Proof Time Travel Can't Exist [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Magic_Man

12-12-2006, 09:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Premise 1 - Time will go on for an infinite or very long amount of time into the future

Premise 2 - Time Travel is invented some time in the future somewhere in the universe

Premise 3 - An Infinite are very large amount of time travelers travel back in time on Earth and in other parts of the universe

Premise 4 - History is changed many possibly an infinite amount of times, wildly and randomly

Premise 5 - Eventually a new history is created where time travel is never discovered

debunk this....

[/ QUOTE ]

-It is possible that time travel will be invented, but time travel to the past will be impossible. Travellers will visit the future only, and it will be a one-way trip.

-It is possible that time travel to the past will be possible, but in observation mode only. That is, travellers will be able to visit the past, but only observe, not interact.

-In the event that they can interact with the past, it is possible that no matter how hard they try, they will not be able to change history. Every time you try to shoot your grandfather, the gun jams. You miss. He survives. He dies, but he deposited in a sperm bank. Etc.

-If there is a multiverse, history would only be changed in one universe. In others, time travel would still be possible.

-It is possible that the invention of time travel is inevitable. Certain changes in history could delay its invention (possibly), but nothing could actually prevent it.

...that's all I can think of offhand. I'm sure there are other thoughts.

~MagicMan

madnak

12-12-2006, 09:54 AM

You're assuming that history can be changed through time travel. If this is the case, then an original history must exist to be distorted, so your argument doesn't apply.

If this isn't the case, then the "grandfather problem" is irrelevant. This is perhaps because any time traveler's actions will correspond with the existing history, or perhaps because the time traveler will actually move laterally into another universe, or perhaps for some other reason - but it doesn't much matter.

Assuming the former case of "time distortions," things get really messy really fast. There would have to be a kind of "second time" for that to occur, a level of time that is undistortable. Therefore, even if the events of the past can be superficially distorted, the "grandfather paradox" is still inherently irrelevant (even if it would cause the destruction of the universe). The "time scale" along which the distortion happens would represent the "actual" time scale, not the time scale that's actually being distorted.

RayBornert

12-12-2006, 11:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Time Travel has already been debunked. No travelers showed up for the Time Travelers' convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Traveler_Convention). /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

that's not an official debunking.

what was proved is that
if time travel does exist in the future and
if they knew about the mit advertisment and
if they have fine tuned control to within 20 feet and 2 hours

that they chose not to provide proof at that event.

asking for knowledge and not getting it does not mean you've proven anything other than the knowledge never existed in the first place or those with that knowledge decided not to give it to you.

that convention is somewhat like holding a lottery winners convention where you invite big lottery winners to show up and give you money to prove they won the lottery.

knowledge == power

it's unscientific to assume that asking == getting.

however, i think the convention lab test was interesting.

ray

soon2bepro

12-12-2006, 12:30 PM

I'm all up for the scientific refutations of the ridiculous idea of "time travel":

If it's about travelling backwards, the mistake is seeing time as a line where you can jump back and forth. It's not like that. In order to be able to travel to the past, you would have to literally turn back time. It's not a place you must travel or a trick you must perform to fool the universe, you have to have the power to control the universe enough to reverse it's processes so the time goes backwards; somehow excluding yourself. But because of the chaos theory, this would lead to a past that is a LOT different to the "real" one (depending on many factors). So on top of being able to reverse all the processes in the universe, you would have to be able to also make a copy of yourself, which would also reverse, while "you" are somehow excluded from all this.

Travelling to the future is a little easier. All you have to do is wait. Maybe making time pass slower for you, while at the regular rate for the rest of you universe. If you can just stay alive long enough, or get into some form of stasis or partial stasis (moving at high speeds, for example), you can "travel" to the future. However have in mind that, again, this is not the same future that would've existed had you lived your otherwise regular life without making this "travel".

On your original point, though, I most definitely disagree.

Premise 1 is unprovable.

Premise 2 is ridiculous, but this has no effect on my point.

Premise 3 pressuposes 1 is true.

Premise 4 again pressuposes 1 is true.

Where do you get premise 5 from? I guess you get it from that ridiculous movie concept that time is some sort of line you can jump back and forth through, and that when you make changes they affect you too when you get "back to your time".

In any case, my main point is that, even if time travel was discovered, you can't assume they'll be using it, or that they'll be using it as indiscriminately as you think.

Finally, you seem to have a problem dealing with altered "history". If someone really did change the way things were, you wouldn't be aware of it, so to you changes can be happen constantly (lol, it's funny to talk of a constant when you throw time out the window /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) and you wouldn't notice. In fact it could be the case that the reality you live, even if you experience it as a full life, is only another minute to the people travelling through time and making changes. So one minute your life existed, the next it didn't. Funny /images/graemlins/smile.gif

soon2bepro

12-12-2006, 12:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Premise 7 - If humans ever get close to discovering time travel, the Earth will be destroyed

[/ QUOTE ]

By the time people discover (invent?) backwards time travelling, they probably won't be humans. Gods would likely be a more appropiate classification.

keith123

12-12-2006, 01:05 PM

maybe we can go back and just witness things. maybe we can go back but we lose the sense that we came from the future and live our lives in the same determined way we lived them in the first place. there are a ton of other possibilities.

BobOjedaFan

12-12-2006, 03:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm all up for the scientific refutations of the ridiculous idea of "time travel":

If it's about travelling backwards, the mistake is seeing time as a line where you can jump back and forth. It's not like that. In order to be able to travel to the past, you would have to literally turn back time. It's not a place you must travel or a trick you must perform to fool the universe, you have to have the power to control the universe enough to reverse it's processes so the time goes backwards; somehow excluding yourself. But because of the chaos theory, this would lead to a past that is a LOT different to the "real" one (depending on many factors). So on top of being able to reverse all the processes in the universe, you would have to be able to also make a copy of yourself, which would also reverse, while "you" are somehow excluded from all this.

Travelling to the future is a little easier. All you have to do is wait. Maybe making time pass slower for you, while at the regular rate for the rest of you universe. If you can just stay alive long enough, or get into some form of stasis or partial stasis (moving at high speeds, for example), you can "travel" to the future. However have in mind that, again, this is not the same future that would've existed had you lived your otherwise regular life without making this "travel".

On your original point, though, I most definitely disagree.

Premise 1 is unprovable.

Premise 2 is ridiculous, but this has no effect on my point.

Premise 3 pressuposes 1 is true.

Premise 4 again pressuposes 1 is true.

Where do you get premise 5 from? I guess you get it from that ridiculous movie concept that time is some sort of line you can jump back and forth through, and that when you make changes they affect you too when you get "back to your time".

In any case, my main point is that, even if time travel was discovered, you can't assume they'll be using it, or that they'll be using it as indiscriminately as you think.

Finally, you seem to have a problem dealing with altered "history". If someone really did change the way things were, you wouldn't be aware of it, so to you changes can be happen constantly (lol, it's funny to talk of a constant when you throw time out the window /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) and you wouldn't notice. In fact it could be the case that the reality you live, even if you experience it as a full life, is only another minute to the people travelling through time and making changes. So one minute your life existed, the next it didn't. Funny /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you actually. I think if Time Travel IS possible it would be as you described. But I still think my proof disproves the paradoxical type of time travel. Your non-paradoxical type where you change the universe around you is still quite plausible.

BobOjedaFan

12-12-2006, 03:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
maybe we can go back and just witness things. maybe we can go back but we lose the sense that we came from the future and live our lives in the same determined way we lived them in the first place. there are a ton of other possibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will never understand why people think 'maybe we can go back an observe things only' in what way could that ever happen. That seems way more improbable/harder than regular time travel. Your 2nd idea of 'losing yourself' is real interesting though. If that's the case then are you even really time traveling??? oooh deep

BobOjedaFan

12-12-2006, 03:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Premise 1 - Time will go on for an infinite or very long amount of time into the future

Premise 2 - Time Travel is invented some time in the future somewhere in the universe

Premise 3 - An Infinite are very large amount of time travelers travel back in time on Earth and in other parts of the universe

Premise 4 - History is changed many possibly an infinite amount of times, wildly and randomly

Premise 5 - Eventually a new history is created where time travel is never discovered

debunk this....

[/ QUOTE ]

-It is possible that time travel will be invented, but time travel to the past will be impossible. Travellers will visit the future only, and it will be a one-way trip.

-It is possible that time travel to the past will be possible, but in observation mode only. That is, travellers will be able to visit the past, but only observe, not interact.

-In the event that they can interact with the past, it is possible that no matter how hard they try, they will not be able to change history. Every time you try to shoot your grandfather, the gun jams. You miss. He survives. He dies, but he deposited in a sperm bank. Etc.

-If there is a multiverse, history would only be changed in one universe. In others, time travel would still be possible.

-It is possible that the invention of time travel is inevitable. Certain changes in history could delay its invention (possibly), but nothing could actually prevent it.

...that's all I can think of offhand. I'm sure there are other thoughts.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

I also hate the "no matter hard they try, they can't change history" theory. That is so [censored] ridiculous. There's no way that could be true. That means if i try to kill someome an infinite amount of times I will always fail, that just makes no sense.

madnak

12-12-2006, 03:23 PM

It does if you've already failed to kill them. The likelihood of such a thing occuring is probably very, very low. But it would be a very likely representation of the reality of such an occurence.

As far as I can tell, the only alternatives would be either "multiverse" scenarios or "othertime" scenarios. Personally I suspect time travel is straight impossible, at least in this sense. But assuming no "othertime," you would be unable to kill your grandfather if you went back in time.

BobOjedaFan

12-12-2006, 03:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It does if you've already failed to kill them. The likelihood of such a thing occuring is probably very, very low. But it would be a very likely representation of the reality of such an occurence.

As far as I can tell, the only alternatives would be either "multiverse" scenarios or "othertime" scenarios. Personally I suspect time travel is straight impossible, at least in this sense. But assuming no "othertime," you would be unable to kill your grandfather if you went back in time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, so it probably just means paradoxical type time travel is IMPOSSIBLE as you are suggesting. The alternative where you can never alter history no matter how hard you try is ludicrous. What if I go back 1 minute in time and just decide to never write this post. Will I fail and somehow accidentaly write it?, lol.

arahant

12-12-2006, 03:37 PM

So wait...you're arguing that time travel is impossible? That really flies in the face of modern understanding of the universe! Hopefully, you'll have the opportunity to publish these ideas. I suggest submitting to Physical Review Letters for starters; since the idea is so contrary to the established paradigm, though, don't be disappointed if you're rejected at first.

BobOjedaFan

12-12-2006, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So wait...you're arguing that time travel is impossible? That really flies in the face of modern understanding of the universe! Hopefully, you'll have the opportunity to publish these ideas. I suggest submitting to Physical Review Letters for starters; since the idea is so contrary to the established paradigm, though, don't be disappointed if you're rejected at first.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, It was just intended to be something to think about. I no I'm not making any groundbreaking statements. No need for sarcasm.

arahant

12-12-2006, 03:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So wait...you're arguing that time travel is impossible? That really flies in the face of modern understanding of the universe! Hopefully, you'll have the opportunity to publish these ideas. I suggest submitting to Physical Review Letters for starters; since the idea is so contrary to the established paradigm, though, don't be disappointed if you're rejected at first.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, It was just intended to be something to think about. I no I'm not making any groundbreaking statements. No need for sarcasm.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's never a need, I just can't stop myself. It's like a disease, man...

Wubbie075

12-12-2006, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
-It is possible that time travel will be invented, but time travel to the past will be impossible. Travellers will visit the future only, and it will be a one-way trip.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty simple to do according to special relativity

BobOjedaFan

12-12-2006, 04:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So wait...you're arguing that time travel is impossible? That really flies in the face of modern understanding of the universe! Hopefully, you'll have the opportunity to publish these ideas. I suggest submitting to Physical Review Letters for starters; since the idea is so contrary to the established paradigm, though, don't be disappointed if you're rejected at first.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, It was just intended to be something to think about. I no I'm not making any groundbreaking statements. No need for sarcasm.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's never a need, I just can't stop myself. It's like a disease, man...

[/ QUOTE ]

I know I have the same disease. I think we should be friends, hehehe.

kyro

12-12-2006, 05:33 PM

The only proof I have is that if it did exist, someone certainly would have traveled back to kill you by now.

Magic_Man

12-12-2006, 05:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Premise 1 - Time will go on for an infinite or very long amount of time into the future

Premise 2 - Time Travel is invented some time in the future somewhere in the universe

Premise 3 - An Infinite are very large amount of time travelers travel back in time on Earth and in other parts of the universe

Premise 4 - History is changed many possibly an infinite amount of times, wildly and randomly

Premise 5 - Eventually a new history is created where time travel is never discovered

debunk this....

[/ QUOTE ]

-It is possible that time travel will be invented, but time travel to the past will be impossible. Travellers will visit the future only, and it will be a one-way trip.

-It is possible that time travel to the past will be possible, but in observation mode only. That is, travellers will be able to visit the past, but only observe, not interact.

-In the event that they can interact with the past, it is possible that no matter how hard they try, they will not be able to change history. Every time you try to shoot your grandfather, the gun jams. You miss. He survives. He dies, but he deposited in a sperm bank. Etc.

-If there is a multiverse, history would only be changed in one universe. In others, time travel would still be possible.

-It is possible that the invention of time travel is inevitable. Certain changes in history could delay its invention (possibly), but nothing could actually prevent it.

...that's all I can think of offhand. I'm sure there are other thoughts.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

I also hate the "no matter hard they try, they can't change history" theory. That is so [censored] ridiculous. There's no way that could be true. That means if i try to kill someome an infinite amount of times I will always fail, that just makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying I believe it, just giving some possibilities. At any rate, there are plenty of actions for which this would be true. If you try to fly an infinite amount of times by flapping your arms, you will fail. If the "physics of time travel" (whatever that means) prevent you from taking action in the past, then no matter how many times you try, you will fail.

At any rate, I like the arguments that we can only go into the future or that we can only observe the past a lot more, since otherwise the chances that time travel is ever discovered go way down, and I like time travel. For the record, the Hubble space telescope observes the past every day, and to a much lamer extent so do you.

~MagicMan

Morrek

12-12-2006, 05:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I will never understand why people think 'maybe we can go back an observe things only' in what way could that ever happen. That seems way more improbable/harder than regular time travel.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's already possible to observe the past. Just look at the sky for example. The stars planets etc you're seeing is not "happening" right now, it already happened(often a v long time ago). If you could position yourself a light year away and observe earth, you could also see earth one year ago.

On a slightly different topic, this is why I don't really believe in time at all. It's just something we use to describe our reality, but in ultimate reality there's no such thing.

metsandfinsfan

12-12-2006, 06:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
maybe we can go back and just witness things. maybe we can go back but we lose the sense that we came from the future and live our lives in the same determined way we lived them in the first place. there are a ton of other possibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will never understand why people think 'maybe we can go back an observe things only' in what way could that ever happen. That seems way more improbable/harder than regular time travel. Your 2nd idea of 'losing yourself' is real interesting though. If that's the case then are you even really time traveling??? oooh deep

[/ QUOTE ]

ive thought this would be possible.

metsandfinsfan

12-12-2006, 06:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will never understand why people think 'maybe we can go back an observe things only' in what way could that ever happen. That seems way more improbable/harder than regular time travel.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's already possible to observe the past. Just look at the sky for example. The stars planets etc you're seeing is not "happening" right now, it already happened(often a v long time ago). If you could position yourself a light year away and observe earth, you could also see earth one year ago.

On a slightly different topic, this is why I don't really believe in time at all. It's just something we use to describe our reality, but in ultimate reality there's no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome post. This is so true.

Magic_Man

12-12-2006, 06:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
On a slightly different topic, this is why I don't really believe in time at all. It's just something we use to describe our reality, but in ultimate reality there's no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what do you call the process by which in some situations you see the light, and others you don't?

I tried to avoid using the word "time" in that question, which made it confusing. My point is, the light takes some amount of "time" to reach you. If you are 2 light years away, it will take "longer" to observe the events on earth. It goes beyond observation, actually. Every event/object sends out a so-called light cone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone) that limits what objects it can affect. If you are not inside its future light cone, either time-wise or space-wise, that object cannot possibly affect you. In this sense, we can think of time as just another spatial dimension, which we - and as far as we know, all living creatures) - interpret in a bizarre mental way. Is this how you see it?

~MagicMan

BobOjedaFan

12-12-2006, 08:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will never understand why people think 'maybe we can go back an observe things only' in what way could that ever happen. That seems way more improbable/harder than regular time travel.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's already possible to observe the past. Just look at the sky for example. The stars planets etc you're seeing is not "happening" right now, it already happened(often a v long time ago). If you could position yourself a light year away and observe earth, you could also see earth one year ago.

On a slightly different topic, this is why I don't really believe in time at all. It's just something we use to describe our reality, but in ultimate reality there's no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome post. This is so true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree, this post has nothing to do with what we're talking about. OBSERVING the past while being in it is totaly different than just getting information late. That's like me saying I'm seeing the past right now because it takes the light .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000
00002 seconds to get to my eyes, oh + the time it takes to procces it.

NeedsMoreNuts

12-12-2006, 08:39 PM

Great scott!

Ellsworth T

12-12-2006, 08:46 PM

I don't see how time travel is possible. If we assume that time travel is linear and singular in nature, i.e-the chain of causality can and will be altered if past events are manipulated implies that time travelers don't exist and or are aware of the implications of time travel and defer from traveling. This of course is my simplified explanation, as going back 3 days in time will 'might' not affect the travelers stasis in their original reality, but imagine in vacuum, the traveler goes back a considerable 'length' in time; any interaction that will affect the chain of events that lead to the birth, maturation or even the precise time that the time traveler will embark, will be impossible as their incidences will be dependent on the course of history that naturally blossomed if you will. The very entrance of the time traveler to the past could incidentally alter the future timeline and create a conundrum: The traveler goes back in time, thus altering the future and eliminating or altering the moment of time travel and round and round we go. Because I believe, similar to the butterfly effect the entrance of the traveler will irrevocably alter current time even by something as slight as the change in gravity, the future would not be the same, and therefore the plausability of time travel, especially when including natural scientific barriers is miniscule

vhawk01

12-12-2006, 09:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will never understand why people think 'maybe we can go back an observe things only' in what way could that ever happen. That seems way more improbable/harder than regular time travel.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's already possible to observe the past. Just look at the sky for example. The stars planets etc you're seeing is not "happening" right now, it already happened(often a v long time ago). If you could position yourself a light year away and observe earth, you could also see earth one year ago.

On a slightly different topic, this is why I don't really believe in time at all. It's just something we use to describe our reality, but in ultimate reality there's no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome post. This is so true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not really true. The light is hitting your eyes RIGHT NOW. And positing "if you could put yourself one light year away from Earth" without considering that it would take you AT LEAST a light year to get there is just the same as saying "if you could position yourself on Earth one year ago."

Saying you are seeing what the stars looked like years ago is sort of like looking at a video and seeing what Cary Grant looked like years ago. It really is what he looked like, but its not exactly like time travelling.

vhawk01

12-12-2006, 09:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On a slightly different topic, this is why I don't really believe in time at all. It's just something we use to describe our reality, but in ultimate reality there's no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then what do you call the process by which in some situations you see the light, and others you don't?

I tried to avoid using the word "time" in that question, which made it confusing. My point is, the light takes some amount of "time" to reach you. If you are 2 light years away, it will take "longer" to observe the events on earth. It goes beyond observation, actually. Every event/object sends out a so-called light cone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone) that limits what objects it can affect. If you are not inside its future light cone, either time-wise or space-wise, that object cannot possibly affect you. In this sense, we can think of time as just another spatial dimension, which we - and as far as we know, all living creatures) - interpret in a bizarre mental way. Is this how you see it?

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

And more importantly, what the heck is 'ultimate reality?'

Magic_Man

12-12-2006, 09:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will never understand why people think 'maybe we can go back an observe things only' in what way could that ever happen. That seems way more improbable/harder than regular time travel.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's already possible to observe the past. Just look at the sky for example. The stars planets etc you're seeing is not "happening" right now, it already happened(often a v long time ago). If you could position yourself a light year away and observe earth, you could also see earth one year ago.

On a slightly different topic, this is why I don't really believe in time at all. It's just something we use to describe our reality, but in ultimate reality there's no such thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome post. This is so true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not really true. The light is hitting your eyes RIGHT NOW. And positing "if you could put yourself one light year away from Earth" without considering that it would take you AT LEAST a light year to get there is just the same as saying "if you could position yourself on Earth one year ago."

Saying you are seeing what the stars looked like years ago is sort of like looking at a video and seeing what Cary Grant looked like years ago. It really is what he looked like, but its not exactly like time travelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is like time travelling in the sense of being able to only observe and not interact in the past. That was the point of bringing this up. The reason it is important is because of the shape of space-time. Suppose there really are other dimensions that are "curled up" very tightly, such as string theory proposes. Then light would just be circling these dimensions endlessly, so if we could somehow access them, we could peer in at that light and see what was going on years ago. I don't really know what I'm talking about /images/graemlins/wink.gif but I'm sure there is some speck of possibility here.

~MagicMan

vhawk01

12-12-2006, 10:31 PM

Then how is archaeology not just like time travelling?

Magic_Man

12-12-2006, 11:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Then how is archaeology not just like time travelling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say I necessarily qualify this as time traveling, so I'll rephrase this to:
[ QUOTE ]
Then how is archaeology not just like non-interactive time travelling?

[/ QUOTE ]
since that's probably what you meant anyway. Just covering all my bases.

Anyway, archaeology is not like non-interactive time travel because you have to infer things and fill in many gaps. Observing all the light-waves from some source in the past allows you to see everything. (Of course, there would be no sound, so you still have to fill in some gaps depending on what you are looking for.) Archaeology allows us to see the present-day state of past objects. Non-interactive time travel allows us to see the past state of past objects.

~MagicMan

vhawk01

12-13-2006, 12:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then how is archaeology not just like time travelling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say I necessarily qualify this as time traveling, so I'll rephrase this to:
[ QUOTE ]
Then how is archaeology not just like non-interactive time travelling?

[/ QUOTE ]
since that's probably what you meant anyway. Just covering all my bases.

Anyway, archaeology is not like non-interactive time travel because you have to infer things and fill in many gaps. Observing all the light-waves from some source in the past allows you to see everything. (Of course, there would be no sound, so you still have to fill in some gaps depending on what you are looking for.) Archaeology allows us to see the present-day state of past objects. Non-interactive time travel allows us to see the past state of past objects.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...isn't it actually just like archaeology, but REALLY GOOD archaeology? I mean, the photons are just as 'old' as anything else on that star, right? They've just aged well? I might be entirely wrong in this, these are serious questions.

Magic_Man

12-13-2006, 01:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then how is archaeology not just like time travelling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say I necessarily qualify this as time traveling, so I'll rephrase this to:
[ QUOTE ]
Then how is archaeology not just like non-interactive time travelling?

[/ QUOTE ]
since that's probably what you meant anyway. Just covering all my bases.

Anyway, archaeology is not like non-interactive time travel because you have to infer things and fill in many gaps. Observing all the light-waves from some source in the past allows you to see everything. (Of course, there would be no sound, so you still have to fill in some gaps depending on what you are looking for.) Archaeology allows us to see the present-day state of past objects. Non-interactive time travel allows us to see the past state of past objects.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...isn't it actually just like archaeology, but REALLY GOOD archaeology? I mean, the photons are just as 'old' as anything else on that star, right? They've just aged well? I might be entirely wrong in this, these are serious questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Here I'd have to agree. It is super-archaeology in a way. But then we're just getting into semantics about the definition of "archaeology" - that is, the methods employed mostly. If we could somehow open up a hidden dimension and get a video feed from the past, I suppose that archaeologists would include it as one of their tools, assuming that they could afford it. It's true (as far as I know) that the photons are just as old as anything else on the star.

On a side note, an excellent\interesting book about the physical possibilities and implications of time travel, along with a large discussion on time travel paradoxes, is "Time Travel In Einstein's Universe" (http://www.amazon.com/Time-Travel-Einsteins-Universe-Possibilities/dp/0618257357/sr=8-1/qid=1165986522/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8041998-6974234?ie=UTF8&s=books) by J. Richard Gott.

~MagicMan

Magic_Man

12-13-2006, 01:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then how is archaeology not just like time travelling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say I necessarily qualify this as time traveling, so I'll rephrase this to:
[ QUOTE ]
Then how is archaeology not just like non-interactive time travelling?

[/ QUOTE ]
since that's probably what you meant anyway. Just covering all my bases.

Anyway, archaeology is not like non-interactive time travel because you have to infer things and fill in many gaps. Observing all the light-waves from some source in the past allows you to see everything. (Of course, there would be no sound, so you still have to fill in some gaps depending on what you are looking for.) Archaeology allows us to see the present-day state of past objects. Non-interactive time travel allows us to see the past state of past objects.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...isn't it actually just like archaeology, but REALLY GOOD archaeology? I mean, the photons are just as 'old' as anything else on that star, right? They've just aged well? I might be entirely wrong in this, these are serious questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. Here I'd have to agree. It is super-archaeology in a way. But then we're just getting into semantics about the definition of "archaeology" - that is, the methods employed mostly. If we could somehow open up a hidden dimension and get a video feed from the past, I suppose that archaeologists would include it as one of their tools, assuming that they could afford it. It's true (as far as I know) that the photons are just as old as anything else on the star.

~MagicMan

[/ QUOTE ]

On a side note, the main point here is whether people would consider this time travel or not. Suppose that an archaeologist is digging in a ghost town in Arizona, and comes across a strange head-sized "portal" in the ground. He brazenly sticks his head down into the hole, and sees himself looking down from the sky onto a prehistoric scene below. Tyrannosaurs are running amuck! He can't fit down into the hole, and he finds that when he tries to lower anything into it, the objects are blocked by an invisible force of some kind. However, he can manipulate some controls on the portal to zoom in and out, pan left and right, and otherwise navigate around the scene.

Does that count as time travel? That's essentially what we're talking about.

~MagicMan

morphball

12-13-2006, 02:08 AM

Matter exists in all possible times at once. Therefore a molecule can't travel to a different time because it is already there.

Debunk that.

madnak

12-13-2006, 02:22 AM

"Hypertime." Multiverse.

Bill Haywood

12-13-2006, 09:41 AM

Time Travel has already been debunked. No travelers showed up for the Time Travelers' convention.

There's still time.

MaxWeiss

12-13-2006, 09:07 PM

Oh yeah debunk THIS:

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4086/circularargumentrh9.jpg

Skidoo

12-13-2006, 09:13 PM

A hula hoop from the 50s?

MaxWeiss

12-13-2006, 09:21 PM

Haha, no. A circular argument.

John21

12-13-2006, 10:34 PM

This guy has a few interesting ideas on the subject:

Ronald Mallett, Professor at the University of Connecticut, has used Einstein’s equations to design a time machine with circulating laser beams. While his team is still looking for funding, he hopes to build and test the device in the next 10 years.
With a brilliant idea and equations based on Einstein’s relativity theories, Ronald Mallett from the University of Connecticut has devised an experiment to observe a time traveling neutron in a circulating light beam. While his team still needs funding for the project, Mallett calculates that the possibility of time travel using this method could be verified within a decade. link to physorg article (http://www.physorg.com/news63371210.html)

And a new book out amazon link (http://www.amazon.com/Time-Traveler-Scientists-Personal-Mission/dp/1560258691/sr=1-1/qid=1166063176/ref=sr_1_1/002-2810031-3296818?ie=UTF8&s=books)