Time Travel Into the Past Might Be Possible (Not Requiring the Help of God)

"The government could quite easily limit successfully. When a person goes back in time when they aren't supposed to, the government could go back to before they went back in time, and arrest them. Also, what if the people then left after their year was up?" And how would the government make sure that they left? Plus, that would have been confusing, if people would vanish and be replaced by other people. It would be too confusing for the simple minds of politicians to handle anyway. "How do you know that this would be instantaneous? Also, how do you know that it would kill everything? The time-space continuum doesn't have to rupture; it could just ripple. This would allow time to fix everything." By your definition of time as a dimension, it would have to be spontaneous, occurring throughout the "fourth dimension" all at once, because it all affects each other, like dominoes, but faster than the speed of light. If we use the real definition, time travel is already impossible by definition; either way, you lose. Time would not get to fix everything. If you went back in time, you would have an impact on everything. There should have been air where you now are. Where did that air go? This would involve creating mass, which is proven to be impossible by Conservation of Mass. http://en.wikipedia.org... "And how do you know that? I'm going to allow for the possibility of matter being converted into energy; if you have no proof, then we can assume that it might be true, which is all I need to win this debate." Simple. Conservation of Mass states that mass can't be created or destroyed; Conservation of Energy states that energy can't be created or destroyed. By turning it into the other, it is "destroyed" There must always be the same amount of matter in a closed system. This would change that. "This sounds like a whole lot of claims without a whole lot of backing it up. Time is a dimension. http://www.ascentaspirations.ca...... At least, it is debatable whether it is a dimension or not. This allows for the possibility of time being a dimension, which allows for the possibility of time travel backwards being possible." http://dictionary.reference.com... Nowhere in any definition is there any rule that you can go through all dimensions forwards and backwards. It only mentions time in mathematics, which is not always applicable to life. You have no argument. "Oh, they had dictionaries. http://encarta.msn.com...... Time is not what we define it as. If everything were whatever we defined it as, then the Sun used to be a big shining disk in the sky. We know that that is now true. Definitions can be worthless at times. This is one of those times. We are arguing about what time is. Thus, definitions are thrown out the window." That was a Sumerian-Akkadian translation dictionary. It didn't have definitions, just words in different languages. That is a different type of dictionary, which would not have defined any words such as "sun". You say that we now know that the Sun used to be a big shining disk in the sky. Definitions are not worthless, ever. I just used one for dimension, refuting your argument. It works here to remove any argument about going back in time. You can't "reverse-transverse" time. "Well, you still haven't proven your point. The debate just proved that it was debatable, so we can allow for the possibilities of everything, yada-yada... thus, we can allow for the possibility of time travel." My point is that your point is meaningless. In that case, you say that anything is debatable? So your existence is debatable? Whether or not you are here legally is debatable? This means that calling something debatable adds nothing to this argument. This does not mean that we can allow for the possibility of time travel. "That doesn't prove anything. common sense - sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts http://www.merriam-webster.com...... Sure, the theory seems ridiculous, but you haven't proven it to be impossible." I'll see if you can understand common sense, then. Our three dimensions (height, width, and length) are gone through by movement. This movement always travels through time at the same rate, but through space at a varying rate. The two are not related in any way. "No, they don't. If I say that the Earth is a flat plane that we live on, the Earth is still spherical." For obvious reasons, I can conclude that you are not a dictionary. You can't define things reliably like a dictionary can. http://www.merriam-webster.com... define: to determine or identify the essential qualities or meanings of Definitions define everything by definition. That you can not sanely argue against. "Except in the fourth dimension. There is nowhere to store the up-to-infinite space that exists. Except in the first three dimensions." Time vanishes just as quickly as it is created. It just ceases to exist. It is like in a Word Document, without the Undo. It knows what is it at any given time, but not what it was. It knows what it is because it is on the screen, being used, as everything in the universe is at any given moment. "And why is that? Explain, mongoose. EXPLAIN." By your definition of time, it exists at all times, so this time would travel through all dimensions at once, being in the same group of dimensions. It would be instant. If we use my definition, I win, through reasons previously stated with my definition. Take your pick on which to argue. "In conclusion, you have yet to prove that all of the theories that I have listed cannot occur, and even then, you haven't disproved the possibility of time travel backwards in general, so therefore, time travel into the past just might be possible." In conclusion, I have rebutted all of your theories every time. I would like to add one more final counter. In your definition, time is still there, all at the same... time? You can see how this is ironic beyond either any definition or possibility, right? This defeats its own purpose. It can't be in more that once place at the same time. You still haven't beaten my time-space-rupture point. If you dare say that it would be in a different universe, that has no interaction with our current one, then it is not going back in time; it is going to a universe that is like it in any way. "De nada." Good day.