Time Travel Theory - Page 7

On June 19 2008 23:45 berkguyyy wrote:


It's not about being philosophical or proving. I told you that in my definition time exists because it can be measured and tested in the realm of science. In my defintion you do not need to actually see time to know that it exists because science has gone far along enough such that they know matter and visible light (only thing we can "see") is a mere fraction of the universe. I asked you to to define your terms (especially existence and concept) because if you don't define exactly where you stand then truthfully you're just running around in circles spewing whole bunch of prove this and prove that. So tell what exactly is your definition of these two terms?

On June 20 2008 05:20 Funchucks wrote:

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.

On June 19 2008 12:07 LetMeBeWithYou wrote:
The stupidity in this thread is overwhelming oh god.

Did you guys just take grade 11 science and thought you were genius or something?

On June 20 2008 03:20 sanftm00d wrote:


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 11:07 intotherei wrote:
what if time travel does exist and the reason we don't see people from the future is because they are invisible or something like that!

and they dont wanna tell us time travel is possible b/c they don't want to ruin the surprise

On June 20 2008 11:07 intotherei wrote:
what if time travel does exist and the reason we don't see people from the future is because they are invisible or something like that!

and they dont wanna tell us time travel is possible b/c they don't want to ruin the surprise

On June 19 2008 12:07 LetMeBeWithYou wrote:
The stupidity in this thread is overwhelming oh god.

Did you guys just take grade 11 science and thought you were genius or something?

On June 19 2008 10:12 G5 wrote:
which according to some recent study, is very possible

On June 20 2008 05:20 Funchucks wrote:

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.

On June 19 2008 17:47 berkguyyy wrote:


I disagree. Entropy is a spontaneous flow of objects towards messiness. The reason why entropy is increasing is of course due to the flow of time. If that time were reversed, then entropy would start decreasing. Let's take my room for instance. At the beginning it was quite clean but now it is rather dirty. Okay, let's travel back in time and suddenly my room is cleaning itself up. In other words, entropy is spontaneouly decreasing without any change in condition (except for the flow of time) which would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Absolute versus Statistical reversibility

Thermodynamics defines the statistical behaviour of large numbers of entities, whose exact behavior is given by more specific laws. Since the fundamental laws of physics are all time-reversible,[2] it can be argued that the irreversibility of thermodynamics must be statistical in nature, that is, that it must be merely highly unlikely, but not impossible, that a system will lower in entropy.

On June 20 2008 16:34 5HITCOMBO wrote:

But what if that's the only way to "time travel"?

I mean, the idea that we only have one timeline is ridiculous. Even the most elementary book on the subject (A Brief History of Time) explains this. The point we are at has a time cone going both into the future and into the past that is basically every possible combination of events that could have resulted in the current state of the universe and every possible state which can arise from this moment.

So, if you don't believe in multiple, "alternative" realities, you don't believe in time travel. Simple as that. If you do, "time travel" is possible, but only in this limited sense.

Remember John Titor?

On June 20 2008 17:09 Funchucks wrote:

A Brief History of Time is an odd book. It explains some mainstream concepts, and it explains some of Hawking's weird pet theories. It doesn't really tell you which are which.

It explains some interesting theories which were being looked into at the time it was written, and it explains some well-proven ideas, and it doesn't really tell you which are which.

It's not some Tome of Truth. It's a very speculative book.

People who believe in alternate realities are disregarding Occam's Razor. It's good to consider the possibility, but it's hardly something we should assume.

On June 19 2008 10:12 G5 wrote:
Hi guys,

I was out having a smoke, pondering in my thoughts and started thinking about time travel. Suppose we made a time machine, which according to some recent study, is very possible and people are already making time travel machines which should theoretically work using lasers to bend matter in a circle, creating a "worm hole" which should allow you to go back in time. But theoretically, it will only allow you to go back as far as the time that the machine was turned on. This doesn't conflict with my idea though.

So here is my theory, suppose you could go back in time. Now say you have a 100$ bill sitting on a table for a year or so. You pick up the 100$ and then go back in time, with the 100$ in your wallet, to the end of that year when the 100$ bill is sitting on the table. Theoretically, since at that point in time, since you still haven't moved the 100$, it should still be there on the table, with it being in your pocket as well.

I figure you could repeat this process, always moving a little bit further back in time to pick up the 100$ bill, basically duplicating it through time travel over and over. Theoretically you would have to move a little bit further back in time because if you return to a time which is later then a previous time you picked up the 100$ bill, it may not be there at all.

If this works, it could solve all resource problems. You could do this with Metals, Liquids, Gas, Medicine, basically anything.... And what excites me the most about this theory is that we could duplicate anti-matter particles. We can make anti-matter in labs but to make a handful of them would bankrupt the world. Anti-matter is one of, if not the best sources of energy in the universe that we know of and if you could make 1 anti-matter atom and then duplicate it over and over, we could power the world for virtually nothing and make long distance space travel a very real possibility.

Do you think this is plausible? Discuss!