[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by HeartsOfFire

The concept of Time Travel used in Back to the Future revolved around the physical transplantation of an object (the DeLorean, in this case) and the object's occupants. By fuelling the flux capacitor, then bringing the DeLorean to the required speed of 88 miles per hour, it was capable of displacing itself from that exact point in time, and re-emerging in the same space at an entirely different time. A theoretical concept that, while fantastical, fails to take into account that the space from which they depart may in all likelihood be deep space in the space when they arrive. Where you are right this very moment is not where you were last week, or last month, due to the movement of the Earth through space. But that's besides the point.

Assuming this theory of Time Travel by Time Transplantation is true and possible, then it must exist right here, right now. Without time travel, we perceive time as a linear phenemonon that is constantly moving forward at a steady pace. Picture the Timeline, if you can, as a perfectly straight line on a piece of paper. Across this Timeline, you have intersecting ticks that mark points in history. But, if Time Travel by Time Transplantation were possible, the Timeline would be different. While it would maintain its forward, linear momentum, that would no longer have any bearing because if it is possible to jump backward or forward in time, then that constant, straight line can be manipulated. Previously intersecting ticks could be removed, replaced, or even added at the will of the Traveller, based on the events of the Earth happening at that moment in time.

If Time Travel by Time Transplantation were possible, we would have seen evidence of it. The notion that 'it's not possible because it hasn't been discovered yet' is not four-dimensional thinking. You cannot consider time travel as something yet to be invented because by its very nature, it either exists, or it does not. Time travel eliminates the concepts of 'past, present, and future.' If it were possible, we would have seen some evidence of it by now, evidence to show that it will some day be invented. And since no such evidence exists, it is not possible.

One could potentially argue that maybe some day it will be invented, but be under such strict control and guidelines as to prevent manipulation of past events to alter the future timeline, thus making travelling back in time impossible. I would counter that by saying man is an imperfect creature, and it is assured that sometime, somewhere, there will be someone nefarious enough that succeeds in getting past all that said security and successfully transplanting themselves into the past to alter the timeline in some manner.

Make sense?

Well that's not really debunking back to the future, it's just debunking time travel in general. I was really hoping for something back to the future specific.

That being said (and I can't believe I'm about to do this), you haven't debunked back to the future. The whole point of the movies is that changing things in the past crates a new timeline, meaning that no one knows that anything has been changed from the point of view of the time traveler, meaning evidence of the time traveler does not exist, or exaclty the opposite of what you're saying. How would I know if someone went back in time and changed it so that Napolean lost at Waterloo?

Besides, like the axiom goes "Absence of evidence, does not equate to evidence of absence".