CreateDebate


Debate Info

19
19
Yes. No.
Debate Score:38
Arguments:35
Total Votes:43
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (17)
 
 No. (12)

Debate Creator

time0travel(16) pic



Is time travel a possibility?

I say time travel is more than a possibility, it is a fact. It is an everyday observable phenomena. Everything that exists. tend to travel in time, from the past to the present and from the present to the future. Unfortunately the speed in which everything travels in time is same (or nearly same).

Yes.

Side Score: 19
VS.

No.

Side Score: 19

The video below covers some examples of time travel on tape:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Time Travelers
Side: Yes.
1 point

Astrophysicist here. Because this is a loaded question, I'll break it up into answering several more specific questions.

Q: "Is it possible to travel in time in any sense of the word?"

A: Yes, you're doing it right now.

Q: "Is it possible for a lone atomic or subatomic particle to move forward or back on their own timeline at a substantially different speed than everyone else?"

A: Yes, even backwards. General relativity requires time to be relative (hence "relativity"), and anti-particles can be described by modelling normal particles moving backwards in time.

Q: "Is it possible for a human to move forward or back on their own timeline at a substantially different speed than everyone else?"

A - Forwards: Yes. Hypothetically, if you were to "freeze" yourself in some state and had a machine to preserve you, you could travel forward in time very quickly... according to you. In reality, you take 1000 years to travel 1000 years but your brain activity has halted so you don't notice. Effectively, you get in, then you get out a few seconds later, and it's the future.

A - Backwards: Yes....

...if you're willing to be turned into your mass in antimatter and don't mind dying.

Side: Yes.
1 point

How certain are you about the theory of relativity? It may be true to some extent, but I'm sure there'll be some limitations discovered about it in the near future. And I wanted creative arguments rather than just laying down uncertain scientific facts (or fictions). Please show some creativity, say what you have in your own mind (exclude informations that are not universally accepted.

Side: No.
_Sophia(1) Clarified
1 point

For relativity, certain. Naturally, it is a model, and all models have scopes, but for the issue of a human travelling in time, you are well within the scope of General Relativity and you aren't getting out any time soon.

And the above isn't actually just "scientific facts", it is a creative application of them. Time travel physics isn't a specialty, I have simply thought about it a lot (especially writing Science-Fiction) and applied what I have learned in the field.

As for ideas of how to actually pull off time travel, there is a creative, plausible, and completely untestable method of traveling in time. If you were to travel at just the right angle through a rotating black hole, you could enter the event horizon and escape without exceeding the speed of light, without being crushed, and General Relativity would permit that you could exit the "white hole" and the black hole before you left.

In order to test that, we're going to need a TARDIS.

See: http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/time-travel3.htm

Side: Yes.
1 point

Everyone knows all that, but it was a hell of a way to say no, not in the manner which most people perceive the question.

If I cross the Atlantic from Ireland to New York I arrive 5 hours later than when I left my point of departure, so this must be time travel, right?

Also, we know the end of the world isn't going to happen today here in the U.K, as it's already tomorrow in Australia, right?

Side: No.
SlapShot(2608) Disputed
0 points

I sincerely doubt you are anything near being an Astro-physicist.

I am a lowly MS in Biology; but also a keen student of Cosmology. Albeit with no education in it, past the undergrad level. And even I know that TT is physically impossible. For the reason I explained in my post above. Please read it and tell me if you can how it is wrong.

What also cast grave doubt for me on your educational claims was your previous claim that bouncing off of a black hole was "plausible" idea for executing TT.

LOL. Really? I would think that given your vast background in physics you would be familiar with the mind-numbing, if not inconceivable forces that inhibit a black hole. If you DID have any clue on that, you would realize that at our present stage of technology travel through one, or "skipping off of it" as you say is as probable as, say, an ant toppling the Sears Tower be running into it's base.

Too...the very idea that a Black Hole is even a funnel-shaped entity that can serve as a TT portal is nothing but pure, unsubstantiated, hypothetical conjecture. And without a shred of evidence to support the idea. It does not even constitute a hypothesis, let alone a theory.

I will be eagerly awaiting your debunking my my claim.

Meanwhile, may I ask where you studied Astrophysics? I'm currently in the Biological Sciences doc program at UM Ann Arbor. After we discuss my "TT impossible due to necessity of physically re-constructing Universe" hypothesis maybe we can do a conference call between our schools? I would love to talk more of this with you.

Let me know.

SS

Side: No.
_Sophia(1) Disputed
2 points

Are you aware that you are coming across as a bully?

"I sincerely doubt you are anything near being an Astro-physicist.

I am a lowly ... wrong."

It is insulting that you doubt I am an astrophysics and get on a high horse, saying "even I know TT is physically impossible", as if this were a fact that any astrophysicist would know. The scientific consensus on time travel is anticlimactically "Not enough information".

It is also insulting that you try to cast doubt on my "educational claims" by referencing "bouncing off a black hole" (which has NOTHING to do with the idea), yet I was talking about an idea older than I am that you can easily find online, especially if you bothered to go to the link I sent and click any of its sources. This is not hard, just google "Kerr black hole time travel".

This is upsetting. As a keen student of cosmology, you should know better.

PLEASE read what I say better next time, you completely missed important points, you clearly did not research any of it, you clearly did not go to the site I linker or bother to look at any of its sources, and you jumped the gun and attacked me before doing any of that. Your post was arrogant and bullyish.

" I would think that given your vast background in physics you would be familiar with the mind-numbing, if not inconceivable forces that inhibit a black hole."

I am, and I am also familiar with the fact that rotating black holes do not have the same limits as lowly/non-rotating black holes, and I am also familiar of the fact that a black hole can be plausibly treated as a white hole and entered under very specific conditions. The event horizon is a point of no return if and only if it is non-rotating, otherwise it is possible to have an escape trajectory lower than the speed of light (you could escape a normal black hole but you would have to have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light, violating general relativity).

In addition, the Kerr black hole's rotation creates a ring in the center rather than a dot, so the singularity has a macroscopic radius.

"If you DID ... into its base."

If you bothered to read what I said, you would know better.

I NEVER claimed that this could be done with present day technology, and very clearly said the opposite. I believe I said something to the effect of "we're going to need a TARDIS", i.e a fantasy level of spaceship completely unobtainable with modern technology. I also said that it is untestable.

"Too. theory."

Where in my post did I say it was a theory? Where did I give the evidence that says it's doable? It is an idea, it is plausible, meaning that the only merit that the idea has is that it is technically permissible with what we currently know, i.e it hasn't been proven impossible yet. I am not even calling it a hypothesis because I personally would give good money on it turning out to be false.

By the way, the amount of energy required to pull off such a trajectory would be absolutely massive, because one would need to accelerate a human and the thing that the human is in to relativistic speeds -- perhaps it would be a similar order of magnitude? While the energy to pull off the trajectory is something I know how to calculate, the energy to pull off resetting the earth to a previous state, we don't really know enough, and the assumptions we use in guessing would completely change the answer by many orders of magnitude.

"I will be eagerly awaiting your debunking my claim"

I did, in your above post. See it there -- you are using the infinite work argument, it is analogous to Zeno's paradox and revolves around invalid assumptions.

I find it disturbing that you dismiss my "plausible" claim without a blink and insult me, while presenting your own idea as if it were infallible.

"Meanwhile ... you."

Saint Mary's University, Halifax, NS. As for doing a conference call, until you learn how to pay attention and try to understand what people are saying, instead of glossing over what they said and treating them with less respect than a rat on your dinner plate, I would rather not.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Travelling backwards is out of the question, but I remember reading an article about how objects travelling at high speeds (Near the speed of light) can experience such high gravity that time slows down to a near halt for the object in question, but time remains the same apart from it, which makes sense seeing as time dilation in astronauts has been proven already.

Side: Yes.
time0travel(16) Clarified
2 points

If u travel nearly with the same speed of light, you travel forward. But if u travel faster than light, you travel backward. That is according to relativity. So saying backward timetravel is like saying that it won't be possible to travel back in time.

Just like u Hawking has also said that lack of evidence of time travellers from the future in this present time is the proff of impossible backward time travel. But that maybe due to high uncertainty in mathmatics, we can't just go where we want.

And a defination of anti-matter says anti-matter are regular matter, travelling back in time. And belive me, anti matter does exist. So what's your say after considering these facts?

Side: Yes.
cownbueno(407) Disputed
1 point

But the catch is, the ability to travel at exactly light speed or greater than the speed of light is theoretically impossible according to many leading physicists.

Side: No.
1 point

You've got a Clinton running for President as well as a live filming of Trump on the Apprentice. It seems time has already been stitched.

Side: Yes.
time0travel(16) Clarified
1 point

The world is not crazy about who will be the next president of US. Only Americans are. So quit acting like the world is all about who wins the shitty seat. Just keep in mind that both of the candidates are seen as shit from my eyes.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Indeed, this is how I would expect history to look back on this election year. Thank you wise time traveler.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Time travel is possible. It all depends on how we do it. we can time travel mentally and physically. We can time travel by recreating the past in a machine or computer that you can interact in, like a video game that you can walk around in and go to any time period. In the movie back to the future they were basically driving a computer into a video game that they could interact with.

Side: Yes.
1 point

We are traveling through time now, albeit at our rate. If one were frozen or put in stasis and later thawed 1000 years from now to them they would have traveled through time. Getting back would be the issue. I don't think one can travel back in time.

Side: Yes.
1 point

Probably nobody is going to read this in the sea of responses, but it makes me feel good to post my opinion.

Time travel, right now, for us is IMPOSSIBLE.

I cannot state anything about time travel to the past, that is a mystery to science.

However time travel to the future is a very VERY real possibility. Just by simply being around an object with extremely high mass is enough to change the flow of time relatively. If one were to situate themselves near a black hole or a large planet time would flow normal for them, but on earth relatively time would appear to move faster.

I could spend 5 minutes near a black hole and upon returning, see 5 decades pass on earth. Would you call this travelling through time? Seeing the world advance 50 years in just 5 minutes?

The exact same thing can happen if one travels near the speed of light. Relativity kicks in and time on earth seems to speed up.

Anyone that states otherwise, please explain how advancing 50 years into the future in a span of 5 minutes is not time travel.

Side: Yes.
1 point

That's why the Bible defined time as governing man, but

not confining God. God is Light, and is Omnipresent, and Omniscient, and says our bodies need to loose a dimension

of flesh, which is held captive to sin and judgement.

So by severing this on the cross, He heals us, and transforms

us, and eventually gives us a body that can move with light in Eternity. Without a problem to our physical bodies.

That is like the Body as Christ raised from death and

decay. To move in and out through walls, to ascend and

lift up to Heaven.

1 Corinthians 15

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

.

1 Corinthians 15

34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not

the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?

36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except

it die:

37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:

38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but

the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the

moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown

in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.

There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which

is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

.

We have scientific understandings joined together by men that were not advanced in science. These sciences took millennials to be measured and studied by man.

The Bible joins these as if they are related.

Did the ancients understand science, or did they simply understand God?

When God designed creation, He designed His interaction

into our times as well.

Eternity is infinite, our universe is finite.

Eternity birthed our beginning and end. Finite is end to end.

God is Eternal Life, He is not bound by time. God is

Pure Light. He moves through time as He is in every time period. He is eternal there is no past present or future in Eternity.

Only in this finite universe is there a beginning, middle, and

end. But God is eternity, so He is in all times.

When we are transformed in that final day, we will also be one with Eternity, that's why God knows us by name, and He delighted in us before our universe was made.

God already fills all eternity, so we are already known in eternity.

Time will pass away, there will be no need for time in Eternity, because eternity is timeless!

Side: Yes.
0 points

Time Travel only exists in the tormented twisted minds of the Democrat voter.

Side: Yes.
2 points

say time travel is more than a possibility, it is a fact. It is an everyday observable phenomena. Everything that exists. tend to travel in time, from the past to the present and from the present to the future. Unfortunately the speed in which everything travels in time is same (or nearly same).

In the sense that you illustrated above, it is indeed possible to travel through time. And yes, in that same sense, we all do it every day until we die.

However, this is not what is meant when people speak of "time travel." Rather, they are referring to the possibility of a person physically leaving his current space-time continuum and entering back into it at a different juncture. That is, to re-enter the STC in the future or in the past. This has never been done, as far as we know, and at this point in time we are nowhere near being able to figure out if it is possible. Much less how to achieve the feat.

All those "time travel" scenarios you read or hear about are purely hypothetical and exist only in very very abstract mathematical concepts. They are not even structured enough to put into a hypothesis, much less a viable equation.

I for one believe TT is impossible and will never be done. My own pet hypothesis on why TT to the past is impossible is this:

As we know, as time progresses, everything in the known Universe is moving. Spinning, rotating, expanding. For example, the Earth rotates on its axis and also orbits the star we call our Sun.

In turn, our own little Solar system sits out near the edge of our own galaxy that we call the Milky Way. Well, that galaxy is also spinning and moving away from the direction of the the inititial infinitesimal point of energy that fomented the Big Bang some 13.7 BYA.

And ALL of the two-hundred billion or so galaxies in the Universe are also moving and rotating. During the time it took you to read this post, the Earth has moved about 8000 miles from where it was when you began my post.

So...in order to travel to, say, 1940, we would have to physically re-construct the Universe--that is, ALL of those galaxies and solar systems and trillions of trillions of planets and stars--into the exact same potions they were back in 1940! This is because, as Einstein proved, "time" is a physical part of Space. Like a thread that weaves through a fabric.

Needless to say, such a cosmic re-construction, or physical moving of all of those planets and stars it utterly impossible.

So, sorry Charlie: Time Travel will forever remain to the provinces of Fantasy and Sci-Fi novels and movies.

Hope this helps.

SS

Side: No.
_Sophia(1) Disputed
1 point

I disagree. You are using the "infinite work" argument against time travel, whether you know it or not. It is the time travel equivalent of Zeno's paradox.

The line of logic is as follows: The absolute minimum amount of energy required to move a particle to a previous state is the work required to move it from the current state to the previous. In order to travel in time, one would have to move every single particle in the universe to a previous state, and for an infinite universe, the minimum amount of energy required for this operation is infinity.

There are quite a few problems with this line of argument.

1> You do not need to move the entire universe. You only need to move enough of the universe that the section in which you wish to travel is close enough to the desired state within some error. This answer is analogous to the solution to Zeno's Paradox.

2> The amount of energy required for such an operation is a lot... probably. We don't actually know. It depends on the potential energy in the universe. An analog: It is much easier to move something up a hill than it is to move something down a hill. Perhaps there is a universal potential energy of some sort that would make such an operation, reversing a section (!) of the universe to a previous state, permissible.

3> Space-time is not simple, it bends and twists and the distances we see are not necessarily the distances that one would need to consider when talking about time travel. (speaking of Einstein...)

The truth about (colloquial) time travel is that we do not have enough information to tell whether or not it is doable, nor what the consequences would be. So, scientifically permitting, let the imagination run.

Side: Yes.
SlapShot(2608) Disputed
1 point

1> You do not need to move the entire universe. You only need to move enough of the universe that the section in which you wish to travel is close enough to the desired state within some error. This answer is analogous to the solution to Zeno's Paradox.

Actually, your very first sentence there is pure abstract speculation. Based on nothing, really. Yet you state is as a fact. Why?

And even if it were true, since when is moving even a small portion of the Universe in any way, shape or form even remotely plausible. Hell, the idea is so outlandish that so far as I know, not even the cheesiest and least-believable sci-fi novel or movie has ever tried to use such an absurd notion.

And your Zeno's Paradox thing was a bad analogy for my "Universal Reconstruction" argument. It's apples and oranges. Zeno was not referring to any sort of physical work or re-arrangement being done. And certainly not on a cosmic level. Rather, he was falsely extrapolating and the theory of continually halving a distance. And it was one of those thought puzzles (read: mental masturbation) that have nothing to do with reality. As we all know that in a real race like that, velocity over a finite distance is all that matters in determining a winner.

I must admit that Z's P always left me cold. Never made any sense, really. Except to show how somebody can falsely mis-interpret a basic formula so as to tweak it into seeming non-binding. It's the old "I can show you how one and one are NOT two" all over again.

Since I have not heard a plausible idea for getting around my UR idea as to why TT is impossible, at this juncture I am still going to have to stand by it. All you responded with was more abstract ideas and "we don't knows."

But thanks!

Side: No.
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

These principles prove God. None of these were foreign concepts to the ancient prophets. Clearly mathematics and physics design everything in the universe. Down to out DNA.

The scriptures curiously written in Hebrew and Greek. Both these languages have numeric value to their letters.

God has been known to have mathematics of complexity beyond their knowledge. Yet they are there Biblically and also the same pattern of codes in nature.

It's a signature of the artist. God, the Creator.

Side: Yes.
SlapShot(2608) Disputed
1 point

Religious delusions

How common are religious delusions found among persons with psychotic disorders? Prevalence rates depend on the particular psychotic disorder and the location in the world where the person lives. In less religious areas of the world, for example, one study showed that only 7% of 324 Japanese inpatients had delusions of persecution and religious guilt (Tateyama et al., 1998). This rate is similar to those from a nation-wide study of hospitalized patients with schizophrenia in Japan involving 429 patients, where the prevalence of religious delusions was 11% (Kitamur et al., 1998).

In the United States, a number of studies have examined religious delusions in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. The first of these reported results of a small study of 41 psychotic patients in New York City, finding that 39% of those with schizophrenia and 22% of those with mania had religious delusions (Cothran & Harvey, 1986). In a much larger study of 1,136 psychiatric inpatients in the mid-western and eastern United States, 25% of patients with schizophrenia and 15% of those with bipolar disorder had religious delusions (Appelbaum et al., 1999). Compared to other delusions, religious delusions appeared to be held with greater conviction than other delusions. Finally, Getz and colleagues (2001) compared the frequency of religious delusions across religious denomination in 133 inpatients (74% schizophrenia) at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. Religious delusions were documented in 24% of 33 non-religious patients, 43% of 71 Protestant patients, and 21% of 29 Catholic patients.

In Europe and Great Britain, one study of 251 inpatients with schizophrenia in Austria and Germany reported a prevalence rate of 21% for religious delusions (Tateyama et al., 1998). One of the most detailed studies to date from Great Britain found that 24% of 193 patients with schizophrenia had religious delusions (Siddle et al., 2002a). Patients with religious delusions had more severe hallucinations and bizarre delusions, had poorer functioning, a longer duration of illness, and were taking more anti-psychotic medication than other patients. Thus, in studies of patients with schizophrenia, religious delusions are present in 7-11% of Japanese patients, 21-24% of Western European patients, and 21-43% of patients in the United States.

A few studies have also examined religious delusions among psychiatric patients in Brazil. Nucci and Dalgalarrondo report a series of eye enucleation in six cases of psychiatric patients, five unilateral and one bilateral enucleation (Mucci & Dalgalarrondo, 2000). Religious delusions were a significant factor in many of these cases, with patients following Matthew 5:29 – "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." These patients often had an acute exacerbation of schizophrenia, and the self-inflicted enucleation occurred many years after the beginning of illness. Six cases were seen within a 10-year period at a Brazilian university hospital.

In the only systematic study of psychiatric patients conducted thus far in Brazil, researchers examined 200 consecutive admissions to a general psychiatric hospital (Dantas et al., 1999). To identify religious content, an item was added to the BPRS-extended form. Patients with all psychiatric diagnoses were included, not just those with psychotic disorders. Investigators report that 15.7% of all patients had moderate to intense symptoms of religious content. A strong correlation was found between manic symptoms and religious experiences.

What is the origin of religious delusions? Religious delusions exist on a continuum between the normal beliefs of healthy individuals and the fantastic beliefs of the psychotic patients. In psychotic patients, religious delusions are usually accompanied by other symptoms and/or behaviors of mental illness, and do not appear to serve any positive function (Siddle et al., 2002a). Persons with psychotic symptoms are known to have increased activation of the right brain hemisphere, which is also found in healthy persons having mystical experiences or paranormal beliefs (Lohr & Caligiuri, 1997; Pizzagalli et al., 2000; Makarec & Persinger, 1985). However, attempts to locate the origin of religious delusions in the brain have not revealed findings that are consistent with neuroimaging research described above. The only study to date, to my knowledge, suggested that religious delusions result from a combination of over-activity of the left temporal lobe and under-activity of the left occipital lobe (Puri et al., 2001). Thus, until more research is done, the neuroanatomical origin of religious delusions remains uncertain.

(re-printed from an article on religious delusions from the American Journal of Psychiatry)......

Side: No.
KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

That's why the Bible defined time as governing man, but not confining God. God is Light. And is Omniscient.

We have scientific understandings joined by men that were not advanced in science. These sciences took millennials to be measured and studied by man.

The Bible joins these as if they are related.

Did the ancients understand science, or did they simply understand God?

When God designed creation, He designed His interaction into our times as well.

Eternity is infinite, our universe is finite.

Eternity birthed our beginning and end. Finite is end to end.

God is Eternal Life, He is not bound by time. God is Pure Light.

He moves through time as He is in every time period.

He is eternal there is no past present or future in Eternity. Only in this finite universe is there a beginning middle and end.

But God is eternity, so He is in all times.

When we are transformed in that final day, we will also be one with Eternity, that's why God knows us by name, and He delighted in us before our universe was made.

God already fills all eternity, so we are already known in eternity.

Time will pass away, there will be no need for time in Eternity, because eternity is timeless!

Side: Yes.
2 points

If time travel was a possibility, then we would have already been affected by it by now. Nobody has come to us from the future or past have they? Therefore no.

Side: No.

Well, here's something to contemplate.

Please read and be patient.

Not long ago the idea of a self propelled horseless carriage was considered an impossibility.

Even more recently the concept of people flying through the air at supersonic speeds was scoffed at. Need I go on?

At present it is believed that the fastest speed achievable is the speed of light.

With so many past theories being proven wrong I feel it is reasonable to assume that the assumption about the speed of light being the ultimate achievable velocity will also, someday be proven wrong.

So, let's bring this a few steps forward and say that a craft capable of traveling many times faster than the speed of light is invented.

Concurrent with this development scientists have also created an optical aide with features as advanced as the spacecraft.

Still with me? Good.

Every schoolboy knows that the light we see from the stars is only arriving to earth many light years after their original transmission and their our perception of their position bears no relation to where they really are now, if indeed they still exist.

So, as the craft takes off and surpasses the speed of light the images which are being/have been transmitted from earth for centuries will be seen in reverse. Discover why the dinosaurs really died out, who jack the ripper was and all that jazz.

You could maybe even see yourself being born and watch the battle of Waterloo in real life.

In effect this would/wiil be a form of time travel as we would/will be able to see history actually occurring.

Regardless of your opinion I hope you find it an amusing concept.

Side: No.

Very interesting; it makes perfect sense.

--------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------

Side: No.
Winklepicker(1021) Clarified
3 points

Thanks, I value your opinion and glad that you were able to make some sense out what I was trying to explain.

Side: Yes.
JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
2 points

While I wouldn't consider this time-travel exactly, I've often thought this would be a fantastic way to get a look at history - combined with a faster than light way to communicate the information back to ourselves.

Thought I would support you here since I don't agree with you on much...

If I can agree with a white-supremacist Trump voter on something - maybe there is hope for the world after all.

Side: Yes.
1 point

If time travel were possible someone would have came from the future to warn us about future events that would unfold. That never really has been the case.

Side: No.
1 point

This is basically saying, go through this worm hole to the future, and you have this small chance to survive. It is improbable at best and impossible at worse, Time is a construct of the human mind to bring order to peoples lives. The best we could do if we do get time travel is just move forward in "Time" to a later date.

Side: No.