Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Is Time Travel (going backwards) Possible?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6041387" data-attributes="member: 2011"><p>No. Not at all.</p><p></p><p>I would just prefer to read a scientific article (and I read a lot of them, I just don't really have the background to discuss them rationally) and have the authors be a bit more circumspect about their discoveries. The tone of many articles is that what the scientists found is fact. I'd like to watch more lectures (which I also watch quite a few of) where the professors use the word hypothesis a bit more.</p><p></p><p>The reason is that the general public and even our scientific students are a bit misled into thinking that science is nearly 100% accurate in many non-bleeding edge areas and as we know, it is an evolving process where new data and experiments and observations and tools can and occassionally do, change current scientific theory.</p><p></p><p>With respect to the OP's question, I suspect that time travel is impossible. I have no proof, but to me, the burden of proof is upon those making the claim that it is. Some people say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I don't go quite that far. I just say that "extraordinary claims require evidence". Time travel, teleporting, UFOs that contain extraterrestrials here on Earth, faster than light travel (and ghosts and bigfoot): most if not all of this probably does not exist at all except in the minds of people. Even some recent theories like superstring theory (and branes, multiverses, etc.) are probably just so much poppycock. I cannot prove that, but then again, the burden of proof is not on me. It's on the ones making the claim.</p><p></p><p>Just because mankind can think of something doesn't make it fact. Usually without some extremely solid evidence and multiple different experiments/observations to back it up, many of mankind's facts are nothing of the kind. Mankind has had a long and illustrious career of being wrong. I really wouldn't be surprised if Dark Energy and especially Dark Matter end up in the trash heap of scientific theories within this century even though they are being taught as basically fact today. We have zero scientific instruments located outside of our galaxy (and no really sophisticated ones located outside our solar system), so to claim that we understand how the macroscopic universe works (and how it started) based mostly on electromagnetic energy observations from thousands to billions of years ago is probably a bit naive. I keep going back to Neptune. When mankind can be wrong and doesn't have enough information, he probably is wrong.</p><p></p><p>One other note. A very large portion of current theory on the microscopic universe is based on particle accelerator experiments. Unfortunately, that's like determining the function of a computer inside a car based on an automobile wreck. Look at the pieces, determine what's going on. Although there is probably much validity to it, there might also be some misleading information from it that scientists pretty much regard as fact today, just based on the type of experiment it is. It will be interesting to see how different those current theories might become if we ever come up with a way to generate particles smaller than protons, electrons, etc. in order to peer more closely without colliding subatomic particles.</p><p></p><p>The nice thing about our current society is that science has made some deep strides in the last few centuries and the pace has been picking up significantly due to computers and advanced manufacturing techniques. But, don't be surprised if many of the concepts that scientists take for granted today (especially in the macroscopic and extremely small microscopic levels where our viewing windows are so limited and possibly distorted, not so much in the areas like chemistry) are drastically modified or even eliminated over the next few decades or so. I have no evidence for that, I just have mankind's track record.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 6041387, member: 2011"] No. Not at all. I would just prefer to read a scientific article (and I read a lot of them, I just don't really have the background to discuss them rationally) and have the authors be a bit more circumspect about their discoveries. The tone of many articles is that what the scientists found is fact. I'd like to watch more lectures (which I also watch quite a few of) where the professors use the word hypothesis a bit more. The reason is that the general public and even our scientific students are a bit misled into thinking that science is nearly 100% accurate in many non-bleeding edge areas and as we know, it is an evolving process where new data and experiments and observations and tools can and occassionally do, change current scientific theory. With respect to the OP's question, I suspect that time travel is impossible. I have no proof, but to me, the burden of proof is upon those making the claim that it is. Some people say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I don't go quite that far. I just say that "extraordinary claims require evidence". Time travel, teleporting, UFOs that contain extraterrestrials here on Earth, faster than light travel (and ghosts and bigfoot): most if not all of this probably does not exist at all except in the minds of people. Even some recent theories like superstring theory (and branes, multiverses, etc.) are probably just so much poppycock. I cannot prove that, but then again, the burden of proof is not on me. It's on the ones making the claim. Just because mankind can think of something doesn't make it fact. Usually without some extremely solid evidence and multiple different experiments/observations to back it up, many of mankind's facts are nothing of the kind. Mankind has had a long and illustrious career of being wrong. I really wouldn't be surprised if Dark Energy and especially Dark Matter end up in the trash heap of scientific theories within this century even though they are being taught as basically fact today. We have zero scientific instruments located outside of our galaxy (and no really sophisticated ones located outside our solar system), so to claim that we understand how the macroscopic universe works (and how it started) based mostly on electromagnetic energy observations from thousands to billions of years ago is probably a bit naive. I keep going back to Neptune. When mankind can be wrong and doesn't have enough information, he probably is wrong. One other note. A very large portion of current theory on the microscopic universe is based on particle accelerator experiments. Unfortunately, that's like determining the function of a computer inside a car based on an automobile wreck. Look at the pieces, determine what's going on. Although there is probably much validity to it, there might also be some misleading information from it that scientists pretty much regard as fact today, just based on the type of experiment it is. It will be interesting to see how different those current theories might become if we ever come up with a way to generate particles smaller than protons, electrons, etc. in order to peer more closely without colliding subatomic particles. The nice thing about our current society is that science has made some deep strides in the last few centuries and the pace has been picking up significantly due to computers and advanced manufacturing techniques. But, don't be surprised if many of the concepts that scientists take for granted today (especially in the macroscopic and extremely small microscopic levels where our viewing windows are so limited and possibly distorted, not so much in the areas like chemistry) are drastically modified or even eliminated over the next few decades or so. I have no evidence for that, I just have mankind's track record. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Is Time Travel (going backwards) Possible?
Top