What are the disadvantages of traveling into the future?

[NadaN70]

Hey ya'll! I heard a several times people talking about traveling into the future, but I would really like to know what are the disadvantages of traveling into the future, but please in an informative way like for example in 2-3 paragraphs or something coz I really want to understand it in a very good way! thanks all, tc! Plz help me coz I've been asking myself that question since a long time ago and finally I found that forum which I would have the chance to ask people and get an answer to my question!

 

[Andre]

We are all traveling to the future, regardless of advantages, but when we get there it's still today all the time, being the tomorrow of yesterday.

Time travel contraptions are fantasy, wrong forum for that.

 

[NadaN70]

Hey please guys I really want to know about the disadvantages of traveling to the future, not like that, no but by anything ex: a machine, a black hole...I know that all of us travel to the future, but what I meant by traveling to the future is traveling faster than expected, wish more help!

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Andre gave you the correct answer. Are you saying that you want an incorrect answer?

 

[NadaN70]

Guyz! I mean I want a scientific answer.

 

[ShawnD]

fake answer: due to the success of queer eye for the straight guy and will & grace, there is now gay porn on every channel

real answer: you suck at driving future cars

 

[acolavin]

A problem would be coming back and expecting things to happen the way you saw them in the future.the problem is you're asking for a scientific answer to a very unscientific question. You might want to check out the new book "The Physics of the Impossible" by Michio Kaku, where he talks about the less unlikely facets of physics. Time travel is considered to be impossible by many top physicists, like Stephen Hawking.

 

[Chi Meson]

Check out time dilation caused by traveling at speeds near the speed of light. If you were to get in a ship and travel at 500 million miles per hour away from Earth for a year, turn around and come back at the same speed, you would experience two years, but everyone else would have experienced three years.

If you did the same thing but traveled at 600 million miles per hour, then about 5 years would have passed on Earth compared to your two years.

Good luck with the space ship, and good luck surviving the "g-forces" from the absurd accelerations required. And I couldn't tell you what to use for fuel.

 

[NadaN70]

Thnx all, I just want to know that if it was possible wat would be the disadvantages?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You can't travel into the future it does not exist, that would violate causality.

Actually to be frank current thinking says that even with traveling back in time it can't be possible because we'd of seen people traveling back in time to the point where time travel became possible, the reasons are mathematical. Since it's not possible it's currently impossible. It's all a little complicated.

 

[NadaN70]

ok forget about my first question, here's another:Does travel into the future have advantages OR disadvantages?
I think travel into the future have more disadvantages than advantages because for example ' i believe that traveling into the future is dangerous, simply because we do not know how it will be. If i sit here, in this room and contemplate the theory of time, then in 50 years our world could be described as x .
But what if i want to go out now grab a few lumps of purified uranium and smash them against each other in my kitchen and cause a nuclear explosion. Then in 50 years time our world could be described as xy + x(z +zy) - x^2) . And, by process of observation and a conclusion involving the use of common sense, we can conclude that the two worlds are different to each other.

So then we do create a time travel machine, and we travel into the future-where would i arrive at...? Would i be in the world described as x, or in world described as xy + x(z + zy) - x^2) ?

Point is, we don't know what the future will hold, and only the divine creator himself does (I won't bring any more religion into this...).' datz my opinion, but watz urz? Plz include convincing examples

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

You can't travel into the future, for the reasons given above. That is a scientific answer.

 

[ShawnD]

Good luck with the space ship, and good luck surviving the "g-forces" from the absurd accelerations required. And I couldn't tell you what to use for fuel.

if he drives a bmw and owns a macbook air, his ship can be powered by arrogance

ok forget about my first question, here's another:Does travel into the future have advantages OR disadvantages?

advantage: due to the success of queer eye for the straight guy and will & grace, there is now gay porn on every channel

 

[NadaN70]

ok guyz rly thanks 4 ur help! I appreciate it! but wat i want to say dat um having an argument with my classmates on ' why it is bad 4 someone to travel into the future' itz like a fun argument and then we ended up that every girl will write a persuasive essay to try and convince the others about her point of view which is ' wat should we tell to someone who wants to travel to the future' (knowing that itz impossible) but i rly need some help here, like wat should i tell in addition to wat i said previously?

 

[Chi Meson]

You know, Nada, one of the reasons you are having a hard time getting many serious responses is your "text-speak." I'll be blunt: we don't like that here, so try writing out the words properly. When the first line contains "thanx 4 ur help" I can't take you seriously.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yeah sorry NadaN70 on almost all forums text speak is against the rules. :/

Primarily because not everyone understands it especially those where English isn't their first language, and also because it's easier to type in formal English on a qwerty keyboard.

 

[NadaN70]

Thanks Chi ! Actually I'm new here, and i don't know all these things! Anyways I'm really sorry, i won't write with shortcuts again! but even though I'm so serious about it

 

[ShawnD]

What you could do is show a graph of short term trends, then extend the graph by several decades. Although you would be presenting a logical fallacy as fact, you'd basically be doing what most scientists do anyway. How many times have you seen a newspaper that says "if trends continue" then make some retarded claim like polar bears going extinct, the Earth being covered in mosquitoes, the unemployment rate reaching 40%, US national debt of 20 quadrillion, etc.

I'll even give you a working example. Right now the US has very high inflation, mostly because of a falling dollar. What could be bought from Germany a year ago with $100, might take upwards of $120 today because that's how the exchange rates have changed in that time frame. What you do is take that 1 year inflation of 20% and extend it by 40 years. My calculation says that a product worth $1 today will require $1470 in 2048, assuming this trend continues (this is a blatant lie). From this assumption, which you know is wrong, you can conclude that America in 40 years will be the poorest nation on earth. Good luck with your report.

 

[NadaN70]

thanks ShawnD, I'm planning to do this: first paragraph: an introduction to the topic
2nd paragraph: the future diseases
3rd paragraph: the future of our society
4th paragraph:future political powers
5th paragraph:the change of inflation
6th paragraph: wrap everything up and end it with a cool question!

so, is this good enough?

 

[Cyrus]

coz is not in the dictionary.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It should be though, as the imaginary version of cos(x). hehe

Shorthand for cos(i).

 

[Cyrus]

.....okay.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Thanks Chi ! Actually I'm new here, and i don't know all these things! Anyways I'm really sorry, i won't write with shortcuts again! but even though I'm so serious about it

Thx.

 

[ShawnD]

Sounds good. Just remember to focus on only negative trends. For example, things that would kill people 50 years ago are now mundane, so something else picks up the slack to kill people. Deaths from something like tuberculosis may be on the decline, but something like cancer or heart disease is probably on the rise. Find a graph of the trend, extend it, and attribute it to some false cause that also happens to be on the rise. Technology would be a good candidate for blame, such as radiation from cell phones and WiFi internet.

Another trick is to mix 2 half-truths together to make one huge lie that looks real. For example, current usage of oil means oil will run out in like 50 or 100 years or whatever. That is probably true, based on current usage. Another panic is that oil prices will soar as the supply goes down, which is also theoretically true. The problem is that these two are mutually exclusive. If prices are soaring because of limited supply (oil is limited), the demand obviously goes down (alternative fuel development), which then lowers the price. It's a very complex relationship, so saying that oil will hit $1000 per barrel, or that it will run out in 50 years are both total bullsh!t, although it's made from two half-correct assumptions.
You could probably use half-true fallacies to create panic about environmental trends in China (insane pollution), and how this will cause toxic air worldwide.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The best one of all is global warming, we'll be mostly underwater by 2100 if we live in coastal areas, I never get tired of that one.

Glaciers are melting so the sea levels are rising? No not quite. The sea will expand due to heating water to an extent much more than popping a few million kgs of ice into it, try doing it with a glass of lemonade, then try heating the lemonade. Cause and effect are not always the cause produces the effect.

 

[humanino]

If you open a close timelike curve, quantum vacuum fluctuations of the EM field will amplify, pretty much like in a laser. Basically, your device would intantaneously blow up, at least much before you could have made it through. So not even mentionning causality, you cannot come back, it cannot technologically work. As for going into the future, the first answer told you, we are all falling into it

 

[humanino]

If you open a close timelike curve, quantum vacuum fluctuations of the EM field will amplify, pretty much like in a laser. Basically, your device would intantaneously blow up, at least much before you could have made it through. So not even mentionning causality, you cannot come back, it cannot technologically work. As for going into the future, the first answer told you, we are all falling into it

Do I qualify for the Thread-Killer Thread ?

 

[NadaN70]

Thanks All!:!) I really appreciate your help!

 

[cliveroth]

We are all traveling to the future, regardless of advantages, but when we get there it's still today all the time, being the tomorrow of yesterday.

Time travel contraptions are fantasy, wrong forum for that.

actually the moment is infinite and today tomoorow or yesterday have very little to do with truths or lies.

and what's with the guy talking about half truths? why are physicists so involved in duality when experience proves them wrong? everything is a half truth... whole truths only exist in storybooks.

 

[acolavin]

In any persuasive essay, its important to bring up the opposing viewpoint. Talk about something good, like curing yourself with a future medicine, or enjoying the advanced technology of the future. Then say why its wrong. By doing this, you show your audience that you know what you're talking about, and that you have a reason for being against going to the future.

 

[Art]

You can't travel into the future it does not exist, that would violate causality.

Actually to be frank current thinking says that even with traveling back in time it can't be possible because we'd of seen people traveling back in time to the point where time travel became possible, the reasons are mathematical. Since it's not possible it's currently impossible. It's all a little complicated.

Maybe not necessarily so.

Okay it can't be done by traveling ever faster but if there was a way to time travel by jumping to a different set of spacetime coordinates then whether you moved forward or backward in time you would also change position in space to fit the physical space coordinates appropriate to your time destination. So perhaps the rule is simply you can't occupy the same space at a different time which helpfully avoids all those nasty paradoxes. In fact the moving in time part would be pretty irrelevant for the person doing it but it would make a great way to achieve long distance space travel.

 

[Evo]

Maybe not necessarily so.

Okay it can't be done by traveling ever faster but if there was a way to time travel by jumping to a different set of spacetime coordinates then whether you moved forward or backward in time you would also change position in space to fit the physical space coordinates appropriate to your time destination. So perhaps the rule is simply you can't occupy the same space at a different time which helpfully avoids all those nasty paradoxes. In fact the moving in time part would be pretty irrelevant for the person doing it but it would make a great way to achieve long distance space travel.

Isn't that movie physics? How exactly would you accomplish that?

 

[Gokul43201]

Maybe not necessarily so.

Okay it can't be done by traveling ever faster but if there was a way to time travel by jumping to a different set of spacetime coordinates then whether you moved forward or backward in time you would also change position in space to fit the physical space coordinates appropriate to your time destination.

I don't understand this part at all.

So perhaps the rule is simply you can't occupy the same space at a different time which helpfully avoids all those nasty paradoxes.

Actually, that is a perfectly legal thing to do, and we do it all the time - by not moving. Did you mean to say that you can not uccupy the same time co-ordinate at different space co-ordinates? Because that will give you paradoxes. More generally, traveling through any spacelike interval is a problem. Traveling across timelike intervals, however, is not only allowed, it is all that's possible.

 

[Art]

Isn't that movie physics? How exactly would you accomplish that?

:tongue: Unfortunately I have no idea how you would do it.

I guess my point is time travel is normally dismissed as an unrealistic concept because it requires impossibly fast space ships or if done in situ for inducing impossible paradoxes. I'm just remarking that if by moving in time you also move in space you avoid the definite no no's and at least make it hypothetically possible.

 

[Art]

I don't understand this part at all.
Actually, that is a perfectly legal thing to do, and we do it all the time - by not moving. Did you mean to say that you can not uccupy the same time co-ordinate at different space co-ordinates? Because that will give you paradoxes. More generally, traveling through any spacelike interval is a problem. Traveling across timelike intervals, however, is not only allowed, it is all that's possible.

We do it all the time?? How do you figure that??

We're on a planet spinning on it's axis orbiting a sun which orbits the galaxy which itself moves through an expanding universe. If you got even one second out of synch you would find yourself a long long way from planet Earth and so we have certainly never occupied the same space at two different moments much less all the time.

For instance if you went back in time a million years unless you dragged the entire planet/sun/solar system/galaxy/universe with you then you would appear at your point in space as it was back then, 1 million years before planet Earth reached this spot which is why I said time travel could equate to serious long distance space travel.