If time travel was really possible, we would have already received

>>7956960
Not a good argument. They could just make their presence unknown or have gone to a time before they could make all of humanity be aware of their existence. Or they could be on separate time lines (universes) than our own.

The conclussion is based on no facts. As we have no idea how or IF time-travel works. Any conclussion is in itself fallacious
Any.

What if they don't want to come back to this time?

>>7956972
Of course it's not based on facts, cretin; it's speculation.

Time doesn't even exist therefore you can't have time travelers.

Time travel doesn't make sense with a single linear timeline.

>>7956986
That's a big, unsubstantiated claim

>>7956995
Prove that it's an unsubstantiated claim.

>>7956995
>prove god exists
>prove time exists

Burden of Proof.

>>7957097
Ffs. Time is a concept of change. God is a concept of divinity. Are you postulating that you never observed any change?

>>7957064
thats not how this works

>>7956960

This is sorta like the time travel equivalent of the Fermi Paradox. Shit's rough.

>>7957129
Exactly, "time is a concept" it isn't a "thing" you can't "go backwards in time" because of that.

File: image.jpg (68KB, 539x567px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 539x567px

The motivator towards time travel into the past is the change the present - neo-Nazis would be interested in saving Germany in WWII, for example.

So, we know how everything turns out - so the neo-Nazis know what to do to save Germany, and have infinite time to plan how. So, as soon as they attempt to save Germany, they succeed.

Then, the world is a place where neo-Allies send people back who know exactly how to save the world in WWII, and they inevitably succeed. This cycle repeats, ad infinitum.

But if this is so, which history is real? Or do they oscillate between being real and false? If so, how fast? And for that matter, why does this sound like superposition?

Because that's how other universes can be said to exist, in the Many Worlds interpretation. As the time travellers go back, all they do is move from one universe to another. They say that you can move between universes, but I say you can - call it a religious belief. By returning to the point where you and the other entangled particles composing the other timeline physically merge with yours (Like in a blackhole,) you can return to earlier times. In fact, I suggest that movement into and out of the blackhole creates a looping timeline, where many timelines meet and diverge inside the blackhole.

There's evidence to suggest that this recycling of matter occurs;

>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AAS...22720207T
>ALMA Reveals a Galaxy-Scale Fountain of Cold Molecular Gas Pumped by a Black Hole

So by going into the future, you wind up in the past. We're all time travellers, and we all show up.

>>7957342
>"time is a concept"
That's about the same as saying "distance is a concept".
Time isn't abstract or conceptual.
It's an aspect of the universe that's easy to observe and measure.

>>7956960
>If time travel was really possible, we would have already received tons of visitors from the future.
What if you can't go farther back in time than when the time machine was created?

>>7956968
>they could be on separate time lines (universes) than our own.
I'm inclined to believe this. Time travellers won't exist in our timeline until we figure out how to do it, if we figure out how to do it.

When we do, and send people back in time, the'll be sent only to timelines where time travel has already been discovered and proved to exist, whereas the ones where it doesn't, such as ours, remain untouched somehow.

File: 1kw87H8.gif (1MB, 400x308px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x308px

>>7957424
>whereas the ones where it doesn't, such as ours, remain untouched somehow.
This implies some kind of meta-time, the 1940's BEFORE time travel and the 1940's AFTER time travel.
Tricky.
More importantly, how do you figure we're lucky enough to live in the BEFORE time travel 2010's, and not the AFTER time travel 2010's?
Doesn't somebody have to live in the new timelines?

>>7957431
Sorry, I meant to say timelines where time travel isn't proven to exist YET, such as ours RIGHT NOW, remain unchanged, following the propositions made in the multiverse theory, where timelines are split into two for every event that happens - one where said even does happen, and one where it doesn't (ours), and so on.

>>7957439
Ok.....
So lets say I invent a time machine tomorrow, and go back to the 1930's and assassinate Tojo (why pick on Hitler?).
Wouldn't that mean, in your system, that the 1940's I create is a new timeline?
After all I sure don't remember Tojo being killed in the 30's.
But SOMEBODY has to live in the new timeline.
And "before" and "after" aren't quite the right words here, but...


>timelines where time travel isn't proven to exist YET, such as ours RIGHT NOW, remain unchanged,
But if I'm traveling back to the 1930's, I'm "proving time travel exists" to the people of the 1930's.

Sorry if this is unclear, I'm a tiny bit drunk, but I don't have any weed, so I'm probably not quite in sync with others ITT.

>>7957466
>SOMEBODY has to live in the new timeline.
Everyone does. The multiverse theory doesn't only involve time and space, but everything, including us.

Yes, I'm saying there might more than one "you". There might be other versions of yourself living in different timelines, even one where you've been taught Tojo died in the 30's.

Of course, all of this may only be true IF the multiverse theory proves true. Until then, all of this is just hippie shit. Fearsible hippie shit, but still hippie shit.

File: 1457363932860.jpg (70KB, 422x750px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 422x750px

>>7957479
>Everyone does. The multiverse theory doesn't only involve time and space, but everything, including us
I'm down with all that, I just dont't think it quite jibes with:
>>7957424
>Time travellers won't exist in our timeline until we figure out how to do it

time travel is a myth. if you could travel into the past it would only be to multiverses. otherwise i wouldnt exist in this world. if i did i wouldnt be me.

Any time travel that vould happen has already happened. So either it's impossible or time police. Unless we find some crazy future tech buried next to some dinosaurs underground.

>>7957598
>Any time travel that vould happen has already happened. So either it's impossible or time police.
Unless you can't go further back in time than the machine existed.
I've got a magic box.
I get in tomorrow, then come out yesterday.
I can't use it to visit the 1980's.
If I don't invent it until 2018, I can't use it to visit 2016.

File: X on SCI.png (33KB, 694x968px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 694x968px

Another amazing thread. I know I'm gonna get another Bingo!

>>7957622
So Primer rules, which I really like. It's also one of the most logical ways for time travel to feesibly work.

>>7956960
But i am from the future

>>7956960

>implying we don't already
By the time we can harness the power and technology to safely and accurately time travel we're already across the galaxy and have much more interesting places to visit than the caveman era of Earth.

>>7957415

>Time isn't abstract or conceptual...
Except this is exactly how General Relativity handles it?...

>>7957423
That would be compatible with evidence.

>>7957655
Quality image, anon. Saved.