Theories of Time Travel

[kevin19980609]

Which theory of time travel do you think is more accurate?

-If you go back in time and do something, it wouldn't cause anything in the future to change because it had already happened. (eg. In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and in Artemis Fowl and the Time Paradox)

-If you go back in time and do something the future will change drasticly.

I think the first theory is more accurate because if the second theory was correct and you kill your grandfather or something you wouldn't exist to go in time and kill your grandpa.

[evandixon]

Which theory of time travel do you think is more accurate?

-If you go back in time and do something, it wouldn't cause anything in the future to change because it had already happened. (eg. In Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and in Artemis Fowl and the Time Paradox)

-If you go back in time and do something the future will change drasticly.

I think the first theory is more accurate because if the second theory was correct and you kill your grandfather or something you wouldn't exist to go in time and kill your grandpa.

"All the important changes are made before the things that the are meant to change, and it all works out in the end."

[Zafur]

Hmm. Something like both. Technically, if you go back in time, you are changing the future/present. It could be argued that it has already happened, but if you chose not to go back in time the outcome will be different, so it's more of an unnoticeable change.
Now who wants to try and kill their great grandfather and see what happens? :P

[wraith89]

What I believe is that you can change the process and all... but the results... the consequences... will never change.

[Guested]

There's a documentary on this.
It's called "Back to the Future." Check it out sometime.

[Enzo]

It doesn't matter because even if Time Travel were possible, it wouldn't be like it is in the movies. Let me explain:

Consider time and space and your rapid movement through both. I'm not just talking about getting up to go to the bathroom after a long pokemon chaining session when I say "movement", either. First, the Earth is constantly spinning on it's axis at some proposterous speed which turns the days, and so you are also moving at this speed through space. Compounding this, it's not just the Earth spinning that moves you, but the earth circling the sun to make the years. We have traveled through space a ridiculous many miles in the past few minutes alone in that circular journey and that's not even all of it! The sun rotates around the central star of our Milky Way galaxy in the same super-speedy manner, and the galaxy? It's rocketing through space, likely away from the center of the universe where the singularity that started it all used to rest.

What does this mean for time travel? Well, sir, considering we are constantly moving through SPACE so quickly, what makes you think you can move through TIME backwards to the same point in space you are in this moment and survive the encounter? Your point in space is constantly changing just like your point in time whether you realize it or not, and so attempting to travel to your point in space at a different time, backwards or forwards, will almost certainly result in your death as you would very likely find yourself in the vast expanse of outer space which is not friendly to human beings that require air to breathe.

Therefor, wondering about which "theory" of time travel is true is a complete waste of time.

[Greencat]

I don't think humans ever made time travel in mankind's time. I mean, if it were possible, why haven't my 50 year old self in the future come back in time to visit me on July 9, 2009? Or even my grandchildren or someone else's grandchildren in the future go back in time? If time travel, at least to the past, were possible, why haven't we met any of our future counterparts?

[kevin19980609]

Actually you might have met someone from the future and not known about it.

[Enzo]

Actually you might have met someone from the future and not known about it.

That is so unlikely it may as well be impossible.

[kevin19980609]

Well, someone from the future might have went back to ancient times and somehow influenced life from the past. They might have taught Egyptians how to build pyramids, they might have taught humans about herbs and cures for diseases that even us in the present don't know about, information about the past is very blurry, we almost know nothing, and, remember, people in ancient times knew stuff we don't

[Enzo]

Well, someone from the future might have went back

Read my post. Going back in time from your point in space would almost certainly kill you instantly.

[Greencat]

But that wouldn't make sense. There is about 6.7 Billion people right now. Maybe 8 Billion in twenty years or more. At one moment, they all can come. Then the next minute, all have the opportunity to come. So your saying 1440 Minutes in a day. So they have the all 8 billion have the opportunity to go in each of those 1440 minutes. Than you add up the opportunities in the year, which is 525,600. Then you say for the next 50 years of it's use and it can at least be 26,280,000 opportunities. And not one has unveiled their appearance or, at least, messed up and told someone? Let's say we live for another 1000 years! Look at how many times we should've seen someone from the future.

[Endless Eden]

I dont think a relative of yours chould come back from the future and tell you about the future whouldnt that like rip the fabric of the universe apart or something?

I agree with the second theory simply because it is the most probable.

Also in our generation we may be lucky enough to discover the age gene so yes you may very well live for a 1000 years greencat :P

[wraith89]

Actually you might have met someone from the future and not known about it.

Eh, time travel isn't possible :/

[Zafur]

Wasn't there a theory about going fast enough?XP Some people put a clock in a plane and kept one outside it, calibrated them and they found out that there was a slight difference in the milliseconds when they compared them again.

... And isn't the reason we die not because of a gene but because our DNA ages so much through all the replication of cells it is no longer well enough to keep us alive... Or something... Also explains why older people lose eyesight first. And supposedly starving yourself to slow down the replication of cells should theoretically make you live longer.

I definitely don't claim to know what I'm talking about right now, since I saw both on TV, and you know you can't believe what you see there. :P