Time travel disproven

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
"If at any point in the future, a method for backward time travel becomes possible, all points in time (both past and future points) will immediately have evidence of backward time travel. In other words, we would know backward time travel is possible today if it is ever discovered in the future.

Let us call the point in time when backward time travel is first exercised, the fulcrum point. It is easy to explain how all points in time occurring after the fulcrum point will have evidence of backward time travel, as we now have evidence of everything that has occurred in the past. But how would all points in the past (including this point right here) have evidence of backward time travel if it happens after that point? Simple - people are stupid and greedy."
tomayko.com...

Ive come to a similar conclusion. What sayest thou?




posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
There's a theory out there that you need a receiver to travel backwards in time. The receiver hasn't been invented yet, so we can't have experienced backwards time travel yet.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeneralMishka


"If at any point in the future, a method for backward time travel becomes possible, all points in time (both past and future points) will immediately have evidence of backward time travel. In other words, we would know backward time travel is possible today if it is ever discovered in the future.

Let us call the point in time when backward time travel is first exercised, the fulcrum point. It is easy to explain how all points in time occurring after the fulcrum point will have evidence of backward time travel, as we now have evidence of everything that has occurred in the past. But how would all points in the past (including this point right here) have evidence of backward time travel if it happens after that point? Simple - people are stupid and greedy."
tomayko.com...

Ive come to a similar conclusion. What sayest thou?


Problem is if someone travelled back in time, 1. they may not change anything so you wouldn't know, 2. they may change something and you still wouldn't know because you would only remember the changed event as it happen the second time...



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by GeneralMishka
 


Your thread title is completely misleading.
If backwards time travel is possible and will be achieved in the future , what makes you think YOU would know about it ?
What if in the future , they only went back as far as 2020 ? How would you in 2013 profess to know ?
Even if they went back further , what evidence would you expect to have ?
edit on 9-1-2013 by tpg47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Or the theory that if someone travels through time and changes something a new timeline is started. Then multiple parallel timelines would be in existence. Maybe they already are?



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeneralMishka


"If at any point in the future, a method for backward time travel becomes possible, all points in time (both past and future points) will immediately have evidence of backward time travel. In other words, we would know backward time travel is possible today if it is ever discovered in the future.

Let us call the point in time when backward time travel is first exercised, the fulcrum point. It is easy to explain how all points in time occurring after the fulcrum point will have evidence of backward time travel, as we now have evidence of everything that has occurred in the past. But how would all points in the past (including this point right here) have evidence of backward time travel if it happens after that point? Simple - people are stupid and greedy."
tomayko.com...

Ive come to a similar conclusion. What sayest thou?


Okay... so what if in the future, they haven't yet developed time travel, so our now and then will not yet have been showing said signs until that development, at which point they willan to have been modified and evidence willan to have been available already. Wait until the future has been to come, then the pasts will line up accordingly.

I'm sure we'll all have remembered it as a terrible thing, though.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I know Michio Kaku said once that technology for complete invisibility of persons and technology will almost certainly precede time travel capability and that we could in fact be hosting time travelers at any given moment.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
There is also the idea of multiple time lines.. once you travel back in time you create a new time line that exists in parallel with our own ... one that is aware of time travel .. it would prevent you from going back and say, giving yourself the winning lottery numbers... you wouldn't get rich but an alternate you might..



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Or the theory that if someone travels through time and changes something a new timeline is started. Then multiple parallel timelines would be in existence. Maybe they already are?


I didn't read all of the posts before I chimed in.. but basically said what I said .. star



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by GeneralMishka
 


There may be various (or none) modes of time travel. In a multiverse version the journey is one way. There are many other implications, like energy and matter and even simple transmission of information something that I think may be managed. Another issue is the pinpointing of destination, since the universe is in constant movement aiming the thing may be very difficult.

Note that time travel can consist in many things, it may even not involve "traveling" in the sense of the body. Imagine a way of extracting every bit of information of an environment in a way that it permits to observe local past events (even if by seconds or minutes), the computation and sensors would be extensive but also a future possibility (akin to complex teleduplication or replication of objects).

I personally am inclined due to the complexity and foreseen limitations and costs versus returns that complex time traveling is not possible or practical.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
I didn't read all of the posts before I chimed in.. but basically said what I said .. star


But there were only 6 replies before you... Jesus.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
So aside from the different timelines theory, are we also speculating that the time traveller can not go back to before time travel/the time travel device is invented because it requires a reciever. It reminds me of the charlie chaplin film timetraveller lady (transexual??:lol
, on a mobile phone, how could she be on a cellphone if there were no masts/satalites to recieve he call, (apologies my knowledge of phone science is very limited).



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedoctorswife
So aside from the different timelines theory, are we also speculating that the time traveller can not go back to before time travel/the time travel device is invented because it requires a reciever. It reminds me of the charlie chaplin film timetraveller lady (transexual??:lol
, on a mobile phone, how could she be on a cellphone if there were no masts/satalites to recieve he call, (apologies my knowledge of phone science is very limited).


An obvious observation that is purposely overlooked by some , because it doesn't fit into their little hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
"all points in time (both past and future points) will immediately have evidence of backward time travel"

Why would they? This is an unproven assumption. Anyway, perhaps time travellers are arriving all the time but we don't recognise it, such as some UFOs. So perhaps the evidence exists, but we don't realize it for what it is.

Read the two books by Patrice Chaplin "City of Secrets" and "The Portal" and you will discover that time travel does, indeed, appear to be possible. But not as sci-fi writers and Hollywood know it. This claim by the daughter-in-law of Charlie Chaplin was the hottest item discussed in paranormal circles in the past few years because it solved the historical mystery of Rennes-le-Chateau. But it never became the topic of a thread at ATS as far as I know.

Here is the great Surrealist artist Salvador Dali's depiction in 1965 of his passage through a time portal on the summit of Mount Canigou on the border of France and Spain - an experience which thoroughly shook him up:
www.artsunlight.com...
If you want to know the amazing circumstances behind this (Patrice knew Dali very well), read her books. She underwent the same time-travel ritual as he did.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tpg47

Originally posted by thedoctorswife
So aside from the different timelines theory, are we also speculating that the time traveller can not go back to before time travel/the time travel device is invented because it requires a reciever. It reminds me of the charlie chaplin film timetraveller lady (transexual??:lol
, on a mobile phone, how could she be on a cellphone if there were no masts/satalites to recieve he call, (apologies my knowledge of phone science is very limited).


An obvious observation that is purposely overlooked by some , because it doesn't fit into their little hypothesis.


How condescending.

Nobody said the receiver had to be built before the system is built, but the system can't be used without the receiver. If we built a mobile phone network, then we wouldn't be able to use the network until someone developed a mobile phone.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I think backwards time travel is not possible, simply because the events are past you.. because time is just the observation of change. You can't unchanged things... however i think future travel might hold more water/possible.. just gotta beat the speed of light!.

Anyway, i think we can "look" int the past.. and we do.. example stars...



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GeneralMishka
 


I am not very convinced of time travelling, so far I do not think that we are even close to it IF it´s possible at all.

Let´s assume it is possible though for the sake of argument.

I do think that time travellers would have to follow a strict set of rules in order to observe with as little interaction as possible.

They probably would want to not be seen at all if possible.

Plus we would have to consider the butterfly effect. Even without human interaction, there could be dire consequences for the future.

Maybe they would just sent recording devices, flying drones or something.

This is entirely based on sci-fi movies of course hehe. And so far in the future that we probably do not have to woryy about it.

On the other hand, we would have to think about the actual motivation for time travel. The only reason I can see is learning more about the past. Now that alone justifies only so much in research, budget and most important risk.

I am just not so sure that we actually would want a time machine. It serves a much better purpose as a setting for books and movies.

edit on 9-1-2013 by Nightaudit because: spelling



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by thedoctorswife
 

Please consider that many old films deteriorated in storage. As a result some essential scenes were most likely re-shot at a later date in order to keep the film.

I can't buy into the theory of time travel either, at least not on a physical basis.
edit on 9-1-2013 by aboutface because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
If you can time travel in your mind ie remember the past from the present point in time which is the future of the past event. That means that the universe has always been able to travel from the future to the past and vice versa.

Except in our existence it's not as easy as remembering. We have to actually delve in to the memory of the universe.

So it's always existed and been possible.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by thedoctorswife
 


It was a very early version of an electronic hearing aid. I thought this was debunked? Or was it de-debunked?





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join