/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12048698
no
now go make a 0.999=1 thread next

>>12048698
Yeah, why not dude
Follow your dreams

>>12048698
Forward time travel, yes. Backwards time travel, no.

>>12048698
Time loops back so just wait long enough to go back in time.
Just mind the step because the universe in the next time frame is one feet lower.

>>12048703
trust me I would LOVE to bait you guys ad nasuem but I need some genuine answers on why we've been to the moon but haven't figured out time travel

Intuitively at least it seems like real time travel (without parallel universes) to the past would require some kind of bizarre fine tuning. Rather than blunt appeals to "free will" or "grandfather paradox", I think better way of saying this that the tension is between time travelers' knowledge of the past (which should give them a lot of leverage over it) and that at least some of them should have motivation to change it from what they knew happened on the other hand, and the requirement that they somehow nevertheless always fail to do so on the other. But how severe this tension is depends also on how easy time travel is. If almost anyone can time travel to the past willy nilly it seems like bizarre coincidences and unlikely stuff happening would be required to keep everything consistent under single timeline. And I think we can say that anything that requires bizarre unlikely stuff happening a lot is unlikely to be possible. But if we assume time travel to the past will always be very very difficult, even when it becomes possible, the tension is not as bad.

>>12048751
Huh?

I actually have a pet peeve against people who claim going back in time (specifically via exceeding the speed of light) would cause the 'grandfather paradox'.
There is no paradox because when using this method to go back in time, you would be forced to move away from your grandfather spacially, thus making it impossible for you to change your grandpa's life.
You can think of it like this:
currently, you're moving away from your father temporally, but you can still go visit WHERE he was, just not WHEN he was.
if you flip this: then you will be able to go to WHEN he was, but not to WHERE he was.
Thus, no paradox.

Time is a mental construct, there's no "timeline" that exists out there in the real world.

>>12049045
no, the universe is 4 dimensional and time is one of the dimensions.

>>12048739
travelling backwards in time is not possible.
even when you could go faster then light, you could just observe things before they happen but not interact with the past.
you see your cup of warm chocolate milk falling off your desk. you run with 2x lightspeed to the desk. will you be able to prevent the cup from falling down?
no, because going faster then light will not place the cup back on your desk. it will just change how fast or slow you see it falling. in fact, you would need to run away from your desk to see the cup getting back on the desk. you would have to travel away from the thing you want to observe making it impossible to interact with the past. running towards the thing you want to observe would speed up time for you.
sure, for the people around, you would appear on point b, before you started at point a. for them you would travel back in time. but relative for you it's another story.
let alone the fact of the energy needed and what would happen when you hit other atoms with over lightspeed.

>>12048698
>Is true timetravel possible and not timeline splits
This question requires further specification of the terminology. It is possible to construct a closed timelike curve but the proper time along such a curve can never be equal to zero.

>>12049920

>>12049140
so it's hopeless then

>>12048707
this

>>12048698
>Is true timetravel possible and not timeline splits

If it was, there would be time travellers everywhere. Are they here?

Were Buddha and Christ surrounded by millions of time travellers from all possible time periods who wanted to meet them? Was Hitler spending every second of his life avoiding time traveling assassins?

Self-Consistent time travel is the obvious solution to non-brainlets. Not to say it's possible, but if it's possible, that's the answer.