Let's talk honest time travel

[AstroAsperation]

Quote

 

Imagine floating on the surface of a very, seemingly infinitly, deep and wide ocean. There are currents in this ocean, but the surface of the water seems to be completely still.The sky is always blue with no clouds, yet you never see the sun. You never feel a breeze nor gust, even when you are propelling yourself forward. Every now and then you see boats and other objects leisurely, drifting past, but nothing seems to leave a wake. Would you know you are moving? Now what if the surface wasn't the ocean but time, and your movement is your movement through time? What if you had a way to anchor?

Quote

If Special Relativity can be used to support the theory of traveling forward in time due to speed. Couldn't the axioms be applied, and therefore, theoretically, you could have time move past you?

This hypothesis is based on a few ideas:

1) Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity expresses how observation of time is different relative to one's speed in space-time.

 2) Hubble's Law states that the universe is expanding (or collapsing).

3) Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity shows how motion is relative to the observers.

4) Is kinda obvious with the rest of this but I would like to keep my findings of #4 to myself till I can mathematically prove it.

So, this a good start into my idea. I have been hard pressed to find someone to talk to about this and it's driving me crazy. I can't imagine what the true geniuses go through; not being able to have anyone to actually express ideas to.

Edited September 28, 2018 by AstroAsperation

[Ghideon]

Hi!

I'm trying to understand the idea to add some thoughts. Unfortunately the first quote seems empty. Was that intended? I'll comment on point 1-3 once I know I have all info.

5 hours ago, AstroAsperation said:

4) Is kinda obvious with the rest of this but I would like to keep my findings of #4 to myself till I can mathematically prove it.

Ok, but it is tricky to comment or discuss the idea if you keep it for your self

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Ghideon
grammar

[Markus Hanke]

5 hours ago, AstroAsperation said:

1) Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity expresses how observation of time is different relative to one's speed in space-time.

What SR says is that all observers agree on the separation between events in Minkowski spacetime. That physically means that all inertial observers experience the same laws of physics, which implies that such observers must be related via Lorentz transformations, and hence that measurements of space and time are observer-dependent, and not absolute. There is no absolute “past”, “future”, or “present” - there are only light cones associated with events, and their relative orientation in spacetime. This makes a concept such as “time travel” pretty much meaningless in this context.

[Eise]

I've discussed this already with physicists of the 23^th century. They said it is nonsense.

And I like your self referential statement:

5 hours ago, AstroAsperation said:

4) Is kinda obvious with the rest of this but I would like to keep my findings of #4 to myself till I can mathematically prove it.

Sure you are not working on another proof of Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

[swansont]

10 hours ago, AstroAsperation said:

 4) Is kinda obvious with the rest of this but I would like to keep my findings of #4 to myself till I can mathematically prove it.

!

Moderator Note

This is the kind of thing that is required in order to have a discussion of your hypothesis.

 

[studiot]

10 hours ago, AstroAsperation said:

Now what if the surface wasn't the ocean but time, and your movement is your movement through time?

 

10 hours ago, AstroAsperation said:

till I can mathematically prove it.

 

Mathematically a surface has at least two dimensions.

Time only has one. Which is part of one important reason you cannot travel in time.

Where are you starting your Maths from?

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by studiot

[Strange]

10 hours ago, AstroAsperation said:

2) Hubble's Law states that the universe is expanding (or collapsing).

Note that this cannot be easily combined with your other starting points. The recessional speed of distant galaxies cannot be described in terms of relative speed and SR. For example we can see galaxies receding at more than the speed of light. 

11 hours ago, AstroAsperation said:

I can't imagine what the true geniuses go through; not being able to have anyone to actually express ideas to.

That's the thing. Scientists (whether they are geniuses or not) don't work in isolation. They constantly discuss their ideas with others. This helps them to test ideas: eliminate the ones that don't work, refine the ones that might, etc.

Katie Mack on the "lone genius" idea:

Quote

 there are times when I sit alone in my office and scribble equations. There are times when I sit outside and stare and think. But, to be honest, those times are usually not especially productive. When I really make progress, when I really have breakthroughs -- those are always times when I'm talking to other physicists and astronomers, chewing through new ideas and checking that I'm on the right track. And even more often, the most important work we do is what grows organically from our conversations or e-mails or paper perusals.

http://www.astrokatie.com/blog/2013/06/the-lone-genius-hypothesis.html

"Actually doing physics"

[Carrock]

14 hours ago, AstroAsperation said:

I can't imagine what the true geniuses go through; not being able to have anyone to actually express ideas to.

Not being a true genius and having someone to actually express ideas to isn't always great either.... (Thanks to Strange for finding the site.)

[László Hajós]

On 28/09/2018 at 12:49 PM, studiot said:

Mathematically a surface has at least two dimensions.

Time only has one. Which is part of one important reason you cannot travel in time.

Well, theoretcally you can "travel" in time. But this time "travel" is only a time difference between A and B, not really a "travel". A is the "time traveller" B is the surroundings, or the world A is in. If A travels close to the speed of light, than time for A will go slower ( altough for him it would be normal) and for B time would go faster. When A would stop than he would see that in B more time went by than for him, or in other words A would think that he traveld to the future. 

And then if A would jump into a black hole, (and he would survive and be able to come out later ) and 50 years later when he would come out of the black hole, B would be almost unchanged, only a few miliseconds older.

So theoretically you could travel to the future, but you can never go back to the past again

Edited October 1, 2018 by László Hajós

[studiot]

54 minutes ago, László Hajós said:

Well, theoretcally you can "travel" in time. But this time "travel" is only a time difference between A and B, not really a "travel". A is the "time traveller" B is the surroundings, or the world A is in. If A travels close to the speed of light, than time for A will go slower ( altough for him it would be normal) and for B time would go faster. When A would stop than he would see that in B more time went by than for him, or in other words A would think that he traveld to the future. 

And then if A would jump into a black hole, (and he would survive and be able to come out later ) and 50 years later when he would come out of the black hole, B would be almost unchanged, only a few miliseconds older.

So theoretically you could travel to the future, but you can never go back to the past again

 

All of which rather reinforces my point that in order to have time travel you have to have (at least) two separate measures of 'time' going on.