Is time travel possible?

[syntax252]

I bet it would be fun.

 

Regards

Perhaps. But it would require a complete specialized machine shop, a fair degree of mechanical ability and half the summer.

[Zeo]

Indeed!

 

I don't even buy into the idea that time speeds up or slows down depending of the gravity it is exposed to' date=' or that time slows down when one is traveling at the speed of light.

 

I know that this has been "proved" with atomic clocks, but I think that all that has been prooved is that atomic clocks react differently in high gravitational fields or at high speed.

 

kinda like taking an old fashioned spring and gear clock and attaching it to a paint shaker for an hour. [/quote']

 

I like your idea here. Like I've repeated before, I think time is infinite, so what if gravity and the amounts of it or lackthereof affect the universe's interpretation of time? Or really, just interpretation in general? If someone was right next to a black hole, they would perceive time to be moving at the same rate as someone millions of miles away, except that person millions of miles away would perceive the person next to the black hole to be moving at a standstill. In this wayh, blackholes and other gravitational anomalies screw around with the whole 'time-space' continuum thing. But based on my little interpretation of time being perceived by the universe, what if we could somehow build a device that could disrupt that universe's perception? Or at least, something that the universe would perceive inaccurately?

 

I realize that some of the things I'm saying is hard to follow, being that it's just a jumbled mess of confusion and sudden would-be psuedo inspiration, but these things come to me as I write, and if I don't write it down right when it comes to me, I forget it.

[britwithtea]

depends what you mean - you can slow down time with a big enough mass, but it is only time realtive to you, and the sheer mass of it would make it piontless anyway as you wouldnt be alive to see what had happend while time was slowed down for you.

[Zeo]

As Einstein said:

 

Time is relative.

 

Or did he say:

 

Everything is relative?

 

I don't remember.

[ed84c]

Time is relative

[syntax252]

I do not think that time travel is possible without changing reality.

 

The present reality is that I was born in 1937 and if someone went back and prevented that from happening, then today's reality would be different.

 

I do not accept that as a possibility.

[ed84c]

Well i havent seen any evidence to say that it is possible in the first place, simply loads of hypothetical BS

[Johnny5]

I do not think that time travel is possible without changing reality.

 

The present reality is that I was born in 1937 and if someone went back and prevented that from happening' date=' then today's reality would be different.

 

I do not accept that as a possibility.[/quote']

 

You are correct. You cannot change reality. What has already happened is a part of reality, so you cannot change the past on an absolutely intuitive level. Of course this is not a proof of anything whatsoever, but it does use the term 'reality' in the way that Aristotle used it. He did not accept as possible that you could change reality. It was impossible, etc.

 

Here is a quick analysis:

 

Suppose that on december 31st, 1999, you were at a New years eve ball.

 

Well the previous sentence expresses a true statement.

 

Now, while some statements cannot change truth value, some can. But not that one. Since it cannot change truth value, you can infer that it is impossible to travel into the past and change something.

 

Logic leads to the answer, quite independently of mathematics.

 

Kind regards

 

Actually, I do believe I just answered the original posters question. The answer is no.

[Sayonara]

I do not think that time travel is possible without changing a[/b'] reality.

Fixed, in two ways.

[Zeo]

About the 1937 not-being born thing. Here we come to a variation of the Grandfather paradox. Supposedly, if you go back and time and kill your grandfather (why would you anyway?) before he conceived your father, then you would simply cease to exist. Interesting thing is that reality continues from that particular point, and then, you never existed to travel back and kill your grandfather in the first place, leaving his death unacountable. Supposedly, if this happens, a lot of people believe that the universe or time as we know it is supposed to collapse.

 

About your little theory about not being able to go back without changing realities, you then have to think: What if the reality you were in had already included a future self of you wandering about in the past? In that case, it wouldn't be that you were changing reality, but that you were fulfulling it. Unfortunately, this kind of eliminates the concept of free-will, and brings fate and destiny into the equation and everything . . .

[ed84c]

Infact this comes back to going back in time for ANY purpouse.

 

Lets say; Tuesday you go back in time to Monday to wash the car, as your boss unexpectidley decided to come round today.

 

So on monday you wash the car. This means by tuesday, you didnt need to wash the car, and then didnt go back in time to wash the car.

 

Paradox rating=10

[Zeo]

Wow, that one was pretty damned simple.

 

But what if you went back merely to observe? Not interfering with the timeline at all whatsoever? It would be possible you know, doing absolutely nothing that would affect the outcome, or at least, doing exactly what you would supposed to do so that the outcome happens exactly the way it.

 

All I'm saying is that to travel from one point in our perception of time to another can't be ruled out as an impossiblity due to paradoxes.

[syntax252]

All I'm saying is that to travel from one point in our perception of time to another can't be ruled out as an impossiblity due to paradoxes.

 

I don't see why not.

 

It is the paradox that rules it out, just as you discribed in your above illustration about killing one's grandfather.

 

The only error I could see in that illustration was that you said that since you would cease to exist, his death would be unaccountable. In fact, since you would cease to exist, he would not die because you would not have been there to kill him.

 

Sort of a paradox of paradoxes?

[Zeo]

Hence, a paradox arises. You're right though, I should have followed up on it. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

Now when you say "I don't see why not" Are you saying you don't see why it can't be ruled out? Or is it that you don't see "why you can't rule it out?"

[britwithtea]

sudden burst, but to move back in time you either need to know the exact position of all particales and the forces acting on them at that moment and replicate it, or the universe needs a memory - aka its alive.

[Zeo]

Why would you need to know where all the particles are?

[syntax252]

Hence' date=' a paradox arises. You're right though, I should have followed up on it. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

Now when you say "I don't see why not" Are you saying you don't see why it can't be ruled out? Or is it that you don't see "why you can't rule it out?"[/quote']

 

I am saying that I can't see why time travel can't be ruled out because of the paradoxs that it generates.

 

Edited to add:

 

Unless, of course, one is willing to accept the idea of plural realities. If one can accept plural realities, then I suppose anything is possible.

[Johnny5]

I am saying that I can't see why time travel can't be ruled out because of the paradoxs that it generates.

 

Edited to add:

 

Unless' date=' of course, one is willing to accept the idea of plural realities. If one can accept plural realities, then I suppose anything is possible.[/quote']

 

I'm fine with just one syntax.

[ed84c]

It also creates a loop

 

Everything that you change in the past, changes the future, which changes slightly what you do when you go back to the past, which changes slightly the past, which changes the future.

 

I hope the No vote is winning now.

[Zeo]

It also creates a loop

 

Everything that you change in the past' date=' changes the future, which changes slightly what you do when you go back to the past, which changes slightly the past, which changes the future.

 

I hope the No vote is winning now.[/quote']

 

Which is why a paradox ensues, then time is supposedly supposed to collapse, and all realities and what-not collide . . . or something like that.

 

 

But Syntax, all I was saying was this: Just because doing certain actions in the past may very well create a paradox, that does not mean that traveling to the past is ultimately impossible, just dangerous.

[Johnny5]

Just because doing certain actions in the past may very well create a paradox, that does not mean that traveling to the past is ultimately impossible, just dangerous.

 

Zeo...

 

You cannot travel to the past, because it is logically impossible, and that which is logically impossible, is impossible.

 

Regards

[Zeo]

It's one thing Johnny to tell me something like that. But it's something completely different to simply assume what you say is true without efficiently or at least trying to explain your reasoning.

 

Why is time travel logically impossible? Seriously, give me a good reason.

[Johnny5]

It's one thing Johnny to tell me something like that. But it's something completely different to simply assume what you say is true without efficiently or at least trying to explain your reasoning.

 

Why is time travel logically impossible? Seriously' date=' give me a good reason.[/quote']

 

This much is so.

 

I have told you the truth though.

 

Offering an explanation of why what I say is true in an efficient manner is something else... you are right.

 

Lets see...

 

There are so many different ways to explain one and the same fact you know...

 

Let's see which one is easiest...

 

 

Before beginning, first you have to be clear on what is meant by "going back in time." What does that mean?

[Sayonara]

Jesus.

 

I know that this will not be the last time I have to say this, but I really wish it was:

 

Your* paradoxes don't work. They only show up logical limitations in your interpretation of what happens.

 

 

 

* "Your" plural.

[Zeo]

This much is so.

 

I have told you the truth though.

 

Offering an explanation of why what I say is true in an efficient manner is something else... you are right.

 

Lets see...

 

There are so many different ways to explain one and the same fact you know...

 

Let's see which one is easiest...

 

 

Before beginning' date=' first you have to be clear on what is meant by "going back in time." What does that mean?[/quote']

 

Ok, let's have a scenario then:

 

What if Man developed a device that allowed him to send himself back in time, and he did, in fact, let's say he went back 200 years. What's to stop him from doing that?