Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Time travel is not possible

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 2:02

If it is, we will have been visited by time travelers.

Feel free to disagree and/or flame!

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 2:45

We travel one second every second.

QED motherf*cker.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 3:14

hahhaha that'sg reat

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 3:18

Wait a minute.... You're from the future aren't you! No one could have THAT many tenses in one sentence and be from the present, right?

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 3:49

>>1
If we were to create a time machine you could go back in time but not at a time before the machine was ccreate.
pseudo-science ftw

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 4:41

>>5
Pseudo-Science = made-up science?

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 5:23

Za Warudo

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 6:26

What's to say that if you were to travel back in time, you would physically be transported back?

Maybe you'd just be able to watch, but not partake or alter anything in any way.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 6:46

>>1
They probably have, they're just locked up in mental institutions now.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 7:53

>>9
Free food, free housing, people wiping your ass...
Damn, I wish I could go back in time.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 7:53

>>10
Not to mention free drugs.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 12:03

>>8 that's not traveling in time though, observing the past is already theoretically possible through wormholes, as one could travel deep into space and observe the light from earth reach them. So if they traveled x light years through a wormhole they would see earth from x years ago.

>>1 there are different concepts of time travel, i.e. whether you'd alter the future when traveling backwards or if you'd return to a future where your effects on the past don't exist, and even upon traveling back in time, they might not have made themselves obviously from the future. Also, time travel could be possible but it is just the case that no one ever figured out how it worked, so never traveled back in time using such technology.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 12:09

>>12
Observing the past is all you can do. Yes, it counts.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 12:14

>>13

No it doesn't. I don't travel backwards in time when I look at something a great distance away!

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 12:16

It takes a lot of energy to go back in time and it is dangerous.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 13:30

>>14
You see the past whenever you look at something. By the time the light reaches your retinae and is processed, time has passed wherever the light reflected off of.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 13:46

>>15
Truth. This is why we don't see time travellers. They can only afford to send 1 or 2 back, some of them probably just appear in the center of the sun or something and it takes more and more energy to further back you want to send someone so if they invent time travel 1000 years from now, they may prefer to send 10 people back 100 years in time instead of 1 person 1000 years in time.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 14:53

How do you control where you end up in the other time?  We don't know of an absolute reference point to work with.  If you go to last week, well last week the Earth was at a different place in space relative to anything outside the Earth.

Do you need to house a special beacon that exists in all time so that you can be positioned relative to it no matter what time you go to?  How the hell do you manage to set up the beacon in the past in the first place?  The best you can do is build it now and use it for as long as it can stay put.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 14:54

How about this: the past doesn't actually exist, you can't fucking time travel, end of story.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 15:16

We've already been visited by time travelers, its just that we confuse them with aliens.  All UFOs are future humans examining the Earth.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 16:30

That's only marginally less absurd than aliens visiting the Earth.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 16:55

>>19
gb2 /highschoolphysics/

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 18:41

>>18

yeah, but if you go back in time and set up a beacon, that should work out pretty good

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-15 19:44

>>22
Explain, bitch.

>>23
We'll make it out of something that's not affected by gravity! Unobtainium, anyone?

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-16 3:05

>>15
Guys, guys! It's like in Harry Potter when Hermione has the little watch thing.
"You must not be SEEN, or the consequence will be dire."

Hear that?

DIRE.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-16 6:25

>>1
this man speeks the truth if it were possible i would have a list of lotto numbers for all the world wide draws

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-16 6:30

>>16

Yes, but you are observing the past, not traveling through time. I entirely agree that it's possible to observe the past, but this doesn't constitute traveling backwards in time.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-16 6:31

Time is an arbitary, artificial frame of reference.

It wasn't even established in the physical world until relatively recnetly when they attatched it to the vibrations of a particular molecule.

Without a solid point of reference, it'd be impossible to do any sort of 'traveling' since you'd have no measure of how far you've traveled or in which direction. Kind of like driving on a totally unfamiliar freeway system with no signs or any other method of getting your bearings. Even if you could move on the road, you'd have no way of telling where you are.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-16 6:37

Time is an arbitary, artificial frame of reference.

It wasn't even established in the physical world until relatively recnetly when they attatched it to the vibrations of a particular molecule.

Without a solid point of reference, it'd be impossible to do any sort of 'traveling' since you'd have no measure of how far you've traveled or in which direction. Kind of like driving on a totally unfamiliar freeway system with no signs or any other method of getting your bearings. Even if you could move on the road, you'd have no way of telling where you are.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-16 9:39

Spelling is an arbitrary, artificial frame of reference.

It wasn't even established in the grammar world until relatively recently when they attached it to the vibrations of a particular sentence.

Without a solid point of reference, it'd be impossible to do any sort of 'writing' since you'd have no measure of how far you've written or in which direction. Kind of like driving on a totally unfamiliar freeway system with no signs or any other method of getting your bearings. Even if you could write on the road, you'd still be a retard.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-16 11:51

>>30
lol

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-16 15:09

>>30
Unfunny.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-16 15:22

>>29
>>32
Same person.

>>30
>>31
Same person.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-16 17:53

>>33
>>34
Same person.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-17 0:36

person

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-17 3:15

>>33
Nope. I was 32, someone else was 29. That just wasn't funny.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-17 3:45

30 here

>>36
Yes it was, fag.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-17 4:32

>>37
Funnier than 29.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-17 7:29

That is a fuckin good point man. but i also think that time travel wouldnt work if you tried to go back in time b4 you invented your time machine also.

Name: Anonymous 2007-01-17 7:34

Oh also, i've heard from a very scientifically minded friend, who also has calculated that the amount of energy required to send just one atom of any material back in any amount of time would require more than 10 billion times the amount of energy allready existing in the whole universe. so there. I dont think we'll be goin thru time anytime soon.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List