Time Travel!

Post Reply New Topic

Brilliant! I shall encorporate your advice into my formulae.

Then I challenge you to restore the Achaemenid Persian Empire, the Byzantine Empire, Tang Dynasty China, Moorish Spain and the Carolingian Empire by the power of thought alone, have them coexist in a parallel universe in which Atlantis was not submerged, then summon me there!

[/quote]Then I challenge you to restore the Achaemenid Persian Empire, the Byzantine Empire, Tang Dynasty China, Moorish Spain and the Carolingian Empire by the power of thought alone, have them coexist in a parallel universe in which Atlantis was not submerged, then summon me there[quote]


I reckon none of them are woth restoring Ask me for something different

WHat if
1 Time travel in theory is possible
2. a time machine can be made
3. humans went extcint before its use as such that is why we have no time travles from the future.

the assumptions that its impposible becase we woul have time travlesrs from the futures is based on everlasting humanity

Then I challenge you to restore the Achaemenid Persian Empire, the Byzantine Empire, Tang Dynasty China, Moorish Spain and the Carolingian Empire by the power of thought alone, have them coexist in a parallel universe in which Atlantis was not submerged, then summon me there

You honestly think their current-day equivalents are worth preserving? Perhaps you are right. I shall spare them for now.

Go back to the beginning of the Universe (taking precautions to protect yourself, naturally) and forward to the End of the Universe, and bring something back from each. Please.

True. Also, maybe the Time Lords of Gallifrey have already invented it.

wow, for someone who claims to be eighty, you sure are rude and condescending, Mr 'I can't see you therefore you can't exist and your opinions are not valid'. Whether you are 'right' or not is not something that interests me. What bothers me is that your petty argument is not to provide your own opinions and back them up, but jsut to blindly point at wikipedia and say 'look at that'. That's not an argument. Any theory caqn be disapproved or argued against, Otherwise why would Mystyc and Twoshot be arguing with you? They've both put forth proper arguments while you've thrown a hissy fit, shouting 'I'm right and I know I am!'.

Oh, I see, I don't like your argument so I'm going to call you illelevent. Again, all you have done is pointed at a theory that someone has already argued against, a physics grad student of all people, and say THIS R TEH TROOF!


I'm not going to argue this point, because I'm not going to pretend to know anything about physics, but I do know that you insulted someone who actually showed their working out. It's your attitude I'm attacking, not your facts.


Evidence please.



point the way to convince myself? this seems to me like A) another, badly phrased way of saying that you actually are trying to convince me, and B) You think you are the absolute voice of truth and reason on this matter.




Oh i think you are, otherwise you'd drop the matter altogether. This sounds like you're trying to convince yourself that I'm not getting to you.



Again with the 'I deny your existence as a thinking being so you can't hurt me!' argument. Absolutely childish. You have proved you have any knowledge of either art or physics beyond that of anyone with access to wikipedia, but you won't prove me wrong because you're a coward.

Boy! Are you pissed! Very amusing, but just look up the physics as I suggested. I really don't care what you think of me. But I have tried to point you in the right direction and you bite my index finger. No gratitude at all. Down doggie!

Boy! Are you pissed! Very amusing, but just look up the physics as I suggested. I really don't care what you think of me. But I have tried to point you in the right direction and you bite my index finger. No gratitude at all. Down doggie!

(A) Einstein was not infallible (he acknowledged he was wrong to earlier deny an expanding Universe)

(B) A superior knowledge of Physics or any other sphere of learning, does not entitle anyone to deny the humanity of others either for disagreeing or even for being wrong. Infallibility however, might put this humanity into question.

Physicists, like theologians and philosophers, are like wizards from the Earthsea Trilogy.

"Infinite are the arguments of mages."

Besides, the argument was well thought out, not amusing. For your penance you shall give a coherent explanation of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

The so called "twin paradox" is quite real, but we have not disputed that. It is the interpretation of it that has been questioned here.

Since the physics of Einstein's twin paradox has been confirmed by experiment I really am not responsible for educating anybody on the matter. If you choose not to accept it it's not my problem. I am certainly not going to argue with either Einstein or the physicists that confirmed the truth of the theory.

Sorry about the duplicate post. That was unintentional.

What interpretation is that?

Whoever said I rejected the twin paradox? You appear oblivious to the main criticisms in the post.

OK. The twin paradox thing indicates that a twin sent out on a high speed trip returns to discover that his twin who remained behind is older than the twin that traveled. Now the only way that twin left behind can be older is that the whole Earth is also older for the twin that traveled which means that the returning twin returned to the future. How do you avoid that? That's all I said.