Is time travel ethical?

Jul 2009
5,703
420
Opa Locka
#41
Humans society is utterly deranged, malevolent, and insane. If humans got hold of time-travel technology, there would be no legitimate Truth-based benefit. Most likely, humans would find some way to damage or destroy the planet/sequence of events etc.

Also, the machine itself may damage the universe in a way unforeseen, just a fridges damaged the planet via CFC gasses. It is irresponsible for humans to operate such a machine.

The fact is that currently, there are many issues with time-travel. The ramifications would be immense, unlike anything else we have seen.
Depends. Some think that altering events starts a new universe and so nothing actually changes in the timeline, ie. the New Star Trek movie.
 
#42
Well if Hitler was not born, who is to say that there would not have been another social democrat ....
Social democrat? Hitler used the name "National Socialist" in the 1930's to fool people and it's still working. The Nazi party was right wing extremist fascism. Its amazing how the big lie still spreads today on the Internet. More education is the answer.
 
#43
Science has proven that it's possible. Basically it works like this, the faster you travel at sub-light speeds, the feather and faster you travel into the future yet once you hit hyper-light speed, you travel into the past. The video I linked to explained this.
Yet you cannot go back further than when the technology was invented?
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#44
Yet you cannot go back further than when the technology was invented?
Don't worry about that. Its just speculation. Currently nobody is going anywhere, and I hardly think that video was a sound source of information. I find it unlikely to impossible to invent a time machine, and currently no such things has been achieved.

As is said before, we don't even know that this even qualifies as a time machine, as per the normal sense of the word anyway. As I showed in post #39 and before, there mere measurements described in post #35 are not good enough to warrant something being a traditional time machine. All I see is an entertainment programme.

Depends. Some think that altering events starts a new universe and so nothing actually changes in the timeline, ie. the New Star Trek movie.
That is just a silly and speculative fantasy-based statement. There is currently no evidence of this, and the simple fact is people just make it up. As I said before, there is no evidence that a real time machine has been invented, nor sufficient evidence that it even could be invented.

Even if so, all this would mean is human meddling in the "new universe" and that would be equivalent. It would also spread the toxic plague of humanity to a new universe.

Fortunately, these claims are just a non-sense. The idea that going back or forward in time and changing events would somehow magically create a new universe is deranged. There is simply no evidence nor is there any rational explanation as to how changing some insignificant detail could generate enough energy to create a new universe, and how that new universe could magically be created. Its just cloud-talk.
 
#45
Fortunately, these claims are just a non-sense. The idea that going back or forward in time and changing events would somehow magically create a new universe is deranged. There is simply no evidence nor is there any rational explanation as to how changing some insignificant detail could generate enough energy to create a new universe, and how that new universe could magically be created. Its just cloud-talk.
One must suspect that arrivals in the future would not only be relatively powerless, but would be met by a welcoming committee and return ticket. Or a Gulag.
 
Jul 2009
5,703
420
Opa Locka
#46
Don't worry about that. Its just speculation. Currently nobody is going anywhere, and I hardly think that video was a sound source of information. I find it unlikely to impossible to invent a time machine, and currently no such things has been achieved.

As is said before, we don't even know that this even qualifies as a time machine, as per the normal sense of the word anyway. As I showed in post #39 and before, there mere measurements described in post #35 are not good enough to warrant something being a traditional time machine. All I see is an entertainment programme.



That is just a silly and speculative fantasy-based statement. There is currently no evidence of this, and the simple fact is people just make it up. As I said before, there is no evidence that a real time machine has been invented, nor sufficient evidence that it even could be invented.

Even if so, all this would mean is human meddling in the "new universe" and that would be equivalent. It would also spread the toxic plague of humanity to a new universe.

Fortunately, these claims are just a non-sense. The idea that going back or forward in time and changing events would somehow magically create a new universe is deranged. There is simply no evidence nor is there any rational explanation as to how changing some insignificant detail could generate enough energy to create a new universe, and how that new universe could magically be created. Its just cloud-talk.
So Einstein was insane and deranged? Hawking? Newton? I find your out of hand rejection of what you don't understand amusing. :giggle:
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#47
So Einstein was insane and deranged? Hawking? Newton? I find your out of hand rejection of what you don't understand amusing. :giggle:
It does not neccesarily mean that Hawking is deranged, but he very well might be, as most humans are. It depends what you mean by "insane". Of course, I am sure the finer points of thinking are lost on you, just as was My question as to why I am not satisfied that any such time machine could be said to exist.

There is currently no evidence of such a thing as instant universes that appear due to time travel, and the whole notion is absurd. To suggest that others "understand" something that does not exist is also absurd.

Also, as stated before, the machine in "the time machine" movie in no way functions in such a way as to make certain it lives up to its name.
 
Jul 2009
5,703
420
Opa Locka
#48
It does not neccesarily mean that Hawking is deranged, but he very well might be, as most humans are. It depends what you mean by "insane". Of course, I am sure the finer points of thinking are lost on you, just as was My question as to why I am not satisfied that any such time machine could be said to exist.

There is currently no evidence of such a thing as instant universes that appear due to time travel, and the whole notion is absurd. To suggest that others "understand" something that does not exist is also absurd.

Also, as stated before, the machine in "the time machine" movie in no way functions in such a way as to make certain it lives up to its name.
It is proven, I'm not a physicist, so don't ask me to go into a detailed explanations but it is proven.

Also, I never claimed the Time Machine movie was a valid explanation of what I'm saying. I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#49
It is proven, I'm not a physicist, so don't ask me to go into a detailed explanations but it is proven.
What, exactly is proven? You just don't get it. There is no proof, nor evidence, of parallel universes. Thats just speculation and fiction.

As to proof of "time travel", all they can prove is what and how something is happening. They cannot prove what time travel is. Your explanation of "Getting 6 seconds into the future in only 2 seconds" does not cut it, and that applies to the time machine movie also.

Also, I never claimed the Time Machine movie was a valid explanation of what I'm saying. I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
I am not saying it is or is not a valid explanation. I am suggesting it may be similar to what the video is talking about.

The point is that the machine in the movie could not be said to be a time-machine, at least under certain conditions.

The thing is, what is time travel? Then, what could a time machine be? You need to answer that first, before you start spewing stuff about time travel.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#58
Back on topic

A previous post :

Well, I still am not convinced. Science may well be correct in what you say, but the problem is I am not satisfied with what science gives as a time-travel definition. So the question is science has proven what possible? Time travel? I hardly think so - it proved X possible and then people called it time travel.

As I stated earlier, the film "the time machine" had such a machine. From what I saw of the film, the machine was in no way a time machine per se. This is because it was judged by its function, not by how it achieved its function.

So, is the video showing us a proposed time machine/travel, or is it presumed that it would be a time machine/travel?
 
#59
Haha! I literally laughed - that was good! :giggle:
As one of the oldest books on earth the Bible is literally admissible as evidence in court for the truth of what it says. It is history. You might choose to disbelieve, but that is in part because you are on the other side of the debate. Unless you can now provide evidence to rebut it, your position is not maintainable. Simply saying, "I disbelieve," doesn't do it because the Bible is real evidence, something you can hold, feel and see. Unless you can provide some other real evidence sufficient to outweigh it, your argument loses this time. :D
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#60
As one of the oldest books on earth the Bible is literally admissible as evidence in court for the truth of what it says. It is history. You might choose to disbelieve, but that is in part because you are on the other side of the debate. Unless you can now provide evidence to rebut it, your position is not maintainable. Simply saying, "I disbelieve," doesn't do it because the Bible is real evidence, something you can hold, feel and see. Unless you can provide some other real evidence sufficient to outweigh it, your argument loses this time. :D
Oh, sorry, i actually thought you were joking. It was not meant as offensive - i'm a secularist.

I'll post it later. Have to gather my thoughts. :)
 

Similar Discussions