I'm sorry, I meant in today's world.
Time travel.. if its possible why havent we seen it.
- Thread starter garyfl
- Start date
I'm sorry, I meant in today's world.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 5,263
- Location
- Middlesex
Also, by the time this is all possible (if it ever is) I'm sure we'll have fairly advanced forms of space travel. We can just time travel to an empty point in space (there is a lot of it) then fly to Earth. It's a non-issue in the grand scheme of things really.
Edit - This is referring to the relative point of the Earth.
Edit - This is referring to the relative point of the Earth.
Last edited:
This.
This thread is filled with theories from people who watch too much Sci-Fi.
It's not possible .full stop.
Anyone in here who is adamant all these theories are factual - how long do you think it will be before we invent some sort of ''time machine''....not too long surely...since physicists in this thread know so much about how it will be achieved.
Last edited:
Do we need to work out the motion of the earth relative to the entire universe? Surely we only need to work it out relative to the locality in which we're travelling? After all, things like the Cassini probe are sent into space at the right moment to account for where the planets they are going to slingshot around are going to be at some point in the future, without needing to adjust for the entire universe. Why would it be any different with time travel?
Pottsey said:
I'm still not convinced it's a problem at all. Surely all the same forces would continue to operate over the time that you're passing across. You just happen to be moving through time that much faster. The forces still apply to you while you're travelling.
Pottsey said:
You're inconsistent spelling is crazy talk. The movement of things relative to one another is indeed trivial. We work it out all the time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,116
actually, calculating the relative shift in the earth’s orbit and the universe may be a completely separate issue. not just the earth’s orbit to consider but the universe’s expansion, galaxy orbit / movement and earth’s orbit relative to the earth’s orbit and frame of reference for the point of travel. not to mention overcoming any other distortions or miss calculations.
Just because we can theoretically solve one part of the puzzle doesn’t automatically mean we can resolve the rest in the context of space and time travel.
It is one thing to observe a signal in the past, through faster than light travel, it is another to physically travel or communicate back to this exact point.
Just because you can't see the applications of theoretical physics doesn't mean they won't appear, it just takes a long time.
That's not what I said.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,116
How so?The article clearly shows how FTL travel would violate causality, as I said.
sorry but you are selling this like it is a done deal and proved as correct,
even the article doesn’t make such a supposition of proof. it is a visual demonstration of a theory not a proof.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 5,263
- Location
- Middlesex
The thing is, with FTL theory of time travel, it's not like you'd you be blinking out of existence then back in at another point in time (which it seems some of you are getting at). You're just travelling extremely quickly so are infact travelling relative to everything else (including the rotation of the universe). Surely?
Many a truth was said in jest. Or looked into the future.
Special relativity has been experimentally verified countless times. Under SR that article clearly explains how you can violate causality with FTL travel. What more do you want?
If you want a mathematical approach then pick up any undergrad text on special relativity, it will come to the same conclusion. It is the closest you can get to a proof in physics.
edit: I realise I said the word "proof" in my first post. I'm sorry if that led to some confusion, but words are not my strong point
. Needless to say I meant a proof within the postulates of SR.
Last edited:
Yes we need to work out the motion of the earth relative to the entire universe assuming if you time travel you end up in the same spot in the universe only at a different point in time. There is also the problem if what if the spot you time travel to doesn’t exist in that point in the past? How do you even get around that?
Sorry about my spelling it’s one of my weakest areas.
Let’s try it with speeds scaled down to make it easier to understand. Object b and C both moving at 50mph in a direct line away from each other. After 1 hour they are either 30miles from each other or 135miles form each other even though the distance travelled was 100miles. Or another way to put it, even if both objects moved at 0mph and stationary then at different points in time the distance between both would change. We have no way to message that distance that changed without speed and we have no way to message the distance that changed with speed. On the scale needed.
The problem is nothing like working out planets moving in our own solar system or two points on earth. Assuming time travel works out in relation to a point in the universe in that you time travel and don’t move around space but stay in the same spot. How do we work out how fast our galaxy is moving to work out where the galaxy will be at that point in the past?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,116
expansion does not equal rotation, but then could we meaningfully measure a rotation to prove or disprove when factoring any other movements and orbits by solar system, galaxy etc etc?.
assuming (in theory and this is a massive assumption) we can interact with the past, we would just have to start sending somthing / signals back / forward as tests over a slowly increasing time frame to measure any displacement and calibrate effects.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 5,263
- Location
- Middlesex
To further this. If you were to travel faster than the speed of light within the earth you would have to be in a closed loop within the planet (ie a train track, otherwise you'd be shot into space anyway) so again, the relative point of the Earth is irrelevant.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2003
- Posts
- 8,116
Special relativity has been experimentally verified countless times. Under SR that article clearly explains how you can violate causality with FTL travel. What more do you want?
If you want a mathematical approach then pick up any undergrad text on special relativity, it will come to the same conclusion. It is the closest you can get to a proof in physics.
sorry i am not disagreeing that the theory proves the theory, it clearly does, but it does only this. there is no absolute proof of actual occurrence. the way you posted was like it is a done deal, a matter of fact and not just a mathematically modelled theory
and in verified experrimentally, you mean simulated with a theoretical model. otherwise you are indicating this has been physically tested and we have actually achieved the outcome.
seen your edit - fair enough then
Last edited:
My question is more based around your underlying assumption than anything else. We are already moving with the earth, yes? And when we fire a rocket into space, it continues to move in the same direction as the earth because of it's movement relative to the earth. If we time travel, do we retain our motion relative to the earth? If not, why not?
And sorry for digging at your spelling - that was cheap.