The Instigator
Haddock
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
n7
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Time travel is 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 5 votes the winner is...
n7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 378 times Debate No: 91735
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Haddock

Pro

Time travel is possible, in both forward and backward in time. Technically, people have already gone to the future, as shown in the test where there were two twins, one was sent up in space, the other stayed on earth, and when the older twin came back down, he was now the younger twin. That is the test that proves forward. Backwards is nearly achievable, for scientists are creating a mini-star, which could be collapsed into a mini-black hole, and if you know anything about quantum physics, it is that black hole is strong enough to pull you out of your time stream.
n7

Con

Thanks Pro.

Time travel - The ability to travel to the future (in an accelerated rate) and past.

Possible - Able to be.


Pro must demonstrate that both travel to the future and to the past is possible. Demonstrating only one isn’t enough. However Pro hasn’t demonstrated either. He claims there was a test done with two twins, where one went up into space and aged slower than the other twin. This wasn’t an actual test that was performed, it was merely a thought experiment [1]. Nobody has literally done this.


Pro states time travel to the past is possible because of quantum mechanics. He never explains how, he just cites quantum mechanics. He claims scientists are trying to create a mini-star which would collapse into a black hole (without citation). I think what he’s getting at is that black holes will cause us to travel back through time (even though this is relativity, not quantum physics [2]), but this isn’t a case for backwards time travel. It would only work for going forwards in time [ibid].


Most scientists agree that you cannot travel into the past [3][4].


Pro has failed to provide evidence of the ability to travel to the past or the future.


The Grandfather Paradox


A powerful reason for rejecting backwards time travel is the “Grandfather Paradox”. If I were to go back in time, I would be able to kill my grandfather before he had any children. However, if I were to do that, I wouldn’t have been born to go back in time to kill my grandfather. We end up with a contradiction. In order for something to be possible, it mustn’t have a contradiction. For example, we know that it’s impossible for there to be a square-circle, because such a thing is contradictory. Being a square precludes being a circle. Likewise, existing in time precludes going into the past.


Ultimacy


If we can travel back in time, this would create a contradiction between what it means for time to exist and what it means to travel.


If time travel is possible, then the past and future exists. It’s possible to travel to New York, because New York exists. If something doesn’t exist, it cannot be traversed. However, conceding that all states of time exist would be conceding that change is illusionary. For if all events are fixed in time, how can there ever be a state of moving from one spot of time to another? Relativity entails the present is merely a point of reference[5], so there can be no objective point which moves through time and therefore, there can be no change.


The problem here is that change is “ultimate” to time travel. The very concept of travel entails moving through a various point to another point. Without change, there can be no travel. This makes “time travel” an oxymoron. In order to travel, you need to have change. But, in order for that to be possible, travel must be ontologically nonexistent.


Back to Pro.


[1] http://physics.about.com...

[2] http://www.astronomycafe.net...

[3] http://www.livescience.com...

[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

[5] http://www.pitt.edu...

Debate Round No. 1
Haddock

Pro

Haddock forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Haddock

Pro

Haddock forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
My apologies, the vote was removed in error, as this is a full forfeit debate. fire_wings, feel free to re-post the vote at any time.
Posted by n7 6 months ago
n7
Yes. The time would be better spent finding actual harmful votes.
Posted by Wylted 6 months ago
Wylted
That type of removal is why I have a problem with the current vote modding system. It was entirely pointless. I mean there is zero positive benefit in it.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: fire_wings// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Easy victory from CON. CON is the only one who provided arguments that went unchallenged because of PRO'S forfeits. CON rebuts PRO'S arguments by saying that there is no source to prove. Because CON'S arguments still stand, arguments to CON by default. Because of PRO'S double forfeits, conduct to CON too. Vote CON.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to do more than just state that Con was successful at rebutting something and still had a point standing. The voter still has to assess the applicability of that stnading argument to the debate, and explain why the rebuttals were so effective. ***********************************************************************
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
i can time travel by being now
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 6 months ago
fire_wings
Haddockn7Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Easy victory from CON. CON is the only one who provided arguments that went unchallenged because of PRO'S forfeits. CON rebuts PRO'S arguments by saying that there is no source to prove. Because CON'S arguments still stand, arguments to CON by default. Because of PRO'S double forfeits, conduct to CON too. Vote CON. Why it was removed: The voter is required to do more than just state that Con was successful at rebutting something and still had a point standing. The voter still has to assess the applicability of that standing argument to the debate, and explain why the rebuttals were so effective.
Vote Placed by Udel 6 months ago
Udel
Haddockn7Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used the grandfather paradox to show why backwards time travel was likely impossible, which Pro dropped and did not respond to. That is bad conduct on Pro's part through forfeits. Pro said backwards time travel was "nearly achievable" and not achievable. He did not provide any arguments in his favor, but Con did.
Vote Placed by Wylted 6 months ago
Wylted
Haddockn7Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by tejretics 6 months ago
tejretics
Haddockn7Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: (1) Arguments. Pro has the BOP to show that time travel is possible, but Con's representation of Pro's BOP ("Pro must demonstrate that both travel to the future and to the past is possible. Demonstrating only one isn't enough.") is wrong -- Pro has to show that some form of time travel is possible. With regard to backwards time travel, Pro's "mini-star" is incoherent and Con shows that the sole link to the resolution is via forwards time travel. With respect to forwards time travel, Pro's claim that such an experiment was done is proven to be definitively false, and Con's argument that "past"/"future" distinctions are incoherent successfully negates to that end. Lacking temporal change, there is no such thing as time travel, per Con. Pro's forfeits cause them to drop these arguments, which negates the under-explained black hole example as well, so I vote Con. (2) Conduct. Pro forfeited two rounds.
Vote Placed by Subutai 6 months ago
Subutai
Haddockn7Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.