EXPERIMENT: IS TIME TRAVEL POSSIBLE?

[Anonymous No.4297865]

THIS IS AN EXPERIMENT
PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS

This experiment will prove if time travel is possible or not.

1.Take a piece of paper
2. Write down where you are (coordinates) and today's date. Write time also, BUT BE CAREFUL, note it some minutes ahead. Take mentally note of the time you're writing.
3.Put the paper in a vault, in a bank, wherever you want. It must be a safe place.
4.Now, this is the most important part: point with you finger in the middle of the air and yell "APPEAR, MY FUTURE SELF!!"

If time travel is possibile, in the future your future self will backtravel exactly where and WHEN you noted years ago.

[Anonymous No.4297877]

I wouldn't do that because it'd mess up my past self's conception of the future. I only travel to places where I am not.

[Anonymous No.4297882]

The Earth rotates around the sun at about 30,000km/h and the atmosphere is what... 60km thick?

The odds of your futureself landing in that exact spot are minimal. They'd probably arrive in space on the other side of the sun to where we are now. Or in the core of the Earth or something.

> yfw you realise that time travelers do exist, they just keep arriving in outer space where they die and months later are collected by Earth where the come back down as falling stars

[Anonymous No.4297884]

>>4297882
If you can effectively make time appear frozen I think you can manage to navigate and decide where to land

[Anonymous No.4297887]

>>4297882
>shooting stars are people trying to travel back in time

[Anonymous No.4297890]

To be able to actually time travel with any reasonable certainty, we need to create a barrier for all information, completely thermally insulating and capable of stopping every single detectable particle from travelling through it. Only once that's in place do we have a safe environment for time travel to take place to, only then will we actually travel back through time as only then it will be safe to do so. Will it prove to the people in the past it can be done? No. But if we can place something in the impermeable space that didn't exist in the past, along with some unique sample of a decaying isotope, then the validity of the time traveller's claims at the time they travel from will be assured.

[Anonymous No.4297891]

>>4297887
If I ever have children, this is what I will teach them.

[Anonymous No.4297893]

>>4297890
but it's schroedinger's cat all over again

[Anonymous No.4297896]

>>4297890
Elaborating:

As someone else has says, the earth is moving at several kilometres a second, and the travellers could end up several AU away from it if they aren't extremely careful. Clearly, the travel will have to be well timed, and probably require a craft capable of travelling through the atmosphere at high speed. My guess is that we should be doing this over siberia or the north pole, as we need somewhere uninhabited.

>>4297893
No, because everything is macro scale this time.

[Anonymous No.4297897]

> time travel
> ignoring the Earth's rotation and translation giving your future self momentum that will go against the direction of your present self
> that feel when your future self arrives and is immediately splattered against the wall at tens of thousands of kilometers per hour

[Anonymous No.4297899]

>>4297897
> ignoring the Earth's rotation and translation giving your future self momentum that will go against the direction of your present self

>implying we are doing that

The earth is going to be in approximately the same place every year, our orbit is pretty stable.

[Anonymous No.4297902]

>>4297899
I guess if you left at the exact instant (taking into account drift in the calendar and in space) it'd be okay.

Same problem applies to teleportation too.

[Anonymous No.4297908]

>2012
>not posting from 2124

ISHYGDDTITP

[Anonymous No.4297910]

>>4297899
>our orbit is pretty stable

Other than the part where the sun is orbiting around the centre of the galaxy, right?

[Anonymous No.4297911]

>ITT: People who think absolute coordinates exist and don't understand relativity of velocity.

[Anonymous No.4297916]

>>4297902
I think it would definitely be worth getting out of the magnetosphere.

As I understand, our orbit is slightly eliptic and rotates every few thousand years, with eccentricity of over a million kilometres.

>>4297910
That's slower, in comparison. I don't think it would be a problem.

>>4297911
>we understand it and are accounting for it

[Anonymous No.4297924]

>>4297916

There is no reason that you wouldn't end up right where you left off when time travelling. You wouldn't end up in space. What you guys are saying is like saying that if I jump right now the earth will rotate under me and I'll end up 80 feet away.

[Anonymous No.4297928]

>>4297924
>What you guys are saying is like saying that if I jump right now the earth will rotate under me and I'll end up 80 feet away.
No, your relative momentum would be conserved. The difference is that your momentum is linear, whereas earth's course is not, so you and it move apart quickly if you stay on your current path.

If you jumped now, and kept the velocities you had at the peak of the jump rather than being affected by gravity, you would effectively accelerate out of the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.4297934]

>>4297928

>An objection that is sometimes raised against the concept of time machines in science fiction is that they ignore the motion of the Earth between the date the time machine departs and the date it returns. The idea that a traveler can go into a machine that sends him or her to 1865 and step out into the exact same spot on Earth might be said to ignore the issue that Earth is moving through space around the Sun, which is moving in the galaxy, and so on, so that advocates of this argument imagine that "realistically" the time machine should actually reappear in space far away from the Earth's position at that date. However, the theory of relativity rejects the idea of absolute time and space; in relativity there can be no universal truth about the spatial distance between events which occur at different times[82] (such as an event on Earth today and an event on Earth in 1865), and thus no objective truth about which point in space at one time is at the "same position" that the Earth was at another time. In the theory of special relativity, which deals with situations where gravity is negligible, the laws of physics work the same way in every inertial frame of reference and therefore no frame's perspective is physically better than any other frame's, and different frames disagree about whether two events at different times happened at the "same position" or "different positions". In the theory of general relativity, which incorporates the effects of gravity, all coordinate systems are on equal footing because of a feature known as "diffeomorphism invariance".[83]

Get Wikipedia'd son.

[Anonymous No.4297938]

>>4297934
>implying relativity says there is no inertial frame
>implying relativity doesn't just imply it's impossible to know what it is
>implying it accounts for time travel in making that assertion

The existence of time travel allows us to find the inertial frame, broseph.

[Anonymous No.4297947]

>>4297938

All inertial reference frames are equally valid. There is no "absolute" reference frame.
>You're on earth.
>Earth is stationary.
>Time travel.
>End up exactly where you left.

[Anonymous No.4297948]

>>4297947
>You're on earth
>Earth is stationary in earth's frame
>you are stationary in yours
>time travel
>neither have moved

If all frames are valid there is no way of knowing where you'll end up, or the velocity you'll be at.

[Anonymous No.4297950]

>>4297948
>I forgot this part because I am an idiot

...and earth's frame isn't the same as yours. You just stay in the same place relative to it because of its constantly applied pulling force overcoming your centripetal force. If gravity stopped, just for a couple of minutes, everyone outside would end up dead.

[Anonymous No.4297951]

>>4297948

Ending up in a different place would violate conservation of energy, since you would essentially be creating a portal. There is no absolute position, so travelling in time would put you in the same position you were potential energy wise.

[Anonymous No.4297956]

>>4297950

>Set the earth's velocity to zero.
>You don't move
>end up in the same place

In this case, since you're not moving, the earth's reference frame and you're reference frame are identical.

[Anonymous No.4297957]

>>4297951
>Ending up in a different place would violate conservation of energy
No, ending up in the same place would violate conservation of energy. Unless gravity some how works independent of whether you're moving forwards or backwards through time, which would in itself violate the conservation of energy, you would leave earth's surface.

>>4297956

You are moving. You're accelerating at 9.81m/s/s, and general relativity cannot be applied to accelerating frames.

[Anonymous No.4297958]

>>4297957

>You are moving. You're accelerating at 9.81m/s/s, and general relativity cannot be applied to accelerating frames.

Only if you're in freefall dumbass. I'm not moving right now.

>No, ending up in the same place would violate conservation of energy.

How so? If I ended up in outer space, I just gained a shitload of gravitational potential energy from fucking nowhere.

[Anonymous No.4297963]

>implying you will ever get the chance to time travel

Time Travel would be the most dangerous thing in all existence. The risks implied with changing the future, creating a split timeline, and pretty much just fucking up the Universe in every possible way would mean that no one would be allowed to do it, and if they did it would be some invisible recorder that would be 100% unnoticeable, so we could see shit in the past and stuff.

No human will ever be allowed to time travel.

[take mentally note with you finger No.4297968]

>>4297865
>Take mentally note
>point with you finger
take mentally note with you finger
take mentally note with you finger
take mentally note with you finger
take mentally note with you finger

[Anonymous No.4297976]

>>4297958
Correct, you're not moving at 9.81. You're also not static.
>How so? If I ended up in outer space, I just gained a shitload of gravitational potential energy from fucking nowhere.
If you can gain kinetic energy from a field when moving forwards or backwards through time, the situation is not reversible. If gravity has the opposite effect when moving backwards in time, it is.

[Anonymous No.4297981]

>Correct, you're not moving at 9.81. You're also not static.

I am static in the earth's reference frame. I'm not accelerating in any inertial reference frame.

[Anonymous No.4297983]

>>4297981

>I'm not accelerating in any inertial reference frame

Scratch that. I'm not accelerating in Earth's reference frame.

[Anonymous No.4298014]

I am so dumb I actually took a piece of paper and was ready to do it. That's sad, but thanks god my alter ego stopped me. He told me not to break the space-time continuum, instead we could chat using skype.

[Anonymous No.4298094]

>>4297983
No, you are rotating at 1rpd.

We KNOW earth is rotating. It's rotating in all frames, including its own.

If it isn't, then andromeda must be moving at billions of times of the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.4298120]

>>4298094

>If it isn't, then andromeda must be moving at billions of times of the speed of light.
>not understanding special relativity or lorentz transforms

[Anonymous No.4298136]

>>4298120
If earth isn't rotating, then the rest of the universe is. Which means that andromeda is travelling pi times two times the distance between us and it every day. As that distance is 2.5 million light years, it would have to be travelling at 654498.4694978729166666666666 light years per hour.

[Anonymous No.4298142]

>>4298136
sounds reasonable to me

[Anonymous No.4298143]

>>4298136
or if you want, 5,733,406,593 times the speed of light.

[Anonymous No.4298155]

>>4298136

>2012
>still not understanding special relativity

Fucking time dilation/length contraction how do they work?

[Anonymous No.4298160]

>>4298155
>2012
>thinking special relativity means you can exceed the speed of light

Explain to me, mr faget, why rotating frames are automagically not rotating.

[Anonymous No.4298186]

>>4298155
No, that poster clearly DOES understand relativity and is using it to point out how incorrect a previous poster was.

[Anonymous No.4298200]

>>4298160

Special relativity means you CAN'T exceed the speed of light. Say two objects are zooming at each other at .9c. From the reference frame of one of the objects, the other object is moving at 1.8c according to you. This isn't the case. When dealing with high velocities you have to use lorentz transforms, you can't just add the velcities together.

>Explain to me, mr faget, why rotating frames are automagically not rotating.

Because ANY inertial frame of reference is valid. Coordinate velocities have no physical meaning. Mathematically you can hold any object as stationary and use it to model the motion of other objects. There is no such thing absolute velocity, it has to be taken relative to something else.

In short, lrn2relativity (both special and GR)

[Anonymous No.4298203]

>>4298186

Except he was wrong.

[Anonymous No.4298208]

>>4298200
>Special relativity means you CAN'T exceed the speed of light
EXACTLY, which is WHY the IDEA of a ROTATING FRAME OF REFERENCE is ABSURD and INVALID IN THIS CASE. Also, WEIRD capitalisation.

>Say two objects are zooming at each other at .9c. From the reference frame of one of the objects, the other object is moving at 1.8c according to you

No, this is straight relativity. From the reference of one object, time is dilated such that the other doesn't appear to be exceeding c, just to be closer to it. note that NEITHER of these objects are accelerating, and that BOTH are moving in a straight line. You got that? You need to get that.

[Anonymous No.4298243]

>>4298208

Just fyi, a rotating frame of reference is only absurd when talking about special relativity. In GR there is nothing wrong with a rotating frame.

[Anonymous No.4298248]

So WHY would my future self travel back?

[Anonymous No.4298612]

>>4298248

for gay sex.

[Anonymous No.4298798]

Predestination Paradox,Grandfather paradox time travel is not possible nor will it ever be /thread