Time travel is fantasy

[SCraps]

It's a question of whether one in body can "return" to the year 1950 or "leap ahead" to the year 2050 as referenced by a date-and-time marking standard clock ticking here on Earth at the rate a clock usually ticks here on Earth during all those years.

I'm still not completely clear on what you mean so I'll tell you the "time-travel-like" situation I'm envisioning and you can tell me if it has anything to do with what you're talking about.

I'm saying that if I board a really fast accelerating ship, leave earth and come back in fifty years, my ship and I will be aged virtually not at all relative to how we would have aged if we had never boarded the ship. I will leave 21 years old in 2006 and come back in 2056 without having undergone any physical process of aging. Nor will my ship or my belongings have aged or deteriorated in any way (assuming the journey went well).

Now there won't be any 'leaping' involved in this -- I will still exist continuously in some place at all times measured on earth and in my own ship. It won't be anything like, say, a point representing me on a timeline leaping off the line from the 2006 point to the 2056 point.

But a person wishing to 'travel to the future' can do what I've described and essentially accomplish his goal. If you want to live to see what happens 10,000 years from now it is physically possible in principle to do so.

In addition I would submit that time travel to the past or future even in the sense of "leaping" on a time line is not impossible (although it probably is a fantasy, but not all fantasies are bad right?). For anything that we can imagine is possible, and we have very compellingly imagined time travel to the future and past -- just look at the third Harry Potter movie.

Time travel only becomes 'impossible' if one dogmatically assumes a certain worldview that precludes it. Now there's nothing wrong with dogmatic assumptions in my opinion, but I do think that one should explain why the assumption is not only correct but should be held dogmatically. Your assumption, I think, is that there is one universe which is changing but does not "record" how it has changed in the past (only human brains make such recordings), so time means *only* change and thus it is impossible for someone to go back and mess with this record of universe-change which does not exist. I think this assumption is reasonable but I see no reason to hold it dogmatically. It is imaginatively possible that the universe records its previous states and that those states are subject to change which may revise the states after the changed state (again see Harry Potter 3 ). So on what basis should we preclude this possibility from our thinking? We can say it is probably a fantasy, but not *conclusively* a fantasy without some argument.

[JesusC]

Originally Posted by SCraps

I cannot believe the stupidity i'm reading here.

That was my exact thought after reading your post.

Lets Suppose time travel is possible. Then if is, wouldn't someone from the future have visited the past already? even in our lifetime or before?

No, not necessarily.

Read the post before yours, study up on some of the ideas of Ron Mallet. I believe you can even go to youtube and listen to some clips from a few shows he did.

considering that time is infinite and at least one of the many people that will come about in the future would want to come back to our time. Yet no one has come to visit us. I think thats a pretty good indicator that time travel is impossible and further evidence that time does not exist as we think it does.

1. "considering that time is infinite"......it is?? Says who??

2. How do you know we havent had people from the future visit us? Dont get me wrong, I certainly dont believe they have....but I also dont believe they would hold a press conference to announce their arrival either.

3. As I said before, you sound like someone who really hasnt researched this topic at all. Before you start speaking about evidence of things that are impossible (or stupid), you should really make an effort to educate yourself on the subject first...then go from there.

So i agree, it is just a stupid little fantasy which has been complicated by science and gullable scientific minds who belive every science journal they read.

Stupid little fantasy?? Heres a list of some other ones:

1. Going to the moon
2. Landing rovers on another planet (mars)
3. Finding planets outside of our own solar system (considered stupid in the early 90's)
4. The idea of other galaxies
5. The idea that the sun was at the center of the solar system
6. The Airplane
7. Cell phones
8. The Internet
9. The Microwave

....and on and on and on.


I dont believe people are gullible for trusting in the abilities of science. People believe in science because it has proven time and time again that it works. If time travel is possible, science will figure it out sooner or later. In fact, we may be closer than you think.

quote: " everything we've ever been taught in modern science, is pretty much bullshit" dont where but i read this quote somewhere.

This is laughable. Anyone to reduces science to "bullshit" is a complete fool. Science has taught us many great things, and given us the ability to understand and examine things we would have never known otherwise.

Heres just one example of "bullshit":



Yea, I guess youre right.....science teaches us nothing.

[magg0t]

When Scotty blasts the Enterprise at fantastic warp speed through some "time portal" or whatever back to Earth in the year 1860 something so the crew can visit with Abraham Lincoln or HG Wells' lead character in The Time Machine sits in his time travel machine and goes forward in time thousands of years, and it all happens in a matter of "seconds", that's time travel.

Certainly, like most everyone, you've seen the shows and or read the books to know what I've been talking about.

You simply have no indication or proof that time travel is a real possibilty.

Originally Posted by SCraps so I'll tell you the "time-travel-like" situation

Which, of course, won't be time travel.

and you can tell me if it has anything to do with what you're talking about.

Of that, you can make bet.

I'm saying that if I board a really fast accelerating ship, leave earth and come back in fifty years, my ship and I will be aged virtually not at all relative to how we would have aged if we had never boarded the ship. I will leave 21 years old in 2006 and come back in 2056 without having undergone any physical process of aging. Nor will my ship or my belongings have aged or deteriorated in any way (assuming the journey went well). Now there won't be any 'leaping' involved in this -- I will still exist continuously in some place at all times measured on earth and in my own ship. It won't be anything like, say, a point representing me on a timeline leaping off the line from the 2006 point to the 2056 point. But a person wishing to 'travel to the future' can do what I've described and essentially accomplish his goal. If you want to live to see what happens 10,000 years from now it is physically possible in principle to do so.

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).

Regardless, all you've presented is a form of cryogenic-like suspension, and that is not time travel.

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.

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.

Indeed, time travel swings both ways, forward and backward. Where in your example could anyone travel backward in time?

Using a fantasy to try to prove a fantasy true is rather fantastic of you, and not in a good way.

In addition I would submit that time travel to the past or future even in the sense of "leaping" on a time line is not impossible (although it probably is a fantasy,

Agnosticism is so wafflingly indecisive.

but not all fantasies are bad right

Irrelevant.

But all of the time that fantasies are deluded to be reality is pretty bad for the deluder.

For anything that we can imagine is possible,

Absolutely false.

You can imagine that a cat is a dog, but that is not possible in reality with respect to the cat you are staring at.

People imagined that the Earth was flat, but that was not possible in reality with respect to the Earth they were standing on.

Imaginination is a good thing, for a number of reasons, providing there is no such delusion operating to create the obvious fantasy.

and we have very compellingly imagined time travel to the future and past -- just look at the third Harry Potter movie. .

Immaterial and irrational.

As much as I have enjoyed the Harry Potter series, presenting fictional accounts of events in an attempt to prove/suggest a fantasy is real is simply irrational.

Time travel only becomes 'impossible' if one dogmatically assumes a certain worldview that precludes it..

Irrelevant, irrational and divertive.

Now you're trying to prove-suggest time travel isn't a fantasy by fantasizing that those who recognize that time travel is most certainly a fantasy are operating erroneously under the influence of a (dogmatic) ideology.

You would, hereby steming from introducing your own ideology of agnostic relative moralism into the discussion, be the pot calling the kettle black, except I don't qualify as a kettle.

Now there's nothing wrong with dogmatic assumptions in my opinion, but I do think that one should explain why the assumption is not only correct but should be held dogmatically.

Your ideological aversion to what you imagine is dogmatism, is quite obvious.

And the more you projectively add ideology to your argument, the less it resembles anything that has to do with scientific fact.

I have stated the truth that time travel is an obvious fantasy, which has nothing to do with ideology, but is essentially a scientific fact-based knowledgable observation of reality with respect to ontology.

Your assumption, I think, is that there is one universe which is changing but does not "record" how it has changed in the past (only human brains make such recordings), so time means *only* change and thus it is impossible for someone to go back and mess with this record of universe-change which does not exist.

We'll say yes to that, for argument's sake.

I think this assumption is reasonable but I see no reason to hold it dogmatically.

A cat is not a dog. Do you think that "assumption" is reasonable? If so, however, are you opposed to thinking such reasonableness is always true, that a cat could be a dog?

Typical moral relativist -- you appear to have a difficult time accepting the reality of limitations.

Fantasy will simply not change those limitations with respect to reality, limitations such as the limitation on the span of your very life time.

Acceptance is really for the best, with respect to maturity.

It is imaginatively possible that the universe records its previous states and that those states are subject to change which may revise the states after the changed state (again see Harry Potter 3 ). So on what basis should we preclude this possibility from our thinking? We can say it is probably a fantasy, but not *conclusively* a fantasy without some argument.

Again, you reference fantasy to prove-suggest that an obvious fantasy is real.

Next thing I know you'll be stating that it is possible for Santa Claus to be real or that Jesus died and rose again and ascended into Heaven and is alive, etc.

Think whatever you wish.

But for it to be classed as reflective of reality your thoughts must translate into actual real occurrences that can be recognized as such, not only from knowledge, not only from shared objective virtual unanimity, but from the very ontological roots of our being.

The Santa and Jesus fantasies, like the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and time travel, are, thereby, obvious fantasies.

We would all do well to accept the reality of these being fantasies, even while imaginatively theorizing.

Being able to accurately distinguish between fantasy and reality is a great part of the definition of sanity.

[JesusC]

The reality is that ANYTHING is possible. The question is whether or not time travel is probable.


See, I love it when people like you (maggot) come to these boards and act as if you know more than the actual scientists putting these theories to work. You make yourself sound like a complete fool when you label something as "impossible", yet have no means to back up such a claim.

In this case, Ill side with the people who are actually educated on this subject and believe that (in theory) time travel is entirely possible...maybe even probable. The fact is that its going to take some time to develop this technology if it exists.

Didnt you make this comment? "wouldnt someone fromt the future have visited the past already"? That comment alone shows that you're not very educated on the concept, idea, or theory of time travel.

You can come on these boards and try to act as if your knowledge is superior to everyone else here, but you can never fool anyone into believing you know more than the people actually doing the work.

The REALITY is that youre trying to hard to be correct, when you should be spending your time trying to learn something.

[Liquidtruth]

Magg0t, I still have yet to see any science from you to prove your point. It is cool that you are stating time travel is impossible, yet science does not hold the same position as you. So, any evidence to support your claim?

[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).

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.

Originally Posted by magg0t

You simply have no indication or proof that time travel is a real possibilty.

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

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.

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.

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.



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.

[JesusC]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Magg0t, I still have yet to see any science from you to prove your point. It is cool that you are stating time travel is impossible, yet science does not hold the same position as you. So, any evidence to support your claim?

agreed...

[stoned budda]

what in the hells amatter wit ya'all, you fuckin crazy, for christ sake grow the fuck up, gettin high is great but you all gotta grow up, its cool to get high and escape reality for a little while but you all got way to much time on your hands,,,, tell you what by show of hands lets see how many of you are virgins....................exactly

[JesusC]

Originally Posted by stoned budda

what in the hells amatter wit ya'all, you fuckin crazy, for christ sake grow the fuck up, gettin high is great but you all gotta grow up, its cool to get high and escape reality for a little while but you all got way to much time on your hands,,,, tell you what by show of hands lets see how many of you are virgins....................exactly

Thank you.

From here on out ill know that anything you post is coming from the mind of an individual who knows very little about anything. There are plenty of grown up people here, most of which can discuss things that your brain simply wont allow you to understand.

The next time you decide to post in this section, dont. My advice to you is to stick to the other sections of the forums where you can discuss things that may be a little more suited to your level of thinking, ie " what kind of seeds should I buy"?

[glass_guy420]

I have been gone from the forum for a while, and this looks like a good place to jump back in.

Nobody has mentioned what is obvious to me. Time and space are not separate things. One second is a distance of approximately 186000 miles. We have a lot of momentum in "time", and I agree it would be impossible to pull a U-turn, travel for "years" of distance (186000 miles/second), and then pull another U-turn to align ourselves with the direction (time) we were going before, all in a matter of seconds. Ain't gonna happen. We can't just jump ourselves from one location to another, whether you think of it as time or space is irrelevant. However, there is no reason we couldn't circle "back". It would just take longer than the distance covered.

Semantics can be tricky. The same words can mean different things to different people.

P.S. - Anyone in S.W. Calgary got a doob to smoke with me? I have none right now...

[Azimuthal]

time travel is real
1. we're travelling through time right now, look: t ------------------------------> sip beer -----------------------------> t'

t'-t = delta t > 0

So you traveled in time to read this stupid post. If you hadn't traveled in time delta t would be 0.


2. if you get in a space ship and go around really really fast, then come back, time will have elapsed much quicker for the folks that stayed home than yourself. The faster you go, the faster time elapses around you.

3. Wormholes and stuff. Ok so wormholes don't exist. They are just games played by very nerdy people. If wormholes do exist, then they have blackholes in the middle and you don't want to travel through them.
---

What we have is the inability to stop our travel through time, or to reverse it.

[Liquidtruth]

I like... So wanna travel into a blackhole because I am > a black hole!

I am not as puny as light and am sure I could escape it! Silly black holes, thinking they run the show. HA I say! HA!

[ThaChronic6]

And the Earth is flat...

"Impossible is nothing"

[mhughes]

[quote=magg0t;2057404]

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).

Regardless, all you've presented is a form of cryogenic-like suspension, and that is not time travel.

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.

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 think theres a misunderstanding here. Lets say we have a set of twins, A and B, who are 20 years