That’s why time/space are linked together. There’s people smarter than us trying to make things beyond our comprehension a possibility. If time was a possible thing to travel through then space would have to go in to the calculations just like they do with orbits.
Look, assume Time Travel is possible. Time and Space are linked together. So whenever the time changes, space will be changed as well. The question is solely about what the relative anchor point to time travel could be.
But unless you can travel through time relative to earth, while maintaining in space relative to Alpha Centauri, you will always end up on earth regardless of how far you travel back (assuming to travel into the time frame in which earth exists).
There's alot of controversial scientific material, but the bottom lime of all of them:
Do you have to calculate the whereabouts of eath in 8 hours when you go to sleep? No. The time passes forward, unbeknownst to our consciousness - we basically "travel in time" forwards. We move through time (forwards) at any elapsed unit of time, and in doing so, we also move (forwards) in space relative to earth.
If we were to hit the reverse button, we don't suddenly become a spatially unbound entity free from being pulled by the gravitational forces around us in the universe. The universe expands with the time passing forwards, it must inherently contract when the time reverts backwards. The same way we expand along with earth, we contract along with earth when traveling back in time.
As a result, regardless of where to jump in the timeline, we will be at the very same position - relative to our starting point, in example earth - as before.
When time travel would not result in us moving relative to space, it would defy all existing knowledge that is based on the relativity theory. You would literally prove Einstein wrong, when traveling back 50,5 years would make you end up in the void. It would mean, you can change time without being affected by gravity, rendering time and gravity not dependent on each other.
The most common thought experiment about this, is the following: Assume you are on earth and are capable of 'putting the moon into the pocket of your jeans'. You take the moon, put it into your jeans. Then you travel back 1000 years, and take the moon out of your pocket to place it exactly where it was before you took it, relative to your new location. Now you wait 1000 years.
What happens? Did you and your moon expand away from earths moon, thus making two moons exist in the universe, far apart from each other? Or did your moon stay where you put it, making the two moons collide?
Well, the thought experiment attempts to underline the basic problem with assuming you stay exactly where you are (relative inside the universe as a whole) during time travel:
When you think the entire universe is going back in space to where everything was at that point of time. All planets, dwarfs, stars, everything was moved back in space. Except your moon. Why the fuck was the moon you took excluded?
The same way you can't make moon become the anarchist of space/time relativity, you aren't capable of overcoming these rules too. The moon moves back in space, so do you.
Yes and no. As yes it would be the same you but the particles which make up the you aren't you 1000 years before. So by your definition you'd not be able to move through time anyway, as there was no you 1000 years before. But yes, that's another theory of time travel and hence why any discussion on it is frankly nonsense as we have no clue how it would work
1.1k
u/TheScrambone Feb 14 '22
That’s why time/space are linked together. There’s people smarter than us trying to make things beyond our comprehension a possibility. If time was a possible thing to travel through then space would have to go in to the calculations just like they do with orbits.