Time travel is possible.
Debate Rounds (4)
Good luck ;)
I will now try and assert my position that time travel is in fact possible.
Allow me, for clarification to the resolution, provide these definitions:
Dictionary.com provides Time Travel:
Time travel is the concept of moving between different points in time in a manner analogous to moving between different points in space, either sending objects (or in some cases just information) backwards in time to a moment before the present, or sending objects forward from the present to the future without the need to experience the intervening period (at least not at the normal rate).
(I am fully aware that I could twist the definition and win by the abuse of semantics, but that tactic, to me, seems counter intuitive and immoral.)
- - - - - -
Holding the provided definition as valid I argue that not only is time travel possible but it is happening.
1.) The definition states that time travel is the passage through the dimension of time as one would pass through space. Based on String and M theory it is held true that time is simply another form of dimension (up/down, forward/backward, left/right and forward in time/backward in time are the four main dimensions we can perceive).
So I therefore conclude that by the fact that time obviously passes that time travel is possible because the act of moving through time is time travel.
Every second I have moved one second into the future from where I had been the previous second.
2.) The definition also states that time travel can pertain to a change in the rate of time.
In support of this I will reference Einstein's Theory of Relativity. In it it is stated that as Velocity approaches the speed of light, the perceived rate of time decreases in a physical phenomenon known as time dilation. This follows the formula: Δt'= Δt/(1-V/C)
where Δt' is the time interval experienced by the thing that is moving.
Δt is the time interval experienced by the thing that is not moving significantly fast (is about = to 1)
V is the velocity of the thing that is moving
C is the speed of light
following the curve here shown:
Therefore if you wanted to see what the world would be like many years from now but you cannot wait you could jump into a really fast space ship and travel as a significantly fast speed. The Δt for the Earth would be maybe 50 years while Δt' (the time you experience) may only be 5 or 6 years (depending on how fast you go).
There is also Gravitational Time Dilation;
This is uglier but the concept is as follows. Gravity effects the dimension of time, the less there is the faster perceived time will run.
A real life example of this is of Astronauts. An experiment was done, taking two clocks both with the same exact time, one was sent up in a Space Shuttle on one of the missions, the other stayed on Earth.
When it returned the clock sent to space was several seconds fast.
I look forward to the rebuttal in negation, thank you.
Now onto my position on the possibility of time travel.
1.) Your statement on the String and M theories hold true in your point here, or at least they hold true to the definition. It is also true that because time passes you are essentially "traveling through time". The definition you provided states that time travel entails "sending objects forward from the present to the future without the need to experience the intervening period (at least not at the normal rate)". That is were I find the flaw in your argument. According to the definition, time travel (at least from the present to the future) disregards the need to experience the intervening period between the two points in time (or at least at a normal rate) yet, in your argument, the simple passing and forward movement of time is time travel. If time has always moved at this rate then it would be safe to say that the said rate is "normal". If you are moving through time at a normal rate then you are not traveling in time (at least according to your definition). I understand that my point may seem weak but realize that as time passes (at it's normal rate) you are experiencing the passing of time "one second into the future from where you had been the previous second".
2.) In response to this I'd like to speculate as to the difference between physical and perceptive time. You supported, in your first point, that time is always progressing forward and I, in my argument, determined that this progression is at a normal rate. I'd like to remark that first, Einstein's Theory of relativity does mention that the perceived rate of time decreases as an object reaches the speed of light. Your point is solid and undisputed, by myself, in this matter and I congratulate you on bringing up a very solid case and point, on perceived time. Now I ask you, what of physical time? The theory of relativity does not account for physical time. My point is that regardless of what seems to be five years at the speed of light, 50 years have still progressed. So, supporting your theory; you have moved 50 years into the future but thought you moved five. Supporting my theory; you thought you moved five years into the future but you moved 50 and are still 50 years older.
3.) I would also like to note that you did not provide any subject matter on sending information or objects into the past.
I patiently await your response.
Allow me to begin by going over my opponent's rebuttal and strengthening my own position.
1) The definition begins; "Time travel is the concept of moving between different points in time in a manner analogous to moving between different points in space". Let's go through a little thought exercise, what is space travel? Simply put it is the act of moving through space.
Space is defined as " The infinite extension of the three-dimensional region in which all matter exists." from http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
so what is space travel, is it only high velocity motion through deep outer space? no. 'Space' travel can be something as simple as walking from here to there. And even when you are holding still you are traveling through space. Might I point out that the Earth is rotating, much faster than most realize, if the earth suddenly stopped spinning you would be thrown at near 1000 mph to the East. At the same time the Earth is orbiting the sun, which in turn is orbiting the galactic center. And even that, the Milky Way Galaxy, is moving. So therefore you are Traveling through space, regardless of how you look at it.
This fact of space travel is independent of the velocity of that travel. Unless that velocity of travel is 0 one is still moving from one point to another.
Now let us tie this back to time. My opponent has agreed that time is in fact simply another dimension in addition to the three dimensions of euclidean space and the higher dimensions described in both M and String Theory. For the sake of an example; this debate began on January 21, 2010. It is currently Early January 24, 2010. In the past I decided to join a debate, in the future I am going to finish the same debate (while trying to win). Currently I am moving between the two points of the beginning of the debate and the end of it.
It is also brought up the Idea of "normal rate of time". But what is normal? Is what we perceive as time normal? What makes our inertial frame of reference so much more "normal" than any other inertial frame of reference?
The theory of relativity does not deal with "normal" rates of time and then a faster rate of time. The theory of relativity has that the rate of time is relative to the inertial frame of reference. Perhaps it would be better to rearrange the equation so that the T and Delta T are on the same side leaving 1/sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) alone. this is the ratio of perceived time in two different inertial frames of reference.
In order to create the ability of argument we will have to agree upon what the "normal rate of time" is. I assume that a ratio of 1/1 or just 1 could be seen as normal, therefore the inertial frame of reference of 0m/s should be the measurement for "normal". Any other subluminal speed would create a ratio larger than 1.
Therefore we humans, located upon the Earth with currently no way to get off of the Earth and come to a complete stop, we are stuck traveling at a very high and fluctuating speed (though significantly lower than the speed of light). I would assume then that us here on Earth are traveling at a rate just slightly faster than "normal".
2)My second point is refuted by the claim that physical and perceptive time are different. My example of a person hopping into a fast rocket ship for 5 years and coming out 50 years later continues to stand. When the guy in the example steps out he is not 50 years older, not physically anyway, but only 5 years older. (maybe his birth certificate will claim he is 50 years older however a legal document does not change physical laws)
I'll bring up the Twin Paradox. The premise of it is that one of a pair of twins jumps into a fast rocket for a little while, when (s)he returns they find that they have aged less than their twin who has stayed home on Earth.
3)upon looking over my original case I did omit any mention of backwards time travel. I am deeply sorry for the inconvenience, I will now respectfully submit a point 3 to my case as a quasi-rebuttal to my opponents pointing out my mistake.
First I will admit that it has not been proven that backward time travel is possible. But at the same time it has not been proven that it is not, so the possibility is still present. As the resolution deals with possibilities and not hard evidence I feel that pure theory is appropriate in this case.
There are two main proposed ways backward time travel is possible and both deal with Einstein's theory of relativity; the first being superluminal travel and the other being worm holes.
sub point A) superluminal velocity means travel at higher than the speed of light.
Einstein's theory of Relativity states than matter can approach the speed of light but not reach it as it takes an infinite amount of kinetic energy for matter to travel at the speed of light. This is often falsely assumed to mean that the speed of light is some universal speed limit. But it is not. The theory of relativity provides for the ability of faster-than-light travel.
No superluminal particle has yet to be observed but if something were to be able to travel at a speed greater than light then the speed of light would act as a lower limit, a particle could slow down toward the speed of light but it would be impossible to reach that speed.
Such an object, such as the hypothetical particle the Tachyon would therefore travel backward in time as we travel forward (the faster it goes the closer to -1 the perceived time travels at, finally reaching -1 at infinity).
Sub-point 2) A worm hole can also be used to move not only to a past date but also from that past date to a future date.
If it is possible to create a worm hole, have it stabilize and control both ends (it is undetermined if this is or is not possible) of the worm hole then you could have the worm hole connect to relatively close points in space (perhaps no farther than a few miles apart in space). One mouth of the worm hole could then be accelerated to a higher velocity than the other. Looking through the worm hole you would see a constant time zone all the way across the worm hole (meaning that inside of it all time is traveling at the same rate).
Let us set up an example. If we create a worm hole this year, 2010, and accelerate one faster than the other, then the two mouths will travel through time at different rates. Maybe in the year 2050 someone could jump into the worm hole and come out in 2025, he has just traveled back 25 years into his past.
So for these reason I urge a vote in affirmation from the readers.
Fedexdoom forfeited this round.
Fedexdoom forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Demauscian 7 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||2|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.