Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Go back in time thanks to space

  1. #1 Go back in time thanks to space 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    13
    Ok, so I know that this forum has many astronomy pros (specially Dishmaster), and since I had this idea yesterday, I wanted to post it here to hear how you people say it's bull***t. But before saying it, please read it and tell me what is wrong. Disclaimer: "it is just a theory a have!!! doesn't mean I await this to be true."



    OK, so yesterday I was watching the univrese in the history channel (yes, once again), and they were talking about the space-time "net" (how I like to call it) in space. They said that Einstein said that space and time had the same essence, and had to be taken into account as 1 thing. Because for every space you need a time, and for every time, you need a space.

    So I thought: well, if I want to go back in time (just go on with me), I would also need to go back in space; and if I go back in space, I would go back in time. You see, what some people don't know is that galaxies don't just move "spirally", but also along space. In fact, our's will collide with Andromedas in the far away future.
    Our planets orbit around the sun, but we also move with our galaxy towards a direction (let's call it forward, although in space, there is no forward or backwards).

    If you could (and I know you can't) drop a stationary satellite that wouldn't move and wouldn't be affected by any planet's gravity today; in a year, you wouldn't even see it anymore, because we moved away from it.

    So the question is: If you could manage a way to go back in space, say where the earth was standing in the space-time continuum fabric a year ago, would you be able to go back in time?

    I know it's probably a stupid theory, but please answer.
    thx


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Go back in time thanks to space 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by onerock
    So the question is: If you could manage a way to go back in space, say where the earth was standing in the space-time continuum fabric a year ago, would you be able to go back in time?

    I know it's probably a stupid theory, but please answer.
    thx
    Time is considered to be another "dimension" in the calculations of spacetime. Therefore, your idea is comparably silly like saying that in order to go up, you would also have to go to the left. It is not all that easy. The only quantities that affect time are speed and mass, i.e. gravity.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 just another note 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    207
    just another note how to you plan to work out how to go BACK in space. As far as we know there is a past and future but in space there is a forwards and a backwards but also left,right,up,down
    just wondering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    13
    As far as we know there is a past and future but in space there is a forwards and a backwards but also left,right,up,down
    well, I thought that "back" in space ment the places where the earth has already been, since as I said, our galaxy moves in a direction (call it forward, left, right, it doesn't matter), and the earth will never be in the place it was a year ago. And since for every place, there is a time, I thought that if we moved back to place (don't ask me how), we could move back in time as well...

    And although people have said that the idea was wrong, I kind of like couldn't let it go, since somehow it seemed so easy and simple at the time... It even made sense, since the space-time continuum (or "net") is made out of space, and time; and for each SPACE, there has to be a TIME.

    well, anyways, I tried :)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    171
    Each space has a time, true, but all space has the same time. If you went back to the spot, the place in space, the Earth was one year ago today, there would simply be nothing there. Because the continues forward. The universe is 13.7 billion years old everywhere. There are not parts of the universe that are younger because they are in a different place in spacetime.

    The only way to travel back in time, is to travel back in time. Space and time are still interlinked in that once you travel back in time, you will be at a place (space) in that time.

    Even with an expanding universe everything is the same age. They say to think of it as a balloon, when you blow up a balloon you are not creating more balloon matter, simply expanding what is there.
    Always minimize the variables.

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by onerock
    well, I thought that "back" in space ment the places where the earth has already been, since as I said, our galaxy moves in a direction (call it forward, left, right, it doesn't matter), and the earth will never be in the place it was a year ago. And since for every place, there is a time, I thought that if we moved back to place (don't ask me how), we could move back in time as well...
    There is an easy way to test your idea: Return to a point where YOU have been before and see, if you can go back in time as well. I don't see why it should be the Earth that is the key reference for this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Go back in time thanks to space 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by onerock
    Ok, so I know that this forum has many astronomy pros (specially Dishmaster), and since I had this idea yesterday, I wanted to post it here to hear how you people say it's bull***t. But before saying it, please read it and tell me what is wrong. Disclaimer: "it is just a theory a have!!! doesn't mean I await this to be true."

    There is nothing wrong with new ideas. Most need some change or improvement so CIVIL input on a forum can be a big help.

    The term spacetime comes from mathematicians. They use time as part of their calculations on space. Trouble is that they have transferred it to the real world where people think time is a real dimension so you need a TARDIS to get to the Moon because you are travelling through spacetime instead of just space.

    Looking up in the night sky, we are looking back in time but that is only because the speed of light is so slow over such distances and light you see took a long time to reach us.

    As to time travel, it would essentially require that all eternity existed NOW so you could travel to any time in the past or future. If nanosecond destinations were possible, that would require a billion whole universes for every single second that the universe has existed or will exist and you would essentially travel from this one through a billion universes just to travel each single second in time, and lots more to travel a billion years in time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Crazy idea here????? 
    Forum Freshman ASTROPHYSICIST137's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    U.K
    Posts
    39
    I have looked over ur theory and i was just thinking if u like moved forward then back (lets just say ur theory was true, which would cause chaos in the universe because of time paradoxes), the atoms of which u are made of would have to go back in the very same places, in fact i think that all the matter in the universe would have to go back, or it would just be as if only u have moved. catch my drift?
    P.S, i dont know, one of my crazy ideas....
    K.T.B
    Men speak of killing time and yet, time secretly kills them....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    Does anyone else feel that time is simply a measurement of light? Meaning, if one was to exceed light speed - while speculators point to time travel, wouldn't one just be traveling faster than the image (reflected light) of matter, having NO effect on the matter itself; thus, giving the illusion of time travel

    I dunno ... maybe it's just me, but I've never accepted time travel as plausible ::: time-travel = bah humbug ::: though I do believe faster-than-light travel is very much possible.

    - mudbug
    - mudbug | 6nqpnw -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    Does anyone else feel that time is simply a measurement of light? Meaning, if one was to exceed light speed - while speculators point to time travel, wouldn't one just be traveling faster than the image (reflected light) of matter, having NO effect on the matter itself; thus, giving the illusion of time travel

    I dunno ... maybe it's just me, but I've never accepted time travel as plausible ::: time-travel = bah humbug ::: though I do believe faster-than-light travel is very much possible.

    - mudbug
    As you learn more about science and the scientific method you will come to appreciate that what we feel should be true, what we find difficult to believe and what we are happy to accept have no place within science. Theories or not the same as speculation. Scientists do not dream up crazy ideas out of a vacuum. Observation is the starting point. To be carried forward speculations, hypotheses and theories must be consistent with observation. It doesn't matter what you think, believe, or are willing to accept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    Does anyone else feel that time is simply a measurement of light? Meaning, if one was to exceed light speed - while speculators point to time travel, wouldn't one just be traveling faster than the image (reflected light) of matter, having NO effect on the matter itself; thus, giving the illusion of time travel
    No, it is not that easy. You can really measure the effects of time dilation - independent of anything that would be related to an image of the object. The canonical example are the muons that are produced in the higher levels of the atmosphere as the earth is irradiated by cosmic particles and reach the ground before they decay. Judging from their half-life measured in the lab, where they are resting, that should not happen. But as they fly with high speeds close the speed of light, the reference frame of the scientist that measures the decay time and the one of the muon have different times, i.e. the time appears to run more slowly for the muon. However, if the scientist would be able to travel along with the muon, he would measure a much shorter decay time - the same as in the lab. Instead, he would measure a much shorter flight path (length contraction). The universe is weird. Live with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,840
    There have been numerous attempts to find a way to travel back in time. This is much like the many attempts to travel faster than light. To the best of my knowledge, every such idea is either unproved and currently untestable, or has already been falsified.

    Two common such suggestions are to travel through the centre of a galaxy sized rotating black hole. Such black holes may even be quite common, if we look at the galactic cluster scale of things. However, we cannot access any such object yet. The other common suggestion is to travel through a wormhole. So far, it appears that the only kind of wormhole able to exist has a diameter less than a proton. So getting anything through it would be impossible.

    The other difficulty with the idea of travel backwards in time is the grandfather paradox. If you go back in time, how do you avoid making changes that alter the future? The best answer to this one I have met is the idea that, if someone or something goes back in time, the event causes a separate universe to 'peel off' from the first. So if you go back in time, and do whatever you wanted to do, you would return along a different time line and find you were now in a different universe. However, the original time line and universe would still exist, 'somewhere else'.

    This is, of course, probably all total crap, and represents just pointless speculation. Fun though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    ::: @Ofio :::
    Well, with that attitude... See if I open up to you anymore XP

    I understand and respect the aforementioned methods; I just wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket, so to speak. Intuition, imagination, dreaming stuff up from thin air, are all equally important in the advancement of science. Whether you reject that reality or substitute your own, you're wrong [period!]

    There's more I'd like to share, but out of respect for your refusal to use both sides of your brain concurrently, I'll move on.

    ::: @Dishmeister :::
    So velocity affects time ... mind-boggling. Researching 'muon' and time dilation

    ...brb...

    that's nuts...higher velocity slows electron orbits, thus slowing matter decay, hense 'slowing time.' This is heavy stuff. So as light speed is approached with a runaway accelerating 'expansion' model, matter decay will gradually slow and eventually ... become ageless? vaporize into photons?

    I'm thinking / feeling / speculating / fantasizing / suggesting that maybe the motion of velocity leeches gyroscopic motion. What happens to an atomic nucleus when an electron loses its spin?

    Gonna check out that 'length contraction' stuff tonight ... [tail wagging]

    ::: @skeptic :::
    U'd better watch out with all that speculimating to derive emotional enjoyment b4 Opie scientificalationally slaps you.

    - mudbug
    - mudbug | 6nqpnw -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7
    Time is the fourth dimension.

    You know how flipbooks work? Every page of those is like a second (or a few seconds, depending how much time you put into your flipbook) in a two dimensional universe. Likewise, our three dimensional universe has a fourth dimension which all moments are part of. You'd have to move four dimensionally (ana or kata).

    The theory of black holes moving us back in time has something to do with how their immense gravity litterally bends the ana and kata of our universe like a string, putting the future into the past. The whole idea of moving faster than the speed of light is based on the idea that things moving faster experience time at a different rate, and that if enough speed was reached than the object would litterally go back in time. In my opinion, the calculations for the rate of time:speed should involve division, not subtraction, and therefore negative numbers (and by extension, moving back in time) would be impossible.

    Or maybe I have an incorrect perception of this all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman 6nqpnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by ParadoxJuice
    ...the calculations for the rate of time:speed should involve division, not subtraction, and therefore negative numbers (and by extension, moving back in time) would be impossible.
    [mudbug gives this two enthusiastic thumbs up]

    What d'ya think about this fellow new guy: @ the event horizon, is the photon (light) path reversed or is the photon spin reversed?

    Like you, I share the opinion that if matter were to reach light speed, it would completely fall apart, making it impossible to travel its inverse (time travel): complementing your view of division until zero point (annihilation).

    Damn this stuff is exciting!!

    - mudbug
    - mudbug | 6nqpnw -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,245
    So the question is: If you could manage a way to go back in space, say where the earth was standing in the space-time continuum fabric a year ago, would you be able to go back in time?

    I know it's probably a stupid theory, but please answer.
    Time is the measure of relative movement. Each particle has a world line that represents its path of movement relative to everything else. If you could get that particle to retrace its steps, it would travel back in time. But since this movement (and consequently time) is measured relative to other particles, it could only do so if the other particles did the same. That means (if I have this correctly) that time travel for a body relative to something else is only possible if that body is totally isolated from that something else, like being in a black hole. Information seems to be destroyed in black holes AFAIK, since Hawking radiation cannot convey any information about what goes on inside the black hole. So while a body might be free from time related connections with objects on the outside from a third person perspective, this fact is totally useless as no interaction can happen to establish this temporal divide.

    So my opinion is that time travel (other than the forward "time travel" associated with relative movement) will never be and cannot be anything other than a fantasy.

    Warning: The above has a good possibility of being total hogwash.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by 6nqpnw
    Quote Originally Posted by ParadoxJuice
    ...the calculations for the rate of time:speed should involve division, not subtraction, and therefore negative numbers (and by extension, moving back in time) would be impossible.
    [mudbug gives this two enthusiastic thumbs up]

    What d'ya think about this fellow new guy: @ the event horizon, is the photon (light) path reversed or is the photon spin reversed?

    Like you, I share the opinion that if matter were to reach light speed, it would completely fall apart, making it impossible to travel its inverse (time travel): complementing your view of division until zero point (annihilation).

    Damn this stuff is exciting!!

    - mudbug
    I'm surprised that worked out. I guess I should try being bold more often.

    When matter reaches light speed, it would reach a high energy state, and it is impossible to know what it will turn back into when it settles, to my understanding at least. It does not fall apart (except for wind pressure...I'm not sure about what would make it fall apart in a vacuum, perhaps some law I didn't hear of yet?).

    What exactly do you refer to after "@ event horizon"? I just can't figure out...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by ParadoxJuice
    I'm surprised that worked out. I guess I should try being bold more often.
    This is a SCIENCE forum, not a platform for individuals being bold. Learn some science first.
    Quote Originally Posted by ParadoxJuice
    When matter reaches light speed, ...
    ... you are sure that it must be science fiction. It never happens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •