The Instigator
connor121212341434
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
codemeister13
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Time Travel: Is it possible?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
codemeister13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 576 times Debate No: 48076
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

connor121212341434

Con

I've been raising the question for a while now and have heard many arguments for and against the idea of time travel.
Please note before I begin that when I say "time travel" I mean years or decades, not moving forward or backwards an hour or so when going on vacation somewhere.
I believe time travel is NOT possible for two reasons: (1) in the past, what has happened has indeed happened - you cannot repeat it. And (2) the future is completely arbitrary, it's made up. You cannot move forward into what is not there.
codemeister13

Pro

I accept this debate. I will not be refuting my opponent's arguments in this statement. I will be using it for my own constructive, as it should be. Before I begin, I would like to point out that, because the idea in and of itself is hypothetical, while scientific evidence may be used, we must make note that many of these arguments may use hypothetical statements and semantics may become a key factor. Semantics can mean a lot in this kind of debate. Anyways, moving along.

Time travel is a perfectly plausible concept. One of the most popular theories supporting this argument is referred to as the "Wormhole Theory." This argument is supported by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity.

"Traveling forward in time is an uncontroversial possibility, according to Einstein's theory. In fact, physicists have been able to send tiny particles called muons, which are similar to electrons, forward in time by manipulating the gravity around them."

If we have the ability to manipulate gravity to send these sub-atomic particles forward in time, we should be able to recreate this one day on a much larger scale. In fact, under the concept of the wormhole, that is exactly what it could do. It could be gravity manipulated in such a way that, from a fourth dimensional look, it blurs the lines between time and space. Instead of going in a sort of natural curve around space-time, one would essentially be looking at one of the pipes from the Mario games and would be transported forth in time.

To further explain time vs. space, I highly recommend you watch the video I have posted. It is from Nova's "Fabric of the Cosmos" special. It delves further into how time truly is something that is relative.

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals.

Sources:
http://news.discovery.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 1
connor121212341434

Con

A well argued point, and I'll respond to your reference to the Theory of Relativity.

There is, of course, no solid, empirical evidence for the Theory of Relativity -- it is still just a theory. It is still falsifiable.
Einstein himself stated that ultimately theories are not truth, but rather one way of describing the behaviour of the universe, and that it's not necessarily the only way to describe it. Of course, Einstein probably wasn't speaking about that theory specifically but it shows the even he understands that when something is called a "theory" it means that it is just an idea amongst many, and many more to come.
I'm not a scientist, nor physics my profession, but I believe that a particle could NOT travel faster than the speed of light, therefore travelling forward in time.
codemeister13

Pro

Einstein was right when he made that point. Theories don't automatically mean something is true. However, every "law" was once a theory. Even gravity was a theory at one point. To this day, gravity could still actually be gnomes at the center of the Earth with large magnets but that's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, what's a theory today could become the law of tomorrow.

"I'm not a scientist, nor physics my profession, but I believe that a particle could NOT travel faster than the speed of light, therefore travelling forward in time."

I believe that it's entirely possible to move faster than light. As I mentioned above, scientists managed to bend gravity to send a sub-atomic particle forward in time. Now, I very well could be misinterpreting it but, if I'm correct, what this did was it accelerated the muons past the speed of light thus putting it out of visible or detectable range. If my hypothesis is correct, it would remain like this until they were decelerated to below light speed thus having sent it into our future.

I'd like to look to your arguments from your opening statements for a bit.

"1) in the past, what has happened has indeed happened - you cannot repeat it."

Now, this brings us to the philosophical and hypothetical side of things. Perhaps the present is as it is currently because there were those that went back in time and meddled with something just enough to make it as it is today. Perhaps fate and destiny truly are viable concepts in which the time traveller was always destined to make that happen which unfurled the events that led to them going back in time.

Perhaps the Multiverse theory rings true and each and every decision we make is represented in its own separate universe. Perhaps in this very universe that we exist in, a certain string of events occurred that led us to here. This leads me directly into my next arguments.

" And (2) the future is completely arbitrary, it's made up. You cannot move forward into what is not there."

The future is always happening just as the past is always growing. Each second that comes at you was the future one second ago. Running back to the Multiverse theory, when one does time travel, perhaps what they are really experiencing is life as it could be should events continue on as they are currently progressing. However, if a deviation occurs we suddenly break from that universe and a new one unfurls in which the deviation is present. Time is of the utmost fragility. One little hiccup in a certain event and suddenly the world, past, present, and future, are not as they once were. As I stated before, it's all relative.
Debate Round No. 2
connor121212341434

Con

As I've mentioned, science is not my strongest subject - it does however sound like one of yours. You make a very compelling and convincing argument. I don't mind saying that you have convinced me, friend, that time travel is possible.

I don't mind losing this debate as it's my first and I testing the water, as it were.

I will leave you with one question though:

We've discussed and agreed that time travel is possible. But could you travel back to, say for example, the 1700s and experience life and people as they were in those times, like in sci-fi movies? I've always thought that that is an unusual, exciting idea.
codemeister13

Pro

That's quite alright, my friend. You did well for your first debate. Just know, a quick google search can go a long way for research purposes. Make sure to cite your sources, though.

In reference to your question, I'd say that it's entirely possible that someone could go back to the 1700s and experience it. One would have to be careful though. Going on the basis of many sci-fi movies, if you were to alter something in the past that wasn't previously altered, when you travel back to the "present" you could be facing an entirely different scenario. As I highlighted in my previous arguments with the Multiverse theory, what you would be travelling to is the future in which something deviated from the norm. You see, when you travel back to the 1700s, while you're there, that is your present. You must ensure not to alter the present time in any way that it wasn't altered already lest you face travelling back to the future where suddenly robotic dinosaurs from Kryptonian Vega-64 now rule the earth. Yes, that is a bit of an extreme example but nevertheless, the point stands.

Thank you for this very interesting debate. I appreciated being able to debate this with someone. I've always held many ideas on this sort of thing and I'm happy to finally be able to express them.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Topkek 2 years ago
Topkek
"Time travel" to the future, in a sense, is possible thanks to time dilation when an object is moving at extremely, extremely fast speeds. I believe astronauts experience not just slowed aging, but a slower perception of the movement of time as they move through space at fast speeds. Of course we're still not at the point where we can create a "time vehicle" fast enough to reach speeds that would enable 5 seconds inside the vehicle to equal 10-20 year outside. And of course, the time traveller never actually leaves the present time.
Posted by codemeister13 2 years ago
codemeister13
Evidently my YouTube link did not automatically turn to a video as it was meant to. My apologies for this. Check my sources for that to be in there.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
connor121212341434codemeister13Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro brought up a better Case for "Time Travel".
Vote Placed by NiqashMotawadi3 2 years ago
NiqashMotawadi3
connor121212341434codemeister13Tied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.