Time travel is impossible and will forever be impossible. Otherwise people from the future would have time traveled back to our time.

File: 13 KB, 444x333, timetravel_wormhole.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:05:15 2010 No.2278560 [Reply] [Original]

Time travel is impossible and will forever be impossible.

Otherwise people from the future would have time traveled back to our time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:06:15 2010 No.2278561 And taken our jurbs!

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:07:15 2010 No.2278572 Why? Our time is fucking boring.

Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:08:15 2010 No.2278580

>Otherwise people from the future would have time traveled back to our time

Now heres where I disagree.

1) Who's to say they aren't here already? If they can time travel I would think they have invisibility technology or be able to dress in a way where they wouldn't be noticed.

2) Maybe they choose not to openly show up because they know any interaction could drastically alter the time line and ruin what they have in the future. Its like the butterfly effect, kill a butterfly in the past and the future is drastically altered.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:08:15 2010 No.2278581 >>2278572 Yes, because no one in the history of time has ever been interested in a time period of the past.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:10:15 2010 No.2278589 >>2278580 How would they get to Earth? Any spaceship would have been easily detected.

Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:15:15 2010 No.2278611

>>2278589

.......your serious?

OK, if they are from the future their aircraft/space technology would FAR surpass any radar systems we have today. Right now we have Stealth Bombers which are invisible to radar in our time, imagine how much better technology like this could get in the next 300 years.

>>	MR. RAGE !D9l9S8Lio6 Fri Dec 31 23:15:15 2010 No.2278613 >>2278589 YOU'RE ASSUMING THEY HAVE THE POWER TO TRAVEL THROUGH TIME, BUT NOT EVADE OUR PRIMITIVE, LAUGHABLE DETECTING TECHNOLOGIES?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:18:15 2010 No.2278621 time travel being impossible has nothing to do with technology its the simple fact that if time travel was real, some fuckwad from the future would have messed up and revealed the secret by now

MR. RAGE !D9l9S8Lio6 Fri Dec 31 23:22:15 2010 No.2278636

>>2278621

AND THEY COULDN'T GO BACK IN TIME TO BLOCK HIM FUCKING IT UP BECAUSE...?

THAT'S THE THING ABOUT A TIME-TRAVEL-CAPABLE SOCIETY. YOU ONLY EVER SEE THE "FINAL" VERSION OF EVENTS, BECAUSE THEY CAN KEEP GOING BACK AND RETCONNING IT UNTIL THEY GET IT EXACTLY HOW THEY LIKE (INCLUDING WHOEVER DISAGREES WITH THEM IS DEAD).

Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:26:15 2010 No.2278651

>>2278636
Of course, there's the hypothesis that time travel had happened. but then someone, or perhaps many someones, travelled to the beginning of time, causing the structure of time to evolve in a different way, preventing further timetravel, making it having been impossible always.

There are multiverses lost in every second.

Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:28:15 2010 No.2278657

>>2278580
>Maybe they choose not to openly show up because they know any interaction could drastically alter the time line and ruin what they have in the future

You discount the tenacity of trolls. Someone would fuck it up, most likely just to get laid by some girl he was interested in when he was in high school and show off to his former self.

Or some jackass would give himself all the correct sports and shit to bet on.

Or any number of other jackass moves including things done with good intentions.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Fri Dec 31 23:32:15 2010 No.2278667 File: 289 KB, 744x1515, 1292760717719.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Slightly related

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:33:15 2010 No.2278670 isnt displacing the air molucules around you enough to drastically change the future? so just the act of being there would destroy any hopes of returning to a recognizable home

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:33:15 2010 No.2278671 There's a theory that a time machine could only travel back to the point that it's created, and not before.

>>	Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE Fri Dec 31 23:34:15 2010 No.2278672 I like the future wanking going on in this thread! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDiDK_yBCw0&feature=channel

Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:35:15 2010 No.2278673

>>2278657
That's assuming
A) The technology is widely available enough
and
B) We actually achieve time travel as a species. Maybe we can only put it into practice on an incredibly small scale requiring an atomic clock, using such an absurdly large amount of energy that we barely have enough to send a clock back, let alone something of consequence.

Nice year 8 philosophy faggots, but stop being so presumptuos and let is rest. This is a science and math board, not a baseless speculation board.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:36:15 2010 No.2278675 >Otherwise people from the future would have time traveled back to our time. You are pretty arrogant and retarded to think that this time would be so fucking interesting for someone who clould time travel to visit and announce themselves.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:37:15 2010 No.2278678 >>2278670 Cause and effect definitely has potential to build up some severe consequences, but displacing air molecules? Incredibly unlikely to have any noticeable effects in the future.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:37:15 2010 No.2278680 >Otherwise people from the future would have time traveled back to our time. Or maybe something killed humanity before our technology got that advanced!

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:38:15 2010 No.2278681 >>2278560 >Go back in time >Watch evolution unfold >Film the first ape to give birth to a person >Destroy Christianity.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:39:15 2010 No.2278683 >>2278667 shitty ripoff of "The Last Question"

Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:41:15 2010 No.2278694

>>2278678

there will have to be some kind of change, and the changes can only increase, compound and gain momentum and it is no way isolated, so it can continue spreading out.

eventually even if it takes a longer amount of time, it will become observable

>>	Naggarothian !!0S4L3hs2lkr Fri Dec 31 23:48:15 2010 No.2278713 File: 75 KB, 604x453, 75378-TrollFace.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2278681 >/sci/'s face when

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:50:15 2010 No.2278718 >>2278694 Or the human race could very well be over before the effects compound enough for even the slightest variation to be noticeable to someone familiar with both timelines.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:50:15 2010 No.2278719 It would be impossible to change anything were you to travel into the past.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:52:15 2010 No.2278726 >>2278719 Why,

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:52:15 2010 No.2278728 File: 50 KB, 345x345, 1269154093780.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2278560 >doesn't understand what time travel means

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:54:15 2010 No.2278733 File: 6 KB, 419x360, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2278719 Black: Timeline 1 Red: Time travel Blue: Timeline 2 >Green: Doc Brown gets shot

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:54:15 2010 No.2278734 File: 23 KB, 470x572, jeff_goldblum.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2278678 Oh yeah?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:55:15 2010 No.2278736 >>2278560 your right op you can only travle back in time as far as you turned your time mech link very related it's a fucking time mech http://radicalfilms.co.uk/2008/02/24/lasers-twist-space-and-time-into-loops-allowing-sub-atomic-time -travel/

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:57:15 2010 No.2278745 File: 284 KB, 640x535, Troll-dad1-640x535.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2278560 We've already time travelled anon. >Forward.

sage sage Fri Dec 31 23:57:15 2010 No.2278746
File: 25 KB, 561x370, 1642362363263.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2278719
>>2278560

To avoid a paradox, one of the promenent hypothesis regarding time travel imples: travel back in time will create a divergent timeline.

Hence you can travel back in time and fuck up shit howver you want without fear of paradox.

Anonymous Fri Dec 31 23:58:15 2010 No.2278750

>>2278718

True, but it the time vary wildly depending on where the air is.

Out in the middle of nowhere, the altered molecules could just keep influencing other molecules for close-to-eternity

Or some events could occur that makes the scale jump, and observable effects could happen in a matter of years.

Theres no way of telling, so standing in the wrong places is a hazard

Not Very Good With Music !28NBkKlL3M Sat Jan 1 00:01:15 2011 No.2278758

>Time machines can only travel back in time by traveling to another dimension where the time wanted is currently going down
>Time machines can only go back to the time the time machines were still standing

Or atleast that's the theory

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:03:15 2011 No.2278768 >>2278746 But that means that no "alternate future" has (will) invented time travel, right? Why wouldn't we already be the "divergent past"?

>>	Samefag !SHjzCSZsqE Sat Jan 1 00:06:15 2011 No.2278776 File: 19 KB, 180x203, 1293437223038.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Gee, it sure is failing to distinguish between theory and hypothesis in here. I should open a window.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:09:15 2011 No.2278786 Another hypothesis: Time travel is possible, but the mere discovery of the possibility invariably triggers a civilization-ending war.

sage sage Sat Jan 1 00:18:15 2011 No.2278827
File: 55 KB, 600x672, 1e736c0363b6030be50e9aa0866524e6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2278768
>But that means that no "alternate future" has (will) invented time travel, right?

Nope. Why do you think another timelines time travel has to effect us?

Our own timeline could invent time travel, and travel back in time, and the procees of travel would not effect our timeline. Likewise a parallel timeline could invent time travel, travel back, and it would still not effect us.

>Why wouldn't we already be the "divergent past"?

A divergent past is created for every instance of backwards time travel. Hence, our timeline is either a divergent or an orginal. However we have no evidence of time travalers visting us, so we are likely an orginal timeline.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:21:15 2011 No.2278842 File: 54 KB, 600x750, 1292960716786.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2278827

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:23:15 2011 No.2278848 >>2278636 ... OH SHIT. The Eternity is here! THE ETERNITY IS HERE!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:26:15 2011 No.2278861 >>2278827 But since there's only one original timeline and many divergent ones, the fact that we have to be in the original would be evidence against the hypothesis that this sort of time travel is possible.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:31:15 2011 No.2278879
File: 50 KB, 600x711, 0ce91b8cd28b0a536dd0bca5dc106f0a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2278861
>since there's only one original timeline

Nope,
Again, why the fuck do you keep making all these faulty assumtptions. You can have an infinite amount of parallel timelines, and all of them would be considered orginal.

Why do you assume that there was only one orginal timeline? Can you just stop fucking assuming shit, please?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:32:15 2011 No.2278886 File: 26 KB, 400x447, 1267390748781.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2278861

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:33:15 2011 No.2278887

>>2278879
That doesn't change anything, though. If time travel has a reasonable probability of being discovered in each timeline, you still get many more divergent timelines than original ones. (Original timelines with no people don't count in this analysis.)

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:36:15 2011 No.2278901 >>2278726 Because anything you do has already been done. It's only a 'change' if it 'hadn't been done' but 'now has'. But it had been done. Because it's 'the past'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:37:15 2011 No.2278907 >>2278887 At this point, you're spouting bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:39:15 2011 No.2278917 >>2278907 Well, I was about to suggest a workaround, but since you're such an expert on how time travel works, I suppose I should stop thinking and listen uncritically to what you have to say.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:45:15 2011 No.2278939

you guys i thought of a way to test the butterfly effect (if we had a time machine)
first make sure you make the time machine with a supply of oxygen, in case the changed earth is uninhabitable, also that you have a video camera.
know this plan ahead of time so you won't freak yourself out.
ok - go back in time and kill a butterfly, then go to the future and film whats outside. if it's different, just go back in time to just before you killed the butterfly and hand yourself the video camera and stop yourself from killing the butterfly.
future is what it originally was and you know what it would have been like.
pwnd

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:46:15 2011 No.2278944
File: 82 KB, 600x949, 17364bc17ca8a7994b36ee411253ae61.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2278887
I see that you are familar with bicondiational logic.

Your "if stamement" isn't nesscarily true though. Hence your whole statment is meaningless.

>time travel has a reasonable probability of being discovered in each timeline

is just another bad assumption

And even it was true, you are jumping to way too many conclusions, regarding divergent timelines. There is no direct implications that can be made.

And even if "there are more divergent timelines than original ones", you still have no point.

What exactly is you point? lol

>>	sage sage Sat Jan 1 00:48:15 2011 No.2278949 File: 104 KB, 466x522, 1289762459072.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2278887

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:56:15 2011 No.2278971 File: 21 KB, 500x375, 17052.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2278667 You fool, this is our species final stage.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:57:15 2011 No.2278975

>>2278887
Anyway, it occurs to me that one way around this would be to weight the timelines so that people are more likely to find themselves in the original timelines than the newly created ones. To me, this seems like a reduction in the power of time travel, since most observers won't be affected by the actions of time travelers.

>>2278944
Time travel being possible, but unlikely to be discovered is of course another way out.

>And even if "there are more divergent timelines than original ones", you still have no point.
The argument is that if a time travel theory predicts that we are most likely to observe time travelers, then the theory is most likely wrong. Not hard to follow.

>just another bad assumption
Why are you complaining so much about assumptions? I'm not OP, and do not claim that I can prove time travel impossible. However, mapping out the ways time travel might be possible given these arguments against it is still interesting, but to do that, we need to make some assumptions.

Another way out is
>>2278636
whereby we are not in an original timeline; rather, a time-traveling society works to suppress evidence of existence for some reason.

Or you can't go back before the machine was created, etc...

>>2278949
>>2278907
>>2278886
y u so mad?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 00:59:15 2011 No.2278986 >>2278971 species'* my bad

JoshPandey !!+PxHCGzdTl2 Sat Jan 1 01:18:15 2011 No.2279057

>>2278560

Let's look at this logically, in a way 85% of you will not comprehend.

*1* In order for time travel to be possible, every second of the "past', the "present" and the "future" MUST exist at the same time.

( 3 dominoes placed face-down in a row, one is the past, one is the present, one is the future - these are conditions for time-travel. Each is a portion of time. If only ONE existed (the present) at any static time, there would be no such thing as a third domino in front or a domino behind it.)

So, assuming time-travel is possible, we have established that, though WE might exist at a certain place on the continuum (although WE might be standing on one domino), there are separate PORTIONS that co-exist at the same time (there are 3 domino's, to walk back and forth on).

Now if the past, present, and future exist statically at one time, and we can travel back and forth between them (if all the dominos are lined up and we can walk back and forth between them), WHILE KNOWING THAT WE ARE TIME-TRAVELLING, it would mean us being "tied" to a specific, original, moment in time.

Think about that carefully.

If we walk backwards on a domino, and we KNOW and are CONSCIOUSLY AWARE "I am in a different domino, a different place in time than I normally am", then we have a SPECIFIC ORIGIN IN ONE. If you're in the "future" domino, and you walk back to the 1st "past" domino, and you KNOW that you don't belong in the 1st one, then you are tied to the future domino. You are aware that, even though your environment traveled back in time, YOU didn't.

YOU did not get younger, your ENVIRONMENT did.

So if 1. All moments in time co-exist at any given time. and 2. For our environment to change without our bodies changing, one of them must remain static.

then, logically

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:18:15 2011 No.2279059 >>How would they get to Earth? Any spaceship would have been easily detected. This makes me twitch wildly. Just... so many things...

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:22:15 2011 No.2279077
File: 164 KB, 495x542, 128383250289.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2278975
>time travel theory predicts that we are most likely to observe time travelers

1) There are no time travel theories, only hypothesies

2) They don't say that shit. The hypothesis make no claim about the liklihood of observing time travelers.

\thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:24:15 2011 No.2279084 File: 44 KB, 392x500, 1267521881872.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2278975

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:24:15 2011 No.2279086 THERE IS NO SCIENCE BEHIND TIME TRAVEL INTO THE PAST OTHER THAN SOME CRAZY UNTESTABLE HYPOTHESES BUT I FEEL THAT I AM QUALIFIED TO ARGUE ABOUT IT ON THE INTERNET

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:28:15 2011 No.2279102 >>2279077 (1) is probably better semantics, yes, but (2) is wrong. Given assumptions about time travel, we can infer whether we are likely to see time travelers.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:31:15 2011 No.2279121 >>2279057 Then, logically, what?

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:32:15 2011 No.2279125
File: 8 KB, 251x197, 1269377638216.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2278975
Unless you can derive your assumptions off some actual time travel hypothesis (in which case they really arent assumtpions), you really can not make any point about the orginal time travel hypothesis.

Your method or reasoning cannot falsify the orginal time travel hypothesis, you can only falsify your shitty assumptions.

I suggest you review elementary logic before you try and conquer shit like time travel...LMAO.

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

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:34:15 2011 No.2279131 >>2279125 You didn't say anything in that post that contradicted what I wrote.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:35:15 2011 No.2279138
File: 34 KB, 600x480, 1267363273015.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2279102
>Given assumptions about time travel

Yes, given your assumptions, you can prove your assumtpions wrong. However, you still can't make any actual statement about the orginal time travel hypothesis. (You can't even prove your assumptions right)

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:39:40 2011 No.2279158 [DELETED]

File: 48 KB, 470x600, 1233030445764.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2279125
LMAO....

Proof by contradiction is the only logical argument "you" can make, given all "your assumtpions".

"You" can "assume" shit, and get "contradictions", thereby proving "your assumtpions" wrong.

You still make no progress in actually talking about the orginal time travel hypothesis though.

Trollin?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:40:15 2011 No.2279163 ITT: e-peen ITT: > i am better than you IT'S LIKE PISSING IN AN OCEAN OF PISS

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:42:15 2011 No.2279176
File: 126 KB, 587x759, 2123572673.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2279131
LMAO....

Proof by contradiction is the only logical argument "you" can make, given all "your assumtpions".

"You" can "assume" shit, and get "contradictions", thereby proving "your assumtpions" wrong.

You still make no progress in actually talking about the orginal time travel hypothesis though.

Trollin? Trolling?

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:43:15 2011 No.2279180

>>2279138
In my mind, a time travel hypothesis says time travel is possible and describes how the rules work. For example, does it create new timelines or was the time traveler there in the original one? Trying to disprove a "time travel hypothesis" which makes absolutely no assumptions would be like trying to disprove the existence of God.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:44:15 2011 No.2279187

>>2279102
>Given assumptions about time travel, we can infer whether we are likely to see time travelers.

Assuming any time travelers actually decide to visit where and when they could be recognized as such, or if they could be recognized at all. We also have to assume a single timeline.

That's a lot of assumptions for something we know fuck all about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:45:15 2011 No.2279191 >>2279163 I don't think there's even a substantial disagreement anymore.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:45:15 2011 No.2279193
File: 92 KB, 815x1000, 0936full-jana-defi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2279131
Let me dumb it down for you
This is your logic:

Orginal hypothesis: People Exists
Your assumtpion: People have green skin/red spots

Your logic: I don't see people with green skin/red spots, therefore people don't exist.

Do you understand?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:48:15 2011 No.2279209 I have traveled back in time to tell you that it's possible. the end.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:49:15 2011 No.2279214 >>2279193 HER NOSE IS TOO BIG!

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:50:15 2011 No.2279219

>>2279193
Let me dumb it down for YOU.

You are responding to a post saying that >>2278975 was not in disagreement with what you were saying.

in >>2278975 was said:
>I'm not OP, and do not claim that I can prove time travel impossible.

You respond with:
>Your logic: I don't see people with green skin/red spots, therefore people don't exist.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:52:15 2011 No.2279226

>>2279180
>In my mind, a time travel hypothesis says time travel is possible and describes how the rules work.

That's the gist of how hypotheses work so I'd be concerned if you had a significantly different description in mind.

All you left out was the requirement of falsifiability. A hypothesis is of no use to science if we can't test whether the predictions it makes are wrong.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:55:15 2011 No.2279242
File: 795 KB, 936x1576, 936full-jana-defi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2279180

>In my mind, a time travel hypothesis says time travel is possible and describes how the rules work.
>In my mind, a time travel hypothesis
>in my mind

Yeah, you kinda fucking fail. How about you stop making assumtpions about the fucking hypothesis. There are actual time travel hypothesis, written in fuckin scientifc jounals and shit. It isn't just shit a underage kid like you makes up.

Different time travel hypothesis have different ideas. A productive thing to do would be to try and actually disprove some of those ideas, instead of just making up your own nonsense and disproving yourself.

FYI: It is easy to disprove the existence of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 01:59:15 2011 No.2279263 >>2279242 >There are actual time travel hypothesis, written in fuckin scientifc jounals and shit. Why don't you contribute to a dead thread then by linking to one of said hypotheses so we can discuss it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 02:02:15 2011 No.2279274 File: 16 KB, 320x240, 1258680514453.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2279242 >demonstrates poor understanding of scientific method >makes age crack while writing in a childish manner >argument from authority >non-sequitur

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 02:12:15 2011 No.2279322

>>2279057
I've thought a lot along those lines.

I've come to the conclusion that all the "times" (past, present, and future) rely on each other (future relying on present, present relying on past). This also means that the "past" cannot be changed (or conversely must have been changed) for us to observe the present the way it is.

Another thing is that the idea that there are multiple dimensions built on choices are unnecessary as if one goes to the past, time is still technically moving forward. So, on a time line, the point where someone time travels and changes the past is continoued (instead of looping back) by the period of past changed and the resulting future. (I would provide picture but posting from a phone.)

Thus, I strongly believe if there time travel is possible, there is no such thing as free will.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 02:15:15 2011 No.2279337 >>2279057 >In order for time travel to be possible, every second of the "past', the "present" and the "future" MUST exist at the same time. This does not follow.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 02:21:15 2011 No.2279370 >>2279337 That's the logical conclusion, as what is the present but the past of the future? The future must be happening right now for them to be able to time travel to us. This applies to all times equally.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 02:59:15 2011 No.2279507 >>2279370 Not feeling it. No, you've kicked logic to the curb and made a baseless assumption.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 03:09:15 2011 No.2279532

Maybe when going back in time, you don't stay on your current timeline, but are forced to jump to another one, or reality.

Given that theoretically there could be infinite timelines, realities - the chances of getting visitors is infinitesimal, at best.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 03:13:15 2011 No.2279551

Timetravel is possible, going into the future happens when you approach the speed of light. It's going back in time that is hard. I guess that if you had two blackholes slowly orbiting each other and you somehow moved between them in the right way you might go back in time, that is if your not sucked in.

Jake the Snake !.IKNKkqT1w Sat Jan 1 03:16:15 2011 No.2279556

I propose to you that your grounds for saying time travel is impossible is flawed, as no time machine could go back before its creation. The only conclusion you can get from there being no time travelers is that a time machine does not exist yet, not that time travel is not possible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 03:31:15 2011 No.2279616 the reason we haven't met any time travelers from the future is because there is no future\h\h\h\h\h\h\h\h\h\h\h\h\htime machine only allows time travel, not space travel, so the Earth is long gone between temporal points A and B.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 04:29:15 2011 No.2279803 File: 90 KB, 468x256, Michio-Kaku.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Time travel is impossible and will forever be impossible. Nope. u mad?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 04:31:15 2011 No.2279806 Time travel is impossible. Paradoxes would occur. No exceptions.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 04:39:15 2011 No.2279825

I always imagined you could travel back in time but you can never actually change anything because of causality.

If I go back in time in order to show people that time travel is possible, my purpose for going back in time in the first place will have disappeared, and most of anything I can say or do in the past will lead me to never travel back in time in the first place. Most people count this as a paradox but i'm not so convinced, since our universe isn't really deterministic. If I traveled back in time to do something I wouldn't be stuck in an infinite loop, but I'd keep trying until a universe errupted where I'd somehow fail to change anything spite my best efforts, and the timeline would from this point on move forward just like normal.

In other words, if I traveled back in time only to observe, not to change anything at all, the timeline would be uninterrupted and I could go back to my time and continue life. If I did try to change anything, I'd be stuck in a loop until some random event caused me to fail, and I'd once again go back. At least that's my theory.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 04:42:15 2011 No.2279840 >>2279806 You're a idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 04:48:15 2011 No.2279854 wouldn't specific historical events become filled with an exponentially increasing number of time travellers, leading to a black hole?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 04:51:15 2011 No.2279861 YOU ALL HAVE IT WRONG. Time travel backgrounds = impossible. Sorry to burst your bubble. HOWEVER... Time travel forwards = (theoretically) possible, the only constraints are in the technical challenges

>>	sage sage Sat Jan 1 04:54:15 2011 No.2279868 File: 9 KB, 278x267, 001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2279861 >Has never taken a course in General Relativity They allow for some special kinds of backwards time travel and time loops. Go read a fucking book.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 06:27:15 2011 No.2280076 Maybe time travel creates an alternative timeline and you can never go back.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 06:31:15 2011 No.2280088 >time >travel

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 06:32:15 2011 No.2280092 Lets say I'm orbiting Earth and start magically traveling backward in time. Wouldn't the Earth, and the solar system, and the galaxy, be in a completely different spot when I pop back into "normal" space?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 06:36:15 2011 No.2280098 >>2280092 Depends on which reference frame you didn't move in.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 06:51:15 2011 No.2280121 http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Dec10/BemStudy.html

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 06:54:15 2011 No.2280128 >>2280121 http://www.ruudwetzels.com/articles/Wagenmakersetal_subm.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 10:20:15 2011 No.2280429 >>2279180 > does it create new timelines how can time travel create a new timeline? I thought matter could not be created out of thin air.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 10:31:15 2011 No.2280451 >>2280429 Then where did the universe come from?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 10:33:15 2011 No.2280455 File: 30 KB, 300x267, 1289045938467.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I run a lot, and live below sea level everyday. I am a time traveler everyday. I age slower then you OP.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 10:35:15 2011 No.2280461 >>2280451 no one knows

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 10:37:15 2011 No.2280465 >>2278560 Why would they travel to a point where we're intelligent to steal their time travel thing and use it? If I had time travel and I wanted resources, I'd bloody well take them from 1600s tech points and before.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 10:40:15 2011 No.2280471
File: 36 KB, 291x400, 129380692379.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Time travel in the sense most people see it is violation of the conservation of matter.
If you were to travel through time you'd poof out of nowhere in your destination. Shit don't work like that. Habeeb it. The particles making you up would also have to replace an equal amount of particles in the place where you spawn lest the enthalpy of the universe be disrupted.

I'm still open to theories of twisting the very fabric of the universe and creating some perversion of local space-time allowing brainxploding miraculous migration through time and space to happen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 10:40:15 2011 No.2280472 >>2280465 >we're intelligent to steal their time travel thing and use it That's a pretty large assumption that we would be smart enough to understand time travel technology. If we understand it then we should be able to create it right now

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 10:46:15 2011 No.2280475

>>2280472

Not really. If it's invented by humans it's almost certainly got apertures for other humans to use. You might not even have to monkey with it much to get it to work and humans in this day and age are not frightened by technology as they might have been in the 1500s.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 10:47:15 2011 No.2280479 If the multiverse theory is correct, then maybe whenever somebody alters something in the past a new universe branches off, hence the reason why we don't feel the effects of them meddling time travelers today.

Actual OP Sat Jan 1 11:25:15 2011 No.2280562

>>2280479

That means that all the universes are somehow connected together, we have consciousnesses there, the same ones as we have here, it doesnt really make any fucking sense to me.. besides, our universe is always expanding so wouldnt it crash into other universes around it? Or are the other universes in some other dimensions or some shit?

>>	wat? wat? Sat Jan 1 11:40:15 2011 No.2280596 >>2280471 >lest the enthalpy of the universe by disrupted wat?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 11:53:15 2011 No.2280629 "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" gets a better grasp of time travel than most of this bullshit.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 12:10:15 2011 No.2280658

>>2279507
Only one making baseless assumptions is you. Even if it's the microscopic, I'm still using logic and reason to reach my assumptions.

Besides, when talking about time travel, we are required to make assumptions. And they are all illogical at their core. The most logical thing is that there is no such thing as time, only entropy.

Anonymous Sat Jan 1 12:28:15 2011 No.2280704

This thread is just pure speculation. There's no "scientific" discussion of time travel because no-one else has yet time travelled, nor observed any effects of time travel. Therefore all the shit you post here is just fucking useless (just as all the scientific papers published about it).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 14:41:15 2011 No.2281256 File: 65 KB, 1920x1200, 1292350128351.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2280596 You know, total energy 'n' shit... how energy can't come out of nowhere...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 1 15:01:15 2011 No.2281307 Is there anything in the laws of physics that forbids time travel? No. Will it ever be possible to travel back in time? Probably not.

>>	patachu !LULZISTwQI Sat Jan 1 15:25:15 2011 No.2281382 File: 8 KB, 227x134, aaaa.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2278667 this. God itself doesn't exist. WE are gods. we have a role, which is to know more, expand and create. if only we could just.. stop killing eachother.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math