Campaign Creations

I believe you can travel forward in time via traveling extremely fast, and you can slow down in time when your near event horizons, but traveling back in time is most likely improbable.

Warbringer87 wrote: The media being slow on internet happenings isn't new. This is very old. If you get your internet news from TV media, you don't belong on the internet. He mentioned things that WILL happen at the end of 2005 that did NOT happen. This is FAKE. Whether or not time travel is real, this is fake.

Obviously you haven't read enough of Titor's postings to understand his theory of time travel. Your view seems to be of the one-universe-is-it mentality, whereas Titor's theory of time travel is that there are infinite universes branching out to infinite possibilities.

Note on the following argument: I'm not sure whether I believe Titor or not but I'm writing the argument as if he were telling the truth because it makes the language a little easier than putting ifs, buts, theoreticallies, and possiblies everywhere.

When Titor travelled back in time he created a new universe that branched off from his at the point in time of his arrival. Since his original trip was to the 1970s, and since I am a fervent believer of the butterfly effect, that's 30-40 years of ripples in the timeline, not to mention he travelled into the future of this new timelline and therefore alterred it further. He actually hints that his trip helped to prevent the Y2K bug from happening. If, in his timeline, Y2K DID have a larger impact, then that would almost certainly change the entire course of history for the 21st century, so we've already splintered off quite a bit.

lol

Warbringer87 wrote: [imgwh 438x400]http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/1526/orly001ri3.jpg[/imgwh]

Fixed.

Gotta love how people will believe anything on the internet. 

Lavarinth wrote: [imgwh 438x400]http://www.maartentijhof.nl/wp-content/orly-yarly.gif[/imgwh]

Fixed. 

Marikov Reidmans theory is that all time is infinite and instantaneous, and that the 'reality' we are experiencing now is actually an explosion of that paradox.  Many famous scientists including Herbert Johansen support this theory.

Wouldnt you think if we could travel in time the people from the future would come to visit us?

no, fuck that shit

If I were a time-traveller, you can bet I wouldn't fucking say it.

Marine 382BB wrote: Wouldnt you think if we could travel in time the people from the future would come to visit us?

Any society smart enough to have time travel would probably also be smart enough to have rules and technology to avoid interfering with the past.  Many famous scientists, including Rodman Jackoline have stated this.

Desler wrote: Any society smart enough to have time travel would probably also be smart enough to have rules and technology to avoid interfering with the past.  Many famous scientists, including Rodman Jackoline have stated this.

ok des but two things:

1) How would a society be able to enforce that?

2) If time travel didn't exist to alter the past, what then?

Time travel would potentially be more destructive than a nuclear bomb, its painfully easy to recognize the significant damage one person could cause.  With that said, such devices would undoubtedly be restricted.  These are the words of Ishiga Molematte, a famous scientist. 

As for your second question, I guess you could easily use it to see if Jesus was real, or use it in investigations of crimes.  It might also deter crimes.  Just like the nuclear bomb deters wars between nations.  if a nuclear bomb exists not to destroy, than what?  Obviously it has other applications that aren't exactly written, such as strongly encouraging peaceful coexistence between nations.  A famous scientist, Rishkov Markamillion, agrees.

If time travel could be as destructive as you say, I highly doubt it would be allowed to be used in investigating crimes or studying the Bible. The mere act of existing in the past would alter it, thereby altering the present, with possible (read: probable) negative connotations.

Also, if you are saying that a nuclear bomb is not a weapon, I'm going to disagree. The idea of the nuclear bomb being a monument of military prowess that encourages peace is absurd. It may be internally consistent for Rishkov, but one needs to look at what has happened in the past. Specifically speaking, WW2 and the Cold War. I'll spare you the history lesson, but let's just say that several actions were taken because of the threat of nuclear war, and I don't recall any actions being prevented by such. Then again, I could be biased, because it's easier to recall what happened than what didn't happen.

Besides, "peaceful coexistence" is impossible due to reasons involving nationalism, the arms race, the "desire for more", and whatever other crap that lead to WW2. And if no nation is inclined to use nuclear weapons, the world will move on as if nuclear weapons do not exist. It isn't "the idea that a nation can use them" that would deter war, it's "knowing that they will respond by using them" that would. And that idea can be applied to whether time travel would prevent crime or not.

The quote is stating that the reason nuclear bombs exist IS to be a weapon.