A Theory I came up with after reading robot visions by Isac Asimov

[i_love_isac_asimov]

If we were to send a man into the future and considering that the past is definite and cannot be changed then if that man were to return, everything is now the past and can’t be changed because his entire future is actually his past until the point where he traveled and therefore is already definite.
remember all of this is based on the fact that the past cannot be changed.

 

[ElementalDissonance]

Then I suppose that means that nothing can ever be changed, because the present is always the past of some future moment.

 

[i_love_isac_asimov]

Then I suppose that means that nothing can be changed, because the present is always the past of some future moment.

which is what I'm saying.. time travel busted?

 

[ElementalDissonance]

No... free will is busted.

 

[Einstein]

Of course there is a problem with your theory. It doesn't match the observable facts. How do you explain celebrities that come back alive? And what about buildings that pop into empty fields over night?

 

[darwi]

I suspect that there is a basic flaw in your understanding of time travel and a time stream. The idea about the time stream is that any part of it, past, present or future can be changed. Because the whole time stream exists right now. In other words there are different definitions for the word time. It seems like you were using the wrong definition of time to develop your theory.

 

[Rawknee]

Of course there is a problem with your theory. It doesn't match the observable facts. How do you explain celebrities that come back alive? And what about buildings that pop into empty fields over night?

That's not really a problem with his theory, since what you're saying is essentially a theory; more conspiracy theory than "observable fact". I'm not saying it's false, but it's certainly not fact.

 

[Rawknee]

Of course there is a problem with your theory. It doesn't match the observable facts. How do you explain celebrities that come back alive? And what about buildings that pop into empty fields over night?

That's not really a problem with his theory, since what you're saying is essentially a theory; more personal belief than "observable fact". I'm not saying it's false, but it's certainly not fact.

 

[Einstein]

Of course there is a problem with your theory. It doesn't match the observable facts. How do you explain celebrities that come back alive? And what about buildings that pop into empty fields over night?

That's not really a problem with his theory, since what you're saying is essentially a theory; more conspiracy theory than "observable fact". I'm not saying it's false, but it's certainly not fact.

No. Buildings do pop into existence overnight. Many people have experienced this. Including me. And there are many celebrities that do come back alive after being reported to have died.

 

[Rawknee]

Of course there is a problem with your theory. It doesn't match the observable facts. How do you explain celebrities that come back alive? And what about buildings that pop into empty fields over night?

That's not really a problem with his theory, since what you're saying is essentially a theory; more conspiracy theory than "observable fact". I'm not saying it's false, but it's certainly not fact.

No. Buildings do pop into existence overnight. Many people have experienced this. Including me. And there are many celebrities that do come back alive after being reported to have died.

There's no real evidence to support your claim, only what you and others say they've noticed/experienced/seen, so it's really just a personal belief of yours and others; in the least, it's not something that can be used to discredit anything.