|
time travel isnt possible. If it would be, someone from the future would have told us.
If an infinite number of years lie before the humansociety and at any random time timetravel will get invented, still an infinite number of timetravellers will timetravel, thus its just not possible that noone told us until now.
quod erat demonstrandum => timetravel is impossible
|
On June 20 2008 00:44 sanftm00d wrote: time travel isnt possible. If it would be, someone from the future would have told us.
If an infinite number of years lie before the humansociety and at any random time timetravel will get invented, still an infinite number of timetravellers will timetravel, thus its just not possible that noone told us until now.
quod erat demonstrandum => timetravel is impossible Either that or timetravel needs both an entrance and an exit to work
|
You could argue that the human race ends before we "invent" time travel, but it would still be possible for some smarter race? LoL, this thread ended 2 pages ago.
|
1) We will never be able to time travel since "time" doesn't exist per se to begin with. 2) Because if we would one day be able to, there would be evidence left behind by past timetravellers, or they would have coexisted amongst us already in one form or another.
|
if i say penis everyone knows what a penis is ( or a pussy ) but its totally different with time..
thats the big problem
|
G5 I completly fucking agree with you. Wow. We should do this. SPACE TRAVEL!
|
Seriously, G5, of all the ways to abuse this clearly impossible time travel mechanic, I can't think of a lamer one xD.
You could abuse the lottery or play the stock market, but you choose to instead farm 100 dollar bills xD.
|
On June 20 2008 01:16 Luhh wrote: 1) We will never be able to time travel since "time" doesn't exist per se to begin with. 2) Because if we would one day be able to, there would be evidence left behind by past timetravellers, or they would have coexisted amongst us already in one form or another.
Theres ton of evidence, i remember reading a story about a guy who made tons in the wall street, was arrested and then vanished from his prison cell after saying he was a time traveller.
THEY ARE AMONGST US
|
On June 19 2008 18:15 HeadBangaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2008 17:27 Funchucks wrote:On June 19 2008 16:50 HeadBangaa wrote:On June 19 2008 15:01 Funchucks wrote: There is no reason to believe that time is a dimension at all.
If you walk down a path, the portion of it you pass by doesn't cease to exist, you merely move past it. That is a dimension. It is a space within which movement is possible.
We have every reason to believe that the moment yesterday when you took your first bite of breakfast is no longer real in any physical sense. You haven't moved past it, it came into existence, then ceased to exist as the next moment came to replace it. Everything "moves forward" through time at the same rate, because new moments appear and old moments disappear constantly and impartially everywhere in perfect synchronicity, affected by nothing that occurs within the universe.
Some may say that special relativity contradicts this. However, the "different rate of time" experienced by objects moving at different speeds is only "different rate of aging" or "different rate of internal evolution". For instance, time is supposed to stop for things moving the speed of light, but they would still be moving at the speed of light, it would only be their internal evolutions that would be halted. For a thing to be moving through space as time passes, time is clearly passing for it exactly as it is for other things. We have a confusing use of the single word "time" for two entirely distinct concepts: the universal and invariant passage of time, and the amount of aging or internal evolution experienced by an individual object or system.
The main reason time travel is impossible is that there is no road to travel down. Past and future are abstract concepts with no physical existence. In the physical universe, there is only the everchanging present. What is your minimum sufficient condition of existence? Are you saying by contrast that the current moment does exist? I have semantical disagreement with you. There is an apple. It has physical existence. You vaporize it with a giant laser. Now the apple does not exist. None of the atoms are gone. Every atom of the apple still exists, but the apple does not. The apple was not only its atoms, but also the configuration of its atoms. Once the configuration of those atoms is changed enough that they no longer satisfy the definition of "the apple", the apple no longer exists. A reasonal physical definition of "a moment in time" would be the precise physical configuration of the universe at that moment. Once the moment has passed, that precise configuration is gone and no longer exists. Existence ends when the atoms dissipate? Let me understand your paradigm; you believe numbers do not exist, correct? What if I were to destroy all of the coconuts in the entire world: would the fruit "coconut" still exist? I would argue that since everyone knows exactly what a coconut is, it exists abstractly as a type definition. That there exist an instantiation of a particular type is irrelevant to its existence. This is significant because it differentiates between meaningful and non-meaningful references ("Pegasus is flying" is a meanginful statement, whereas "arfb32lkdfy is flying" is garbage). When you reduce existence to extension as you have done, yes, you lose that dimension and the ability to quantify across time. But reality is a shared experience; we can make meaningful references to previous reality configurations. This is a little off-course for time travel. Even using my own semantics, visiting the past would require its actual extension in addition to existence. And as you mentioned, there is no reason to believe that reality is perpetually cloning itself into discrete extensions. I clearly stated that I was speaking of physical existence, which is quite different from meaning as an abstract concept.
You are either arguing that Pegasus has a physical existence, or you are spouting irrelevant nonsense. In either case, you are a silly person and it is your duty in life to amuse children.
Go forth, and bring light to their little faces!
|
On June 20 2008 00:44 sanftm00d wrote: time travel isnt possible. If it would be, someone from the future would have told us.
If an infinite number of years lie before the humansociety and at any random time timetravel will get invented, still an infinite number of timetravellers will timetravel, thus its just not possible that noone told us until now.
quod erat demonstrandum => timetravel is impossible
if they decided not to tell us ? then your whole theory makes no sense what so ever
|
Why would that 100$ bill just be sitting there on the table? Clearly, if you were planning to go back and take it, then a future version of you would have already gone back and took it, so basically the money would be gone the instant you put it down, taken by a different time-frame of you.
|
On June 20 2008 02:55 Juicyfruit wrote: Why would that 100$ bill just be sitting there on the table? Clearly, if you were planning to go back and take it, then a future version of you would have already gone back and took it, so basically the money would be gone the instant you put it down, taken by a different time-frame of you. Clearly, you need a second time machine so you can go forward and take it from the future version of you.
That's why the first thing you should do with any time machine is go back a few minutes in time and steal your own time machine before you use it.
Then you'll have two!
|
On June 20 2008 02:32 MaGic~PhiL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2008 00:44 sanftm00d wrote: time travel isnt possible. If it would be, someone from the future would have told us.
If an infinite number of years lie before the humansociety and at any random time timetravel will get invented, still an infinite number of timetravellers will timetravel, thus its just not possible that noone told us until now.
quod erat demonstrandum => timetravel is impossible if they decided not to tell us ? then your whole theory makes no sense what so ever
infinite time means infinite time, thus it is certain that any decision that can be made will be made: they will decide not to tell us maybe, but an infinite number of years later they will certainly decide to tell us :-)
the theory only makes no sense if humansociety is not to exist an infinite time, which cant be discussed...
|
On June 20 2008 03:01 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2008 02:55 Juicyfruit wrote: Why would that 100$ bill just be sitting there on the table? Clearly, if you were planning to go back and take it, then a future version of you would have already gone back and took it, so basically the money would be gone the instant you put it down, taken by a different time-frame of you. Clearly, you need a second time machine so you can go forward and take it from the future version of you. That's why the first thing you should do with any time machine is go back a few minutes in time and steal your own time machine before you use it. Then you'll have two!
But that means as soon as you finish your machine, a future version of you is going to come and steal your machine from you.
Which means you can't travel back in time, which means your future you must have had his machine stolen as well from an even more distant future you, which means he couldn't have went back in time to steal from you, which then means you could go back and steal from your past, but then means the future you could steal it from you...
time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
|
On June 20 2008 03:56 Juicyfruit wrote: time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
Time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you go back rather than forward.
This becomes obvious as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
|
Time travel is no longer possible because they don't make Deloreans anymore. Tis a shame, really.
|
On June 20 2008 04:08 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2008 03:56 Juicyfruit wrote: time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
Time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you go back rather than forward. This becomes obvious as soon as you start interfering with your own life. It doesnt have to. If you believe in tree structured time then when you travel back in time you arrive in the universe where you arrive from the future which is different from the one where you dont come back from the future. Since time would fork in every instant you cant mess anything up since every possible chain of events happends in some fork.
|
United States24555 Posts
|
Wow way to totally avoid a legitimate conversation. Probably still sore about me trumping you in every single technical thread. You nerd, get over it.
On June 20 2008 04:10 Jyvblamo wrote: Time travel is no longer possible because they don't make Deloreans anymore. Tis a shame, really.
LOL /thread
|
On June 20 2008 05:04 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2008 04:08 Funchucks wrote:On June 20 2008 03:56 Juicyfruit wrote: time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you start interfering with your own life.
Time travel becomes a paradox as soon as you go back rather than forward. This becomes obvious as soon as you start interfering with your own life. It doesnt have to. If you believe in tree structured time then when you travel back in time you arrive in the universe where you arrive from the future which is different from the one where you dont come back from the future. Since time would fork in every instant you cant mess anything up since every possible chain of events happends in some fork. Then it's not time travel, is it? It's sliding to alternative realities which happen to be identical to past or possible future times in your reality.
|
|
|
|