The Instigator
mongoose
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
mongeese
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Time Travel Into the Past Might Be Possible (Not Requiring the Help of God)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
mongeese
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,092 times Debate No: 7927
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (8)

 

mongoose

Con

I thank mongeese for accepting my debate, if he so chooses to do so.

Time travel backwards is impossible. It will never be done. Things that already occurred were not recorded, and this data is lost forever. Besides God, nobody knows or ever will know what the center of the earth exactly looked like millions of years ago. I will further this argument after my opponent responds. The burden of proof falls on who ever it is making the statement.
mongeese

Pro

Thank you for starting this debate.

Alright, you're basically arguing that backwards time-travel is impossible. Time travel into the past might be possible. Time travel into the past might not be possible, but it might be possible. You have to prove that time travel backwards is, in fact, impossible. Good luck.

Here are a few theories about traveling backwards through time:
Wormholes
Traveling faster than light
Special spacetime geometries
Tipler cylinder
Science fiction also provides more less reality-based possibilities that haven't all been necessarily unproven, such as the example used in "The End of Eternity".
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, science fiction has predicted many things that seemed impossible then, but is standard now, such as wide-screen TVs, the atom bomb, magnet trains, robot houses, Internet forums, etc. For all we know, time travel might be one of those things that we're going to come across later.

Thank you, and good luck with your rebuttals!
Debate Round No. 1
mongoose

Con

I thank mongeese for accepting my debate.

"Alright, you're basically arguing that backwards time-travel is impossible. Time travel into the past might be possible. Time travel into the past might not be possible, but it might be possible. You have to prove that time travel backwards is, in fact, impossible. Good luck."

I can do this. If time travel backwards was possible, we would have time tourists. http://en.wikipedia.org...
They would be everywhere, therefore ruining the space-time continuum, and, as you can see, there are no time tourists. It does NOT read in history books, "and at the Battle of Lexington, there was the shot heard round the world, in addition to several men in odd clothing with strange devices described similar to video cameras are today." It just doesn't happen. By the logic of backwards time travel, this means it never will happen.

"Here are a few theories about traveling backwards through time:
Wormholes"

This would require for the actions that happened in the past to be recorded; something that they do not do.

"Traveling faster than light"

This requires infinite energy: a physical impossibility.

"Special spacetime geometries"

These do not exist, as your source has stated that it requires things that don't exist.

"Tipler cylinder"

This requires it to be infinite, something again not physically possible.

"Science fiction also provides more less reality-based possibilities that haven't all been necessarily unproven, such as the example used in 'The End of Eternity'."

And what would this example be? You don't even know it.

"Also, science fiction has predicted many things that seemed impossible then, but is standard now, such as wide-screen TVs, the atom bomb, magnet trains, robot houses, Internet forums, etc. For all we know, time travel might be one of those things that we're going to come across later."

Except that those things are possible (as proved by their creation). Reverse time travel is not (as proved by my statements).

"Thank you, and good luck with your rebuttals!"

And the same to you.
mongeese

Pro

"I can do this. If time travel backwards was possible, we would have time tourists. http://en.wikipedia.org......
They would be everywhere, therefore ruining the space-time continuum, and, as you can see, there are no time tourists. It does NOT read in history books, 'and at the Battle of Lexington, there was the shot heard round the world, in addition to several men in odd clothing with strange devices described similar to video cameras are today.' It just doesn't happen. By the logic of backwards time travel, this means it never will happen."
How do you know that the time tourists would try to make themselves blatantly obvious? Perhaps they disguise themselves as ordinary people. Perhaps after time travel was discovered, the government banned it due to potential paradoxes, and very few people have actually illegally travelled back in time. Perhaps the time travelers were able to convert themselves into energy in a way that they still had their senses and looked as if they had bodies, but could not actually be seen or heard by people who existed naturally there. In this way, people could record the shot heard round the world without being mentioned in textbooks. And then there's Hawking's theory that once time travel is discovered, we will only be able to travel back to that point, and no point further, because the time machine doesn't exist to travel into. There's also the theory that when you go back in time, you end up in an alternate universe at your desired time, and all events up until that point occur like they had in the original universe, but they start changing in a ripple effect from your arrival, depending on what you do.

To counter all of your theory disapprovals, just because we think something can't be done, doesn't mean that it can't be done. Saying that the atom bomb is different from time travel because the atom bomb has already been constructed doesn't fly. In the 20th century, people started building planes. This didn't show that building a rocket ship was impossible. And I DO know the method of time travel in "The End of Eternity". A tremendous (but not infinite) amount of energy is put into a generator, which converts that energy into a Temporal Field, which was then put into a time kettle (time machine) which controlled the Temporal Field to move forwards and backwards in time.

Now, since you don't like those theories, here are some more:
mongeese's Trigger Theory:
Every time a certain, random, unknown trigger occurs, time is suddenly reversed ten minutes, and the Chaos Theory is applied so that that trigger is not activated again. We do not know what this trigger is because every time it is triggered, we go back in time, and don't remember that ten minutes that passed between the later and then.
mongeese's Randomness Theory:
Time randomly goes forwards and reverses. We advance three second, then time undoes half of a second, then we advance for five minutes, then time moves back twenty minutes. We can't prove this, either, because we forget everything that occurred in the time that was undone.
Passive Theory:
People can go back in time, but then they don't have the power to alter the events that have already occurred. They are essentially holograms, like Al was in the TV series "Quantum Leap". http://en.wikipedia.org...
Pentagon:
The Pentagon may have already discovered time travel backwards, for all we know. And they've been using it to undo the countless assassinations of George Bush and Barack Obama.

Also, just because time travel is possible, doesn't mean we have to actually discover how. We may never know, and the solution may be sitting in front of our noses. We don't know.

In conclusion, time travel backwards might be possible.
Debate Round No. 2
mongoose

Con

"How do you know that the time tourists would try to make themselves blatantly obvious? Perhaps they disguise themselves as ordinary people. Perhaps after time travel was discovered, the government banned it due to potential paradoxes, and very few people have actually illegally travelled back in time. Perhaps the time travelers were able to convert themselves into energy in a way that they still had their senses and looked as if they had bodies, but could not actually be seen or heard by people who existed naturally there. In this way, people could record the shot heard round the world without being mentioned in textbooks. And then there's Hawking's theory that once time travel is discovered, we will only be able to travel back to that point, and no point further, because the time machine doesn't exist to travel into. There's also the theory that when you go back in time, you end up in an alternate universe at your desired time, and all events up until that point occur like they had in the original universe, but they start changing in a ripple effect from your arrival, depending on what you do."

1. They would never be able to disguise as regular people. That never works. If they were doing that for all of time, then we would have (in concept) infinity extra people, so Earth would collapse, and the universe would be filled with dead bodies, blocking out the sun, destroying everything, so the future could not exist.

2. If the government bans something, that does not mean the people would not do it, so it goes with the same concept as above. Eventually, some one would have to succeed to break in and time travel back, so if one could do it, infinity could.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
In order to sense light, the eye must be made of matter. If it was energy, it would not be able to do anything to it. Also, as energy, people would fly about endlessly, separated from the rest of them. They would essentially be dead when they tried it.

4. As my ultimate counter, I will say that after an event has occurred, it is not recorded anywhere. It no longer exists. Think about what you did yesterday. Does anyone know exactly what happened everywhere (not including God)? No, they don't. This data would be necessary to recreate the past, and it is not there; thus, time travel is impossible.

"To counter all of your theory disapprovals, just because we think something can't be done, doesn't mean that it can't be done. Saying that the atom bomb is different from time travel because the atom bomb has already been constructed doesn't fly. In the 20th century, people started building planes. This didn't show that building a rocket ship was impossible. And I DO know the method of time travel in 'The End of Eternity'. A tremendous (but not infinite) amount of energy is put into a generator, which converts that energy into a Temporal Field, which was then put into a time kettle (time machine) which controlled the Temporal Field to move forwards and backwards in time."

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Time: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Time is nothing but a measurement, just like distance.

Now, since you don't like those theories, here are some more:
mongeese's Trigger Theory:
Every time a certain, random, unknown trigger occurs, time is suddenly reversed ten minutes, and the Chaos Theory is applied so that that trigger is not activated again. We do not know what this trigger is because every time it is triggered, we go back in time, and don't remember that ten minutes that passed between the later and then.
mongeese's Randomness Theory:
Time randomly goes forwards and reverses. We advance three second, then time undoes half of a second, then we advance for five minutes, then time moves back twenty minutes. We can't prove this, either, because we forget everything that occurred in the time that was undone.
Passive Theory:
People can go back in time, but then they don't have the power to alter the events that have already occurred. They are essentially holograms, like Al was in the TV series "Quantum Leap". http://en.wikipedia.org......
Pentagon:
The Pentagon may have already discovered time travel backwards, for all we know. And they've been using it to undo the countless assassinations of George Bush and Barack Obama."

Response to Trigger Theory:
That is obviously impossible. Random actions do not cause time to move backwards, because it is always moving forwards. What happened no longer exists; there is only the present.

Response to Randomness Theory:
This is similar to the above response. Time moves forwards by definition. Also, this would involve bringing people back to life. Clearly, this would require the help of God.

Response to Passive Theory:
Think back to when there was no TiVo. After a show was broadcasted on your TV, you would be unable to rewind, because this data was not stored anywhere. This is like the passage of time. It is not fully kept track of.

Response to Pentagon:
If they know how to travel back in time, someone would find it, go back in time, and ruin everything. Don't argue that they would just come back from later in the future, because there would be no future.

"Also, just because time travel is possible, doesn't mean we have to actually discover how. We may never know, and the solution may be sitting in front of our noses. We don't know."

If it is possible, we will discover it. There would be enough time to.

In conclusion, time travel backwards will never be possible.

"In conclusion, time travel backwards might be possible."

I thank my opponent for this debate.
mongeese

Pro

"1. They would never be able to disguise as regular people. That never works. If they were doing that for all of time, then we would have (in concept) infinity extra people, so Earth would collapse, and the universe would be filled with dead bodies, blocking out the sun, destroying everything, so the future could not exist."
The government could probably limit how many people could go all the way back to certain periods of time. Also, have you ever heard of a time tourist whose disguise failed, and resulted in his exposure? Didn't think so.

"2. If the government bans something, that does not mean the people would not do it, so it goes with the same concept as above. Eventually, some one would have to succeed to break in and time travel back, so if one could do it, infinity could."
But then the government could use time travel to arrest the person before he goes back in time.

"3. http://en.wikipedia.org......
In order to sense light, the eye must be made of matter. If it was energy, it would not be able to do anything to it. Also, as energy, people would fly about endlessly, separated from the rest of them. They would essentially be dead when they tried it."
So that's why none of the time travelers ever made it back to their original time...

"4. As my ultimate counter, I will say that after an event has occurred, it is not recorded anywhere. It no longer exists. Think about what you did yesterday. Does anyone know exactly what happened everywhere (not including God)? No, they don't. This data would be necessary to recreate the past, and it is not there; thus, time travel is impossible."
Now for the ultimate re-counter. A line is made up of an infinite number of points. A plane is made up of an infinite number of lines. A universe is made up of an infinite number of planes. Thus, time is made up of an infinite number of universes, arranged chronologically, all stored in a way that we cannot even understand.

"Time: a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future"
And I'll bet that before Anaxagoras' time, the definition of Sun was: "A large shining disk in the sky that brings light to Earth with its appearance, and takes away light with its leave."
The definition of Time would be changed to: "a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which occur between past and present and future"

"Time is nothing but a measurement, just like distance."
That's just one group's opinion, and has not been proved. Look at this debate: "http://www.debate.org...; Con is winning.

"That is obviously impossible. Random actions do not cause time to move backwards, because it is always moving forwards. What happened no longer exists; there is only the present."
You don't know that.

"This is similar to the above response. Time moves forwards by definition. Also, this would involve bringing people back to life. Clearly, this would require the help of God."
You don't know that, either.

"Think back to when there was no TiVo. After a show was broadcasted on your TV, you would be unable to rewind, because this data was not stored anywhere. This is like the passage of time. It is not fully kept track of."
Ah, but it is.

"If they know how to travel back in time, someone would find it, go back in time, and ruin everything. Don't argue that they would just come back from later in the future, because there would be no future."
Perhaps when something happens in time, the effects would spread in a ripple forwards, and if you can travel through time faster than this ripple, you can reach the time that existed ordinarily before you triggered the ripple, and this gives you enough time to stop everything.

"If it is possible, we will discover it. There would be enough time to."
Not if all of mankind eventually dies off.

"In conclusion, time travel backwards will never be possible."

In conclusion, time travel backwards might be possible, and there is no way to prove against it.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
mongoose

Con

"The government could probably limit how many people could go all the way back to certain periods of time. Also, have you ever heard of a time tourist whose disguise failed, and resulted in his exposure? Didn't think so."

The government? Limit successfully? I don't think so. Also, something has to mess up eventually, so eventually each year, one person would go to, let's say, 1776. After a million years, that would be a million extra people in the world. It would not be hidden.

"But then the government could use time travel to arrest the person before he goes back in time."

Ultra-major counter: If someone went back in time, it would instantly kill everything. If he was there, something would change something, altering the future, so that he didn't come back in the same conditions, if at all, rupturing the time-space continuum thing. It is impossible beyond how I can describe it.

"So that's why none of the time travelers ever made it back to their original time..."
It is impossible to change matter into energy in any way.

"Now for the ultimate re-counter. A line is made up of an infinite number of points. A plane is made up of an infinite number of lines. A universe is made up of an infinite number of planes. Thus, time is made up of an infinite number of universes, arranged chronologically, all stored in a way that we cannot even understand."
It would not be stored. Time moves continuously. It does not go back. It does not physically exist. It is change. It is how objects are given the opportunity to move. It can not be reversed.

"And I'll bet that before Anaxagoras' time, the definition of Sun was: 'A large shining disk in the sky that brings light to Earth with its appearance, and takes away light with its leave.'
The definition of Time would be changed to: 'a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which occur between past and present and future'"
They didn't have dictionaries back then. Also, time is what we define it as, by definition. Seems obvious, doesn't it? This debate is about time travel. This is time. If it is not traveled through, then time is not traveled through.

"That's just one group's opinion, and has not been proved. Look at this debate: "http://www.debate.org......; Con is winning."
And debates mean that much too your opinion? "Breathing is good for you" is obvious, but the debate was still lost. Does that mean breathing is not good for you? No, it does not.

"You don't know that."
Yes, I do. I have something called common sense.

You don't know that, either."
Definitions define this debate. By definition.

"Ah, but it is."
But there is nowhere to store this up-to-infinite amount.

"Perhaps when something happens in time, the effects would spread in a ripple forwards, and if you can travel through time faster than this ripple, you can reach the time that existed ordinarily before you triggered the ripple, and this gives you enough time to stop everything."
You are talking about going through time faster than time can. That is impossible.

"In conclusion, time travel backwards might be possible, and there is no way to prove against it."

In conclusion, time travel backwards is impossible, and it is so because there is no way it could happen.

Gracias.
mongeese

Pro

"The government? Limit successfully? I don't think so. Also, something has to mess up eventually, so eventually each year, one person would go to, let's say, 1776. After a million years, that would be a million extra people in the world. It would not be hidden."
The government could quite easily limit successfully. When a person goes back in time when they aren't supposed to, the government could go back to before they went back in time, and arrest them. Also, what if the people then left after their year was up?

"Ultra-major counter: If someone went back in time, it would instantly kill everything. If he was there, something would change something, altering the future, so that he didn't come back in the same conditions, if at all, rupturing the time-space continuum thing. It is impossible beyond how I can describe it."
How do you know that this would be instantaneous? Also, how do you know that it would kill everything? The time-space continuum doesn't have to rupture; it could just ripple. This would allow time to fix everything.

"It is impossible to change matter into energy in any way."
And how do you know that? I'm going to allow for the possibility of matter being converted into energy; if you have no proof, then we can assume that it might be true, which is all I need to win this debate.

"It would not be stored. Time moves continuously. It does not go back. It does not physically exist. It is change. It is how objects are given the opportunity to move. It can not be reversed."
This sounds like a whole lot of claims without a whole lot of backing it up. Time is a dimension. http://www.ascentaspirations.ca... At least, it is debatable whether it is a dimension or not. This allows for the possibility of time being a dimension, which allows for the possibility of time travel backwards being possible.

"They didn't have dictionaries back then. Also, time is what we define it as, by definition. Seems obvious, doesn't it? This debate is about time travel. This is time. If it is not traveled through, then time is not traveled through."
Oh, they had dictionaries. http://encarta.msn.com... Time is not what we define it as. If everything were whatever we defined it as, then the Sun used to be a big shining disk in the sky. We know that that is now true. Definitions can be worthless at times. This is one of those times. We are arguing about what time is. Thus, definitions are thrown out the window.

"And debates mean that much too your opinion? 'Breathing is good for you' is obvious, but the debate was still lost. Does that mean breathing is not good for you? No, it does not."
Well, you still haven't proven your point. The debate just proved that it was debatable, so we can allow for the possibilities of everything, yada-yada... thus, we can allow for the possibility of time travel.

"Yes, I do. I have something called common sense."
That doesn't prove anything.
common sense - sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Sure, the theory seems ridiculous, but you haven't proven it to be impossible.

"Definitions define this debate. By definition."
No, they don't. If I say that the Earth is a flat plane that we live on, the Earth is still spherical.

"But there is nowhere to store this up-to-infinite amount."
Except in the fourth dimension.
There is nowhere to store the up-to-infinite space that exists.
Except in the first three dimensions.

"You are talking about going through time faster than time can. That is impossible."
And why is that? Explain, mongoose. EXPLAIN.

"In conclusion, time travel backwards is impossible, and it is so because there is no way it could happen."
In conclusion, you have yet to prove that all of the theories that I have listed cannot occur, and even then, you haven't disproved the possibility of time travel backwards in general, so therefore, time travel into the past just might be possible.

"Gracias."
De nada.
Debate Round No. 4
mongoose

Con

"The government could quite easily limit successfully. When a person goes back in time when they aren't supposed to, the government could go back to before they went back in time, and arrest them. Also, what if the people then left after their year was up?"

And how would the government make sure that they left? Plus, that would have been confusing, if people would vanish and be replaced by other people. It would be too confusing for the simple minds of politicians to handle anyway.

"How do you know that this would be instantaneous? Also, how do you know that it would kill everything? The time-space continuum doesn't have to rupture; it could just ripple. This would allow time to fix everything."

By your definition of time as a dimension, it would have to be spontaneous, occurring throughout the "fourth dimension" all at once, because it all affects each other, like dominoes, but faster than the speed of light. If we use the real definition, time travel is already impossible by definition; either way, you lose. Time would not get to fix everything. If you went back in time, you would have an impact on everything. There should have been air where you now are. Where did that air go? This would involve creating mass, which is proven to be impossible by Conservation of Mass.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"And how do you know that? I'm going to allow for the possibility of matter being converted into energy; if you have no proof, then we can assume that it might be true, which is all I need to win this debate."
Simple. Conservation of Mass states that mass can't be created or destroyed; Conservation of Energy states that energy can't be created or destroyed. By turning it into the other, it is "destroyed" There must always be the same amount of matter in a closed system. This would change that.

"This sounds like a whole lot of claims without a whole lot of backing it up. Time is a dimension. http://www.ascentaspirations.ca...... At least, it is debatable whether it is a dimension or not. This allows for the possibility of time being a dimension, which allows for the possibility of time travel backwards being possible."

http://dictionary.reference.com...
Nowhere in any definition is there any rule that you can go through all dimensions forwards and backwards. It only mentions time in mathematics, which is not always applicable to life. You have no argument.

"Oh, they had dictionaries. http://encarta.msn.com...... Time is not what we define it as. If everything were whatever we defined it as, then the Sun used to be a big shining disk in the sky. We know that that is now true. Definitions can be worthless at times. This is one of those times. We are arguing about what time is. Thus, definitions are thrown out the window."

That was a Sumerian-Akkadian translation dictionary. It didn't have definitions, just words in different languages. That is a different type of dictionary, which would not have defined any words such as "sun". You say that we now know that the Sun used to be a big shining disk in the sky. Definitions are not worthless, ever. I just used one for dimension, refuting your argument. It works here to remove any argument about going back in time. You can't "reverse-transverse" time.

"Well, you still haven't proven your point. The debate just proved that it was debatable, so we can allow for the possibilities of everything, yada-yada... thus, we can allow for the possibility of time travel."

My point is that your point is meaningless. In that case, you say that anything is debatable? So your existence is debatable? Whether or not you are here legally is debatable? This means that calling something debatable adds nothing to this argument. This does not mean that we can allow for the possibility of time travel.

"That doesn't prove anything.
common sense - sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts http://www.merriam-webster.com......
Sure, the theory seems ridiculous, but you haven't proven it to be impossible."

I'll see if you can understand common sense, then.
Our three dimensions (height, width, and length) are gone through by movement. This movement always travels through time at the same rate, but through space at a varying rate. The two are not related in any way.

"No, they don't. If I say that the Earth is a flat plane that we live on, the Earth is still spherical."

For obvious reasons, I can conclude that you are not a dictionary. You can't define things reliably like a dictionary can.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
define: to determine or identify the essential qualities or meanings of
Definitions define everything by definition. That you can not sanely argue against.

"Except in the fourth dimension.
There is nowhere to store the up-to-infinite space that exists.
Except in the first three dimensions."

Time vanishes just as quickly as it is created. It just ceases to exist. It is like in a Word Document, without the Undo. It knows what is it at any given time, but not what it was. It knows what it is because it is on the screen, being used, as everything in the universe is at any given moment.

"And why is that? Explain, mongoose. EXPLAIN."
By your definition of time, it exists at all times, so this time would travel through all dimensions at once, being in the same group of dimensions. It would be instant. If we use my definition, I win, through reasons previously stated with my definition. Take your pick on which to argue.

"In conclusion, you have yet to prove that all of the theories that I have listed cannot occur, and even then, you haven't disproved the possibility of time travel backwards in general, so therefore, time travel into the past just might be possible."

In conclusion, I have rebutted all of your theories every time. I would like to add one more final counter.

In your definition, time is still there, all at the same... time? You can see how this is ironic beyond either any definition or possibility, right? This defeats its own purpose. It can't be in more that once place at the same time. You still haven't beaten my time-space-rupture point. If you dare say that it would be in a different universe, that has no interaction with our current one, then it is not going back in time; it is going to a universe that is like it in any way.

"De nada."

Good day.
mongeese

Pro

"And how would the government make sure that they left?..."
The people could all adopt the same identity. Plastic surgery could be very advanced in the centuries to come.

"By your definition of time as a dimension, it would have to be spontaneous, occurring throughout the 'fourth dimension' all at once, because it all affects each other, like dominoes, but faster than the speed of light...."
The air was displaced, which is exactly what would happen if you moved from one plane to another. It would switch places with when you once were when you began time-travelling. Also, perhaps there is some factor of time travelling through itself, like, "When something disturbs time at one time, then this disruption ripples through the future from that time twice as fast as normal time itself." Thus, if someone in the future managed to learn that a ripple was coming using some advanced technology, he could stop the person from initially going back in time, stopping and undoing the ripple. The domino effect doesn't necessarily have to be destructive; it could just cause changes to the future.

"Conservation of Mass states that mass can't be created or destroyed; Conservation of Energy states that energy can't be created or destroyed. By turning it into the other, it is 'destroyed' There must always be the same amount of matter in a closed system. This would change that."
The people who wrote these laws wouldn't be aware of the process of changing matter into energy, as first described by Einstein. http://en.wikipedia.org... According to Einstein's theory, mass is energy, energy is mass, and there'd simply have to be a certain equation relating all energy and all mass.

"Nowhere in any definition is there any rule that you can go through all dimensions forwards and backwards. It only mentions time in mathematics, which is not always applicable to life. You have no argument."
And your argument still fails to be backed up. I say that your claims that time cannot be reversed are unfounded, as you have no sources or real reasoning to back them up.

"That was a Sumerian-Akkadian translation dictionary. It didn't have definitions, just words in different languages. That is a different type of dictionary, which would not have defined any words such as 'sun'. You say that we now know that the Sun used to be a big shining disk in the sky. Definitions are not worthless, ever. I just used one for dimension, refuting your argument. It works here to remove any argument about going back in time. You can't 'reverse-transverse' time."
That was a typo. Sorry. Anyways, they still thought of the Sun as something it wasn't. But they were wrong. Just as you might be wrong now. And as I already said, because you might be wrong, this allows the possibilities of a lot of stuff, which results in the possibility of time travel backwards.

"My point is that your point is meaningless. In that case, you say that anything is debatable? So your existence is debatable? Whether or not you are here legally is debatable? This means that calling something debatable adds nothing to this argument. This does not mean that we can allow for the possibility of time travel."
Not everything is debatable. Just the things where neither side can agree and neither side can prove their point. Such as most of the ideas we are discussing. And whenever a statement can go either way, it is in my favor, because it allows for possibilities, which are all I need.

"Our three dimensions (height, width, and length) are gone through by movement. This movement always travels through time at the same rate, but through space at a varying rate. The two are not related in any way."
According to some theories, which are always in my favor, the faster you are going, the slower time passes. Movements might not always go through time at the same rate. Space and time are related. Time can be manipulated.

"For obvious reasons, I can conclude that you are not a dictionary. You can't define things reliably like a dictionary can.
http://www.merriam-webster.com......
define: to determine or identify the essential qualities or meanings of
Definitions define everything by definition. That you can not sanely argue against."
But I can argue that definitions are not always right. And possibilities are always in my favor.

"Time vanishes just as quickly as it is created. It just ceases to exist. It is like in a Word Document, without the Undo. It knows what is it at any given time, but not what it was. It knows what it is because it is on the screen, being used, as everything in the universe is at any given moment."
Actually, I think that is like a Word Document, but with the Undo. You give no reason why to disable the Undo button, so I'm just going to allow for the possibility of it still being there.

"By your definition of time, it exists at all times, so this time would travel through all dimensions at once, being in the same group of dimensions. It would be instant. If we use my definition, I win, through reasons previously stated with my definition. Take your pick on which to argue."
There is a different individual time out of the dimension of time at any given time. This is not necessarily "instant". I'll pick the fact that there are a number of possible definitions for time, including both mine and yours, and possibilities are always in my favor.

"In conclusion, I have rebutted all of your theories every time. I would like to add one more final counter.

In your definition, time is still there, all at the same... time? You can see how this is ironic beyond either any definition or possibility, right? This defeats its own purpose. It can't be in more that once place at the same time. You still haven't beaten my time-space-rupture point. If you dare say that it would be in a different universe, that has no interaction with our current one, then it is not going back in time; it is going to a universe that is like it in any way."
My definition: "a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which occur between past and present and future"
Every moment is its own time, just like every point has its own depth. Time is just another dimension. And you haven't proved that it would rupture. I argued that it could simply be a ripple of change, and you didn't refute it.
I will dare to say that it might be a different universe, and you would still be going back in time. Here is my explanation:
Say that you have a coordinate plane where X represents time, and Y represents the value of alternate universes. You are on (2009,0). Now, say you travel back in time ten years. You translate 10 years to the left. However, in doing this, you cross into alternate universe 1. You are translated one universe up. You traveled through time and alternate universes; thus, you traveled through time.

Conclusion:
Every one of your arguments still allows for the possibility of time being traversable, thus allowing for time travel backwards. You give no reason to exclude an Undo button. My fourth dimension storage hypothesis still stands. You give no reason for time to be purely one-way. You talk about time tourists, but I have come up with many brilliant solutions to this problem, including alternate universes, new identities, and energy. You have failed to refute these properly.

Thank you, and thank you to the voters who read this. Vote PRO, because possibilities are in my favor, and my opponent has allowed for MANY possibilites. Campbell's chicken, noodle soup. Poss-i-bili-ties.
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by purplehaze 8 years ago
purplehaze
First of all its quite easy to make 2+2=5 using simple algebra, and Einsteins Theory of Relativity proves that the faster you move through space the less progress you will make through time. All we need to do is figure out how to go faster than light. I wouldnt say impossible. I bet you they would have thought the idea of space travel impossible only not too long ago. In a place of endless possibilities, how can anything be impossible?
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
Unless it is impossible. Like 2+2 being equal to 5. It is impossible.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
Possibilities are in my favor.
Posted by animea 8 years ago
animea
Con was destined to lose when he used the turn possible. Possible means I have to consider every single option.
Posted by McBain 8 years ago
McBain
That's why I corrected myself in my own statement. Besides, I'm a real proponent of what Roy mentioned. If you traveled back in time, you would likely be in another parallel dimension where the time line plays itself out differently than the original dimension you are from.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
And why not? It was a translation through time.
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
Except you aren't travelling through time.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
It was a transition through both time and universe; thus, it was a transition through time.
Posted by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
Translating 1 unit doesn't change other units.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
I already covered that in my third-to-last paragraph.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Aziar44 8 years ago
Aziar44
mongoosemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
mongoosemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by kevsext 8 years ago
kevsext
mongoosemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by animea 8 years ago
animea
mongoosemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
mongoosemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MrMarkP37 8 years ago
MrMarkP37
mongoosemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
mongoosemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
mongoosemongeeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03