Stephen Hawking disproves time travel

[Sugami]

http://youtu.be/elah3i_WiFI

You know, I thought Hawking was smarter than this As y'all probably know by now, time travel fascinates me so this kinda peaked my interest. I see quite a few things wrong with his approach.

1) I think the most obvious thing is it doesn't disprove anything, what if time travelers just didn't want to show up or never saw the invitation? If I could time travel, I wouldn't want people knowing about it
2) He already knew the result of the experiment before making the invitation, thus making the act of making the invitation is pointless.
3) The other possibility is working along the principle of the multiverses; Stephen Hawking #1 would have the party, make the invitation then a time traveler would see the invitation and travel back in time, travelling in time creates an alternative universe where he would meet Stephen Hawking #2. Thus Stephen Hawking #1 never meets the time traveler even though he's the one that set it in motion. Hawking #2 can then not even bother making the invitation but the act of making it could make more time travel possible for Hawking #2+n and shiz starts getting complicated

[Alya Mizar (Tsybil)]

But the BIG problem is we are ALL time travelers, hurtling madly into the future at the rate of 60 seconds / minute.

He is looking for those who can change the rate of forward progress (hello cryogenics) or shift into reverse.

[Sugami]

Well technically time is a man made construct to better explain events.

Also cryogenics isn't really time travel, at least not in my book. You're not removing yourself from time, you're still in it but just stopped yourself from aging and gone into a deep sleep until you wake (if you wake)

Did you see that episode of Futurama with the time machine that only goes forward in time? They find out that time is cyclical, witness the end of the universe as well as the beginning of the universe (twice). Because they "removed" themselves from time they were able to not die with the rest of the universe when it ended, if Fry was simple "frozen" he would have died along with the rest of the universe. That's why I only really count time travel as something that removes you from time to insert you in another point, if you haven't been removed from time then strictly speaking you haven't time traveled

[Alya Mizar (Tsybil)]

Well technically time is a man made construct to better explain events.

I always held that time was nature's way of making sure that everything didn't happen all at once. It doesn't always work though.

Also cryogenics isn't really time travel, at least not in my book.

If they solve the rewarming process its at least a decent one way approximation.

Did you see that episode of Futurama with the time machine that only goes forward in time? They find out that time is cyclical, witness the end of the universe as well as the beginning of the universe (twice). Because they "removed" themselves from time they were able to not die with the rest of the universe when it ended.

I find that plot device, being able to watch the EotU without participating in it, unsatisfying in most sci-fi. I have different standards for Futurama and other SF comedies.

That's why I only really count time travel as something that removes you from time to insert you in another point, if you haven't been removed from time then strictly speaking you haven't time traveled

So in H. G. Wells' "The Time Machine‎", where the time traveler is not removed from time but can watch it flow by somehow insulated from it, strictly speaking not an actual time traveler?

There should be a "different strokes for different folks" saying about books and plot devices.

[Sugami]

I always held that time was nature's way of making sure that everything didn't happen all at once. It doesn't always work though.

At least that's how we perceive time, perhaps it all does happen at once but this is the only way we can make any sense of it?

So in H. G. Wells' "The Time Machine‎", where the time traveler is not removed from time but can watch it flow by somehow insulated from it, strictly speaking not an actual time traveler?

There should be a "different strokes for different folks" saying about books and plot devices.

Well I haven't read The Time Machine but I've seen both movies (classic one and the horrible remake) but we're really splitting hairs here, "removed" and "insulated" are pretty much the same thing in this case When I say "removed" I mean that they're completely unaffected by time and whatever is going on at that point of time, so removed from space-time I suppose

[Alya Mizar (Tsybil)]

I hadn't been aware the film had been remade. Thanks for the warning.

[Sugami]

Seriously? It was like 10 years ago? Had Jeremy Irons as a dial-a-villain, seriously they had him but no role for him so just invented a random villain

TBH I didn't pay that much attention to the movie because I saw it with a... certain someone *cough*