# Time Travel Revisited

## Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

This means the world line will return to its original position in space at the same instant in time.

Quite simply, isn't the phase position of an oscillator? Upon retraction, the particle returns to its original starting point to then retrace this line, and following the expansion?

This implies that there is a constant connection between the big bang singularity and the matter.

Ps: It is always an honor to be able to talk with an expert, which is not my case. Thanks everyone for that.

##### Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Upon retraction, the particle returns to its original starting point

It returns to the same starting point at a later instant in time. In a CTC, it would return to the starting point at the same instant in time wrt to a clock stationary there - so the situation is different from an ordinary oscillator.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

It returns to the same starting point at a later instant in time.

Yes. This time is identify for my part of the main time. This main time elapses in all cases, whether there is creation of an oscillation or not. I will explain myself later on this point.

5 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

In a CTC, it would return to the starting point at the same instant in time wrt to a clock stationary there - so the situation is different from an ordinary oscillator.

The main time includes the oscillation, if there is oscillation ; but the oscillation itself, with the particle, creates an intrinsic time son of main time.
Obviously it's a bit technical. I am not using the oscillation as a clock, but rather an increlmentation of the position of the particle which it creates an intrinsic time between each position.
From postion B to postion Bthere is an intrinsic time step, then we have the phase of oscillation which lasts, and the main time that elapses. To this is added the dilation.

Otherwise, if I'm wrong, there will be a transformation, not of Lorenz, but similar to explain it with CTC.

I estimate a minimum of one more year to be able to explain reasonably what I have started to tell.

I started with this:

##### Share on other sites

Again, this is not related to CTCs, and I fail to see how it relates to time travel.
It is an off topic hijack.
Start a new thread in Speculations.
And be prepared to support it.

##### Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Again, this is not related to CTCs, and I fail to see how it relates to time travel.

In fact we can't time travel.

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is an off topic hijack.
Start a new thread in Speculations.

I already made the request yesterday to a moderator for split it. It should come. Now I would know, I would open a new thread.

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

And be prepared to support it.

Yes.

##### Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I am not using the oscillation as a clock, but rather an increlmentation of the position of the particle which it creates an intrinsic time between each position.

Yes, obviously a clock comoving with the test particle will show a non-zero reading, even though the world line connects back to the same event in spacetime. This is why I said before that the world line would be of non-zero geometric length.

##### Share on other sites

• 1 month later...

However by this account, it means: that you can't change anything. You can travel back (paradox-free) but you can't change anything significantly! So depressing... So that kinda defeats point of time-travel, unless you could change something minuscule and chain of events would change something significantly. But according to this universe is self-correcting. Who knows: what else would happen (unintended/adverse events)...

Edited by empleat
##### Share on other sites

The equations that 'allow' time travel are self-consistent.
But the fact that the equations 'allow' it, doesn't mean that time travel is possible.
And certainly NOT that time travel can be self-consistent.

Besides, where would you get the 1.21 GigaWatts ...

×