Submitted by [deleted] t3_zqsnbt in Futurology
[removed]
Comments
FLGamerDad t1_j0zn1bw wrote
that is super interesting actually, never thought of that.
DropsTheMic t1_j0znwia wrote
This is why some people say a time machine would also have to be a teleportation device. Consider the inverse of this, if you could calculate a precise coordinate of time to travel to you could also precisely coordinate a point in space to land in.
Subject_Meat5314 t1_j0zqy7s wrote
Pretty sure Bill and Ted figured this out. Will have to review that movie. again
i-void-warranties t1_j0zr5wd wrote
You mean documentary?
[deleted] OP t1_j0zry2b wrote
[removed]
Spookimaru t1_j0zr8yg wrote
I've argued this very same point many late drunken hours, but no one listens to me
stout365 t1_j0zouqg wrote
you'll probably enjoy this kurzgesagt
that out of the way, to address your original question, there's virtually no distinction between time and space, they are for all intents and purposes, the same thing. therefore, any sort of feasible time machine will also be a space machine, meaning the machine, to be functional, will need to be able to calculate both the when and where you'll end up traveling to (that is grossly over simplified).
thegabe87 t1_j0zq1wr wrote
If you fix the position issue you just invented long distance space travel IMO.
above_average_magic t1_j0zqy1c wrote
Ha yes!
However personally I think any two way time travel has to be "gate to gate." So if ever invented it would only work for periods of time which are forward in time, from the time of the invention/installation/go-live. Which would also be positional in a sense but wouldn't really be more broadly usable like you want to hack it
willtantan t1_j0zrph6 wrote
This is a good point, since spacetime is a thing. If you can travel time, you will definitely be able to travel space. The wormhole concept has to apply for spacetime together.
anxious1975 t1_j0zo4ad wrote
Plus the universe is moving too
IllustriousCookie890 t1_j0zqz9u wrote
Besides the expansion of space - all things moving apart from each other that are not bound by gravity.
Cetun t1_j0zrfmp wrote
Do we know the universe is moving? We don't even know how big it is
silhouetteofasunset t1_j0zs25t wrote
The theory is that it's always expanding at an increasing rate, I thought
Cetun t1_j0zx1lj wrote
The expanding doesn't necessarily mean moving, the distance between gravitationally unbound objects is increasing, but those objects aren't "moving" in the classical sense because at some point they will be "moving" faster than the speed of light, which is impossible. So I think within this discussion, If you were to build a time machine that would disappear at one time and reappear in the same coordinates, You wouldn't end up in a void your galaxy "moved" while you stayed stationary, your Galaxy stayed in the same "place" just the space between the galaxies increased in size. But from your galaxy's frame of reference the other galaxies that are not gravitationally bound are moving. Which movement in the universe depends on your frame of reference so conversely the other galaxies would see you moving away also. But you didn't "move" relative to those galaxies, though you may have moved relative to the surrounding galaxies that you are gravitationally bound to.
ingleacre t1_j0zse26 wrote
My smartass friend in school was annoyed by this when watching Back To The Future.
"88mph? Relative to what?"
slothsupervisor t1_j0zqyoc wrote
I’ve also read that “which supports your statement in an obtuse way” that if we created a Time Machine at some point in the future the issue would be that the same as if traveling in space you would need to have coordinates essentially and the coordinates of time and space would not be accurately defined until the point in time the machine was created. You could pinpoint the exact position of the destination based on the time machine’s position therefore could return to THAT moment in time but would not accurately be capable of returning to a time before the machine was created.
Therefore all time travel could only be coordinated to the point in time after the creation of the machine. It would essentially be a waypoint in which any future time travelers could come back to but traveling farther backwards would maybe not be impossible but it would be nearly if not completely impossible.
I guess another way of looking at it is if/when time travel is created in the ideology of a quantum universe where there is a future generation which already would have this technology they have not been able to return to times beforehand and “correct” timelines to suite their own needs.
Maybe I am talking absolute nonsense but it makes sense to me.
above_average_magic t1_j0zr4hx wrote
I literally posted a very similar reply to another redditor this very second, so which of us is the time traveler hmmm??
slothsupervisor t1_j0zw4xy wrote
I feel like I am far too poor to have that technology and not utilize for my own needs honestly.
monkeywright t1_j0zn2ye wrote
So you're saying the key factors to control are Time And Relative Dimensions In Space?
Brave_Gur7793 t1_j0zp7iw wrote
You really put the whole problem into a small box with a large inside.
daryl_cary t1_j0zraxc wrote
Would you describe this process as wibbly wobbly or timey wimey?
[deleted] OP t1_j0znf0k wrote
[removed]
[deleted] OP t1_j0zowzh wrote
[removed]
Few-Swordfish-780 t1_j0zmiod wrote
What if time isn’t real, it simply defines a state of all matter in the universe.
FLGamerDad t1_j0zmtzz wrote
hits blunt
Bruh....
NefariousNaz t1_j0znpmp wrote
Time travel to the future through relativistic speeds and time dilation is very real. Time travel to the past is likely impossible though.
BeardOfEarth t1_j0zpsxj wrote
By that measure then we’re all “time traveling” right now just by existing, which is obviously not what the phrase is referring to.
dannygloversghost t1_j0zrpwx wrote
I feel like I’m traveling to the past repeatedly by reading this thread and seeing the same conversation play out over and over.
BeardOfEarth t1_j0zudsh wrote
And the same complaint from people. Way to be the thing you’re whining about.
dannygloversghost t1_j0zuhi8 wrote
Haha it’s not that serious buddy, I just thought it was funny. Have a good one!
BeardOfEarth t1_j101gml wrote
I assure you that you never have to worry about people taking you seriously.
fizzbubbler t1_j0zr8dk wrote
i think of time traveling as traveling to a time and place where another version of me exists separately to my own self. time dilation lets you move into the future of your reality, but does not take you from one reality and place you in another.
GenericHam t1_j0zobn5 wrote
I worked with a physic PhD once. He said "Time is just how we measure change"
illuminatecho t1_j0zpaz7 wrote
Bingo. Time is something we perceive in order to define change. You cannot travel back in time because there is nothing to travel back to.
lordbruwin t1_j0zst3p wrote
I have always preferred “causality” but it is essentially the same.
illuminatecho t1_j0ztkbr wrote
Eh, you don't really need time to observe 2 different states. Time is most useful as a metric for rates of change.
lordbruwin t1_j0zu5rm wrote
>Eh, you don't really need time to observe 2 different states.
Not exactly sure what you mean by this.
>Time is most useful as a metric for rates of change.
I disagree. I think change is simply a less precise way to sum up causality. Things “change” over time because from t1 to t2 a force caused a change in state. The progression of time is “required” for forces to act on things.
illuminatecho t1_j0zwl5g wrote
I just mean that, when you apply a force to an object, you can know what the effect will be without applying the measurement of time. It's only with the metric of time that you can define the entire process of change.
You would know that heat + ice will work out to water. The application of time tells you at what point the ice will be 1/4 melted, 1/2 melted, entirely melted.
lordbruwin t1_j0zx80w wrote
I don’t think that differentiates those things like you think it does. That “critique,” in so far as it actually has any validity, applies to the two words equally. The problem with change is that locally things aren’t always changing.
illuminatecho t1_j0zy9i7 wrote
>The problem with change is that locally things aren't always changing
Until absolute zero is reached, change is constantly taking place
lordbruwin t1_j10kmwj wrote
>locally
No it isn’t.
illuminatecho t1_j10mjip wrote
Lol macroscopically?
lordbruwin t1_j10nqrg wrote
Lol what?
Look you are missing the point. Change is just a clumsy way to describe something because it depends too much on reference frames and is a less precise way to describe the fact that time is just the measure of causality. “Change” is the result of causality. When you just say “change” you are missing the fundamental driver of change which is the interaction of forces that cause things to change. The speed of causality (time) is affected by the frame of reference and forces themselves.
illuminatecho t1_j10ow9h wrote
Our disagreement was on your statement that "change" and "causality" are "essentially the same". Am I crazy or are you literally saying that they are entirely not the same?
>"Change" is the result of causality.
lordbruwin t1_j10q6ft wrote
I wouldn’t use the word “crazy” but I’d assert this is a reading comprehension issue on your end. They are “essentially” the same. They are not the same. I have explained why. Change is a less precise term.
illuminatecho t1_j10qvdw wrote
How can they be at all the same if one is the result of another. Lolol
lordbruwin t1_j10rkxd wrote
Lolol can you really not see how one can be an umbrella term that describes the effects from our pov while the other is the underlying mechanism? Come on buddy, stop pretending it’s that hard to parse.
illuminatecho t1_j10sd6f wrote
Change doesn't describe the effects though friend. "Change" is quite abstract. Neither answer of course explain how the result of an equation can be equivalent to one of it's factors.
lordbruwin t1_j10sp66 wrote
It does though friend. It describes the consequence of the laws of physics in action.
>"Change" is quite abstract.
That has literally been my point lmfao.
>Neither answer of course explain how the result of an equation can be equivalent to one of it's factors.
Nonsense.
olbettyboop t1_j10euhh wrote
Lol what the fuck is this take
lordbruwin t1_j10klcm wrote
Lol the correct one. Seriously you must not have much actual exposure to modern physics.
olbettyboop t1_j114sq4 wrote
lordbruwin t1_j1151e5 wrote
It’s adorable that you think this makes what I said incorrect.
In fact, please direct yourself to the subheadings about “the causal arrow of time”
olbettyboop t1_j12z5ft wrote
I’m not saying your pedantic causality argument is wrong. I’m saying your statement about “locally, things aren’t always changing”. Which is not true, and actually runs counter to your causality argument.
Things are in a constant state of flux. Please show and provide sources on how there is no change and please define what is “locally” in regards to there being no change.
Also, it’s interesting that you call it adorable. Weird thing to say.
lordbruwin t1_j12ze3b wrote
The irony of calling me pedantic after this bad faith interpretation of my point. You are not a serious person.
olbettyboop t1_j12zjw3 wrote
Nice sources, bum.
lordbruwin t1_j12zp4j wrote
Locally is a frame of reference. You need a source for basic physics you clown?
olbettyboop t1_j130v7p wrote
Yes, please provide a source on locally and what it means in the context you provided.
Also, again, please provide a source on your claim that things actually don’t change locally.
lordbruwin t1_j131l0n wrote
I’m not going to sit here and explain basic physics to you. Learn it or don’t, I don’t care. Some basic reading comprehension would help too. Just know that you are embarrassing yourself.
olbettyboop t1_j132mqr wrote
Got it. No sources or even any attempt to explain. Have a good rest of the year and take care.
lordbruwin t1_j148kb8 wrote
Lol. Yeah you caught me, I didn’t bother to link you to the frame of reference wiki page nor do I have any intention of teaching you basic physics.
[deleted] OP t1_j14nd8x wrote
[deleted]
DudesworthMannington t1_j0znwpb wrote
I think instant long distance communication isn't often considered and it's more realistic. Imagine if we could communicate with aliens a million light years away that possess a hypothetical super telescope that could view the surface of the Earth. They could send us a live feed of dinosaurs walking around.
IsoscelesCircle t1_j0zpci7 wrote
If my understanding is correct, with quantum entanglement it very well might be feasible. There have been a few experiments using quantum entanglement for instantaneous communication regardless of distance. Now the question would be how we go about quantum entangling particles that are physically nowhere near each other, such as light years away from each other.
Here is an interesting article on the subject:
https://newatlas.com/telecommunications/quantum-entanglement-atoms-distance-record/
riderxc t1_j0zt8s2 wrote
Let’s say we want to meet up at a coffee shop, or anywhere in the universe. You always need 4 “coordinates”. X, Y, Z and a Time. That’s why believe time is a real thing, not a man made concept as some suggest.
NefariousNaz t1_j0znl3w wrote
Time travel to the past is impossible. Time travel to the future is pretty easy by moving at relativistic speeds due to time dilation.
Regarding what you said, yes that's something that's often omitted in time travel stories, but sometimes they mention it too.
Frogmarsh t1_j0zoy6a wrote
We time travel at the rate of 1 sec per sec
Solid_College_9145 t1_j0zqgy6 wrote
>We time travel at the rate of 1 sec per sec
Right. We are all time traveling right now. We are just bored with the same old constant speed.
But there are some methods to change the constant speed that we time travel.
If you want to slow it down, get yourself in a car stuck in traffic. If you want to speed it up, oversleep when you have to get up and get ready for work.
captainstormy t1_j0zoflb wrote
> Time travel to the future is pretty easy by moving at relativistic speeds due to time dilation.
It's not really time travel. Time just moves slower for the person affected by heavy gravity or moving at the speed of light.
jumpmanzero t1_j0zqqe4 wrote
Sure... but I mean.. if you went to sleep and woke up in the year 4500, it would feel a lot like time travel, right?
captainstormy t1_j0zr09i wrote
It doesn't matter what it feels like. It isn't time travel. That's like saying you time travel 8 hours into the future when you go to sleep because you didn't perceive those 8 hours.
pab_guy t1_j0zsbq1 wrote
> That's like saying you time travel 8 hours into the future when you go to sleep because you didn't perceive those 8 hours.
Which is actually perfectly valid from a certain perspective. But I think your simile is not really accurate... in the case of time dilation your entire presence is not experiencing time at the same rate, which is simply one method of time travel. With sleeping the time travel is purely experiential.
jumpmanzero t1_j0zsspk wrote
We don't call it time travel because it's too familiar - but it is, in a way. We're all travelling through time, all the time. Or it least it feels like we are.
I mean, say I made a ship that produces WARP SCOOBY-DOO fields that distort the flow of time, and when I get in it, press a button, and get out, I'm in the year 4500.
But when I get there, some bald guy is like "oh, you weren't time travelling, you were just in STASIS for 2500 years". I'd dramatically tell him to "STEP OFF MY TIME BISTRO" - but how would I prove any sort of difference?
What is the real difference? That the ship was sitting there, with me looking frozen the whole time? Is that what counts? Would it make a difference if it was cloaked behind the scooby-doo rays?
What if I got in the ship and then got out in the past - would it matter then that the ship was sitting there with me frozen inside "during transit"?
Odh_utexas t1_j10o115 wrote
I’m with you. People are arguing semantics without ever defining the bounds of this conversation
takenbysubway t1_j0zrck0 wrote
That is time travel. Similar to using cryogenics, you’ve effectively skipped over x amount of time into the future.
captainstormy t1_j0zrp24 wrote
But you haven't skipped over it. It still happened and your body was there for the whole thing. Your consciousness simply wasn't able to perceive it.
takenbysubway t1_j0zs16g wrote
If I fall asleep and wake up in the year 3000 (something I never could reach in a normal lifespan), I would say that’s time travel. The end result is winding up in a time that is not naturally my own.
captainstormy t1_j0zse87 wrote
If you lay there for 978 years before waking it. It absolutely isn't time travel. It can appear that way to you. But it isn't. Your body simply laid there for 978 years.
takenbysubway t1_j0zspbr wrote
Agree to disagree, but Stephen Hawking used the term “time travel” to describe this very thing in Into the Universe.
ApexTheDestroyer t1_j0zrk23 wrote
You would appear to time travel to others looking on. NDT explained it well.
captainstormy t1_j0zsk82 wrote
Something appearing to be the case doesn't make it scientifically true. Magicians have made a living out of things appearing to be the case that aren't really true.
IllustriousCookie890 t1_j0zr6xd wrote
Something to consider: Richard Feynman proved and demonstrated that an action in the present can affect the past.
eltegs t1_j0zmrzi wrote
As a coder, I initially think it's just a problem to overcome.
In this scenario, the concept of space-time is ignored.
As is the possibility that time travel may require entering another dimension, where the problem is easier to solve.
3WordPosts t1_j0zmyiu wrote
I think this has to do with relativity and frames of reference.... you would be 67,000 miles away from what? It moves 67,000 miles per hour AROUND our sun. But keep in mind the sun is moving inside the milky way. And the milky way is moving in space relative to the other galaxies as well. In short, everything is in motion. Are we able to plot the entire universe into a X,Y,Z Axis?
Japhysiva t1_j0zneeu wrote
Yes, but getting to that spot is the hard part
alternative5 t1_j0zqglj wrote
Sounds like the Three Body Problem.
Logothetes t1_j0zrhar wrote
The local galaxy group appears to be moving at ~600 km/s relative to the CMB (Cosmic microwave background) rest frame.
mrGeaRbOx t1_j0zs6ll wrote
So you're saying there's no absolute reference frame?
pab_guy t1_j0zsi6l wrote
We cannot, because space and time are relative. There *is no* universal cartesian reference plane in any dimension.
ApocalypseSpokesman t1_j0znz0h wrote
While varying one's speed forwards in time is demonstrable, I think regressive time travel is absolutely impossible forever no matter what.
The past isn't a place you can go to. It doesn't exist and cannot be brought into existence by any combination of actions.
Subject_Meat5314 t1_j0zn08g wrote
Haha well it’s one more hurdle towards a likely impossible challenge. My bet is that it’s not the hardest one, so no I don’t think it’s plausible that we would solve all the other issues with time travel and forget to offset position. But I could be missing some of the complexity of the positioning problem.
However it makes for a good Evil Genii story where a guy wishes for a time machine and the genii gives him one but leaves this part out.
birthedbythebigbang t1_j0zoap4 wrote
This is another reason - perhaps not a classic paradox - that leads me to believe that time travel to the past is a practical impossibility not allowed by nature. It sets up too many causal loops that make no sense whatsoever. Travel to the future is definitely possible, and we're doing so right at this instant, every one of us, and some of us more efficiently than others. If we were ever to send people into the distant future, it would almost certainly require them traveling quite a long distance at relativistic/time dilating speeds for a long period of time (from their frame of reference - much, much longer from ours) before returning to the place they wanted to end up in the future, and then they're stuck there. They can't go back. Like Matthew McConaughey or the character from Queen's "'39," maybe they'll meet their elderly children, or their distant descendants.
MiseryEngine t1_j0zr4rd wrote
But what if time isn't strictly a line? But more like a flexible skein. Things change in the past and that pulls things in the present. Not a separate timeline per se to just puts you in a slightly different position in the stream.
Maybe that accounts for all the little "misremembered past" stuff we talk about, like the spelling of the Bear Family or that genie movie with Sinbad we all remember the trailer for, but no one has ever seen it.
birthedbythebigbang t1_j101rjr wrote
A world where you can go into the past and meet your younger self implies one of two things, both of them unlikely:
- Linear time is not only illusory, but all time exists simultaneously, and there is no free will whatsoever, and all things have all happened, and ones travel to the past to change it is also part of the original expression.
- The "many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics" is literally true, and there is an entirely new, complete universe hyperdimensionally branching off of every possible quantum state flux in all of existence, and this is the way the universe could accommodate timestream bifurcations like altering the past. You'd never ever be able to return to ones original timestream.
Doomgloomya t1_j0znae2 wrote
If somehow we perfected time travel you can bet space travel was developed a lot sooner. Space travel screams weapons of war and boy does humanity loves its toys.
FLGamerDad t1_j0znhvt wrote
very valid point, sir.
stlfwd t1_j0zoc3s wrote
Yes when I heard this fact, it muted all forms of time travel as I can conceive of it now. I don't think about unknown diseases or butterfly effects just the DeLorean floating out in Space with a blue frozen McFly in his life preserver, drowned in an endless sea with no water.
allmimsyburogrove t1_j0znnth wrote
No, because time is an illusion
Ok_Cartographer_6086 t1_j0zoqf3 wrote
Lunchtime doubly so.
adjustedlatitude t1_j0zp3a3 wrote
Lunchtime doubly so.
0xLenk t1_j0zossw wrote
I think that if we are advanced enough to figure out time travel, I think that we would be able to calculate the earths location in the universe at that exact point in time and send you back to that location. Because of the fact that space and time are intertwined if we can travel through time, I am sure we figure out how to travel through space.
FLGamerDad t1_j0zp41g wrote
yes, very valid point. My thinking was that earth most likely does not revolve at a constant 67,000mph, its always a little varying therefore it would be impossible to fully predict the earths point around the sun. that being said im probably 100% wrong on this lol its just a super interesting topic for me.
0xLenk t1_j0zpdap wrote
I don't necessarily think we need to predict it's location, if we are time traveling back in time, its location was already known as it has happened before. We need to learn how to track the earths location in space.
Also could be 100% wrong also, just my theory.
Droidatopia t1_j0zpcbk wrote
The assumption is that time travel to the past would return to the same absolute point in space. Since the mechanics of time travel are unknown, there is always the possibility that time travel could be anchored to a large nearby gravity source, like the Earth or the Sun.
Spu12nky t1_j0zptv2 wrote
If time travel isn't combined with space travel, you aren't going to like where you end up. I heard Neil Degrasse Tyson talk about this recently, and I am assuming you did as well.
FLGamerDad t1_j0zq02l wrote
for sure, don't wanna end up in Ohio :D
Dwredmass t1_j0zqrkp wrote
Time isn't real. There's only NOW. It's always NOW. Everything else is a thought (i.e., memory or projection).
[deleted] OP t1_j0zm29o wrote
[removed]
anxious1975 t1_j0zo04v wrote
I actually wanted to write a story about this. That time travel needs to take into account where the earth is. So you could travel back in time but you’ll be somewhere else in empty space
D-redditAvenger t1_j0zod36 wrote
Unless the universe operates under some other detention or operating system for lack of a better description and so time travel is interdimensional. There is a lot of talk that the universe is a simulation.
[deleted] OP t1_j0zopzs wrote
[removed]
[deleted] OP t1_j0zowk7 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] OP t1_j0zp41s wrote
[deleted]
AlphaShard t1_j0zp5sm wrote
Thats why Emmit Brown made his time machine into a car, then a flying car and finally a flying Train.
[deleted] OP t1_j0zp9zi wrote
[removed]
[deleted] OP t1_j0zpapm wrote
[removed]
HappyHighwayman t1_j0zpd8z wrote
You forget the entire solar system is moving. And the galaxy. Time machines would also have to be space machines.
Tiluo t1_j0zpf2n wrote
The galaxy is also moving fast through space, who knows where you'll end up but it would certainly be space.
MyDogAteMyUsernames t1_j0zpkb4 wrote
That would really depend on how time works, like is it like a dimension in space that we simply can't perceive and the passage of time is a force we don't know of acting on us or is it a separate force in and of itself,
Or in other words is it space-time or is it space and time,
If it was the former then your coordinates in space wouldn't matter... I think...
ledzepplinfan t1_j0zpqi2 wrote
Another reason, amongst many, that time travel is impossible is the conservation of mass. Nothing can truly be destroyed, only transferred to something else. By taking a person and their clothes or whatever to a different time, aren't you sort of "destroying" the mass? There will be an imbalance of mass in the universe.
Working-Bad-4613 t1_j0zpyuz wrote
unless there is a gravitational hold. Time & Space are linked.....they are essentially the same thing.
Tnuvu t1_j0zpzls wrote
to travel across time you travel you would need 3d coordonates + time stamp + acceleration speed buffering
lets put it like this....you're keanu reaves, you are in a bus and you want to jump on another car/bus, outside of pure location from point bus A and bus B you need to match also the acceleration else upon contact your inertia will do you harm
Ghozer t1_j0zq223 wrote
It depends if you travel in time only, or in space and time...
I believe that is an important distinction :)
MiseryEngine t1_j0zq5uo wrote
But Time and Space are inexorably linked, to reel back time is to reel back space, I'm not sure you can do one without the other.
Fun thought experiment tho.
kuurata t1_j0zqslz wrote
What if meteorites are the bodies of time travelers who materialize in empty space and eventually intersect with earths orbit.
originalbL1X t1_j0zr5b6 wrote
The galaxy is traveling at a high rate of speed, too so you would most likely arrive outside of a galaxy. Like galaxies would appear as stars.
It really depends on your mode of space travel, though. It could be tied to a device that has a fixed position on the planet…see the movie Primer.
[deleted] OP t1_j0zr7jf wrote
[removed]
outtyn1nja t1_j0zr89v wrote
You cannot move through time without moving through space, so this ought not be an issue.
anxious1975 t1_j0zy6px wrote
Curious given we are moving at very fast speed though not relative to earth how does that impact time dilation? The galaxy is moving very fast so is our solar system . How much slower is time moving on earth vs a point in a part of the universe where there is no matter?
12kdaysinthefire t1_j101xnu wrote
I think time travel to the past would be impossible given the grandfather paradox. If you’d traveled back in time you’d have to in essence create your own pocket dimension or a whole new timeline to exist in by doing so.
Then there’s the whole notion of all events in your timeline leading up to the point where you travel backward, so once you end up in the past, nothing would change because everything had to have happened to lead you to traveling backward to begin with.
If you cause a timeline to split by traveling backward so that one branch can accommodate you suddenly being there, what would happen to the doomed branch?
mars_urge t1_j108vjh wrote
Not a physicist, but I think time travel would be possible if we assume there are higher dimension other than the ones we experience. In that event, we could step into one of these and exit at some other point in space/time.
Unfortunately everything we do, and everything we know is limited to our 3-dimensional plane.
RandomLogicThough t1_j0zm5xv wrote
...so you think they could do time travel but not make an inter system craft? Or just do the math to go back when earth was in the same position?
FLGamerDad t1_j0zmc6d wrote
But is earth’s rotation constant 67,000mph? Even a slight variation of speed could have consequences
RandomLogicThough t1_j0zn2d3 wrote
Again...if they did time travel...I think they could figure it out. There's also ... experimentation.
Wonderful-Occasion46 t1_j0zojx6 wrote
I don't care what the final afternoon space that you need to realize that this is going to run the Sun in the solar system is going to run the Galaxy a universe may be moving there's no reason not think so so if I remember right the Earth is on it a thousand Miles location 67,000 mi around the sun and the Sun is moving like 2.1 million miles an hour and that's assuming that the universe is actually moving so you're talking about something like 2.5 million miles an hour at division versus moving it definitely has to be some way to locate back on the same planet cuz if time shower just works for you freaking time you're going to be way to hell who knows where
Infamous_Row_5677 t1_j0zoqpy wrote
You'd be moving with the speed of the earth. The same reason when you jump in a plane you don't smack the back of the plane.
HappyHighwayman t1_j0zpfho wrote
If you go back in time 60 years you’d be in the middle of space.
Infamous_Row_5677 t1_j108c4g wrote
By that logic if you went up in a hot air balloon you'd fall into space as the earth moves away from you. If you're going back in time, your position is going back in time along with the earths position and the position with the rest of the universe.
HappyHighwayman t1_j108lcm wrote
Not at all. You've heard of gravity? Also air is thinner as your go higher and hot air balloons have a max height of ~35,000 metres.
Everything on the earth is moving, not just the "planet" itself.
​
either way time travel is impossible , unless you have evidence to the contrary.
above_average_magic t1_j0zmti3 wrote
Earth rotates the sun at speed, but that doesn't mean you would be 67,000 miles away because it would be a radial distance traveled. The chord* line would be the distance away plus the total distance traveled by the solar system/galaxy in that time
But yes on top of that, the earth (and sun and solar system) have traveled through space-time for eons ... and going back in time but NOT space would mean you would be billions, trillions, uncountable miles from where the earth was when* e.g. ancient Rome, or dinosaurs existed.
It would have to be positional time travel