Real problems with time travel

[Element115]

Which brings me back to my original post. To time travel you would have to, in part, remove yourself from all gravitational forces. By not doing that you'll be staying where the Earth is at that period of time. For instance the position of the Earth 100 years ago compared to it's current location. Works out to be around 2.8 trillion km over only a 100 year period. That's a big problem.

Time and space are the same thing, it's a fabric. Even walking to your refrigerator is traversing the fabric of space time and you are technically time travelling. Some would argue, that everything exists simultaneously in a multiverse and that time travelling is just creating yourself a reality in another multiverse. But not creation in the way that you'd plan it out to be.

 

[Einstein]

The Earth moves around the sun at about 30km per second. Our solar system moves around the galaxy at about 228,000km. The universe is in a state of expansion, at around 67km per second. With the universe expanding, our entire galaxy is moving too. Thus the position of the Earth is constantly changing.
If your going to actually believe that the Earth doesn't move in space. Then I have to ask. Do you believe the Earth is flat? I'm not trying to be rude. But, the Michelson Morley theory is flawed and it's conclusions are wrong.
The only argument that could be made to give time some substance, is that it's a byproduct of gravity. As I've already mentioned, time has no constant. If you lived on Mars then a day for you would be 39 minutes, 35 seconds longer than a day on Earth. From Mars though, a day on Earth ends 39 minutes, 35 seconds sooner.

I should have stated my view with more clarity. I see you have never come across the Michelson Morley experiment in your studies. It is not a theory. It is not flawed. And the conclusions are still proved today in physics classrooms across the nation with much higher precision than was available to Michelson and Morley when they first devised the experiment way back in 1887. Apparently they were looking for the existence of the luminiferous aether. A universal reference frame from which all motion could be measured against. The result of the experiment came back with a null result. So without that reference frame, all our beliefs about motion of bodies in space comes into question. Bodies in space apparently seem to move. But not by any laws of motion that we understand yet. So my stand on this is just to accept the facts produced by experiment. And not fall into the belief trap that so many of us are duped and brain washed into believing.

Michelson–Morley experiment

Now what about time? As you say time has no constant. Yet it appears to flow at a constant rate here on the earth. But experiment does show time ticks by faster with altitude. Beyond that there appears to be some organized censorship on what we are allowed to know.

 

[Kairos]

There exists no universal coordinate system as was implied by the OP.

If the past does indeed exist, and it is possible to travel there (or to some other timeline, given that the multiverse is just an unproved idea to escape the necessity of God).. then you would expect the gravitational constant to not actually be constant. Which is the case, actually.

Given that the gravitational constant does not remain fixed -- for whatever reason -- the idea that matter disappearing from the universe would have to affect everything else to such a catastrophic point is silly. We already have a changing gravitational constant for whatever reasons, so it's not like the same effect does not already happen all the time.

Just my guess. Granted, I have an engineering and theoretical computer science background, and my physics exposure was only as an undergrad, but still..

OP needs to read up on relativity. Then he needs to consider what I just wrote here about the gravitational constant.

 

[Rapture]

Then lets end this with some thoughts. Math is considered as an absolute and the backbone of scientific study. Is there a flaw in Math or is there a flaw in the perception of it. Many 'flawed' theories are considered as fact and taught in schools. One that I remember standing out to me more than most. That the root system of a single daisy is capable of supporting the weight of a fully grow elephant, balanced over a cliff. The equation is solid, it must be true. In reality though, you would kill every elephant on the planet trying to prove it. So there is obviously a problem, not with the math though, yet a problem still exist. It must be perception. Somewhere along the path an error has occurred.

As a very basic example. Theory A is correct, theory B that was based off A is correct, theory C which was based from A and B all checks out. Theory D was based off A and C is solid. Theory E that's based off A, B and D. E checks out in every way, but it can't be proven in reality. (you would kill every elephant on the planet trying) There's a flaw somewhere in A, B, C, D or E. But it is due to our perception, our lack of true understanding based on humans still being very primitive. (not to mention a much larger problem occurs with theory F - Z that now also have flaws)

 

[Kairos]

There's no flaw in the math. You have to learn tensor calculus and noneuclidian geometry in order to understand it, though. It's been proved numerous times, most famously by observation of starlight bending around the Sun during a total eclipse. I am a theoretical computer science guy, so don't expect me to explain it to you. I am sure Michio Kaku or somebody like that explains it for people who didn't learn math.

 

[Einstein]

Then lets end this with some thoughts. Math is considered as an absolute and the backbone of scientific study. Is there a flaw in Math or is there a flaw in the perception of it. Many 'flawed' theories are considered as fact and taught in schools. One that I remember standing out to me more than most. That the root system of a single daisy is capable of supporting the weight of a fully grow elephant, balanced over a cliff. The equation is solid, it must be true. In reality though, you would kill every elephant on the planet trying to prove it. So there is obviously a problem, not with the math though, yet a problem still exist. It must be perception. Somewhere along the path an error has occurred.

As a very basic example. Theory A is correct, theory B that was based off A is correct, theory C which was based from A and B all checks out. Theory D was based off A and C is solid. Theory E that's based off A, B and D. E checks out in every way, but it can't be proven in reality. (you would kill every elephant on the planet trying) There's a flaw somewhere in A, B, C, D or E. But it is due to our perception, our lack of true understanding based on humans still being very primitive. (not to mention a much larger problem occurs with theory F - Z that now also have flaws)

I have to disagree. Math is not absolute. It is a language. As is the case with any language, it can be used to lie. When I was in school we were taught that math was a universal language of the ages. As time moves on I have witnessed basic mathematical laws rewritten. Basic definitions redefined. Basic symbols given different meaning. The language of mathematics isn't the same language from 50 or 100 years ago. It looks like the language of mathematics has been effectively disabled. But why? Would we do something like that to ourselves? I don't know the answer. My pet theory is that we have been invaded, conquered, and occupied by an extraterrestrial race. They don't want us to become a problem. So as long as we remain stupid, we wont be a problem. By destroying the knowledge base we learn from, we will never be able to advance. But the problem with the theory is we don't see the ET's anywhere. As is the case with all theories, there appears to be a missing element that requires belief in order to be accepted.

 

[Einstein]

There's no flaw in the math. You have to learn tensor calculus and noneuclidian geometry in order to understand it, though. It's been proved numerous times, most famously by observation of starlight bending around the Sun during a total eclipse. I am a theoretical computer science guy, so don't expect me to explain it to you. I am sure Michio Kaku or somebody like that explains it for people who didn't learn math.

The math is flawed if it describes something that doesn't have any factual basis in our reality. Let's take equations for an example. In Algebra we learned that X can be equal to Y if a constant of proportionality is included in the equation. So X=(k)Y where k is the constant of proportionality is considered to be a basic blueprint for an equation. The only problem is that it is just math. In our real world things like that don't happen. Consider making an apple equal to an orange. You would need some conversion constant in order to make it happen. Maybe something like fairy dust. Now if you are a firm believer in fairy dust, then you might believe this is possible. But the rest of us will not.

There is a problem with the notion that our Sun's gravity can bend starlight. The problem is that there is an alternate fact based explanation. The Sun has an atmosphere that extends outwards by thousands of miles. The atmosphere is merely acting as a lens bending the light around from behind. We see the same light bending in our own atmosphere daily when either the Sun or the moon is on the horizon. The size of the Sun or the moon is greatly amplified due to atmospheric lensing.

 

[Kairos]

The math is flawed if it describes something that doesn't have any factual basis in our reality. Let's take equations for an example. In Algebra we learned that X can be equal to Y if a constant of proportionality is included in the equation. So X=(k)Y where k is the constant of proportionality is considered to be a basic blueprint for an equation. The only problem is that it is just math. In our real world things like that don't happen. Consider making an apple equal to an orange. You would need some conversion constant in order to make it happen. Maybe something like fairy dust. Now if you are a firm believer in fairy dust, then you might believe this is possible. But the rest of us will not.

There is a problem with the notion that our Sun's gravity can bend starlight. The problem is that there is an alternate fact based explanation. The Sun has an atmosphere that extends outwards by thousands of miles. The atmosphere is merely acting as a lens bending the light around from behind. We see the same light bending in our own atmosphere daily when either the Sun or the moon is on the horizon. The size of the Sun or the moon is greatly amplified due to atmospheric lensing.

You aren't describing a flaw in mathematics, but a deviation between a mathematical model and the reality it seeks to model. We have to simplify everything in a mathematical model, and we merely seek to model a specific phenomenon with accuracy within some define parameters. For instance, the equation for gravity in Newtonian mechanics works like a charm for pretty much everything we do here on Earth, but it breaks down at high accelerations and high gravitation due to the fact that the simplicity of the model ignores the curviture of spacetime and relativity. The math didn't fail. The model just doesn't work under those circumstances.

The process of science involves creating models that make falsifiable predictions. Those predictions become hypothesis in experiments. We test them over and over. Where the model's predictions fail, we seek to alter the model or come up with something new (i.e. classical mechanics replaced with general and special relativity).

For math to fail, you are talking about some situation where 2+2=5.

 

[Einstein]

You aren't describing a flaw in mathematics, but a deviation between a mathematical model and the reality it seeks to model. We have to simplify everything in a mathematical model, and we merely seek to model a specific phenomenon with accuracy within some define parameters. For instance, the equation for gravity in Newtonian mechanics works like a charm for pretty much everything we do here on Earth, but it breaks down at high accelerations and high gravitation due to the fact that the simplicity of the model ignores the curviture of spacetime and relativity. The math didn't fail. The model just doesn't work under those circumstances.

The process of science involves creating models that make falsifiable predictions. Those predictions become hypothesis in experiments. We test them over and over. Where the model's predictions fail, we seek to alter the model or come up with something new (i.e. classical mechanics replaced with general and special relativity).

For math to fail, you are talking about some situation where 2+2=5.

Here is an interesting math puzzle. It took me by surprise. But then seeing what math rules were violated made me realize Newton violated those same rules to create his theory of gravity.

 

[Kairos]

I don't see where Newton made an arithmetic mistake. Show your work.