Thread: If time travel is real

You can keep insisting that time isn't real, but you've yet to convince anyone in this thread.

time does exist because time is our analogy for all the events of the past, pretty simple.

anyways, on to my point, I am fond of the theory that there are an infinate number of universes because every time you make a choice a universe occurs for every choice you make, Im not going to pretend to be an expert on it, but that would solve the time traveling paradox to me. (similar to The One, with Jet Li)

anyways, the point of this thread wasnt if it was possible, it was just light hearted discussion. So if it was possible. I believe there would be one you unaffected, but the you that travled back in time would have instant memory changes.

Time is a dimension, just like space. How we percieve it quite different from how we percieve space. And, unlike space, we can't freely choose where we stand on this dimension. It's as if we're being pushed along it by some invisible force. Time travel is a matter of not only stopping, but reversing this force.

I'm honestly just making this up off the top of my head, but I figure it's an interesting way to look at time.

"Other universes cannot exist"
"time does not exist"

These are pretty big (and totally unsubstantiated) claims for a 15-year-old student to be making.

I think all of us should be doing a bit more studying of experienced physicists' findings before making such sweeping statements which only make one look silly.

Originally Posted by *cheyenne*

"Other universes cannot exist"
"time does not exist"

These are pretty big (and totally unsubstantiated) claims for a 15-year-old student to be making.

I think all of us should be doing a bit more studying of experienced physicists' findings before making such sweeping statements which only make one look silly.

That's exactly what I was thinking *cheyenne*.

Being from the future I am offended.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

But the last frome only existed because you knew it did before. Otherwise only the frame you are looking at does.

If you move a rock from one place to another, it only appears to move because you knew it was there before.

so are you saying that things just appear places, and don't actually move?

And how does a rock that you pick up and place elsewhere yourself not move?

It seems like you're either trying to say something really profound, or you don't realize what you are saying.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Time Travel cannot exist, because time is not something you can move across.

I don't get it. What are we doing right now? Are we not traveling forward through time? Are you saying the past never happened, that it never existed? Just because it isn't tangible to us now doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Everything we experience right now is the result of everything that happened in the past.

I thought it was pretty well established that time exists. I mean speed and gravity affects time right? Aren't we all experiencing time different, though undetectable without incredibly precise equipment? We are all moving at a different speed and depending on where we are on the earth, time is different. I remember seeing a website where a guy sets two very accurate clocks and takes one up a mountain and leaves the other at home, and at the higher elevation time was slower than at the lower elevation. It was a very very small difference, but it was there. That seems like pretty strong evidence that time exists.

Originally Posted by yay

I remember seeing a website where a guy sets two very accurate clocks and takes one up a mountain and leaves the other at home, and at the higher elevation time was slower than at the lower elevation.

Small point, but it should have been the other way around. The lower elevation should be ever-so-slightly more affected by the mass of the Earth, and time should slow.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Small point, but it should have been the other way around. The lower elevation should be ever-so-slightly more affected by the mass of the Earth, and time should slow.

ah I haven't looked at it in a while, I meant to say that. I got confused because I know that it meant they experienced more time than if they were at home, and I just looked it up and he says about 22 nanoseconds. I interpreted that as meaning time went slower up there , but now I see that it went faster, oops! Thanks for correcting that.

Originally Posted by *cheyenne*

"Other universes cannot exist"
"time does not exist"

These are pretty big (and totally unsubstantiated) claims for a 15-year-old student to be making.

I think all of us should be doing a bit more studying of experienced physicists' findings before making such sweeping statements which only make one look silly.

I never disagreed with physicists other than the fact that I think they overlook the tangibility of Time. Or lack there of rather.

My age is meaningless.

Originally Posted by yay

so are you saying that things just appear places, and don't actually move?

And how does a rock that you pick up and place elsewhere yourself not move?

It seems like you're either trying to say something really profound, or you don't realize what you are saying.



I don't get it. What are we doing right now? Are we not traveling forward through time? Are you saying the past never happened, that it never existed? Just because it isn't tangible to us now doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Everything we experience right now is the result of everything that happened in the past.

I thought it was pretty well established that time exists. I mean speed and gravity affects time right? Aren't we all experiencing time different, though undetectable without incredibly precise equipment? We are all moving at a different speed and depending on where we are on the earth, time is different. I remember seeing a website where a guy sets two very accurate clocks and takes one up a mountain and leaves the other at home, and at the higher elevation time was slower than at the lower elevation. It was a very very small difference, but it was there. That seems like pretty strong evidence that time exists.

1. They do move, when did I say they didn't?

Pick something up-- It just moved.
2. No, we aren't. We are exerpiencing the remembering of the then, that which was. But it cannot be reversed.

Time is a matter of perception which is why mass, gravity, and speed affect it.

Again-- You cannot tell me how you can move across time (No, we are not moving across time-- That is an illusion created by memory) so I am obviously not convinced seeing as I've explained how it doesn't exist from what I know.

All you've done is tell me I haven't said anything instead of saying something yourself.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

2. No, we aren't. We are exerpiencing the remembering of the then, that which was. But it cannot be reversed.

assertion += 1; supporting evidence += 0

Time is a matter of perception which is why mass, gravity, and speed affect it.

An absolute non-sequitur. Are you saying that mass, gravity, and speed only affect things which are solely perception-based?

...I've explained how it doesn't exist from what I know.

No you haven't. You've explained that you believe it doesn't exist. You have yet to explain how or why.

Nope, but they do affect perception of time because of how objects relate to each other is what I was trying to say but it came out oddly.

I cannot prove that it is impossible to move backwards in time any more than I can prove there is no Teapot in orbit around a distant star in the next week.

I have explained my own logic eleven times-- What more do you want? Until they actually send something back in time with loads of support from the rest of the scientific community, I stand by my logic.

Also again-- Tell me why I am wrong. Since you seem so keen on it.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

I have explained my own logic eleven times-- What more do you want?

How about some logic in that logic? You have presented exactly none.

Also again-- Tell me why I am wrong. Since you seem so keen on it.

I have no idea if you are wrong about the possibility of time-travel, but your approach to a logical argument is about as wrong as they come. Your logic seems to consist of asserting your premise over and over without any supporting discussion at all. Even throwing in a simple "I believe" would have made you sound more intelligent by several orders of magnitude.

Well that had much support and pointed out all of my fallacies and plain contradictory and stupid comments.

Care to share what you see is so 'wrong' about it?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Care to share what you see is so 'wrong' about it?

I did.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Your logic seems to consist of asserting your premise over and over without any supporting discussion at all.

I'll take a shot at this topic (only skimmed the last page of responses). First, I can think of one way in which time (or more specifically the past and future) isn't real. It's a very simple argument, and goes a little something like this:

For something to be real, it must be (or exist)
By definition, the past is that which has ceased to be (or exist)
By definition, the future is that which has yet to be (or exist)

Therefore, neither the past nor the future is real (or existent). If it were, it'd be considered the present. Or in other words, the concept of "existence" is intrinsically present tense. Even the word "is" is intrinsically present tense, and by definition, the word "is" describes what exists.

Think about it. That which was existent (but isn't existent anymore) is qualified as such by the word "was". Similarly, that which will be existent (but isn't existent right now) is qualified as such by the word "will". But you see, as soon as you try to make either the past or future existent, it instantaneously becomes present tense.

Simply put, nothing can exist unless it does so in the present. Since the past and the future are inherently non-present tense, they inherently cannot exist (because if they did exist, they could no longer be considered the past nor the future.) And since the distinction between past, present, and future is what makes time a viable notion, if neither the past nor present is real then the concept of time (at least in terms of past, present, and future) cannot be real either. And this is simply because the validity of the notion of time depends on the existence of 3 things, two of which are inherently non-existent.



Anywho, back to the issue of time travel. Assuming quantum mechanics is valid, history will play out differently each time its repeated...even in identical circumstances. Here's a simple way to look at it:

Lets say this is the circumstance for an event: If A, then 20% chance of B, 5% chance of C, 13% chance of D, 2% chance of E, and 60% chance of F. This is a rough approximation of what is going on the quantum level.

The first time around, under those circumstances, A may have caused F. But if it were to be repeated under identical circumstance (20% chance of B, 5% chance of C, 13% chance of D, 2% chance of E, and 60% chance of F), any of those possible outcomes could happen. Honestly, I don't know how changes such as this would translate into events we would be aware of (like perhaps wearing a yellow t-shirt on a day you originally wore a blue t-shirt). But since everything that happens in this universe is ultimately determined by quantum factors, you can expect some changes, and perhaps huge changes as different outcomes (even if small at first) allow for a whole new world of alternate and non-original possibilities to be realized. And those alternate possibilities would spawn even more alternate ones, and in an exponential fashion, history would veer in a different direction than the first time around.

Small differences at first, but unfathomable changes over time.