Time Travel anyone?

[sirpazhan]

If you had a time machine,, and you traveled back in time to visit the composer Beethoven and took with you a CD of his Fifth Symphony.  Beethoven listens to it and writes the music down, then later his score is used to record your CD.  Where does the music come from?


-as

[klavierkonzerte]

what's the point of this 

[richard w]

If you had a time machine,, and you traveled back in time to visit the composer Beethoven and took with you a CD of his Fifth Symphony. Beethoven listens to it and writes the music down, then later his score is used to record your CD. Where does the music come from?


-as

What you suggest is impossible, because Beethoven did not have a CD player. 

[Tash]

nah you bring an ipod with you and thus don't need a cd player or batteries or electricity!

[richard w]

Pah! You've stole my thunder. I was ready with the 'electricity' one for my next post. By the way, what does your ipod run on if it isn't batteries or electricity? Oh, and what is an ipod? Should I have one?












Anyway, whatever an ipod is it aint going to work - Beethoven was deaf!   

[dlu]

If you had a time machine,, and you traveled back in time to visit the composer Beethoven and took with you a CD of his Fifth Symphony.  Beethoven listens to it and writes the music down, then later his score is used to record your CD.  Where does the music come from?


-as

the future?...

[Tash]

Pah! You've stole my thunder. I was ready with the 'electricity' one for my next post. By the way, what does your ipod run on if it isn't batteries or electricity? Oh, and what is an ipod? Should I have one?












Anyway, whatever an ipod is it aint going to work - Beethoven was deaf!

ha! you've won that one!

an ipod, wow i didn't know so many people don't know what one is- it's this thing that you plug into your computer and you can download all your music onto it so you don't have to lug a cd or whatever around, and it can store like a million 'songs' in it, depending what size you get (mine's a mini so it stores about 1000), but you need to plug it into a wall to charge it, but you do that before you go back to beethoven!

[donjuan]

This question is as ridiculous as the concept of time travel itself

[sirpazhan]

This question is as ridiculous as the concept of time travel itself

First of all,, Time travel is not against the laws of physics, it may be impossibly difficult to built a machine,, however the journey itself is possible,, what do you think the 'theory of relativity' is? it's that space and time are relative, not absolute, and that time is actually a fourth dimension within what Einstein calls "space-time" -- so this is not a ridiculous question,, it just explains the many paradoxes time travel creates.  Think about it..

-as

[piano_learner]

It is evident that time travel will never be possible. Otherwise we would have tourists from the future visiting us now. If they could, why would they care about a ridiculous piece of music when they could have saved thousands of lives in SE ASIA??

Time Travel is a ridiculous concept that is ridiculously impossible now and forever!

[Antnee]

The theory for time travel is for real and as far as we know the theory is pretty accurate. However it would be almost, if not completely, impossible to create the neccessary conditions that are required  for time travel. Also that isn't to say we don't build one... Maybe in the future they are (or we are) smart enough to know that going back in time could seriously screw things up. Although I sure would be tempted to deliver some of the great composers some advanced medicine so they could have written a few more brilliant pieces. 

[xvimbi]

It is evident that time travel will never be possible. Otherwise we would have tourists from the future visiting us now.

Not if we are at the front of the timeline and the future hasn't happened yet.

If they could, why would they care about a ridiculous piece of music when they could have saved thousands of lives in SE ASIA??

You are not familiar with the consequences of time travel and interference with history. Why do you think do we have the Prime Directive

[piano_learner]

Not if we are at the front of the timeline and the future hasn't happened yet.

That would mean the past hasn't happened either? 

You are not familiar with the consequences of time travel and interference with history. Why do you think do we have the Prime Directive

I forgot about that 

[xvimbi]

That would mean the past hasn't happened either? 

Of course the past has happened, so we could go back to it. However, if the future has not happened yet, there would be nothing to travel to or travel from.

This is of course assuming that Time is unidirectional and that we are living at the leading edge of Time, a pretty homocentric view, I admit.

[piano_learner]

The theory for time travel is for real and as far as we know the theory is pretty accurate. However it would be almost, if not completely, impossible to create the neccessary conditions that are required  for time travel. Also that isn't to say we don't build one... Maybe in the future they are (or we are) smart enough to know that going back in time could seriously screw things up. Although I sure would be tempted to deliver some of the great composers some advanced medicine so they could have written a few more brilliant pieces. 

Hmmm...since when has the threat of screwing things up ever stopped a human being from doing something? 

Imagine you are the scientist working on the Time Machine and it takes you 50 years to 'crack the code' on how to build it. Once you do discover the solution, the first thing you (I) would do is go back in time and give yourself the solution to the problem. But if you did, it should NEVER have taken 50 years in the first place. Therefore, there is no distinct demarcation between the ability to Time Travel and the inability. One it exists it should have always existed. This perpetual loop cannot be resolved. 

[piano_learner]

Of course the past has happened, so we could go back to it. However, if the future has not happened yet, there would be nothing to travel to or travel from.

Even though we are the 'now' and it is 2005, we are actually the past for the people of the future. I didn't consider 1990 as the past when I was experiencing it. So the instantaneous measure of time is past/present and future if you think about it

[xvimbi]

Even though we are the 'now' and it is 2005, we are actually the past for the people of the future. I didn't consider 1990 as the past when I was experiencing it. So the instantaneous measure of time is past/present and future if you think about it

Ehem, I don't follow. How is it possible that the future has already happened if we are at the leading edge of Time?

[piano_learner]

Ehem, I don't follow. How is it possible that the future has already happened if we are at the leading edge of Time?

Xvimbi,

If we are at the leading edge of time now, in 2005, then we were at the leading edge at each moment of time in 2004, 2003,2002…etc
If only backward time travel is possible, then I should be able to go back to yesterday and see myself. BUT, if we were having this conversation yesterday, you would try to convince me that 2005 could not yet exist because the future hasn’t happened. Imagine time travel becomes possible tomorrow. We could go back in time to now where you are trying to convince me that the future doesn’t exist. But that creates a paradox because technically, now, is already the past of tomorrow.

Do you see the problem?

[xvimbi]

If we are at the leading edge of time now, in 2005, then we were at the leading edge at each moment of time in 2004, 2003,2002…etc
If only backward time travel is possible, then I should be able to go back to yesterday and see myself. BUT, if we were having this conversation yesterday, you would try to convince me that 2005 could not yet exist because the future hasn’t happened. Imagine time travel becomes possible tomorrow. We could go back in time to now where you are trying to convince me that the future doesn’t exist. But that creates a paradox because technically, now, is already the past of tomorrow.

I don't see the problem, as long as we assume that we on Earth are living at the edge of Time, and - to be precise - we are having this conversation at the edge of Time. This is the axiom on which everything in this conversation hinges. If I had a time machine and went back to 1990 to visit you, of course I would know that 2005 has already happened, because I went BACK in time. I could try to convince you that 2005 has not happened yet, but I know that it has, yet you don't.

If you went back to 1990 and argued with yourself whether 2005 has happend or not, now that would be funny. Imagine a whole bunch of you sitting around a table and arguing, while every now and then another you is popping in confusing everybody else.

Of course, this is only one way to go back in time. Another way is to reverse Time, i.e. the leading edge would then be going backwards to events that have already happened. In this case, future is constantly being wiped out as one goes back. This is very easy to achieve in isolated systems. In fact, chemical reactions generally exist in equilibria between two or more states that constantly get converted into each other. For such an isolated system in equilibrium, macroscopic time does not move forward. Microscopically, time goes back and forth. Unfortunately, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not allow this for the Universe as a whole.

[piano_learner]

I don't see the problem, as long as we assume that we on Earth are living at the edge of Time, and - to be precise - we are having this conversation at the edge of Time. This is the axiom on which everything in this conversation hinges. If I had a time machine and went back to 1990 to visit you, of course I would know that 2005 has already happened, because I went BACK in time. I could try to convince you that 2005 has not happened yet, but I know that it has, yet you don't.

Could someone from the year 2030 visit you now and convince you that 2005 to 2029 has already happened?

[xvimbi]

Could someone from the year 2030 visit you now and convince you that 2005 to 2029 has already happened?

If the future already happend, yes, I'd be easily convinced, and I would conclude that we are not at the leading edge of Time, which would make this whole conversation obsolete.

[donjuan]

goodness, is this thread still alive??  Look, the closest anyone will get to time travel is looking at the stars because it can take at least 5 years got the light from the star to reach our eyes.  Therefore, the stars you see are actually set at least 5 years in the past.

[xvimbi]

goodness, is this thread still alive?? 

Obviosuly. You just posted in it

Look, the closest anyone will get to time travel is looking at the stars because it can take at least 5 years got the light from the star to reach our eyes.  Therefore, the stars you see are actually set at least 5 years in the past.

Not at all! They are very well in their presence. The fact that we see only their past does of course not mean they ARE in the past. Likewise, the fact that you receive a postcard from somebody who wrote it ten days ago does not mean that person lives ten days in the past. It is actually the other way around: compared to that person, it appears that you live ten days in the past 

Any heads spinning yet?

[piano_learner]

If the future already happend, yes, I'd be easily convinced, and I would conclude that we are not at the leading edge of Time, which would make this whole conversation obsolete.

If you accept the possibility of being visited by someone from the future, then I also think you would need to accept that past, present and future are coexistent. 

[xvimbi]

If you accept the possibility of being visited by someone from the future, then I also think you would need to accept that past, present and future are coexistent. 

Grrrr! I pointed out that the absence of visitors from the future does not rule out time travel. Nothing more, nothing less. So stop causing diversions Time travel is difficult enough!

[piano_learner]

Grrrr! I pointed out that the absence of visitors from the future does not rule out time travel. Nothing more, nothing less. So stop causing diversions Time travel is difficult enough!

xvimbi,

I think you have misunderstood me. I am not saying that the absence of visitors rules out the possibility of time travel. I'm saying that the *possibility* of visitors rules out the hypothesis that we are leading the timeline. You can’t accept both because they contradict.

[xvimbi]

I think you have misunderstood me. I am not saying that the absence of visitors rules out the possibility of time travel.

No misunderstanding whatsoever. Read this post of yours.

It is evident that time travel will never be possible. Otherwise we would have tourists from the future visiting us now.

[piano_learner]

No misunderstanding whatsoever. Read this post of yours.

OK. Let me make this clear.

I am stating CATEGORICALLY & UNEQUIVOCALLY that time travel is impossible now, tomorrow or ever, otherwise tourists from the future would visit us.

You are saying (Correct me if I'm wrong) that time travel IS possible, but only the ability to go back in time because we are on the leading edge of the timeline. But you also accepted the possibility of a visitor from the year 2030 visiting you. This means you don't entirely support your own hypothesis. Otherwise you would have CATEGORICALLY & UNEQUIVOCALLY said that a visitor from the future is impossible.

Maybe I have misunderstood you?

[xvimbi]

OK. Let me make this clear.

I am stating CATEGORICALLY & UNEQUIVOCALLY that time travel is impossible now, tomorrow or ever, otherwise tourists from the future would visit us.

I see that you are categorically and unequivocally stating something, but your argument does not proove that time travel is categorically and unequivocally impossible, because you didn't take into account the possibility that we could be living at the leading edge.

You are saying (Correct me if I'm wrong) that time travel IS possible, but only the ability to go back in time because we are on the leading edge of the timeline. But you also accepted the possibility of a visitor from the year 2030 visiting you. This means you don't entirely support your own hypothesis. Otherwise you would have CATEGORICALLY & UNEQUIVOCALLY said that a visitor from the future is impossible.

No, I haven't really put forward any of my opinions, I only wanted to point out the fallacy in your initial argument. I don't know if time travel is possible, all I know is that physics has a lot of arguments in its favor and none that say it is impossible.

[piano_learner]

I see that you are categorically and unequivocally stating something, but your argument does not proove that time travel is categorically and unequivocally impossible, because you didn't take into account the possibility that we could be living at the leading edge.

But I have also lived in the past, which according to the "Leading Edge Hypothesis" was the present at the time and the future (now) cannot exist. But, if time travel were suddenly possible now, I could go BACK in time and visit myself during a leading edge period that has already existed. The hypothesis fails because I am moving from this leading edge to a past leading edge. Which means there must be a leading edge currently existing in the future.

No, I haven't really put forward any of my opinions, I only wanted to point out the fallacy in your initial argument. I don't know if time travel is possible, all I know is that physics has a lot of arguments in its favor and none that say it is impossible.

And the lack of visitors from the future have proven that the arguments in favour are wrong.

[willcowskitz]

Concept of parallel realities makes speculation on time travel much easier. That would mean that if you went back in time and altered the future, it would change things for the future in that reality, but not have effect on your own time. Whether it would be possible to return to your own time and reality, would still be arguable. Time shouldn't be thought of as a two-dimensional line; maybe it is merely a funnel for the abstract collasion of concepts (even if not thought of as concepts) and what we call physical reality and it's happenings to be set in logical order for laws of physics to apply. Was there time in between the Big Bang and the first conscious mind, or did the universe only apply it's straight-forward mathematical patterns in a timeless space without limitations of friction from a conceptualizing mind and other life that would filter all this reality through it's mind by experiencing it? Anyway, the answer for the original question is:  The symphony came from Beethoven.

[xvimbi]

But I have also lived in the past, which according to the "Leading Edge Hypothesis" was the present at the time and the future (now) cannot exist. But, if time travel were suddenly possible now, I could go BACK in time and visit myself during a leading edge period that has already existed. The hypothesis fails because I am moving from this leading edge to a past leading edge. Which means there must be a leading edge currently existing in the future.

I do know what you mean. However, in any case, there can only be one leading edge. If you went back to visit yourself, you would obviously not be at the leading edge anymore. The "Leading Edge Hypothesis" (I like that name, and I should get it patented) only means that there cannot be a visitor from a time point beyond the leading edge. All this assumes that Time is one-dimensional, and that all time points do not co-exist. How likely would that be, given the assumption that two simultaneous realities at two different times would require twice the mass.

And the lack of visitors from the future have proven that the arguments in favour are wrong.

The fact that there is no visitor from the future, does not mean that it's impossible. It might just be extremely impracticable. For example, what if it turns out that time travel is only possible for "particles" with zero resting mass? This would still be useful, because one could at least shoot information back and forth.

So what do you think about the simplest and clearly verifiable "time-travel" experiment of all: one twin stays on Earth, while his brother travels around it at very high speeds (therefore, his time elapses more slowly compared to his brother's time). At some point he returns to his brother to find that his brother is one year older than he is. Did he travel into the future?

[alexed]

i believe the answer is that the music came from beethoven.

xvimbi - how do you know that there have not been any visitors from the past? think of harry potter - they couldn't say, or show themselves, to be from the past (please note that i'm not saying that harry potter is true! - just that the explanation as to why they could not be seen was very coherent and easy to understand).

how do you know that you're not from the past, with amnesia?

[xvimbi]

i believe the answer is that the music came from beethoven.

xvimbi - how do you know that there have not been any visitors from the past? think of harry potter - they couldn't say, or show themselves, to be from the past (please note that i'm not saying that harry potter is true! - just that the explanation as to why they could not be seen was very coherent and easy to understand).

how do you know that you're not from the past, with amnesia?

Now, don't be ridiculous! You are destroying a perfectly serious thread with a comment that borders on ludicrousness 

[alexed]

i'm sorry. i've had this on my mind for a very long time, and when this thread came up i knew it was time to spill the beans.

i have travelled in time. i was born in the year 3585. i am 85 years old. i'll tell you a bit about our time, if you like. we don't believe in "capital letters", but anyone who misses out punctuation is capitally punished. i've been sent here to kill you all.

[Daniel_piano]

If you had a time machine,, and you traveled back in time to visit the composer Beethoven and took with you a CD of his Fifth Symphony.  Beethoven listens to it and writes the music down, then later his score is used to record your CD.  Where does the music come from?
-as

What you're talking about is a "time paradox"
If you start thinking about the implications of this you will literally lose your mind

New knowldge of physic however showed that time is not a straight line but a round circle where past , present and future are just continuing forever, repeating themselves eternally
If that were true there wouldn't be past just a continuation of present toward the reconjunction with past
I think in the 12th century to consider the time like a straight line with past behind and future ahead is just as silly as considering the earth flat

Anyway, in such time paradox the music would not come from past or future but from the same place in the timelime, so it simply would mean that although Beethoven would compose his music by listening to the recording of it, it was anyway already in his head

Time paradox are a complicate matters, I think that if we find a way to time travel (but I think that would be impossible because of the non existence of past, present and future according to new knowledge) there would be no time paradoxes as they would be contrary to nature perfection
If humans will be able to time travel and even cause time paradox this could in turn destroy the perception of existence of even the whole solid matter

We will never time travel because it would be highly dangerous
In fact, since a lot of events orginated just by chance (like the meeting between my father and mother) by interfering with the events we could completely change the reality

For example, my mother was a nurse and met my father because he cut his arm with a broken window in the hospital hall
Let's say you could time travel and fix that window, my father would not cut his arm and he would not meet my mother, I would disappear from the world so anything I've done, and anything I've done , by turn , changed the life of other people
For example my autn was at my birthday when I was 9 years old
If I was not born, my aunt would have been at my 8th birthday and maybe she could have been killed in a car accident, this in turn would making my cousing dissapear and all their actions like when causing was admitted at college and the girl who got a lower score didn't, if my cousin was not born the girl under her would have become a medicine student and this in turn would have changed the life of other miliards of people
It's all chain, people who think they're useless should think about this
If you fix a window in the past, you destroy the whole world


Daniel

[willcowskitz]

There are no time paradoxes with help from the concept of parallel realities. Let's say you travel into the past and alter the reality, it changes the direction of the future in that reality, but nonetheless because you were able to create that change the future has already been different, its only bit like waves; if you look at a waving sea it seems like water is moving on top of waves, but actually masses of water are only whirling still, transmitting energy towards the coast, where the energy is transformed into the bang of the last motion of nearest waves to coastline - you can go back in time, make a difference, but that particular wave does not "move" to that location in the future where you came from, they correlate in whole different realities (separate whirls in the sea), thus making time paradoxes impossible. Instead, you alter a parallel reality more or less similar to and not having any effect on the one you came from.

[Daniel_piano]

There are no time paradoxes with help from the concept of parallel realities. Let's say you travel into the past and alter the reality, it changes the direction of the future in that reality, but nonetheless because you were able to create that change the future has already been different, its only bit like waves; if you look at a waving sea it seems like water is moving on top of waves, but actually masses of water are only whirling still, transmitting energy towards the coast, where the energy is transformed into the bang of the last motion of nearest waves to coastline - you can go back in time, make a difference, but that particular wave does not "move" to that location in the future where you came from, they correlate in whole different realities (separate whirls in the sea), thus making time paradoxes impossible. Instead, you alter a parallel reality more or less similar to and not having any effect on the one you came from.

Is that like saying that there "copies" of all existing places and people in another parallel reality ?
Let's say for example I time travel in a place in my city and when I come back eveything is changed because I interfered with events, I'm now in a parallel reality "created" by my interferring though in this reality there's my city and the peple I know
So, are there other me on other parallel realities?
If so, can I come in contact with myself .... ?

Can, sixth-sense or intution comes from what we're doing on another parallel reality?
Are there proofs of existence of parallel realities ?

Daniel

[willcowskitz]

Imagine that in the occurence of the Big Bang, a line of events starts growing from the beginning. If you've seen or read the 2001: Space Odyssey by Arthur Clarke, the black "statue" that symbolises some sort of consciousness, is the treshold from where this line starts spawning more lines that always in some subtle ways differentiate from their origin. Every time a conscious choice is made, a new line is born and starts spreading away from the center, and soon we have endlessly different realities with different choices made. When you travel in time, you create a new reality by altering things on which ever of those strings that you attached yourself to. Of course its arguable where the real spreading of the lines starts from, but I think of it to be when the consciousness and different choices are brought in.

Of course you exist in the past of this parallel reality, and I don't personally see any problem in meeting oneself in person, besides the obvious confusing results on the future of that other self of yours. He's made of the same matter as you are, and possesses a soul of his own (if you believe in one), and is due to being changed by your visit, becoming something that you yourself are not, in the future.

That's an interesting idea of the sixth sense; maybe we're connected to the closest realities around us, those that spawned from choices made a little time ago thus not having the chance to grow much further from their origin, and gain information about possible directions that people could pick. This could mean that the older the universe is, more refined it's individual parallel realities become during this process of connecting them via time travel or paranormal abilities.

I don't think there are proofs, other than one that I read once but which wasn't very convincing. This stuff is just like modern physics, a lot of speculation and guesses, not much actual equations. Personally I believe that intuition is the intellectual area to be developed in the future, when logical reasoning no longer serves purpose other than to make possible the optimal setting for practice of this seamless communication and understanding.

[xvimbi]

New knowldge of physic however showed that time is not a straight line but a round circle where past , present and future are just continuing forever, repeating themselves eternally
If that were true there wouldn't be past just a continuation of present toward the reconjunction with past
I think in the 12th century to consider the time like a straight line with past behind and future ahead is just as silly as considering the earth flat

Where, if I may ask, do you get this stuff? And you present it as if it was the most established piece of knowledge. Time a circle? There must be a discontiuity. An old universe can't just gradually turn into a young universe. Locally, time can go back and forth, but I have never heard of a circular timeline. Care to present any references?

Personally I believe that intuition is the intellectual area to be developed in the future, when logical reasoning no longer serves purpose other than to make possible the optimal setting for practice of this seamless communication and understanding.

Huh?

[sirpazhan]

Where, if I may ask, do you get this stuff? And you present it as if it was the most established piece of knowledge. Time a circle? There must be a discontiuity. An old universe can't just gradually turn into a young universe. Locally, time can go back and forth, but I have never heard of a circular timeline. Care to present any references?



Huh?

He probably means curved instead of circle -- because 11 years after Einstein's 'Theory of Relativity' he discovered that 'space-time' is not straight, but curved by gravity -- and because gravity is equivalent to acceleration, therefore if acceleration  is a factor in  'space-time', so will gravity.

I can explain in detail if you like...

and as far as "An old universe can't just gradually turn into a young universe." I'm guessing he means what Hawkings meant when he said evolution since the Big Bang cannot be reversed, and that if the universe were to contract instead of expanding would humans unevolve in the same way as they have evolved over millions of years?

hmmm...

[willcowskitz]

Personally I believe that intuition is the intellectual area to be developed in the future, when logical reasoning no longer serves purpose other than to make possible the optimal setting for practice of this seamless communication and understanding.

Basically, what I mean is that mankind will learn a new (or new to majority anyway) way to look at and understand the world, which does not involve linear reasoning and glitches in communication due to misunderstandings. Intellictuality will undergo a revolution in which quantitative thinking is replaced by qualitative, numbers by God, discontinuity by continuity, details by big picture, need for irony by direct understanding, fragmented mind and soul by tranquility and synergy with nature.
Still "huh"? 

[klavierkonzerte]

actually there is no time
think about it.

[alexed]

i've run out of time.

[Daniel_piano]

Where, if I may ask, do you get this stuff? And you present it as if it was the most established piece of knowledge. Time a circle? There must be a discontiuity. An old universe can't just gradually turn into a young universe. Locally, time can go back and forth, but I have never heard of a circular timeline. Care to present any references?

Yes, give me some time to find the reference of the physicist who showed the theory of continuing time

Daniel

[allchopin]

Basically, what I mean is that mankind will learn a new (or new to majority anyway) way to look at and understand the world, which does not involve linear reasoning and glitches in communication due to misunderstandings. Intellictuality will undergo a revolution in which quantitative thinking is replaced by qualitative, numbers by God, discontinuity by continuity, details by big picture, need for irony by direct understanding, fragmented mind and soul by tranquility and synergy with nature.

Time out, what are we talking about now?

[Daniel_piano]

Time out, what are we talking about now?

He is talking about the future, the only kind of future that will permit the world to keep existing, otherwise we will be all existincted in a matter of few years with our useless gouvernments, our stupid pollution, stupid wars and asociality

He is talking about a future in which the world will understand that to heal itself it needs a qualitative way of thinking, made of intuition, instinct and free thoughts
A world made of concrete thoughts against arbitrary beliefs, made of the whole picture against the useless details, a world made of perception against symbolism, a world made of wholeness and timeless connection with nature against a world made of separated groups, compartments and labels with an egocentric view of life, a world made of immaginative and analogical thinking against abstract thinking and rapresentation of a whole group through a single member of it, a world made of global thinking instead of linear simplistic beliefs, a world where the hidden power of our mind will be free after centuries of idiotic and simplistic reasoning thought to be high intelligence and progress

Daniel

[randolph]

In the beginning of this thread I read each reply with an uproar of laughter.  It was entertainment at sort of a knee-jerk level.  Then the physicists came in and argued over technicalities, and I thought that was a little inane because, in the end, even Einstein was wrong (please check his theory on a static, non-expanding universe). 

But now, in these last posts, there is true profundity.  Daniel, Willcowskitz; the vision of how humanity needs to progress is beautiful.  It is so optimistic.  It is full of life.  And now I'm depressed.  I guess I'm a pessimist because I don't think humanity will make it to the next evolutionary crossroad.  I look around and see a world in shambles.

[piano_learner]

In the beginning of this thread I read each reply with an uproar of laughter.  It was entertainment at sort of a knee-jerk level.  Then the physicists came in and argued over technicalities, and I thought that was a little inane because, in the end, even Einstein was wrong (please check his theory on a static, non-expanding universe). 

There is nothing worse then when a beautiful theory is ruined by an inane FACT!

[piano_learner]

Willcowiskitz,

>and I don't personally see any problem in meeting
>oneself in person

1)How do you explain the infinite loop caused by going back in time 20 seconds and watching yourself get into the time machine in the first place? Before getting in you should already be there! Not only that, but there should be infinite copies of yourself appearing 20 seconds before each ‘copy’ of yourself gets in.

2) Matter and energy are interchangeable but energy (and therefore matter) cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. So, where does the extra matter come from to create the copies of the time traveller?

Inane technicalities or not, they cannot be brushed aside with fanciful abstract concepts of time travel. REAL physics put men on the moon and brought them back safely, abstract physics isn’t going to make time travel possible.