[AlphaQ]

You present what to-date stands as a theory, about which there has been no proof, and is likely another example of unintended fiction fantasy presented by a wrong-turning physicist(s).

<o></o>
The theories of special and general relativity have been extensively proved over the past 90 years. For example, the GPS would be useless without considering time dilation due to the difference in gravitational fields on earth and in orbit for satellites.
<o></o>

Originally Posted by magg0t

You simply have no indication or proof that time travel is a real possibilty. <!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" oreferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/> </v:formulas> <vath o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" alt="" style='width:12pt; height:12pt'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\AlphaQ\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_ image001.gif" o:href="http://forum.grasscity.com/images/smilies/cool.gif"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->

<o></o><o></o>
In the sense of star trek time travel, I agree with you. In the sense of time travel at any level, I disagree.<o></o>

Originally Posted by magg0t

Whether you freeze someone or accelerate them into tininess suspension and wait for their "journey" forward in time to finish, you simply have not time travelled in the common meaning of the term that was presented in the inital post of this thread.

<o></o>
Regardless of what you consider the “common” meaning of time travel, taking a year to go 10 years into the future is essentially the same as taking 1 second to go 10 years into the future. Applicably, it is very unlikely to take the star trek approach and make the trip in one second as limitations by the speed of light and other relativistic affects will hamper this.<o>

</o>

Originally Posted by magg0t

Even if in your quite fantastic example the person doesn't die either from the process or from old aging while in the speed of light itself or whatever, the fact that the process to the "traveller" will take just as long as the time that passed on Earth, regardless if in fantastic comparison he doesn't "seem" to have aged any when he "returns", that simply isn't time travel.

I’m not sure what you mean here. In the twin paradox example, one twin stays on earth, the other travels on a spaceship at the speed of light for a few years. When the spaceship twin returns to earth, he is a few years older while his twin is a few decades older.
<o></o>


I think a lot of the argument stems from difference in opinion of what time travel actually is. There are two views in my opinion:

Common View – Traveling through wormholes or using fantastic time-traveling crafts to go forward or backwards thousands of years in seconds.

Scientific View – Time slows down as velocity increases in some reference frame resulting in traveling into the future compared with a slower moving reference frame. Time moves backwards or forwards due to quantum fluctuations at the quantum scale.<o></o>