Time travel in relation to moving objects in space

John Otto

John Otto

Temporal Novice
I cannot find any data on the following subject which I have been thinking about:
Time travel may require the ability to calculate where the surface of the earth will be in relation to the earths rotation, orbit around the sun, the solar systems orbit around galactic central point and the galaxy's movement through space as the universe itself expands, otherwise, if you travel forward or backward just 1 minute you will end up in the vacuum of space (or trapped inside a space object like a sun planet or meteor) because from second to second every object in space is moving...That's a lot of math
 
John Otto said:
I cannot find any data on the following subject which I have been thinking about:
Time travel may require the ability to calculate where the surface of the earth will be in relation to the earths rotation, orbit around the sun, the solar systems orbit around galactic central point and the galaxy's movement through space as the universe itself expands, otherwise, if you travel forward or backward just 1 minute you will end up in the vacuum of space (or trapped inside a space object like a sun planet or meteor) because from second to second every object in space is moving...That's a lot of math
Click to expand...

Actually the math itself isn't a problem. You can estimate the displacement in timespace using the principles of plane geometry in 4 dimensions (x,y,z,t). Permutations of the Pythagorean Theorum show up everywhere in physics math. You remember it from high school plane (2D) geometry yes? a^2 + b^2 = c^2 - the solution for the hypotenuse of a right triangle. Carpenters use it every day to "square" frames and corners.

In 4D Special Relativity, for example, it shows up as

s^2 = (c^2t^2) - x^2 - y^2 - z^2

indicating a spacetime interval (x,y & z being space and t time). Using that equation in differential calculus form will yield the interval between spacetime events, including the seperation (interval) in spacetime between "when and where you were then" and "when and where you are now". The term "interval" is used rather than "distance" because the equation solves the seperation "spacetime", not just the distance in space between events. In Special Relativity space and time are not treated seperately but as two parts of a whole - spacetime - that cannot be seperated; the spacetime continuum.

The real problem is that the accuracy of the numbers used in the calculation, the instruments used to make it happen and precise knowledge of the relative motion between the origin and target have to be damned accurate. Being "close" but off by only 1/1,000,000 of a second per second, considering that the speed of light is 300,000 km/sec, could result in your missing your target by 300 meters for a 1 second time trip. Pretty close for even a 1 week spacetime interval but you don't want to be embedded in rock almost a thousand feet below the surface or fall a 1000 feet to the ground.

There's also another not-so-evident problem. Again, as you point out, you are in motion if for no other reason because the Earth is orbiting the Sun. You also have mass. One definition of mass in motion is momentum, and it is a vector quantity: it has magnitude and direction. Momentum is also a conserved quantity (meaning it doesn't go "poof" and alter itself simply because one time traveled) so there is no obvious reason to believe that when you arrive at the target that you won't be traveling in the same direction and speed as was true at the origin.

The Earth is orbiting the Sun at about 30 km/sec. You time travel forward or back 6 months. The target is your original location on Earth. The Earth is about 180 degrees (6 months) displaced along its orbit from its position when you started the trip. Assuming the physics logic is correct, if you actually end up precisely on target you will be traveling along the -x direction at 30 km/sec and the Earth will be traveling in the opposite direction along the +x direction at 30 km/sec. In that case you should end up as a net 60 km/sec meteroid skimming along the surface. That's about Mach 176 and almost 6 times Earth's escape velocity. Ouch! Not to worry however. The "big pieces" if any probably won't hold the velocity due to the air friction and won't leave the Earth forever behind. So there's an upside...sort of...maybe. Jus' sayin' :)
 
Darby said:
In 4D Special Relativity, for example, it shows up as

s^2 = (c^2t^2) - x^2 - y^2 - z^2

Jus' sayin' :)
Click to expand...

Darby has more engineering knowledge than I. It doesn't take a computer. Before you completely materialize, you can see a ghostly outline of your terrain. The device allows you to adjust your position levitating over a clear area. You do not need to account for the position of the Earth around the Sun nor the rotation of the Earth on its axis. You are also rotating physically. You do need to account for plant growth and construction.

This same device will one day give us teleportation and "warp" drive ability across great distances of space.

The only thing you are doing is "rewinding nature's video recorder".

Teleportation, warp drive and time-travel are all based on the physics of folding space. That was first discovered during the Philadelphia Project era. It was confirmed with the discovery of the nature of the Higgs/Boson particle.

Just Google Higgs Boson Space Folding Inflation. The basic principles are already being speculated on.
 
John Thomas said:
Darby has more engineering knowledge than I. It doesn't take a computer. Before you completely materialize, you can see a ghostly outline of your terrain. The device allows you to adjust your position levitating over a clear area. You do not need to account for the position of the Earth around the Sun nor the rotation of the Earth on its axis. You are also rotating physically. You do need to account for plant growth and construction.

This same device will one day give us teleportation and "warp" drive ability across great distances of space.

The only thing you are doing is "rewinding nature's video recorder".

Teleportation, warp drive and time-travel are all based on the physics of folding space. That was first discovered during the Philadelphia Project era. It was confirmed with the discovery of the nature of the Higgs/Boson particle.

Just Google Higgs Boson Space Folding Inflation. The basic principles are already being speculated on.
Click to expand...

Hi John,

Do you know why the sailors in the Philadelphia Project stuck in between walls, deck and tables?


To Darby,

Please correct me if I am wrong.

The earth rotating the sun or the sun rotating the earth is only perspectives of the individual, the observer, where you put the camera in the 3D space.

Any experiments performed on earth will be affected by the gravity from the centre of the earth more than the gravity in relation to the movement of earth around Sol (the sun) because of the closer distance to the core of gravity source. The displacement would have higher effect from the rotation of the earth than the movement of the solar system around the centre of the galaxy.

Do you think the current computer technology is fast enough to calculate the 4D matrix of displacement in Latitude, Longitude and Altitude, or wait until Quantum computer units are available in the market?
 
servantx said:
To Darby,

Please correct me if I am wrong.

The earth rotating the sun or the sun rotating the earth is only perspectives of the individual, the observer, where you put the camera in the 3D space.
Click to expand...

Not every form of motion is relative. That is the reason why the principle of Special Theory of Relativity specifies that the relative motion considered is one of a "uniform translation in a vacuum without rotation". That means objects moving (or at rest) with respect to one another that do not change their velocity (and in a vacuum because the absolute maximum speed of light is measured in a vacuum). If two objects are moving "in a straight line" at a constant speed with respect to each other there is no way, even in theory, for an observer on one of the objects to unambigously state as a matter of fact which one is moving and which one is at rest (or that both are actually moving but at different speeds). Rotation, on the other hand, can be detected without reference to any other object. Rotation, even if the angular speed is uniform (constant) can be detected because angular velocity is a vector quantity - magnitude (speed in this case) and direction (which is constantly changing). In other words, rotation is an acceleration (acceleration is also a vector quantity). If the speed is constant but the direction changes that is one definition of acceleration. Acceleration involves an unbalanced force on the object and there are many ways to detect force. So rotation is not a matter of perspective.

Disregard all of the above "science talk". Just do a gedankenexperiment - "thought experiment". If you're in a car coasting along at a constant speed (assuming a perfectly flat roadway - impossible in the real world but OK in our gedanken) would you feel any forces? No. But go around a corner, still at the same constant speed, would you feel any forces? Sure. You would (unless the curve is so long and gentle that you couldn't feel the force - but if you had a good accelerometer it would detect the force). You would still feel the force while going around the curve if all the car's windows were blacked out and you had no outside frame of reference to rely on. While the car was moving along the straight bump free road the only way you could detect the motion would be by looking out the window and seeing the scenery moving bye (though you could not unambigously say that it was the car moving along the road rather than the road (and the rest of the Earth) moving in the opposite direction under the car.

Another example of non-relative rotational motion is the path of the stars across the sky when you look up at night. One could take the relativist position and say that the Earth does not rotate on its axis, rather the stars revolve about the Earth. It's a nice relativist idea but give pause and think it through. We know, and have known for about 150 years, that the speed of light is fixed at a maximum of 300,000 km/sec. That fact has been experimentally verified a gazillion times over the past century. We also know as a matter of fact that the stars in the sky, with the exception of our star Sol, are 4.3 to 13 billion light years (LY) away. Proxima Centauri, the closest star, is 4.3 LY away. At that distance, in order to orbit the Earth in 24 hrs, it would have to be traveling at 1.125 times the speed of light. As a time Time Travel Institute fan you probably already know that objects moving near the speed of light (let alone faster than the speed of light if it were possible) will display a clue or two indicating such a velocity. Neither Proxima Centauri nor any other star in the visible universe diaplay any such clues. As I said, all is not relative.
 
Darby

You forgot to mention the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. The way I interpret the results is that the earth drags a chunk of space with it as it moves through space. But this chunk of space rotates with the earth making it appear that we are motionless in the universe with respect to all other objects. So basically we are in the same space as we were 6 months ago. And of course the experiment is done today with laser interferometers with much higher precision, but still showing the same result. Rainman knows more about the laser interferometer part. He brought up the fact that there is a much more reliable navigation device now currently in use called the Laser Gyro. So any time travel machine would have to abide by current physical reality. So I believe there is this experiment that would support the idea that one would not wind up in space if traveling through time. Of course that would mean another strike against the John Titor story. But I've lost count.

Here is a very informative link on the Michelson-Morley experiment:

Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
servantx said:
Hi John,
Do you know why the sailors in the Philadelphia Project stuck in between walls, deck and tables?
Click to expand...

Yes. And the answer will also answer Darby's question as to why we see a "ghostly terrain" before completely materializing. The answer is that we exist in a 5th dimension as well as the traditionally known 4 dimensions. This is known as the Ghost Dimension. The Higgs Boson discovery will lead to further experimentation with this. Did you know that this dimension also explains Ghost phenomena? We are immortal in this dimension. We eternally exist in each moment here. This is the heaven and hell that poets as well as religious folks have been speculating about.
 
John Thomas said:
Yes. And the answer will also answer Darby's question as to why we see a "ghostly terrain" before completely materializing. The answer is that we exist in a 5th dimension as well as the traditionally known 4 dimensions. This is known as the Ghost Dimension. The Higgs Boson discovery will lead to further experimentation with this. Did you know that this dimension also explains Ghost phenomena? We are immortal in this dimension. We eternally exist in each moment here. This is the heaven and hell that poets as well as religious folks have been speculating about.
Click to expand...

How many dimensions exist in this world as you know? Please list them and give a brief description on each dimension and if possible, in relation to time travel coordinates/displacement.

Thank you very much. It will be a good topic to discuss.
 
why-time-travel-is-impossible.jpeg
 
Back
Top