It is impossible to travel into the past...

[SPAM-MAN]

Is what Blaze and Grumlen saying actually worth reading? I'm just asking this question because there posts are awfully long and I cant be bothered to read them. If someone could tell me they are worth reading I might change my mind and actually read them. I'm sorry for being so lazy but that sums up my generation for you.

[Il Palazzo Sama]

SPAM-MAN, get ot of this thread now. Don't post if you don't want to read the thread. It's heavy in science and there is a lot of bickering. So yes read it and try to wrap your head around it.

[Deacon]

Grummy yes. The other no.

Nobody's experiencing or seeng anyone else's past, AdmiralKnight. If you're the one at near-light-speed, you'll simply be zipping by everything else, and it'll seem to you like time has not changed, though anyone who was able to observe you for any length of time might see you moving like you were in slow motion. To everyone else, you're just seeing some dude zipping by.

[Grumlen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law - definition of a conservation law.
While energy perhaps doesn't hold under General Relativity, keep in mind that General Relativity has to do wtih gravity, not frame of reference. Since you aren't changing gravity, General Relativity doesn't apply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy - conservation of energy
It's worth noting that technically, the law of conservation states that the total energy inflow must equal the outflow plus the change in energy of the system. It is stated as such to also cover cases of non-isolated systems. Obviously, in an isolated system, there can be no outflow or inflow of energy, and thus the total change in energy of the system would also have to equal zero due to the definition of a conservation law.

Edit: Yeah, SPAM-MAN, go away. If you're going to ask whether you shoudl read other people's posts or not, then you don't belong in the thread to begin with.

[Blaze]

Ok, it looks like that may very well apply to it in time, then, so if that's true, then yes, it would violate conservation of energy. So, just another reason why it's impossible.

I mean, as I said, I was acknowledging impossibility from the beginning. After all, if nothing else, to accelerate all of the mass in the universe for all time, you'd need to be able to manipulate mass and energy in the past in the first place. (I.E. you couldn't use this to travel into the past unless you could travel, or at least make changes, to the past anyway.) I'm suprised nobody picked up on that one.

But Barring the obvious logisitics issues, you may have found something in actual scientific laws that precludes this from working.

See, I'm not an immobile wall. I just don't like it when people assume I haven't thought through what I propose. As such, I defend it pretty hard.

[Grumlen]

Well, I didn't bring up the matter of managing to affect the past after I'd thought of it because you'd already pretty well said that we weren't going to care about paradox. That and saying you can only travel into the past if you can travel into the past is extremely circular logic, and thus proving or disproving that statement is pointless unless it can be proven that you can't travel into the past in the first place.

The reason I felt like I was arguing with a wall is that I've used the Conservation of Energy arguement for a while now and it took you several posts to even acknowledge it, much less accept it. The first time you noticed it was when I listed the assumptions that had to be made for your theory to be true.

[Blaze]

Oh no, I'd seen it. I just wasn't sure how to address it because I couldn't see how it even applied. I was focusing on it in a totally different way from how you meant it, it seems.