why isn't time travel possible?

Because reality isn't a science fiction movie.
I can already sense where this thread is leading

>>>/x/

>>8268574
>why isn't time travel possible?
It's not impossible it's just far beyond our doing. It's also boring when you consider that their is no past to travel back to because only the present exist.

>>8268574
Well anon in all honestly it probably would be possible by now if the Christian dark ages would've never occurred, seriously fuck Christians, biggest cucks of all time.

>>8268574
Because causality must be maintained.

>>8268647
Travel to the future is also impossible

>>8268574
aren't you already travelling through time?

File: X on SCI.png (31KB, 694x968px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 694x968px

>>8268574
Because time doesn't actually exist.

>>8268662
Tell that to Steve Rogers

>>8268647
>their
>there

You still make these errors? I'm not even native english and I'am able to distinguish them. I'm just saying, don't wanna bully or something. Just learn proper grammar, pal.

>>8268741
also: these are today's university skids, unfortunately.
"hey, look! I have a degree!!!"

It's possible.

>>8268574
You're doing it right now

>>8268574
Time travel to the future is possible, in a relative sense, because you can slow down your time relative to other frames of reference. Time travel to the past is impossible because causality is the foundation of reality.

>>>/x/
>>>/pol/
>>>/r9k/
>>>/b/
>>>/r/askscience

>>8268574
TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE IS POSSIBLE LOOK UP THE THEORY OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY FOR IT.

>>8268671
Why is time dilation on there? Is special relativity not accepted on /sci/?

>>8268662
I'm literally doing it right now.

>>8268654
>>8268948
>>8269380
>>8269462
>>8269467
>when brainlets think time dilation is equivalent to actual time travelling

>>8268654
I'm an atheist but horrendous things are done without religions too you know: For example main reason behind World wars wasn't religion...

>>8269473
>it is, you aspie

>>8268574

It might be possible. We don't know.

Time travel is generally talked about as though it were not possible, because there has not yet been any proposed method of time travel that is anything close to feasible.

Moreover, even defining time travel is problematic. We can imagine various sets of rules which might govern time travel, but examining the things we already know to be true about causality, incorporating these hypothetical rules often has unforeseen consequences that make them self-inconsistent, nonsensical, or at the very least, complicated.

I could go into deeper detail, and will do so if anyone is interested, but google could likely do a better job of it. Check out, "Novikov self-consistency conjecture."

>>8268574
The best argument I've heard is Stephen Hawking's (which I'm sure I'll butcher). Basically, it works this way: any portal to the past would absorb matter/energy and send it to the past, allowing this matter/energy to travel forwards in time only to be sent back through the portal. Basically, it's a feedback loop. As a result, the portal would be destroyed by the immense amount of energy hitting it. Traveling to the future could be possible, though.

>>8268671
You should change psychiatry with psychology. Psychology is the soft 'science' bullshit, psychiatry is an actual branch of medicine (every psychiatrist has an MD by definition).

>>8268574
Is theoretically

>>8269473
It would be effectively the same, familia. If done properly you could step into a box and blast 1 year into the future in what seems like 10 seconds.

>>8268662
well...

if you could go faster than the speed of light while still being affected by relativity.

>>8268574
To prevent you from fucking yourself in the ass fagit

So far no one has mentioned the quantum eraser experiment that seems to change what we know about causality.

>>8269667
Just googled the quantum eraser experiment and read some of the basics (admittedly I don't really understand it, but that's kind of quantum mechanics in general), how would it rule out time travel? I understand how causality would be problematic, though.

Christian douchebag scumbags wanting to bring us to the dark ages again

>>8269722
it doesn't rule out time travel

>>8268654
>Christian dark ages
U wot?
Christianity existed both before and after the dark ages.
Christians were responsible for the Renaissance and the industrial revolution.

File: Erik_Erikson_Photo2.jpg (32KB, 216x423px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 216x423px

>>8269636

File: 1464422528313.png (40KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 2000x1500px

>>8268654

All that wonderful stuff brought by Scientists, not religious scum

>>8270469
> renaissance
Okay
> industrial revolution
Lol wut
Coal miners started the revolution.
It'd have been the same with or without Christianity