[QUOTE=EzDay]Although I stand by the idea that until we have atleast some very basic, fundamental idea as to how such a technology could work, there's not really much we can say about what result is more likely than what, anyways, making the whole topic pointless. It's like speculating on what's on the inside of a box of infinite size, when there's no information coming from it. You can guess, sure, but none of the guesses are really based on anything more than, 'it's inside the infinite box.'[/QUOTE] That is basically what AntiSleep said, and I completely agree.

Quote from EzDay

Although I stand by the idea that until we have atleast some very basic, fundamental idea as to how such a technology could work, there's not really much we can say about what result is more likely than what, anyways, making the whole topic pointless.
It's like speculating on what's on the inside of a box of infinite size, when there's no information coming from it. You can guess, sure, but none of the guesses are really based on anything more than, 'it's inside the infinite box.'

That is basically what AntiSleep said, and I completely agree.

Wow, Akar, I was kinda counting on nobody actually checking that. :-D [QUOTE]How do we know, beyond intuition and having not seen an example of it being broken, that the law of conservation ( or any other law, for that matter ) , is true? Or there are plenty of fancy ways to go about holding it - by 'linking' ourselves with another time, our current universe is no longer a closed system of itself, and so an equal amount of matter/energy would have to swap places with you in order for you to move back.[/QUOTE] I have to say I honestly can't quite get what you're saying, but you don't seem to understand closed systems. If our universe were "linked" with another one, then matter could travel freely between. That is, our universal system would become part of a larger closed system. [QUOTE]Although I stand by the idea that until we have atleast some very basic, fundamental idea as to how such a technology could work, there's not really much we can say about what result is more likely than what, anyways, making the whole topic pointless. It's like speculating on what's on the inside of a box of infinite size, when there's no information coming from it. You can guess, sure, but none of the guesses are really based on anything more than, 'it's inside the infinite box.'[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure you can find a post like that in every time travel topic on the internet. Everybody knows that, this is a topic to ponder "what if?" That post of yours can be adapted to fit every hypothetical topic in this forum, or on the internet. The point is to wonder and think, not to point out that the topic is pointless.

Wow, Akar, I was kinda counting on nobody actually checking that. :-D

Quote

How do we know, beyond intuition and having not seen an example of it being broken, that the law of conservation ( or any other law, for that matter ) , is true? Or there are plenty of fancy ways to go about holding it - by 'linking' ourselves with another time, our current universe is no longer a closed system of itself, and so an equal amount of matter/energy would have to swap places with you in order for you to move back.

I have to say I honestly can't quite get what you're saying, but you don't seem to understand closed systems.
If our universe were "linked" with another one, then matter could travel freely between. That is, our universal system would become part of a larger closed system.

Quote

Although I stand by the idea that until we have atleast some very basic, fundamental idea as to how such a technology could work, there's not really much we can say about what result is more likely than what, anyways, making the whole topic pointless.
It's like speculating on what's on the inside of a box of infinite size, when there's no information coming from it. You can guess, sure, but none of the guesses are really based on anything more than, 'it's inside the infinite box.'

I'm pretty sure you can find a post like that in every time travel topic on the internet. Everybody knows that, this is a topic to ponder "what if?"
That post of yours can be adapted to fit every hypothetical topic in this forum, or on the internet. The point is to wonder and think, not to point out that the topic is pointless.

[quote=frazz]Wow, Akar, I was kinda counting on nobody actually checking that. :-D[/quote] That wasn't akar, I did the calculations because the number looked far too low.

Quote from frazz

Wow, Akar, I was kinda counting on nobody actually checking that. :-D

That wasn't akar, I did the calculations because the number looked far too low.

Yeah, I did get a sense of what... how is it only worth THAT much energy... But AntiSleep corrected it.

Yeah, I did get a sense of what... how is it only worth THAT much energy... But AntiSleep corrected it.

[quote]I have to say I honestly can't quite get what you're saying, but you don't seem to understand closed systems. If our universe were "linked" with another one, then matter could travel freely between. That is, our universal system would become part of a larger closed system.[/quote] Hence I specifed it wouldn't be closed [i]'of itself.'[/i] It would no longer be [i]the[/i] closed system, but [i]part[/i] of one. I was saying that in response to the idea that, "time travel wouldn't be possible because it violates conservation of mass." [quote]I'm pretty sure you can find a post like that in every time travel topic on the internet. Everybody knows that, this is a topic to ponder "what if?" That post of yours can be adapted to fit every hypothetical topic in this forum, or on the internet. The point is to wonder and think, not to point out that the topic is pointless.[/quote] And atleast part of the reasons such posts might always be found is partially because there'll be people that say things as if it weren't the case. "Even if time travel existed, there would be no such thing as a grandfather paradox." "After some thought. Time travel is IMPOSSIBLE. Not only is it impossible, ..." I was being a bit redundant, sure, but I'm feeling a bit lazy for reading a few posts right now. *cough*

Quote

I have to say I honestly can't quite get what you're saying, but you don't seem to understand closed systems.
If our universe were "linked" with another one, then matter could travel freely between. That is, our universal system would become part of a larger closed system.

Hence I specifed it wouldn't be closed 'of itself.' It would no longer be the closed system, but part of one.
I was saying that in response to the idea that, "time travel wouldn't be possible because it violates conservation of mass."

Quote

I'm pretty sure you can find a post like that in every time travel topic on the internet. Everybody knows that, this is a topic to ponder "what if?"
That post of yours can be adapted to fit every hypothetical topic in this forum, or on the internet. The point is to wonder and think, not to point out that the topic is pointless.

And atleast part of the reasons such posts might always be found is partially because there'll be people that say things as if it weren't the case.
"Even if time travel existed, there would be no such thing as a grandfather paradox."
"After some thought. Time travel is IMPOSSIBLE. Not only is it impossible, ..."

I was being a bit redundant, sure, but I'm feeling a bit lazy for reading a few posts right now. *cough*

Sorry AS. AS and Akar: Psh, three decimals. Akar specifically: I'm surprised you have such a good sense of large numbers, most people (including myself) don't really get an intuitive sense when numbers get past billions or trillions.

Sorry AS. AS and Akar: Psh, three decimals.
Akar specifically: I'm surprised you have such a good sense of large numbers, most people (including myself) don't really get an intuitive sense when numbers get past billions or trillions.

Four decimals for the energy calculation, five for the time calculation, and then there was the fact that a megawatt isn't exactly a lot of power, rough guess 500 homes, whereas the capacity to power the entire human race, would be the result of technology that could convert mass directly to energy.

Four decimals for the energy calculation, five for the time calculation, and then there was the fact that a megawatt isn't exactly a lot of power, rough guess 500 homes, whereas the capacity to power the entire human race, would be the result of technology that could convert mass directly to energy.

[quote=EzDay281]I would like to ask... How do we know, beyond intuition and having not seen an example of it being broken, that the law of conservation ( or any other law, for that matter ) , is true? Or there are plenty of fancy ways to go about holding it - by 'linking' ourselves with another time, our current universe is no longer a closed system of itself, and so an equal amount of matter/energy would have to swap places with you in order for you to move back. Although I stand by the idea that until we have atleast some very basic, fundamental idea as to how such a technology could work, there's not really much we can say about what result is more likely than what, anyways, making the whole topic pointless. It's like speculating on what's on the inside of a box of infinite size, when there's no information coming from it. You can guess, sure, but none of the guesses are really based on anything more than, 'it's inside the infinite box.'[/quote] You are questioning the way of physical research here. All the natural sciences can never prove anything to be true, as they are only based on observation. It can be proven that something is NOT true, but it doesn't work the other way round. We observe, formulate theories, test them and hope that we find nothing that invalidates them. You can speculate about stuff that breaks physical laws, but unless you can prove current theories wrong, your stuff won't be accepted. Occams razor comes into play here, too. As well as the lack of experiments supporting your speculations.

Quote from EzDay281

I would like to ask...
How do we know, beyond intuition and having not seen an example of it being broken, that the law of conservation ( or any other law, for that matter ) , is true? Or there are plenty of fancy ways to go about holding it - by 'linking' ourselves with another time, our current universe is no longer a closed system of itself, and so an equal amount of matter/energy would have to swap places with you in order for you to move back.

Although I stand by the idea that until we have atleast some very basic, fundamental idea as to how such a technology could work, there's not really much we can say about what result is more likely than what, anyways, making the whole topic pointless.
It's like speculating on what's on the inside of a box of infinite size, when there's no information coming from it. You can guess, sure, but none of the guesses are really based on anything more than, 'it's inside the infinite box.'

You are questioning the way of physical research here. All the natural sciences can never prove anything to be true, as they are only based on observation. It can be proven that something is NOT true, but it doesn't work the other way round. We observe, formulate theories, test them and hope that we find nothing that invalidates them.
You can speculate about stuff that breaks physical laws, but unless you can prove current theories wrong, your stuff won't be accepted. Occams razor comes into play here, too. As well as the lack of experiments supporting your speculations.

I'm not seeing the point of that post. >_> It seems to mostly reiterate some of what I just said in the quote, with a lot more detail.

I'm not seeing the point of that post. >_>
It seems to mostly reiterate some of what I just said in the quote, with a lot more detail.

Yeah, he basically agrees with you, but for some reason wanted to make it look like he doesn't. :unsure:

Yeah, he basically agrees with you, but for some reason wanted to make it look like he doesn't.

Boy, Dapperdan, you're just full of input on this topic, aren't you? :)

Boy, Dapperdan, you're just full of input on this topic, aren't you?

I think that the fact that this is such a paradox [b]is[/b] enough evidence for me, for example, that time travel backwards is impossible. Time travel forward is possible via the theory of relativity, but back... I really doubt it. Time isn't a vector.

I think that the fact that this is such a paradox is enough evidence for me, for example, that time travel backwards is impossible. Time travel forward is possible via the theory of relativity, but back... I really doubt it. Time isn't a vector.

I might be misreading the first post (actually I know I'm not), but it seems to me that this topic was about the GrANDfather ParaDOX, not time travel itself. If you want to argue against your imaginary friend about why you think time travel is false, make a topic about it. I don't think anyone here really thinks that time travel is possible (sorry random person who does, whoever you are). The point of this topic is to discuss the potential of such a paradox in the hypothetical situation in which time travel was possible, and utilized. Gosh! :flamer:

I might be misreading the first post (actually I know I'm not), but it seems to me that this topic was about the GrANDfather ParaDOX, not time travel itself. If you want to argue against your imaginary friend about why you think time travel is false, make a topic about it.
I don't think anyone here really thinks that time travel is possible (sorry random person who does, whoever you are). The point of this topic is to discuss the potential of such a paradox in the hypothetical situation in which time travel was possible, and utilized. Gosh!

Since stating that time travel is impossible is enough to nullify the Grandfather Paradox, I'd say stating your opinion at it is a valid response.

Since stating that time travel is impossible is enough to nullify the Grandfather Paradox, I'd say stating your opinion at it is a valid response.

[QUOTE=Cheeze]The topic itself is worthless because time travel is not yet possible[/QUOTE] OMG I'm in the future, and again, omg I keep time travelling!?! WTF? MAKE IT STOP!!! [SIZE=8]In writing this post, Rantent traveled into the future in which this post was finished...[/SIZE]

Quote from Cheeze

The topic itself is worthless because time travel is not yet possible

OMG I'm in the future, and again, omg I keep time travelling!?! WTF? MAKE IT STOP!!!
In writing this post, Rantent traveled into the future in which this post was finished...

[quote=Centreri]Since stating that time travel is impossible is enough to nullify the Grandfather Paradox, I'd say stating your opinion at it is a valid response.[/quote] Because we're all entitled to our opinions :D

Quote from Centreri

Since stating that time travel is impossible is enough to nullify the Grandfather Paradox, I'd say stating your opinion at it is a valid response.

Because we're all entitled to our opinions

[quote=cheeze]AntiSleep is right. False implies anything. Since time travel is impossible, going back in time is false.. thus implying Bush is awesome. LuL. Learn logic guys.[/quote] Time Travel is possible. Einstein theorized it with his proved equations. However, you can't go back in time. This topic is lame.

Quote from cheeze

AntiSleep is right. False implies anything. Since time travel is impossible, going back in time is false.. thus implying Bush is awesome. LuL.

Learn logic guys.

Time Travel is possible. Einstein theorized it with his proved equations.

However, you can't go back in time. This topic is lame.

Time travel [i]is[/i] impossible. There is a difference between [b]time travel[/b] and [b]relative change in time[/b].

Time travel is impossible. There is a difference between time travel and relative change in time.

Eh. Indeed.

Eh. Indeed.