke whatever person is there in the future. Once that person is dead, I'll stand by the wormhole and wait for my own hand to come through and choke me to death.

Now that's pretty cool, right? Then I realized I don't know the first thing about creating a worm hole.

So... ummmm, where was I going with this?

ekahs retsam

1/10/06, 11:24pm

Ok so lets list the possibilities

First, It works you go back in time.
Now does what you effect change anything in your original future? Or is some sort of alternate future created allowing both to proceed?

Remember, that your trip thorough the past might have a cascading effect making your changes more and more evident with time (even the ones you didn't intend on creating). Simply by standing in line to get some food you might cause a war.

You might be asking how you standing in line in the past could start a war? You are standing in line for some food at some burger place before you complete your mission. This makes the line longer and a pregnant women in line a few people behind you. After getting through the line she is now running later than she would have had you not been waiting as long. In her hurry she doesn't see a cross walk sign and gets hit by a car. She lives but her unborn child dies. The child was going to be a key diplomat in avoiding a future war.

This is an extreme example but it shows a very real problem.

Lets consider something else… people have already gone back in time and made changes (or at least tried to make changes).

What events in history would they want to change?

The simple answer is you would never see those events because they never happened.

The problem with this is that the entire reason the person went back was to change the event so if it no longer exisits what reason did they have for going back? This creates a Mobius Time Loop paradox. Either way no change ever happened because nothing really ever changed.

Your best bet for time travel is to send an object back in time in a place that humans can’t reach until the future. For instance a coded message in a DNA sequence or in a known historical document using nano-technology or some undiscovered future technology.

ekahs retsam

1/10/06, 11:29pm

If you like this type of disscussion you must watch a movie called "primer"

An amazing movie about time travel

paul_valaru

1/11/06, 12:04am

I think that time travel is not possible, it the past, it already happened, done deal, the furture, well it hasn't happened yet so there is no-where to go.

if there ever is a time machine, maybe it will bring us back a past ECHO, where we cannot affect anything, in fact it will be more like watching a tv show.

Future time travel is impossible cause the future does not exist, there is no time stream, it is more of a wave, and we are at the front of it.

StuTheWise

1/11/06, 05:45pm

I've got Primer in my queue on my NetFlix account. Looking forward to it.

Professur

1/11/06, 05:54pm

Paul, there's two scenarios you're missing out. The mobius loop, and the fabric of space itself.

The mobius loop requires that in travelling back or forward in time, you twist time/space into a loop. It's the twist in that loop that prevents paradoxes, and keeps anything you do in that time limitted to itself.

The other is simply dropping out of time/space and not coming back into it until the selected time arrives. It's simpler to simply freeze yourself and have your corpse revived in the future, but depending on the nature of the relationship between time and space, you might well be able to travel backwards too.

paul_valaru

1/12/06, 12:01am