Should there be an international ban against time travel?

No Way!!!!

Fudge no!
Where do I sign up??

Well, assuming that the alternate timeline theory of time travel, that you can go back, change anything you want, and come home only to find that nothing you did affected your reality then yes keep it legal, but jeez, haven't we seen enough time travel movies to know that a ban might not be such a bad idea?

sure, and let's legislate pi to be 3 again as well

Absolutely not.

Sounds like a waste of law-making time to me.

I wouldn't mind having 3 pies!

*Falls down laughing*
*wets her pants*

No, however, it wouldn't mean a thing. It would be done nonetheless. I am of the conviction that anything than can be done will be done, sooner or later. And if so, where are all the timetravellers from the future? I guess not in THIS tangent universe.

These questions are hard today. I've just done an exam on genetics and my brain is fryed. Surveys about the choice between who should die, yourl oved ones or 50million others and stuff about time travel? Can't handle it!!

No. I don't think we are even anywhere near making time travel, so let's wait and see what happens...

mmmmm... pumpkin, apple and... ?

oh you'd probably want Mandy as the third... actually I don't know if you'd want pumpkin and apple as two of them but I would...

If time travel came to pass, BAD things could happen. It would be disasterous. Yes.

I don't know. It might be cool to go back in time.

No, I want it invented

Just like Jeff Slade and Holly Turner did in Crime Traveller

Who know what the consequences would be. But it would get rid of gambling which would be a good thing.

No - most of the scientific papers I have read about time travel postulate that you couldn't have an affect if you travelled to the past. Something would stop you. Possibly, for example, you would be prevented from making the time machine in the first place.

I'll leave this one for the next millennium generation to solve.

I read a really interesting article suggesting why we haven't had lots of visitors from the future. The time machine that this article was suggesting would result in a person only being able to go back in time to when the machine was first turned on because that would be where a loop in time would first be created.

So until you build the machine you wouldn't get visitors. But as soon as you turn it on, you could expect a lot of visitors in quick succession!

No, not against time travel. If it was humanly possible, I think it would cool.

Why don't people concentrate more on finding a cure for AIDS and cancer?

They do - there's a huge amount of funding goes into medical research. That doesn't mean we shouldn't research other areas of science. If we aren't going to extend our knowledge as far as possible, what's the point of saving people? What's the point in any of us?

Too deep!

I know, but my goodness--compare being able to save millions of people's lives to science fiction.

How can you ban something that does not exist?

It could seriously mess things up to mess with the space-time continuum, couldn't it?

Probably something would have to be done.. I hate thinking about this sort of thing...

The idea behind that time machine was that it involved the creation of a time gate of sorts. Once you invent manufacture and open it, thje future invaders come flooding out. That's the damn problem with time travel; it screws over every dropof common sense, logic and causality we as human beings have. Time travel is The Insanity Machine.
Read "the man who folded himself" if you want to see just HOW crazy.

Maybe they have invented a cure in the future for AIDS etc..

Oh, just go watch "Star Wars" or something.

Time travel doesn't exist. The question is irrelevant.

Got no imagination Sarah?

I have plenty of imagination. But we can't create legislation either for or against something that doesn't exist (which is what the question is asking). And I just don't think it's worth debating such legislation until time travel is a reality and we really know what the implications are. Until then, all it is is imagination.

Cloning of humans doesn't exist, yet there's legislation about that.

I could watch Episode Two

But at least cloning technology exists. Time travel technology doesn't.

We all travel through time at a constant rate now and we know in theory how to travel forward faster. We've even done it in very small amounts.

Do you really think that's what this survey was asking about?

No. But I bet any legislation on the subject would have the same ambiguity.

...pecan, of course! I'm going to make one for Thanksgiving.

I can't remember if I told you, the first time I ever had pecan pie was while I was in college and it was so yummy that I ate half a pie and then got sick to my stomach and have rarely had it since

That sounds like something I would do. I'll try to remember that and not mention the "p" word in your presence from now on.

Yes, although if there was, someone could go back in time and make it so there was no ban. You could do anything if you could time travel.

(Takes a deep breath). Okay, I'm going to explain this to you one more time world.

Time travel is impossible. As such, a ban on it is hardly necessary.
(Period).

Not impossible. Just highly improbable. You must be a Chrisitan. You know how I know? I have yet to meet a Christian who understood the difference between improbable and impossible.

Talk to me when time travel looks a little more feasible, as a steady, controllable activity.

So you know better than some of the most brilliant physicists the world has ever known? Some of them say yes, some say no - most say maybe. You think *you* can give a conclusive answer? I didn't realise you were here Mr Hawking!

Well, that might be a topic worth discussing, IF TIME TRAVEL ACTUALLY EXISTED AND WAS SOMETHING WE NEEDED TO WORRY ABOUT!!! (note sarcasm)

It's impossible. Fact. No credible physicist has ever stated otherwise. It is impossible. If you think it is possible, then you don't "Get" space-time and relativity. You missed the point of them.

How do I explain this...
Well... you see...

I wrote a whole god-damn philosophy paper about how it is common-place to mis-use the burden of proof. If you suggest time travel (god, whatever) is possible, then you need to hit me with a theory to support that. If you don't have any evidence, what you have said is "Hogwash" and not worth discussing. There isn't a theory on how time travel could work. Not a single one. There never will be, either. Why? It's impossible. It is, by definition, impossible.

How so?

You see (I'll accept the burden of proof here, even though it isn't really on me) time isn't like space. It doesn't maintain itself across time, like space does. That is to say that over time, a point in space will tend to remain the way it is unless a "force" (combination of space and time) hits it. However, a point in time will NOT tend to stay the way it is over time. Why not? It IS time! It can't be both axises on the same graph. Both sides of the same box. Nope nope nope, there's only one time!

Now, if there were three... then we'd be cookin. Which is how space works. Thats the magic of how space can be travelled... one axis maintains itself against the other while we navigate the third. But time isn't like that. It is one dimensional, and when it is gone, it is permanently altered. Never to be seen again. Now, time is more than a tool which we use to conceptualize space, at least in so much as space is more than a tool which we use to conceptualize time. Time is not like space. It cannot be navigated because it does not maintain itself "over time". We navigate space using time, and, as we are doing such, we navigate time using space. They are a friction that pushes off of each other. But, we already travel time in that sense, and that is what time travel is. To see points in space change is too see time travel. To see points in time change is to see space travel. What is the constant? One of spaces axes, of course! What if all three axes of space moved at the same time... it wouldn't work. Nothing would change. IT would merely "Adjust" the entire universe sideways. You see?

Now, what if all one axis of time tried to change... well... you are watching it as we speak. We can't move backwords because movement needs to be relative to something, and in order for relativity we could really use more than one axis. And time only has one axis.

As such, it cannot be "travelled". No friction. No relative. No constant. And space can't play those parts... we already see how it interacts with space.

It's funny you mention Hawking, he says, frustrated, "[How many times do I have to tell you?] The basic laws of physics prevent time travel"


As far as who do I think I am... well, I realized a while back that most things aren't as complicated as they seem. People just like to try to make what they do seem complicated because it makes them feel special. For instance... most intelligent, professional, people could walk into a classroom, with no experience, and they'd have a wobbly first 3 weeks, but 90% of them would be good teacher by the end of it. They call them "Professors". Ha! Most of what we call education is really not training but TESTING. Are you smart enough? Are you dedicated enough? Etc. If you are smart and dedicated enough at day 1 of law school, you already have what it takes to be a lawyer. Its just a matter of proving it to the world. (BTW, this is demonstrated time and time again by stories of people who apply for jobs they aren't experienced in, somehow bs through the hiring process, and teach themselves how to do it the first x weeks. "Joe Smith worked here 9 years before we discovered he didn't actually have an accounting degree and had no experience whatsoever. Apparently he taught himself how to do it by paying close attention. We fired him, but he sure did do a good job while he was here".

I'm a television production specialist. That means that I make TV.

I run cameras, audio equipment, character generators, teleprompters, video-switchers, tape editing devices, among other things.

I design sets, place and test lights, change bulbs, and even pour water into the cups of important people! Which I later wash in the sink!

I was "Floor director" on a statewide broadcast, and I was scheduled to do an "on location" shot for "The Today Show" at 3 tomorrow morning, but they cancelled. Those pricks.

Seems tough, huh? Nah. I could teach you how to do my job in 1 or 2 8 hour days if you have the basic intelligence necessary to take care of it. Same with physics. Its not that tough. From Highschool Physics 1, all the way through Post-doctoral reisdency, the basic theories don't change. They just become more and more complexly stated, and more industry standard language is used, to make themselves feel like they have actually learned something. Denying the truth, which is, they haven't learned much, merely gained some comfort in what they do, and passed a handfull of tests.

Maybe you're theories there are correct maybe not, but what I notice is that either way you seem a little too determined to be right. The first paragraph in your post was;

It's impossible. Fact. No credible physicist has ever stated otherwise. It is impossible. If you think it is possible, then you don't "Get" space-time and relativity. You missed the point of them.

Having known several scientists and physicists, and they do not get defensive or cocky about it. In fact they love it when someone challenges them. They don't automatically come back with "It's impossible. If you think it is you don't get it." In fact they find statements like those incredibly insulting.

Like I said, in the end, it doesn't matter if you're post was correct or not. What was important was the self-important tone of it. Wether or not this was intentional, I realy don't give a crap, but if it wasn't, I suggest you be a little more careful. Something I myself need to do on occasion.

Got a source for that Hawking quote? It seems to be at odds with what he said here: "The conclusion of this lecture is that rapid space-travel, or travel back in time, can't be ruled out, according to our present understanding."

I have read a variety of different physicists' theories about how time travel could exist and work. Was I dreaming or does that mean that the theories really do exist?

I don't recall the exact details of the theories, but I seem to think that they all relied on 4D space-time. Some were reliant on the concept that all time is running concurrently, others on the possibility of bending time.

I think that short story(though the name escapes me)sums it all up there. The really famous one were they went back in time to hunt dinosaurs and the guy stepped on a butterfly.

You're probably thinking of A Sound of Thunder by Ray Bradbury.

Yes, that's it exactly, thank you.

I hate to be a prick, but did you read what I wrote?

Those theories don't exist. Occasionally, a physicist will engage in some speculation (intellectual masturbation) about blah blah blah. That's not a theory. To be a theory it needs to be backed by some experiments, some logic... etc. It's implications in other fields need to be considered... etc. Pipe dreaming and theorizing are two different things. Sure, some physicists have pipe-dreamed... probably in the name of selling books and/or keeping their jobs. I doubt even THEY believe their conjectures. (BTW, This happens all the time in intellectual circles. You come up with a new theory, it takes you 3 months to realize a minor error in it, but you go ahead and publish it anyways for the fame that you will get during the 1 month it takes to find the error. To which you respond "Woops" but you are still "A genius". Even though your guess was hogwash and you knew it. (Cough, "The Gay Gene Experiments", Cough.))

I understand the basics of space-time, (to the extent that it can be understood) and I assure you it doesn't permit time travel, wormholes, or anything else for that matter. Well... the most interesting thing it permits is the theory of a hyperbolic universe (a three dimensional universe which is "wavy" in a fourth spacial dimension.. which is impossible for humans to visualize. Just as you don't have particularly good depth perception with only one eye, you don't have particularly good 4th dimensional understanding with only two brain hemispheres.), and the possibility of rrrrrreeeeaaaalllyy big triangles having internal angles that sum to less than 180 degrees.

Which, is kind of nifty, though... impractical.

Time running concurently with what? Imagine a graph. On that graph, axis x is "Time", a line. Now, in order for there to be a second line paralell to y=0, lets call it y=1 for the hell of it, there really needs to be a y axis. What is the y axis? WHAT is the y axis? There isn't one. Therefore, no time travel.

Best you can hope for is variations in the way that space and time INTERACT, therefore influencing how much time INFLUENCES objects/forces in space... a clock, for instance. Even in that event, we haven't changed the rate that time passes at, only the rate at which it affects a particular grouping of objects relative to another.

I'll accept that you have made an observation about my personality which is valid and perhaps your subjective analysis of that objervation is correct too... in this case anyways.

Umm... my quote comes from Stephen Hawking's
"Chronology Protection Conjecture".

You know, the long piece where he goes on and on about why time travel isn't possible...

(Giggles).

He has since revised his stance. He says it "May be possible if paralell universes exist."

He also commented that if paralell universes exists we should not drive cars because in some paralell universe we are guaranteed to run over a small child on each and every trip...

(giggles).

A further personality observation becomes clear after this post. The Alternate Reality theory is sound. And Stephen hawking, by your own admission, reconsidered his position, probably because he talked to people like us, who dared disagree with you. Your giggles tell us you gather pleasure from people you think are wrong. You seem to look at people who don't agree with you or beleive you as idiots who deserved to be laughed at. Most of all, my theory that you are someone who will say or do anything to be right and to make everyone else wrong is gaining merit the more you giggle and use sarcastic commentary and rather unusual hypothetical methods. Your piece of graph paper only makes sense if time has an end. And even if it does, you're assuming that end is compreheneble to human minds. In fact, such a Y axis would've happened at precisely the moment the first 'thing' happened in the created universe. The first second a grain of dust in space went left, and second line began where it moved right, and so on and so forth, created an incomprehendle, immeasureable number of alternate timelines. Human beings tend to think of these lines in simplistic terms such as "In one universe Hitler won the Second World War." One? If the thoery of alternate realities the number of universe where the Axis won would be immeasurable, but then so would the number of universe where the Allies won. For that matter, in countless universes we were the Axis and Germany was desperately trying to stop us with the D-Day invasion of Malibu. But I digress. My point is, your graph paper analogy is seriously flawed. And who says time in neccesarily a straihgt line, or for that matter that it evens follows known physical laws. Time is not tangible so applying physical laws to it is rather pointless. Time is also highly subjective. Need I remind you of the "watched pot" cliche? And since time is not tnagible, why does Effect HAVE TO follow Cause? But I'm getting off track here. My point is, don't make such assertions, when the only 'evidence' you have, is an alledged and so far unproven quote by someone I doubt you've ever met in person.

Brian, for the record, it isn't necessary to document sources for well known pieces of writing... they ARE their own sources. The obligation is on you to go read what Hawking wrote. It is probably available in a number of books in your public library. I don't care to read it myself, I've better things to do. I settle for summaries.

Hawking didn't really change his stance, he just got tired of dealing with the issue and went along with one possibility instead of taking the time to formally disagree with it. He made the extra comment just to be a sharp-witted dickhead, as he oftentimes is known to do.

You make a good point about the time-line without end that creates new lines "on top of" each other... and perhaps in a noneuclidean universe it makes sense... though, in a euclidian one... of course... passing through 2 points there is 1 and only 1 line.
:)
And in... a noneuclidian universe... there are... infinite lines?
I can't remember. It's 1:30 A.m., I'll think about it some other time.

You've made some more astute and even in some cases accurate comments about my personality! :). Your insight is most welcome.

I find it very interesting that you hold Hawking up as an authority until you discover that he no longer agrees with you.
How exactly do you reconcile your claim that "No credible physicist has ever stated otherwise." with Hawking's "The conclusion of this lecture is that rapid space-travel, or travel back in time, can't be ruled out, according to our present understanding."
Is he not a credible physicist? Are you using your own definition of time travel distinct from the rest of the world? Are you making deliberately outrageous statements in a (successful) attempt to stir things up (again)?

I have read about theories that are backed up with mathematical equations. I don't even pretend to understand the maths, but the journalists who wrote about them in New Scientist certainly do. The dabate following the particular article I'm thinking of (which included letters from leading physicists) did not suggest any major problems with it. The actual practicality of the theory was questioned but the ideas behind it were generally held to be sound.

I've never been so, I can't judge.

Beings of light Brian, beings of light - we wouldn't exactly be the Vorlons......
It's been too long since I watched Deconstruction of Falling Stars - in fact, I think I only watched it once!

Daver. Listen to me. I read the lecture. I have also read the low-down on *Hawkings* "chornological protection conjecture." (In many places) HIS chronological protection conjecture is a conjecture that time travel is impossible.
:).

I do know that Hawking changes his mind a lot, so there are many ways to assimilate the two statements...

I'd risk saying that because his conjecture is only a conjecture, though, one which he whole-heartedly believes in (merely can't (or doesn't wish to take the time to) prove), when he did the lecture he went ahead and said something which was more moderate than what he actually believes, to avoid (what is happening here). Do you know what the chronology protection conjecture is? It is a lot more significant than a lecture, I assure you.

Biggles. Let me re-phrase my position.

Time travel is possible. We all do it. Its just that we move forward a given rate relative to our relative velocity.

Now, time travel, as in, sending a proton back 1/10th of a second in time through a little passage of width 3 x 10^-33 Millimeters, such that it comes through the wormhole and strikes itself before having entered it, thus pushing itself into the wormhole... could potentially happen at the nucleus an atom, even credible physicists agree.

But there is not even the slightest hint of a tendency to believe that time travel as in "Headline: Man goes back five years, meets himself." is possible under current theory. With no reason to believe it is possible, it is correctly labelled "Impossible" until some more evidence arises that will cause us to reassess the situation. In the mean time, it is impossible.

(Hey, never say never may be witty, but the laws of logic say that with no reason to believe in the possibility (truth) of something, we should be convinced of it's impossibility (untruth). Though, still open to new information.)

Now, yes, physicists, even credible ones, occasionally engage in intellectual masturbation. And yes, unfortunately, they do it in major national publications. This doesn't make their claims intellectual... it is just the intellectualism of the physicists rubbing off on the perception of their intellectual masturbation (This term comes up a lot). Anyone read the latest "American Psychologist"... Look at the first article, complete and utter hogwash... that didn't stop it from being published for political reasons.

Just like me and my ex-girlfriend occasionally stay up until 4 in the morning talking on the phone and remembering what it is like to be in love... So too do scientists do stupid things late at night when they have nothing better to do. Like fantasize about time travel after having eaten just-a-little-too-much valerian root.

My point is, we all do stupid things for no apparent reason.

That being said. Under current theory, time travel (in the sense of a living object moving from one point in time to another undamaged (Which is the definition of time travel that was implicit in this discussion, don't try to bullcrap after the fact)) is impossible. It's that simple, because that is what current theory says.

Evidence of time travel- None.
Specific complete theories by which time travel could occur, backed by credible physicists- None.
Human intuition implying time travel- None.
Conjectures supporting time travel-None
Conjectures attacking time travel- Countless.

Lets all take a step back from this debate and assess what is happening.

I'm telling you "Time Travel is Impossible".

And you are saying that I have taken an extreme position.

Can we end this discussion with your responses? No questions, please.

You appear to think we're arguing about whether or not time travel is possible.
We're not: I simply wanted to know how you reconciled two contradictory statements. It appears that by your answer that you can't.

Daver... I don't know what to tell you. I doubt he could reconcile the two.

I honestly believe that (as happens a lot) he probably just made his statement more moderate during the lecture to avoid pissing people off and to maintain his credibility.

No questions. I would have ended that with a question mark but I am not permitted to question. It isn't a debate, discussion or even a conversation where it is simply two people saying different things.

For me to respond would be worthless. I have no intention of wasting a part of my life on nowt.

No, no. Not his two statements. His statement (about not knowing definitely one way or the other) and your statement that no credible physicist ever said such a thing.
As someone who seemingly starts every other response with "Listen", you could stand to do a bit more listening of your own.

I didn't perceive your statement that way. You've got me there.

I can't.

YESYESYES they SHOULD! I mean, if someone was brilliant enough to find out how to time travel they'll probably find out how to keep that a secret but the smallest change can effect the future immensely blah blah blah. Like, if you stepped on a butterfly, that would seem ok but what if that butterfly inspired Shakespere to write one certain play blah, blah, blah therefore changing the entire course of the future. Besides, what if we brought dinosaurs to our time...or something, I dunno but I'm against it, I guess, although I would love to go back in time and ruin the future! Then again there are people out there who probably wouldn't be as stupid as me, and it WOULD help us learn of how things came to be and other stuff, but as for me, I think it's best I stayed put.. (I'm hardly trustworthy right now let alone holding the course of human history in my hands)

Ofcourse, that is IF time travel was possible. If it was, I'm surprised someone from "the future" hasn't come down and beamed us to their ship...or something. Anyways, if this was possible, I'm guessing there would have to be like, millions of parallel universes that all have a difference in the time, and we could travel to those universes...or something.

bad boy

dirty girl