Another review of time travel, by none other...

If one was serious about time, then one might run across the theory of requiring an anchor. Meaning that one would have to have been built in the past for it to be successful. You in essence want to trap your physical body in the current time line, while your actual surroundings are speed up around you. Otherwise you would pretty much shrivel and die or grow young at an accelerated rate, almost split second acceleration, if some came close who didn't know what they were doing. I for one do not think you need an anchor.

I dont think you would need the anchor, unless you had one built in the time you traveled back or forward to just so you could go back to the present you are supposed to be in. My sub theory is that one would have no knowledge even if one learned to time travel, one might never knew he went back. Because I have a theory you cant snap in and out of existence, so, one might achieve time travel, and have the experience of shaking Christopher Columbus's hand, but when one went to travel back to the time he came from, since one cant snap in and out of existence, the present self cannot remember that. And only has knowledge of the existence he has now and it would be as if he never really traveled back in time. People seem to think that the one that traveled back in time remember the experience, physics says it is possible, but one would not remember the event even if he himself traveled forward, or backward, in time. I don't know if that was already a working theory, just a thought on the matter. If it isn't, try to debunk that one, if you cant, it might not be because you didn't build a working time machine, or it might just mean that it actually worked??????

time is independent of biological actions. when you die it is the end of a biological function. you cease to exist in that form.

you can't go back to something that doesn't exist any more. time travel in that sense is impossible.

just like you can't go into the future. it doesn't exist also. only the present exists. it unfolds to the future and leaves the past.

but seeing into the future and imaging the past is possible. it has been proven by prophets in the Bible, by Jesus and other people thru out history.

Originally posted by ringlejames
I have a theory you cant snap in and out of existence

I never heard that called a "theory" before reading your post. I thought it was just common sense, but maybe common sense isn't that common?

, so, one might achieve time travel, and have the experience of shaking Christopher Columbus's hand

If you can't explain how the time travel is done you can't determine the consequences. The only thing we know for certain is that one way time travel into the future is theoretically possible and you retain a full memory of the past when you do that, at least to the extent that anyone accurately remembers their past...sometimes we get some details wrong in our memories but that's got nothing to do with time travel.

but one would not remember the event even if he himself traveled forward, or backward, in time.

It's pretty much a scientific fact that's wrong about future time travel, you will remember.

I've seen no credible scientific theory about time travel into the past, and you haven't presented one.

Since your OP was posted in the science forum but contains zero science, how about we insert some science here:

The Science of Time Travel

As Paul Nahin points out, the idea of time travel into the future comes directly out of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, which was published in 1905. Travel into the future is intrinsically connected with the Clock Paradox, which Einstein enunciated in the following way:

"If we were to place a living organism in a box, one could arrange that the organism, after an arbitrarily lengthy flight, could be returned to its original spot in a scarcely altered condition, while corresponding organisms, which had remained in their original positions, had long since given way to new generations. So far as the moving organism was concerned the lengthy time of the journey was a mere instant, provided the motion took place with almost the speed of light."

For the passengers of the space ship, time would have become frozen. This phenomenon is termed time dilation, and it has negated our conventional understanding of time as a leisurely-flowing stream. As Macvey points out, such "relativistic travel" can theoretically take place only into the future, and not into the past. As time is being stretched, space is being compressed.

The "scarcely altered condition" means memories would remain intact. And you'll be happy to know that Einstein's special theory of relativity doesn't violate your theory about not popping in and out of existence...it allows you to travel into the future by essentially being very nearly frozen in time. so you haven't popped out of existence, but you can watch a century go by on Earth in what seems like 5 minutes to you (theoretically).

Regarding time travel into the past, there are several ideas on that, but each idea has different implications so you have to look at the specifics of a particular theory to discuss the implications of that theory.

Another way of going forward in time without having to go at the speed of light is to fly very close to a black hole in a space ship. Gravity causes time to slow down for the person in the space ship. All you would have to do is get as close to the event horizon as possible and produce enough thrust so you dont get pulled in. Time would feel like it was moving normally for the people in the space ship but when they move away from the black hole they would effectively have move forward in time compared to everyone else