Absence of proof is not proof of absence...

Even if humanity, at a point in our existence, were to create the technology to move backward in time, we(people in the past relative to the traveler) might not be able to determine if a person was, indeed from the future as a person coming back, would, possibly, break from the course of reality that led to the future person's version of the future, meaning that the person could not have come from the future as that future would never be attainable from within the current reality. At which point, any information a time-traveler would have would only be relevant for events occurring before the split in realities, the same as everyone else... If they were to start talking of the future, it would be of one that would never exist, so it would be easy to label them as insane.

Time travel is gibberish, it violates many simple laws of physics.

If a person had a time machine that could send him back in time an hour: you set the "time back" dial and press the button and you re transported back in time.

Problem is, if it can send you back an hour it can also send you back a second..... where your body would attempt to materialize and occupy the same physical space that the "past" body occupies. That violation is so obvious one "scientist" attempted to postulate that the time travel machine would "know" and not let the travel occur. So now time travel machines are sentient as well....

It's a crock.

 

Absence of proof is not proof of absence...

wow... quoting Donald Rumsfeld in a time travel thread.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"
-- Donald Rumsfeld

 

Time was with me at The World Famous Elbo Room, Time is still there and Time

will be there tomorrow. You have to believe that things are possible in this life'

This life what else is there,time. (Good Time)

 

wow... quoting Donald Rumsfeld in a time travel thread.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"
-- Donald Rumsfeld

Yes, because Donald Rumsfeld is the only person on the planet to have ever made a basic philosophical argument.

 

Time travel is gibberish, it violates many simple laws of physics.

If a person had a time machine that could send him back in time an hour: you set the "time back" dial and press the button and you re transported back in time.

That is the media's representation of it. We are discussing the scientific merit of the theory.

Advancing the rate of which one moves through time is considered time travel. Relativity says that advancing in time is quite feasible, as GPS satellites know.

 

That is the media's representation of it. We are discussing the scientific merit of the theory.

That's true. It has none.

 

The analogy of the parachute jumpers, would be the same if I described my ride home on the interstate today. Some people blew by me. But they were not traveling closer to the speed of light. Even ultra micro ten to the negative 10000th power closer than me. I don't have an answer, but the parachute analogy does not really ring true. That's just basic Aero 101

 

)))))))))You have to believe that things are possible in this life'(((((( And you have to tell yourself that every day.

 

That is the media's representation of it. We are discussing the scientific merit of the theory.

Advancing the rate of which one moves through time is considered time travel. Relativity says that advancing in time is quite feasible, as GPS satellites know.

Yes, but if you can "advance" forward in time by moving much much faster in velocity compared to zero velocity, then how do you move back in time? By going slower than zero velocity? And of course if needs to be much, much slower than zero velocity don't forget.

 

Yes, but if you can "advance" forward in time by moving much much faster in velocity compared to zero velocity, then how do you move back in time? By going slower than zero velocity? And of course if needs to be much, much slower than zero velocity don't forget.

Well, I was referring to the time-travel aspect, not moving backward in time. If it were possible, it would not be through a means of speed. It would have to be in a way of distorting the space-time that is, as of yet, undiscovered.

 

One scenario is a stable worm hole (which is currently fantasy). Use a relativity trip to unsync the two mouths time wise, walla, instant fixed time portal. Theoretically possible, but we have no clue how to make wormholes.

 

Yes, but if you can "advance" forward in time by moving much much faster in velocity compared to zero velocity, then how do you move back in time? By going slower than zero velocity? And of course if needs to be much, much slower than zero velocity don't forget.

First of all: you don't move forward or backward in time by increasing/decreasing velocity. A moving clock will SLOW down time passage relative to a stationary clock which is to say the moving clock appears to be going slower.

The moving clock would actually STOP at the speed of light.... however, to attain the speed of light requires that the relative mass becomes INFINITE which is impossible.

But, at no time or way does the clock ever go BACKWARDS or FORWARDS relative to the stationary clock, it just slows down relative to the "stationary" clock.

 

That qualifies as going forwards in time.

If you slowed your "clock" to zero and then sped it up back to normal 1000 years later you would find yourself alive and healthy, at the same age, now living in the year 3013.

 

The other aspect to consider on this topic is that time travel is not messy. Consider the many worlds interpretation of Quantum mechanics. The timeline would never be altered, you actually create additional paths in space time. The original timeline coexists alongside all the other timelines. In theory there can be MANY universes, each with different outcomes and paths. SO traveling back in time and "changing" something does not result in any change in your original time line, you crate a NEW timeline that has its own outcomes. There is a great book by Fred Allen Wolf, called Parallel Universes. Worth the read.

 

One thing I don't understand about the branching universe theory is how it can accommodate for interactions with the future.

Virtual particles pop into existence in a vacuum, borrowing the energy to do so from the future. But if all possible events at the present are possible and spin off branching universes, then surely there must be some universes' branches in which the virtual particle does not come into being.

If this interaction means by all accounts the virtual particle must (or will always) come into being, does this means that such instances are set to happen - that there is no control over their being? What will happen will happen.

But if the branching theory were correct, wouldn't the act of borrowing energy from 'the future' cause an energy deficit in universes which branch to include no virtual particle?

 

I actually came up with proof of time travel. My previous truck was a 95 fprd ranger. igt had a 17 gallon tank, which if it got too low must have borrowed some from the future, since I ocasionally put in 21 gallons of gas, 17 to fill and the rest to pay back the gas borrowed from the future. Either that, or the gas station was cheating a little.

 

#rofl

If you can show real (rather than virtual) particles can be made using energy from the future, you could win a Nobel prize.