Do you believe that time travel is possible?

I’m time traveling right now. It’s just that I’m doing it in one direction at the same speed as everyone else.

I just got here from yesterday on my way to tomorrow and so yes. Less frivolously Einstein tells us that the faster we move the slower time passes so with an advanced rocket we could head out to the stars, and turn back to an Earth hundreds of years in the future. Getting back to own time would be more difficult and most likely impossible.

Of course it’s possible. Just not backward.

People say time is stretchable. I believe it’s possible.

My understanding (which is a subset of @Rarebear)‘s is that you can go faster and slower, but as he states never backwards.

I’m still sort of blown away by the recently learned concept that from a photon’s point of view, it exists everywhere at once until it interacts with something.

Yep. It has even been demonstrated in the lab. However, it is a one way trip forward.

The short version is that any time you accelerate time slows down relative to your reference point. So, it is quite possible for you to hop into a capsule and accelerate it so that inside the capsule time will move slower than the place you left behind. Of course, the effect is minuscule at practical speeds, but in theory you can accelerate to near the speed of light and age a matter of hours or days while the world you left behind ages years. So… you step out of the capsule into the future. But, you can never go back again.

Here’s a real-life application of Special Relativity.

From the link:

“The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45–7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time.”

E=MC^2 actually proves it to be possible.

In fact Einstein or Hawkings (or maybe some other genius I forget who) actually has told us HOW to make one. Basically you need a huge source of gravity, a worm hole, and a space ship of some kind. Time moves slower the higher the gravity is where you are so…. You take your worm hole and put one end at the huge source of gravity (the theory uses a black hole), then you place the other end out in the middle of nowhere space. If you waited at the nowhere space end for 100 years and then went through the wormhole in your space ship… You would arrive 100 years in the past on the other end, and probably meet yourself dropping off one end of your worm hole.

Of course the theory is kind of lacking some key testable elements.

Hmmm, here’s a random thought: what if worm holes transfer matter from “now” to the past, where it eventually comprises “now”? Sort of a self-sustaining thing. And what if it doesn’t funnel the matter back 100 years, but nearly 0 seconds ago? Weird.

Only forward but at varying rates. I find it awesome that some labs have slowed light down to 38 mph!

That’s a great link, thanks for the info. Imagine seeing that.

I thought that even though we experience/think of time as a straight, linear progression, it’s not really? It’s actually much more complex?
So, why not backwards? Theoretically? Really? It goes against what we think we know, but if we only know time as something it’s really not…

@DancingMind No. Time is relative to the observer. You can THEORETICALLY move back in time if you can move faster than the speed of light. But you can’t move faster than the speed of light, so that nixes that.

@Self_Consuming_Cannibal I used to think (or wanted to believe time travel was possible) but I don’t believe time travel to the past or future is possible any longer. There has been a desperate attempt by orthodox scientism to hold on to the Theory of Relativity because it supports their reductionist materialist mind set. For over 70 years now scientists have been trying to make Relativity and Quantum Theory compatible but as time has passed it has become obvious that they never can be compatible with each other.

There have been attempts by orthodox science to hold on to Einstein’s Relativity by fudging in ridiculous hypothesis such as a “multiverse” theory or “crashing branes” (with an infinite amount of universes where every possible outcome happens to make up for the time paradox) and “dark energy” which isn’t related to Relativity itself but is yet another “fudge” factor since Relativity does not acknowledge the existence of a subquantum background medium (which more scientists are strarting to believe is responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe) unlike Christian Huygen’s theory of the Aether (which was discarded because of a lack of mathematical support at the time to back the theory). Outer space or better known to orthodox science as the “quantum vacuum” where the only existence of matter were supposed “virtual” particles that pop in and out of existence. Even though this obviously violates the “First Law of Thermodynamics” where energy can’t be created or destroyed this violation is permitted for a brief instant by “Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle” which says: energy can arise and exist for a short period of time whose duration is inversely proportional to the ‘borrowed’ energy of the virtual particle. I’m getting off topic here but I felt I needed to make that point. This is where the mistakes of light speed being made a constant were made along with time being made relative but not universal. I’m not going to get into this anymore here because it would take up several pages to type everything I’ve read this topic but here is an interesting link on the topic of time (since we’re there). Ironically Dr. Louis Essen (inventor of the caesium beam atomic clock), who has criticised Eintein’s Theory of Relativity basically had his career threatened for speaking out.

There was a dispute about whether light was particles or waves. Issac Newton thought light was carried by ‘corpuscles’, light was a stream of particles fired like bullets from a machine gun. Christiaan Huygens disputed Newton’s claim saying that light moved in waves. Thomas Young did an experiment which showed that light had a wave nature rather than particle. However, after Max Planck had deduced that energy must come in discreet chunks Young’s original experiment was refined and the new experiment showed that both Newton and Huygens were correct. Light had both a particle and wave nature which was found to be true for all subatomic particles as well. Here is some detail about the light experiments. What does this have to do with time travel? There is a reason why I’m bringing up the light experiments in relation to time travel as you will see.

These discoveries in quantum mechanics baffled physicists and as a result a physicist named Neils Bohr came up with what is known as the “Copenhagen Interpretation” which states that particles only exist in some kind of limbo state in the form of waves until observed by a conscious entity, only then do the waves collapse into the reality of particles. The establishment insists that mind is a mere brain function and that a conscious existence could not be involved in the creation of matter before life evolved. To get around this (Copenhagen Interpretation) the physicalists got an idea from Hugh Everett in 1957 about a “Many Worlds” interpretation. This hypothesis has it that when an electron has a choice of two paths, such as when there are two slits in a mask and it is equally likely to go through either, then a “ghost electron” goes through the other slit. To provide the ghost electron our entire universe splits into two to make a replica of itself. Then since this is going on everywhere in each universe both have to keep splitting countless billions of times a second. So an infinite number of parallel universes exist all occupying the same space and splitting to make new ones all the time and these “parallel” universes can never communicate with each other. What all this means is because of an invented multiverse theory (with no proof whatsoever) this allows any situation that is possible to occur in an endless amount of universes and this gets around the time paradox. Time travel, singularities, dark energy and endless universes and people accuse me of believing in the “paranormal”.

Will scientists start accepting that a conscious entity had to predate the creation of what we percieve as “real matter” on the macroscopic level with our own abstract senses. The only thing that really exists in the universe is the subquantum background medium known in the old days as aether that physicists today have mistaken for “dark energy”. Materialist scientists continue to hold onto an outdated Theory of Relativity while trying to fudge baloney in to make it fit with quantum theory then we wonder why no real progress in physics has been made throughout the past few decades. A pre-existing conscious entity had to predate creation. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever read more logical fallacies in one single post, ever. I mean, just, wow. He certainly has “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with the facts” down pat.

@Rarebear It seems your mind is already made up as well. My statements aren’t about blind faith but investigation. Where are the logical fallacies? I will admit I’ve added assumptions on the end of my post but isn’t time travel, dark energy and the infinite universe theory a matter of faith? I never said my mind was made up is yours?

@Paradox Not going to enter into a science vs. religion debate with you, sorry.

@Paradox – You’re mistaking a current “lack of explanation” for confirmation that a conscious being had to be behind it. Just because mechanisms have yet to be explained doesn’t mean that they can’t be without the idea of a preexisting consciousness.

And the quotation to the Bible to demonstrate your point undermines it, as Biblical creation concepts are not the only ones around.

You’re collapsing belief and faith. Faith is belief despite evidence to the contrary.

But that’s all I have to say about it too.

@iamthemob Oh come on I only added the last paragraph for fun. I’ve researched this issue probally more than you however. I did give some scientific reasons for my answers on the first few paragraphs and even links I provided. I already knew about the subjects I’ve addressed before providing links. Those statements I made were not about “blind faith” (the scientific experiments and theories I’ve addressed in my post) but through research.

Seriously if I had blind faith why would I change my views over the years? I actually used to think time travel was possible and even fantasize about it. There are a growing number of scientists (even atheist scientists) who agree with what I’ve said about the Theory of Special Relativity and its incompatibilty with Quantum Theory and my information about the experiments I mentioned are backed by real data including the links.

@Paradox

I’ve researched this issue probally more than you however.

That’s a little presumptive, don’t you think? It’s funny – if you look at some of my past posts I address some of the issues you do in the same manner (dark matter and the issues of invented material created for what seems like solely mathematical reasons to make an old model work). However, there is no, absolutely no reason, to say that the only solution has to be an intelligent force.

Again, that’s a conclusion based on a lack of evidence, not evidence for or against it. I prefer to make conclusions on evidence. Beliefs that I hold without evidence I don’t claim to have been scientifically reached, and therefore a conclusion that there is an intelligent creationist force cannot meet the criteria of being scientifically derived.

@iamthemob Oh, great answer. I feel exactly the same way, and I’ll go even farther and add that I try not to hold beliefs if there is not evidence that is scientifically reached. I don’t succeed, obviously (I don’t believe anybody does), but I do try.

I try not to hold beliefs if there is not evidence that is scientifically reached.

Is there a name for this philosophy? That’s what I think too. Agnosticism? Epistemological nihilism?

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.—William Clifford, The Ethics of Belief

@cockswain Good question. It’s the opposite of postmodernism. Skepticism, perhaps?