Thread: Why Time travel is impossible

Unlike my other posts of physics, this is not a theory much more proven with facts. If you believe that what I write is wrong, please at least read my whole post.

what you all know:

- our universe consists of 3 spatial and (at least) 1 time dimension.
- spatial movement slows time down for an object.

What allot of people believe is that if object A moves 1 hour back in time, Object A would disappear.
This is wrong. Object A moves though time, not though space, causing it to change its position of time but not of space.

To demonstrate:

move your hand back and forward. What your hand has just done is time dilation, which, to our beliefs would mean that it should disappear, since time moves on and the hand, seemingly stays back in time.

Which concludes to:

even though our position in the time axis is not the same, these little differences, means that time travel is impossible, since matter has moved on the time axis.

Originally Posted by miomaz

Unlike my other posts of physics, this is not a theory much more proven with facts. If you believe that what I write is wrong, please at least read my whole post.

what you all know:

- our universe consists of 3 spatial and (at least) 1 time dimension.
- spatial movement slows time down for an object.

What allot of people believe is that if object A moves 1 hour back in time, Object A would disappear.
This is wrong. Object A moves though time, not though space, causing it to change its position of time but not of space.

To demonstrate:

move your hand back and forward. What your hand has just done is time dilation, which, to our beliefs would mean that it should disappear, since time moves on and the hand, seemingly stays back in time.

Which concludes to:

even though our position in the time axis is not the same, these little differences, means that time travel is impossible, since matter has moved on the time axis.

A. Your hand is now younger because you have moved it, it hasn't disappeared because it hasn't seperated itself from spacetime.

B. If you move in time you move in space. If you move in space you move in time, thats why its called the spacetime continuum. If you travel back in time 40 years, you are now in a different position of space where the Earth was 40 years ago. Same as going forwards 40 years, you end up in the space that Earth occupies 40 years from now.

C. Only faster than light does one disappear. Not before light speed. One can disappear and reappear going forwards in time but I'm not going explain my time machine theory.

A. Your hand is now younger because you have moved it, it hasn't disappeared because it hasn't seperated itself from spacetime.

I never said that it sperates itself from spacetime. It changes its position in time though does not dissapear.

B. If you move in time you move in space. If you move in space you move in time, thats why its called the spacetime continuum.

Wrong. The movement in time never stops, though though movement the speed of the object going though time changes. And it is definitly not called the spacetime continuum, the way as you have explained it.

If you travel back in time 40 years, you are now in a different position of space where the Earth was 40 years ago. Same as going forwards 40 years, you end up in the space that Earth occupies 40 years from now.

again wrong. The spatial position in space dosn't change if you change the coordinates of the time dimension.

if you where on position x and at the time y and you change the time to z, your position will still be x.
If I move horizontal my x coordinate grows, thouugh my y coordinate stays the same. Eventhough the 4 dimensions (x,y,z,time) are related, they do not share the same variable neither are they proportional to eachother.
so if my x coordinate gains +10 my y cooridnate will not gain +10.

C. Only faster than light does one disappear. Not before light speed. One can disappear and reappear going forwards in time but I'm not going explain my time machine theory.

Finally this statement is definetly wrong.
firstly, an object that travelles faster than light does not exist.
secondly, this is just a thesis, without any arguments that speak for it.
thirdly, the list of arguments in my original post should show you that this is definetly impossible.
and lastly, your time machine theory is a theory while what I am dealing with is a fact. I must say it is very hard to desribe or to imagine but I know it is possible.

---

I ask you, why do you believe that an object, with another coordinate on time dissapears?

This is what I am talking about. If you belive to have found a way to disproove facts, that have been proven by Einstein himself be my guest, have a try. I merrely lay the pieces together, disprooving timetravel (or atleast the way we believe that we can timetravel)
Please look over your argumens again to be sure that what you are posting isn't rubbish.

I'm busy at the moment but I will reply again later in detail. Let me put it this way. 40 years ago the galaxy was light years away. Our sun was light years away and as a result so was Earth. 40 years ago we were not in THIS EXACT SPACE. TIME CHANGES SPACE! Someone else please tell Miomaz he is wrong. If wat you say is correct Miomaz. 40 years ago Earth was in the same place as it is now. So the sun has not moved at all? That means all the universe would stay still and would not be expanding WHICH EVIDENCE PROVES IT IS.

40 years ago, the earthwas at a different position, but seeing time as a dimension, 40 years ago (on the time axis -40 of timetraveling) the matter has passed on to the year 2007.
like I said, if the matter is on the time-coordinate x, it won't be on the time coordinate y.

For example. The train leaves at position 10 now it is at position 20, the train was at position 10, 10 positions before. If one would jump out of the train and walk back to the position 10, the train would not be at position 10 anymore but at position 20.

Well it's not that it disappears. Rather, it exists in two places at once for a while. Because, if my hand goes back 2 minutes, it will arrive where it began.

Here's what I wonder: Is it possible to switch which dimension is which? What if an object switched one of its 3 spatial dimensions for the temporal dimension? So, it's plodding along northward at a constant rate, but free to move any direction it wants in time........

Of course it can only go so fast through time, relative to how much it moves northward.

Originally Posted by kojax

Well it's not that it disappears. Rather, it exists in two places at once for a while. Because, if my hand goes back 2 minutes, it will arrive where it began.

Here's what I wonder: Is it possible to switch which dimension is which? What if an object switched one of its 3 spatial dimensions for the temporal dimension? So, it's plodding along northward at a constant rate, but free to move any direction it wants in time........

Of course it can only go so fast through time, relative to how much it moves northward.

The hand story:
I hope you think the right 'it will arrive where it began.'
Your hand will indeed arrive 5 minutes before the current time, but the hand will not change its spatial dimension, meaning that we can see/feel/touch/ect. the object.

as for swithcing the dimensions, I fear that this is impossible, a new theory, pausable, but unlikely to todays theories.

Originally Posted by miomaz

Originally Posted by kojax

Well it's not that it disappears. Rather, it exists in two places at once for a while. Because, if my hand goes back 2 minutes, it will arrive where it began.

Here's what I wonder: Is it possible to switch which dimension is which? What if an object switched one of its 3 spatial dimensions for the temporal dimension? So, it's plodding along northward at a constant rate, but free to move any direction it wants in time........

Of course it can only go so fast through time, relative to how much it moves northward.

The hand story:
I hope you think the right 'it will arrive where it began.'
Your hand will indeed arrive 5 minutes before the current time, but the hand will not change its spatial dimension, meaning that we can see/feel/touch/ect. the object.

as for swithcing the dimensions, I fear that this is impossible, a new theory, pausable, but unlikely to todays theories.

When you said the time x and the time y coordinate. That means that you are assuming there to be TWO time dimensions. There is only one; t. If you didn't move space and stayed here and ignored gravity and motion of the universe and travel back in time 100 years, the Earth would not be here. There is no direction in time but forwards. You can alter your motion through it to go slower, but this is what is percieved to be time travel. At Close to light speed everything around you is percieved to slow down by everyone outside.

I didn't referr time to be 2d, just naming a position in time called x and the other y. Sorry if you miss understood me. I could have said that time was on position 1(x) and then on position 2(y).
I used a string instead of a numeral value.
... but indeed it sounds missleading, I'm sorry

If you moved in this cone in one plain (space, time) you'd move in the other.Remember if the present was always the present time would not change, so you would have no time to move, so you'd stay put, no time, no space.

Hi,

I have two questions. What does the pane in the middle mean (I can't red what's written there )and, second,
why do you think space will expand unswayed in both (two ) directions?

It's somehow valid for earths nature where the climate seems to meet at the equator and going backward
recreating itself, so to say.

In space there was not such a position but complete patters that repeat as a whole. Galaxies as one sample.
Shall your graphic imply the was a center point in space or merely a random graphical mean?

Steve

Originally Posted by svwillmer

If you moved in this cone in one plain (space, time) you'd move in the other.Remember if the present was always the present time would not change, so you would have no time to move, so you'd stay put, no time, no space.

There is only one thing worse than being wrong, it is being right.
You are absolutely right. Of course, if the present was always the present time would not change (by the way, time doesn't change, the objects do).

That is if the object in time would not move it would always be present and not move at all.
But, the object moves at a constant speed though time, causing it not to 'stay put'.
Another thing:
an object cannot be at 2 positions. Object A is either at position A or at position X. Oh... again I didn't invent this and [hint] it's not a theory.

---
@Steve Miller, this is off topic, if you want to know more about the picture, please look it up on wikipedia or post another topic about it. Then I will gladly answer your questions.
---
Dear viewer, I am wondering why people do not post in my topics about new discoveries I have made. I would like to know the reason. Is it because its to hard, or do you not understand my english?
I just would like to know.

regards,

Mark

miomaz,

are you svwiilmer. Seems I'm having a déjÃ* vu. Why don't you let answer the one who posted originally
(my last post was below the one I referred to, you see )?

This is not gonna be some nuts domestic whatsoever.

Steve

No Im not svmiller, but still I can explain what the picture shows.