WOW

I mean, this is so simple, try something harder! AND NOT MEANING OF LIFE, IT'S EVEN SIMPLER.

Since space is a point (only possibility for it to exist in non-existance), time is all existant, so the fact that he stole the machine invented it. The machine practically just... Became. It's how we're going to invent the time machine: someone will bring it to us from the future, as that's waht we'd do. Time travel is great as a way of historical research, useless for a weapon. I'm not wrong.

What's even better than thinking about an answer (for days and days and days) is reading OTHER peoples answers! I got as laugh out of a few. Since I'm not nearly smart enough to comprehend this, I say the chicken's egg did it.

The man who stole it invented it. Once he showed the invention to the world as his own the inventor had no reason to invent it in the futur because it was mass produced by the theif who claimed to be the inventor. so technically the theif stole his own invention.

I second the Xandegars. You did.

Some inventor in another dimension, that was spun off of this one due to the theft. Lee.

I FREAKIN' LOVE PARADOXES. AND DOCTOR WHO. but the second thing to talk about here is, what the machine does.

thats pretty cool dude!

I've already read a book about that by Stephen Hawking. It's called "The Universe in a Nutshell".

Traveling to the future is possible because time slows down the faster you go, so you can ride in a spacecraft going almost the speed of light and arrive 100 years later in five seconds. However, traveling to the past is not possible because it can create a paradox like yours, unless there is another dimension for all of the "what if?"s created from such paradoxes.

not to do with this, but you know how people say they could like go back in time and murder their grandpa and create another timeline, but I think if they went back they would not under any circumstances kill him, because in the past of where they are from, he has not been killed and thus they cannot kill him even if they try. o_0

weeeeelllll, if you wanna get technical, if time travel is posable, there would have to be another dimension a milli-nano second before and after us of what has and hasn't happened, continuing on to the beginning and end of time of time, but being already at the beginning and end of time, but time has no end, so, just travailing through time would alter the delicate fabric of time, sending a ripple of time change to the non-existant beginning and end of time, thereby destroying our world. In conclusion, I have 2 answers. 1. The machine would actually cease to exist after he claimed it his own because then, in the future when the guy invents it before it's stolen, he wouldn't invent it because its been invented already, but it would have ceased to exist so he would wind up inventing it, and 2. Had this really happened, we would all cease to exist. In conclusion of the conclusion, don't time travel. J out ~ peace.

A nice simple example of why time travel isn't possible! I think about time travel until my mind hurts sometimes.

Cool idea. I must say, for some reason, the time rip with the clocks is my favorite bit.

nice! i love to watch doctor who too.'till next time ~the t brick~

so if he stole the machine and said it was his, the guy who originally invented it didnt invent it. but when in the future he steals his own invention and makes it his own. so technically, hes the inventor of the machine.

Okay it is a little bit confusing, but me like it! :)

now that is an interesting moc. i was going to type out my idea but then i saw Gondabuggan Draconfell's post, and it's pretty much exactly what i was going to say.

i invented it... cool

noone, because the man stole the gadget when it was made by someone else, then ntroduced it as his own idea, therefor erasing the person who originally made it's name, making it his own, stealing it, erasing his own name, therefor making the inventor noone in a neat and tidy litttle paradox. wheew...

I'm quite fond of Matt Smith, but I'll always be a die-hard David Tennant fan. He just seemed so... insane.

And THAT, my friend, is why time travel is impossible. It's just another wild-eyed concept that illustrates man's desire to be more than what he truly is--a mere mortal. Great build.

Great build and Nice effect on the brocken shelf. Too bad Dr. Who isn't broadcasted in Germany for some reason, but I have the DVDs. Which doctor do you like best?

as the great Doctor would say, " there are some things in time that can be re-written, and I'm O.K. with that, but some events in time must be completed, and you must do that, or who knows what will happen to the timestream?" I think this quote spells it out clearly, I think that maybe the man from the 1800's is from the future, 20-whatever the date was, and took a time machine ( a blue one) back to the 1800's, where it broke, so he then "Invents" the time-machine, takes it back, gets rich with his own invention, and completely reverses the timestream, maybe this event had to happen, or everything would be messed up!

Interesting. After my theory, if time-travel would be possible, we're always living in the last possible timeline including all future interventions. Former events will be rewritten and so we never can remember them (except we're the travellers). In conclusion, the gadget was developed by someone in an original timeline, by the point of the robbery, the paradoxon starts and the real invention-story is cleared of history.

Don't be a smartaxe :)

Nice work Alex! Now you're speaking my language. The ontological paradox is just one of the 'issues' why time travel to the past is considered impossible by many scientists. There was a nice special on Discovery that discussed this a few months ago. Anyway, great build and smashing subject matter. Well done!

Oh yeah! we almost forgot...the Guy who invented it is Alex Eylar! (Duh)

We think Kelso's playing up that Superman Comic he's reading a bit too much! Of course, everything WE know about temporal mechanics we learned from Star Trek (so there, Mark :P)!

I'll take your question and give you another one."do you control your brain or does your brain control you" and cool moc, I love subjective realities. hehe big words.

I have stayed awake nights thinking about this, and I've come to the conclusion that the second someone manages to travel through time, it will shatter, and all reality will come to an end.

You would think an I-phone from 2150 would be a sleaker peace of tech, but that's trends for you!

Ooh...that is a paradox! Excellent buildung as well, especially the device.

Haha. Nice. I love things like this. The Time Paradox and all that stuff. Great work.

This is very interesting, nice work! I really like the 'time wall' that you built.

I think the question was rhetorical...~H

Assuming that you are assuming that time is not a river but a spherical ball of events that merely happen, with no object to their order; and that you can, as a matter of fact, travel through this ball of chronology; Doctor Who made the machine. (lol)

Circular reasoning works, 'Cause circular reasoning works!

That's technically a predestination paradox that creates a subjective time loop. Like travelling back and then finding out that you're your own great-grandfather. Assuming that such thing as time travel would be made possible at any moment in history, there could be several of these in effect at any given time, without ever affecting anything in history itself :) (oh, btw at all effects the inventor of the device would be that man and it would "always" have been that man)

Wow. Amazing Time Paradox, and build!

O_O

This is making my head hurt! Great idea, great build, and great presentation. God bless, Drew

I'm pretty sure it was John Connor...~H

Ya know Alex, I'm already reading a book right now on general and special relativity, quantum mechanics, and their potential unification through string theory...my brain just can't take much more of this!

Nice work on this one, with excellent presentation. Good day

Ha! It's obviously me who invented that thing. Who else could be so ingenious. - But seriously, this is a great presentation of an ontological paradox. Thanks for the source link :)