Question

HDRKID

Senior Member
Messages
2,582
Question for you. Why is it that when people do physical time travel they do not materialize in outer space. After all, the earth is moving.

aeb45fe42109574bf66d5cda2f98cab72068d018.jpg
 

samzeman

Junior Member
Messages
87
There is no absolute universal frame of reference - The entire solar system is moving relative to the galactic centre. The galaxy is moving relative to any other galaxy you choose. There is nowhere that is the "centre" of the universe, because the outer "edge" is expanding at the speed of light, and that means we see the universe as if we were at the centre.

So every time we measure speed we measure it relative to another object. Cars go at 60mph (for example) relative to the ground underneath, Earth moves at about 107K km/h relative to the sun, give or take. The sun itself and all the stuff it drags with it (us) moves at 270km/s or 720K km/h.

Space and time are also linked - the faster you travel relative to another object, the greater the time difference between them. Something travelling at the speed of light relative to us experiences time much slower than us (something experiencing a lot of gravity also experiences slower time). So your movement through space is related to your movement through time. The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time. It's weird and hard to think about.

But what I'm saying is that the Earth is only moving when you include other objects in space. It's the same with a car. If you are driving at 60mph but there is nothing outside to measure your speed against you have no idea how fast you are going. This is your frame of reference - the object that you say is "still" is what you base your measurement of your speed on. Cars use a frame of reference based on the Earth. Most astrophysics uses the sun and the solar system as a frame of reference. The speed of galaxies and space objects is measured based on the speed of it relative to the sun.

This changes if you include rotation. Even if you have an Earth-based frame of reference, it's still spinning under you. But to time travel reasonably and even measure any speed you have to not include that, so you use a rotational frame of reference, accounting for the Earth's spin.

I guess what I'm saying is that any time machine, to even function at all, would have to include settings for spatial coordinates. The current system we use is based on the Earth (Ascension and Declination if you are travelling off Earth and lat/long if you aren't). There is no reason why the time machine would use the sun as a reference point instead of the Earth, and theories currently suggest there is no centre of the universe. So it would use relative coordinates, which means it would account for rotation and movement through outer space by simply ignoring them, AKA building them into the model for coordinates that it uses.
 

HDRKID

Senior Member
Messages
2,582
I am convinced that Elon Musk is right and our reality is a computer simulation like a video game. Basically, to teleport somewhere you change your location code in space. To time travel you change your location code in time and that process would not work if REALITY was real, whatever that is.

golden_statue_man.jpg
 

TimeFlipper

Senior Member
Messages
13,705
Question for you. Why is it that when people do physical time travel they do not materialize in outer space. After all, the earth is moving.

aeb45fe42109574bf66d5cda2f98cab72068d018.jpg

You make the supposition that Time-Travel is a fact, i have yet to see 100% solid proof that Time-Travelling is indeed a fact...
 

SubZero1324

New Member
Messages
2
Question for you. Why is it that when people do physical time travel they do not materialize in outer space. After all, the earth is moving.

You would probably end up in space unless Earth is a stationary plane with the sun moon and stars moving around us and Space is fake and we have all been lied to.

I'm not saying this is true or that I think this way but anything is possible right? lol
 

dimension-1hacker

Active Member
Messages
834
What if it isn't though?
an invisible, dragon; you say to the other person your talking too; its in my garage you say. The garage is empty the other person says, and you reply the dragon is invisible but there. The other person says, why can't I hear the dragon moving around after all I explored every inch of the garage with a broom. You say, nothing can touch the dragon but it is still there. There is no proof the dragon exists but nothing rules out its existance either because you are not omnipotent, you can't rule the possibility out therefore it is possible; like god.
 

Kairos

Senior Member
Messages
1,103
My academics in theoretical computer science lead me to very strongly discount the proposition that we live in a simulation within a larger universe. I could write out some decent arguments as to why, by the physicist David Deutsch makes a fairly good case for the average person with no computer science background to understand that is better than I would be able to do. Read Fabric of Reality.

I am not saying it is impossible, but the physical laws and phenomena of the real universe would bleed through and I am pretty sure we'd have noticed it by now.

That said, there are plenty of people in computer science who would disagree with me on this as well, so it's not cut and dry. It's just not that trivial to make such a claim as if it were self-evident or even likely. Most physicists who take positions like this don't understand computer science and don't really understand the problem either because they assume (wrongly) that they are the most fundamental science.

Personally, I think the universe actually does work much like a computer does, but it's not a simulation running inside of a more real (and obviously exponentially bigger) universe.

And for those of you who understand what I am saying, I think P=NP because the universe solves that problem in less than linear time. Hell, it solves the n-body problem instantly. It's a weird mental shift when you see it. If you can reduce an np-complete problem to a physical experiment (like a network of balls falling down inclines with collisions and whatnot causing only one solution in one of the final states of the experiment), then you can solve all np-complete problems in polynomial time (not including experimental setup).
 
Last edited:

dimension-1hacker

Active Member
Messages
834
My academics in theoretical computer science lead me to very strongly discount the proposition that we live in a simulation within a larger universe. I could write out some decent arguments as to why, by the physicist David Deutsch makes a fairly good case for the average person with no computer science background to understand that is better than I would be able to do. Read Fabric of Reality.

I am not saying it is impossible, but the physical laws and phenomena of the real universe would bleed through and I am pretty sure we'd have noticed it by now.

That said, there are plenty of people in computer science who would disagree with me on this as well, so it's not cut and dry. It's just not that trivial to make such a claim as if it were self-evident or even likely. Most physicists who take positions like this don't understand computer science and don't really understand the problem either because they assume (wrongly) that they are the most fundamental science.

Personally, I think the universe actually does work much like a computer does, but it's not a simulation running inside of a more real (and obviously exponentially bigger) universe.

And for those of you who understand what I am saying, I think P=NP because the universe solves that problem in less than linear time. Hell, it solves the n-body problem instantly. It's a weird mental shift when you see it. If you can reduce an np-complete problem to a physical experiment (like a network of balls falling down inclines with collisions and whatnot causing only one solution in one of the final states of the experiment), then you can solve all np-complete problems in polynomial time (not including experimental setup).
you don't need allot of computer power to simulate something in an exponentially bigger universe, and the simulation can use exponentially less computer power by simulating something over a longer length of time you wouldn't know the diference. You use your senses to perceive something externally but because you don't know weather the simulations laws of physically are close to the same as the "real universe" then you can never be certain. You cannot rule anything out or determine which possibility is more likely to be true therefor the odds that you are perceiving the outside universe not in someway different then you percieve it to be is one over infinite because that is one out of an infinite amount of possibilities of ways your senses could be manipulated in that moment. Thats what I define a simulation is.

also, what does p=np mean and what is non and polynomial space?
similar two this? two neurons interacting are just two neurons interacting and byitself doesn't create consciousness like balls colliding does not produce percievable data that the objects interacted. cause and effect by definition are two things interacting to create an effect by definition is incorrect.

please correct anything in this statement that you percieve to be logically incorrect. I am open minded
 
Last edited:

Top