The Instigator
racismisawesome
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Time travel is impossible / time does not exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
Ore_Ele
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,702 times Debate No: 18709
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (5)

 

racismisawesome

Pro

Time travel is not possible because if you could travel back in time you could kill your grandfather, causing you to never be born, this would be a paradox, paradoxes can not exist in nature.

Therefore time is not a property of the universe, it cannot be measured and it does not exist. It is entirely a human made concept based on the earths orbit around the sun and nothing more.

Prove that time is relative. You can't because it is not. Einstein was wrong.
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. He is making two claims, 1) Time travel is impossible, and 2) Time does not exist. I will show that 1) Time does exist, and 2) that Time travel is possible (meaning that it can mathematically be done without breaking any known laws of science).

However, I'd first like to point out a cheap semantics trick. This will not be an argument of mine, just something I want to point out to the importance of defining terms, even if you think they are well understood. Though if one was to make this argument, most voters would consider it semantics abuse and not give points for it.

I am traveling forwards through time at a rate of 1 second per second, therefore, time travel is possible.

Anyway, onto my actual arguments.

1) Time does exist.

If time was nothing but a man made concept, nothing but a tool that exists only without the confinds of our mind, then nothing in the physical world would be able to alter it. In fact, you could claim that clocks are merely physical representations of this imaginary concept.

This was once believed to be the case. However, upon studying the speed of light, we've come to the uneasy conclusion that light travels at speed c (when in a vacuum) in all reference frames [1]. This was very contridictory to modern science. Einstein came up with special relativity, which was a series of equations which explained this, aswell as predicted several other interesting phenomenons. One of which was time dilation at high speeds [2]. This has since been 100% confirmed to be true by both human testing [3] and as seen in nature [4]. This proves that the physical world actually effects time, and so, time exists outside of our mind. Proving that time is a real part of the spacetime.

Now, on to the second part.

2) Time travel is possible

My opponent points out a popular paradox, the killing of you grandfather, as proof that time travel cannot be possible. However, this is making the assumption that there is only a single timeline. By turning to multiverse and the many worlds theory, this paradox is no longer a paradox. Since every potential outcome is acted out by it's own timeline (resulting in a countless, yet finite, number of timelines) you very well could go back in time and kill your grandfather. What would happen would be that you would then be traveling along an entirely different timeline, one in which you are never born, but since you came from a different timeline (one from which you were born), you would not cease to exist, because the timeline you came from would not cease to exist.

I will end with this, so that my opponent does not have too much to address. I look forward to the next round.

Thank you,

[1] http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au...
[2] http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au...
[3] http://www.nature.com...
[4] http://www.physlink.com...
Debate Round No. 1
racismisawesome

Pro

You are not traveling forwards through time at a rate of 1 second per second, because you are currently stationary, time can not go forward or backward because it is not an actual property of the universe.

You claim it has been 100% proven by human testing and seen in nature. Yet you do not post the links of this supposed proof. I will agree there has been some tests done that a simple mind could look at and conclude time exists. But I believe that due to the extremely fast speeds that light travels, it is inconclusive as to what causes them to travel at a consistent speed. Time travel is one hypothesis, but I have yet to see one credible theory explaining why time is involved in this process at all.

Your argument sounds exactly like the Science Channel every time they have a show on about time travel. Very convoluted, not explaining anything. It sounds like a science fiction movie trying to explain something that is impossible.

You can not prove that there is a "multiverse" and even if there was, what force governs which multiverse you are sent back into when traveling back in time. And if a multiverse was the case it would technically not be considered time travel, it would be teleporting between multiverses.

Here is a study done where scientists actually found they can make particles move faster than the speed of light.
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
This completely shatters Einsteins theory of relativity.

Please show to me valid proof that time is in fact a real property.
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent addresses very little of what I actually said. First, I will address his main point that has a source, then come back to the little stuff.

My opponent states that we've managed to get particles to travel faster than the speed of light, and so relativity is "shattered." I will address this in two points.

1) The results of the CERN experiment have not been independently confirmed yet, and so should be taken with a grain of salt until then. Everyone familiar with the scientific process knows that you have to have independent testing for verification.

2) This does not "shatter" relativity. The only thing this shatters is the concept that nothing can accelerate faster than the speed of light. Which is technically still true. Current theories as to why these particles reached their target faster than light mostly fall down to multi-dimensional tunneling (the same known process that allows beta radiation to exist). My opponent's own source says, "Zichichi speculates that the "superluminal" neutrinos detected by OPERA could be slipping through extra dimensions in space, as predicted by theories such as string theory."

While this adds something predicited by string theory (which M-theory, a multiverse theory, is built off of), it does not disprove the time dilation effect of special relativity, nor show that time is not a part of spacetime.

Now moving on to the other things.

"You claim it has been 100% proven by human testing and seen in nature. Yet you do not post the links of this supposed proof."

I posted links to articles about Muons, and the atomic clock tests. These are the same quality as the only link that my opponent posted last round regarding the superluminal neutrinos. If he is to reject my links, he must reject his own. As he has accepted his own, he must accept mine.

"Your argument sounds exactly like the Science Channel every time they have a show on about time travel. Very convoluted, not explaining anything. It sounds like a science fiction movie trying to explain something that is impossible."

This is not an argument, but an attack. No counter argument needed.

"You can not prove that there is a "multiverse" and even if there was, what force governs which multiverse you are sent back into when traveling back in time."

I don't have to prove that, as my BoP is to show that time travel is not impossible. I only need to refute any attempts to show time travel is impossible and show that there are theories which fit the known laws of nature that allow the potential of time travel.

That said, my arguments showing that time is a real attribute to nature in the form of spacetime is confirmed. And no real refutations were presented against the possibility of time travel. In fact, my opponent's own (and only) source says that it is in aggreement with string theory, which has it's own multiverse theory tied to it.

I will relist the used sources here, even though they were used in previous rounds.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://www.nature.com...
http://www.physlink.com...

If my opponent would like more sources for the same thing, here are more.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu...
http://teachers.web.cern.ch...
Debate Round No. 2
racismisawesome

Pro

"They've taken two clocks. Left one on the ground, and flew the other around the world, and when they came back to the same spot, the clocks showed different times, so they had something to compare them to (each other)."

Ok, this is the Atomic Clock experiment.

How these clocks work is they measure the amount of radioactive decay, and based on that they can tell how long it has been decaying, essentially making a clock.

They flew one clock around the world at high speed and the one on the ground stayed stationary.

Because the clock flying around the world was moving at a higher speed they claim it essentially went slightly forward in time.

I will post a segment from a website that debunks this experiment.
http://www.thefinaltheory.com...

A core concept of General Relativity is that it is fundamentally impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity on Earth from that of accelerating through space at the rate of 1g. This is known as the Principle of Equivalence. So, even according to General Relativity, the astronaut could accelerate to even 99% of light speed and travel for as long as he wished, and upon return to Earth there would be no mysterious ‘time dilation' effects whatsoever; his twin would be the same age as him. That is according to both Special Relativity and General Relativity – no ‘relativistic time dilation', no ‘relativistic mass increase', and no ‘relativistic length contraction'. Further, as stated earlier above, General Relativity fails so completely to explain the motion of stars in galaxies that concepts as wild as mysterious ‘Dark Matter' filling the universe must be invented to try to retain the theory. So, what exactly is going on with all the claims about Einstein's Relativity Theories by our scientists?

Even Einstein's own theory shows this is impossible! As shown above in the Twin Paradox explanation, Einstein's Special Relativity Theory has a logical flaw, initially appearing to predict such effects, but a closer examination shows that they should not occur. We could consider either the airplane or the Earth below to be in motion since everything is relative, giving totally opposite results. So, even according to Einstein's own theory there should be no absolute time difference when an atomic clock is flown on a jet. This is a theory that clearly displays its own futility, which should be expected from any theory whose basic mathematical support is propped up by clear errors and improper hidden mathematical operations. So why do we hear reports of success in these atomic clock experiments? Since we have no rational or scientific reason to expect such effects, it stands to reason that these reports are either erroneous or they reflect other effects such as turbulence or acceleration effects on the plane and instruments. Note that although it is commonly stated that atomic clocks operate by reading the inner oscillations of individual atoms, in actuality they are very cumbersome, delicate instruments that operate on the external properties of clouds of atoms as they are accelerated and irradiated by various fields. One could imagine many ways in which the delicate machinery of an atomic clock might be affected by a variety of environmental influences that might occur on an airplane flight. Again, Einstein's own relativity theory states that we could look at the situation from either perspective -- a moving atomic clock on a jet or a stationary clock and jet as the Earth moves instead -- invalidating any claims that one absolute result was experimentally observed.

There are many logical explanations for every experiment. We must use Occams Razor "when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions" Time is an assumption, when there are other logical elements that could affect a clock we must take them all into account, not just assume that time is the cause. Science has become almost like a religion, with Einstein as their prophet. If you deny their great prophet Einstein you will burn in science hell for all eternity. We need to get out of that silly mindset and realize there is ALWAYS possibility for even the most fundamental scientific theories to be completely wrong.

Vote Pro
Ore_Ele

Con

I thank my opponent for his last round.

My opponent attempts to show that relativity is false by citing a few examples. Now, that is a lot of new arguments posted in the last round, but I will address them all.

1)Equivalence Principle [1]

My opponent falsely suggests that the EP would predict no time dilation. The error in his (and the website that he cited) argument is claiming that, "it is fundamentally impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity on Earth from that of accelerating through space at the rate of 1g." This is not true, more accurately; it is "the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body is actually the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (e.g. accelerated) frame of reference."

Since time dilation is a result of velocity and not acceleration, it is not included in the EP and therefore, causes no violation.

The EP has also been tested many times, mostly with centrifuges, planes, and rockets.

2)Twin Paradox [2][3]

Here are two in-depth explanations of the twin paradox, one by wiki (has many sources backing it up, but if you are a wiki-hater then) and one by Virginia Tech. The short explanation is that special relativity only applies to non-accelerating reference frames (at least, non-accelerating in relation to each other). When one twin turns around to come back home, there is acceleration and a change in reference frame.

3)Occam's Razor

My opponent claims that time is an assumption and so must be dropped according to Occam's Razor. Three things are wrong with that. One, that it completely ignores the tests that we've done which prove time is real. Two, my opponent's alternative is "there are other logical elements that could affect a clock…" which actually means the alternative has more assumptions and so Occam's Razor would suggest rejecting those. And three, Occam's Razor does not "prove" anything exists or doesn't exist, so even if we accept this, it doesn't satisfy the resolution.

My opponent goes on to state, "We need to get out of that silly mindset and realize there is ALWAYS possibility for even the most fundamental scientific theories to be completely wrong."

No, they cannot be "completely" wrong. While they can be imperfect and need improvements. Even going back to Newtonian physics, we know that his equations are not 100% accurate, however, for most everyday calculations, they are pretty damn close. Close enough that we use them when building cars, bridges, skyscrapers, and most everything else. They are "right" (right enough) for 99% of the things we do. They just don't explain that last 1%. And it is likely that we'll find that relativity is right for 99.99% but doesn't explain that last 0.01%, then something else will come along and it will be right for 99.9999% and the pattern will continue, but at no time will we go back and say, "Relativity is completely wrong." Relativity is not going to suddenly stop being able to predict things that it has already predicted. The time dilation that has been tested and proven is not going to suddenly stop happening one day.

I thank my opponent for this debate and thank the voters that take the time to read it.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.phys.vt.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dhairyae 1 month ago
dhairyae
Time changes every minute the choices you make has consequences. For example if you wanted to be a prisdent and you
might become a prisdent in the future but if you wanted to become mayor than you will be mayor but there would be consequence
and if someboby form the future timetravels and he or she had bad life he/she might go back in time and change he's or her's timeline
they will have to pay the consequences of timetravel they so many time travel show's as in the 20th cenurty they are 2 shows that might
tell you about time travel they are The Flash and DC legends of tomorrow as in legends of tomorrow they show a time master form the
future his form london the name vandal savage destory the london and other country and vandal savage kills rip hunter the time master's
son and wife and he wants to change his timeline so he can save his son and wife so he goes back in time recuirt heros from
2016 but before that he goes back in time and tried to kill vandal savage before he was a IMPORTAL. so if had killed vandal
savage he couldn't kill rip hunters wife&son he would have created a driffent timeline where he is family were alive
and he would have been the only know about that timeline because he was the creator of that timeline but the furture is not set your create
your own future.But some people say that the future is set.So if the future is not set,For example if someone form the future kills he's
or her's grandfather they would earse themselves form the time that would be called grandfather paradox so it is very dangerous to timetravel.
Posted by dhairyae 1 month ago
dhairyae
Time changes every minute the choices you make has consequences. For example if you wanted to be a prisdent and you
might become a prisdent in the future but if you wanted to become mayor than you will be mayor but there would be consequence
and if someboby form the future timetravels and he or she had bad life he/she might go back in time and change he's or her's timeline
they will have to pay the consequences of timetravel they so many time travel show's as in the 20th cenurty they are 2 shows that might
tell you about time travel they are The Flash and DC legends of tomorrow as in legends of tomorrow they show a time master form the
future his form london the name vandal savage destory the london and other country and vandal savage kills rip hunter the time master's
son and wife and he wants to change his timeline so he can save his son and wife so he goes back in time recuirt heros from
2016 but before that he goes back in time and tried to kill vandal savage before he was a IMPORTAL. so if had killed vandal
savage he couldn't kill rip hunters wife&son he would have created a driffent timeline where he is family were alive
and he would have been the only know about that timeline because he was the creator of that timeline but the furture is not set your create
your own future.But some people say that the future is set.So if the future is not set,For example if someone form the future kills he's
or her's grandfather they would earse themselves form the time that would be called grandfather paradox so it is very dangerous to timetravel.
Posted by nilzon 5 years ago
nilzon
I would just like to say that no particle going faster than c has ever been detected. The test made by the CERN has NOT been validated yet, and like one of the debaters posted, it could be explained by other reasons than going faster than the speed of light (extra dimensions..), even if it was successully tested. The article post does not bring anything to the debate.
Posted by GaryBacon 5 years ago
GaryBacon
I was interested to read this debate, but after reading the arguments I will refrain from voting. Neither side was particularly convincing.

Pro completely misunderstands Einstein's theories. Someone traveling at 99% the speed of light would indeed experience time dilation effects, despite your claims. Nevertheless, he is correct in stating that the multiple universe "theory" is untenable.

Con, you could've used the time dilation effects to verify time travel. A person traveling at high speeds travels into the future. The argument only says "time travel is impossible." It doesn't state that it has to be traveling back in time. Time travel is possible, but only in one direction. You can go into the future by traveling at high speeds, but not into the past.

In the end, I think that maybe Con was a bit more convincing. But I'm not sure enough to vote on it. Besides, with the current vote totals, Con doesn't need my support.
Posted by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
Just because you cite your source, doesn't mean you can copy an entire article for your argument...
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 5 years ago
GrizzlyAdamz
To try to clarify, I wasn't contending that time exists; as far as I know they have to constantly correct it in the ISS. I am confused as to how one describes the rate of time flow without using, say, percentages of the normal flow of time.
In any case, even if it is wasted, thank you for the time I am occupying. (ha, somewhat pun-ish)
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
Grizzly, they have done it. They've taken two clocks. Left one on the ground, and flew the other around the world, and when they came back to the same spot, the clocks showed different times, so they had something to compare them to (each other).
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 5 years ago
GrizzlyAdamz
Actually, what I got caught up on is that: It's relative to itself. Measuring time by the radioactive half-life of (whatever they do) still measures what happens in a space of time- it requires a measurement of time to be measured against. Which is impossible.

Wow, I am going to recuse myself from this comments section now, for I have clearly abused it- At least until, (if), I am told I am not in fact a moron. Gah am I talking gobbledgook or not?
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 5 years ago
GrizzlyAdamz
Hmm, I think I only confused myself. It is measured by half-lifes or some such thing correct?
Posted by GrizzlyAdamz 5 years ago
GrizzlyAdamz
Well, this is of course non-topical, but how would one describe the Normal rate of time other than the Normal rate of time? The reason I said something about it was because it doesn't seem a sound way to describe Normal time flow. I am curious, in a strictly academic way, as to what the proper way to communicate the principle is.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
racismisawesomeOre_EleTied
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: Con establishes that time travel could be possible even of unlikely and Pro never refutes Con's explanation that time exists.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
racismisawesomeOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was patient and lucid. Pro never really explained why he doesn't believe in time.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
racismisawesomeOre_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were fallacious, and borderline plagiarism. Con refuted all of Pro's points, and went further to make great arguments. Giving Con conduct point because of Pro's round three.
Vote Placed by darkkermit 5 years ago
darkkermit
racismisawesomeOre_EleTied
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: CON demonstrated that time travel is possible via multidimensions. COn also demonstrates how special relatively proves time exists.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
racismisawesomeOre_EleTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Racismisawesome: if you want somebody to take you seriously then change your username. Also, Ore had better arguments.