Time travel debunked

Alright ya noobs, I'm settling this time travel hoax once and for all.

First and foremost: Time is an arbitrary notation created by man. If the whole concept were to die out, none of our maths would be any different. All you're giving meaning to is MOTION. Same with energy, there is no such thing, just different forms of motion. Kinetic energy is a pleonasm.

Now back to time. How the FUCK would you translate said arbitrary time notation to a machine somehow connected to space-"time"?
Pro tip: You can't.

Time is not a physical "thing" in the universe.

Unless you manage to install a framework in the universe with a functional API it's not happening. Yes, mass and speed (same thing) slow down motion but that's it. You can slow down your RELATIVE MOTION as opposed to others but that's not time travel. There's no destination as defined by con-artists getting grant money for fake/stupid study and spend it on booze and cocaine (like my money).

Get over it. There's no such thing as fucking time travel. Niggers.

Also, time TRAVEL implies a destination. Beyond our high level, abstract communication method (which I'm not fond of either). Tell me, where exactly is next week? or last week? Break out the maths faggot, oh, you can't. Because even Einstein didn't predict destination-based time travel. And none of his maths allow for a stable "wormhole".

Checkmate muggles.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>Time is not a physical "thing" in the universe
Neither is your game, fuckboi

>Time is not a physical "thing" in the universe.
Nor is color you fucking faggot.
I want you to debunk that one right now as well.

>fuckboy
>>>/tumblr/
Fuck off and nenver come back

>Different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation don't exist
Omfg we've gone down the drain haven't we

Then explain "time" right now. What is it.

Yes. Reddit and Tumblr who see us as stupid children. OP is right

>cant even quote right
sorry, I didn't know you're a brainlet as well

>progression of events from past through present to future doesn't exist
Look who's fucking talking.
Yes, these things don't matter one bit outside of brains of living things. Nor does fucking math.
What's you POINT?

Yes, because the definition of intelligence is the ability to quote the way you're used to it. Well done you genius

So obviously only brainlets actually believe time travel is fucking possible. For the sake of saying it though, the reason science fiction people got the idea in the first place is because it is possible to construct worldlines that would take you "back in time" that are perfectly consistent with general relativity. It's not like such an event would be indescribable according to our models. We could represent the situation quite well. So it doesn't actually break any physics, only basic sanity and logic.

>Computer analogies
>Not even good analogies

CStards OUT!

I do agree. Except that it breaks all physics. There are no proven equations, like Einsteins that allow for it. It's fucking fiction

Well I feel like I heard someone smart talk to me once about how you can actually have all kinds of wacky worldlines in general relativity and it doesn't violate anything (besides causality), but I never saw the math myself so I don't know. But to be fair, not breaking physics is not saying much at all. I mean, quantum mechanics works fine if you try to use it on all sorts of nonsense but that doesn't make any of it real. I think a pretty good example of this might actually be teleportation. It's bullshit, but there isn't really any condition or principle in physics that explicitly forbids it except for causality again. Hell, if someone were to teleport you could actually describe the event using quantum information. Not breaking physics just isn't saying a whole lot.

>Time is an arbitrary notation created by man.
Only to the same degree as "volume" or "mass". The concepts were created by us, but they directly describe physical things that are easily measurable.

>Time is not a physical "thing" in the universe.
Obviously wrong.

>Except that it breaks all physics.
Except it doesn't. AFAIK, closed time-like curves are a perfectly legitimate thing in GR.
We don't know if they actually exist, or how to make them, but they aren't actually forbidden.

>Obviously wrong
WOAH that's some fucking Nobel prize argumentation there! Well, what is it then? Amaze us mate.

Volume and mass are descriptions of property. Nothing else. You can't pour a cup of volume now can you.

My GOD you Ameritards are stupid fucking bigoted "thinkers"

>WOAH that's some fucking Nobel prize argumentation there! Well, what is it then? Amaze us mate.
There's a clear relationship between time, motion, and position. This is Galilean-level physics.
Consider a (non-ideal) ball rolling on a flat, slightly inclined plane. The ball will quickly reach and stay at an equilibrium velocity.
Now imagine a pendulum next the track. For each swing of the pendulum, mark the ball's location. Your marks will be at equal spaces down the track.

>Volume and mass are descriptions of property. Nothing else. You can't pour a cup of volume now can you.
Right. But the properties they describe are easily measured things. "Time" as we discuss it -with seconds and hours- is also a description of a property, and that property can also be measured.

>My GOD you Ameritards are stupid fucking bigoted "thinkers"
????????

What a fucking bunch of nothing saying answers. How do the markings of a pendulum give a PHYSICAL body to time?? Man you're literally agreeing that it's just a notation.

No idea what the second paragraph is supposed to mean

Americans are very dense, closed minded thinkers. Nothing out of the box, no creativity or reflection. Just their own egocentric imagination, everything they're told to, to believe stays there forever. But no new outside data is allowed in after a certain point

>Americans are dense, close minded thinkers.
Nice fringe opinion boyo, nobody has ever thought it was cool to shit on Americans before you must feel really edgy right now. Most people everywhere and for all time are dense and close minded lol statements like this are fucking dumb :)

>having this argument without a single physics class

This whole post made me relive my first philosophy of science class. Holy shit, thanks for the memories. Once/if you get your head out of your ass and read anything on GR, then come back with that "none of the math changes" bullshit. Timelike curves, fucker

>Time is an arbitrary notation created by man.
TFW so is all of mathematics and time is the basis for everything we can observe and study so without our current understanding of time, there would be nothing to observe or study.

>...energy, there is no such thing...
TFW you can't explain heat without energy as 'motion' alone does not create the product of heat. Reactions do and reactions require, both, motion and energy.

>Time is not a physical "thing" in the universe.
TFW astronauts are younger when they come back from extended trips in space. There is a relative field of time you travel through based on the gravitational entity you are closest to. Around massive objects, time appears to moves faster.

>You can slow down your RELATIVE MOTION as opposed to others...
TFW mass and speed dont slow down anything. Your implications at the beginning suggested that motion is the only real physical construct when, in fact, you forgot about gravity (an invisible force based on the size of an object and is not dependent upon motion at all). In fact, some motion is entirely a product of gravity.

>Niggers.
Oh, this all makes perfect sense now. Thank you for this final notion to really complete my understanding of your point.

>Time is an arbitrary notation created by man

Like any physical quantity - length, temperature, volume, heat, energy, speed, mass, etc - the way we measure said quantity is an arbitrary human construct, but the quantity itself exists.

Time is the property distinguished by the growth of entropy.

>violates causality
>compatible with GR
Wew, lad.

It is the evolution of entropy with no external influence

So.. Movement -.-'

Lol no dumb dumb, because movement still happens when local entropy decreases. What, so movement is just backwards anytime local entropy decreases? We know time goes forward when global entropy increases, and we measure all movement according to that phenomenon. Notice how we give meaning to local motion using something external to itself? Almost like the thing we are using, which is time, isn't merely an arbitrary construct whose only purpose is to describe kinematic motion.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't remember "causality" being discussed as a necessary construct for the formulation of GR. Violating causality doesn't lead to a contradiction, does it? You only get things like the grandfather paradox and shit. Causality itself is a condition you apply to the model if you want your answers to make sense and not describe nonsense. I believe this is true for basically all physics actually. You won't get contradictory statements out of theories in physics mathematically when you violate things like causality and locality, just nonsense answers.

Time travel is real and I can prove it.
It is currently a different time than when this post was created. Stand in amazement as we have all travelled through time.

the fact that we give time,power and weight arbitrary formulas makes us able to measure. the fact that's its arbitrary is negligible.

please off yourself.

Yep

Why don;t you pull your head out of your arse and think for yourself. This arbitrary concept thinking is the whole problem

>I will attempt to understand the FUCKING UNIVERSE but limiting myself to...
Stoopid.

TFW so is all of mathematics
Maths is a dynamic language used to ATTEMPT to understand the universe. Dynamic is the key here. Paul Dirac changed the whole scene and he was right. Many more must follow.

>Reactions do and reactions require, both, motion and energy
What is "Energy" then mate?

>TFW astronauts are younger when they come back from extended trips in space
No. They aged less quickly. They did not go "back" in "time".
>Around massive objects, time appears to moves faster
No. You move/age slower at high speed and around dense objects (same thing). Read the Wikipedia entry again.

>TFW mass and speed dont slow down anything
Again, read the GR Wikipedia entry again. Or for the first time

>Niggers
Niggers

>but the quantity itself exists
Length is position in space from start to finish on any 2 axes. Temperature is the vibration of atoms/molecules. "Heat"? Volume is the 3 dimensional space an objects inhibits regardless of mass. What is "energy" because I don't know. Speed is arbitrary for the amount of space an object covers. Mass is measurable relative density of an object as opposed to surrounding objects.

But again. What IS time and what IS energy. Still no answers.

What my daughter mumbled in her sleep when she was 7 months old.

Measuring is not the same as it being an actual physical thing in the universe

This is so triggering.. But out of sheer curiosity, what is time and energy? There hasn't been provided any answer

Time is simply another dimension. If i say i will meet you, you would know where i was, and when i was done. So you need 4 coordinates to describe a position.

To what extent it is a physical thing, that is still being debated. But General relativity does have the time dimension "bend" along withe the other 3 when describing a gravity well. The bending of time is actually the one that has the biggest effect on objects. In that sense it is non disputable, unless you want to go up against SR and GR, and trust me when I say, no-one that knows their shit will take you seriously if you just say they are wrong, because they are some foundation level shit that needs an incredible argument or alternative to get rid of. "time is just motion" doesn't do anything.

You're defending something without providing solid arguments mate. And "No one will take you seriously" isn't one either. Half the world believes in God(s). Are they right?

You're yet to provide an answer explaining the physical body of "Time". And that will just not happen because there isn't one

There won't be one

>makes post claiming that the only utility of time is to describe motion.
>name drops Paul Dirac

We know GR works because GPS uses GR.
This is why I say, come with alternatives if you disagree.

And no one can provide evidence for the physical body of time, because we don't know to what extent there is one. Most physicists would say that is a more philosophical question than a scientific because all we can do is make mathematical models that describe the universe and make predictions. If GR uses a time dimension to describe a gravity well, then that is what GR tells us about time. You see the problem in what you are asking evidence for? Any model we make can only be interpreted.

>[ERROR 42] LOGIC NOT FOUND
Yes our satnav works because we SLOW the time on satellites going 100km/s. Speed and gravity (same thing; mass) slow down movement. That is ALL GR tells us practically.

And we obviously don't have a body of time because again: There isn't one.
>Most physicists would say that is a more philosophical question than a scientific
Why the division? Why would you divide the means of understanding, to understand something we DON'T FUCKING UNDERSTAND. Seriously, break out the LOGIC here. And every gravity well can perfectly be explained and understood with motion and fields. "Time" plays no role except in our stoopid monkey brains because we PERCEIVE it that way. We thought the earth was flat because it looked that way, to our bigoted brains. But how different would sunrise and fall look like if we were the ones to move as opposed the the sun? Exactly, it wouldn't.

And that's my whole point. We're programmed to believe these concepts we're taught to believe but they're wrong. People with low IQ can't seem to part from them though

>Yes our satnav works because we SLOW the time on satellites going 100km/s. Speed and gravity (same thing; mass) slow down movement. That is ALL GR tells us practically.

Why are statelite clocks going faster then us then? Your understanding of Relativity is kinda lacking dude. Maybe you should try to get a better understanding of what you are trying to deny before you go up against it. Just a suggestion, your'e engaging in some hardcore dunning Kruger right now.

Try PBS space time series about it. Its well made and they go a lot more in-depth than most pop sci shit.

You are horrible at communicating. Can you say what you mean for fucks sake? The common interpretation of GR is that space and time exist as a fabric, described by a Lorenzian Manifold. You disagree with this interpretation much in the same way that Einstein himself didn't like interpretive QM, in that you think the math is fine and the paradigm is wrong. Explaining that opinion is not that hard.

>why the division?
Hahahahahaha get the fuck out of here man.

>Why are "statelite" clocks going faster then us "then" us

They aren't. They're going slower. Velocity and mass ("gravity") increase the pull. Please be trolling or 2 days old.

are you actually retarded. Being 'further down a gravity well' slows time for both observers, so orbiting bodies clocks tick at a faster rate

You should google this before you make yourself look even dumber. Common now.

IF TIME TRAVEL WAS EVER POSSIBLE WE WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT BECAUSE SOME RECKLESS PERSON IN THE FUTURE WOULD COME BACK TO OUR TIME

THE FACT THAT THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED CAN INDICATE THREE THINGS.
1. THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF TIME TRAVEL
2. THE DISCONTINUATION OF HUMAN OR GENERAL LIFE IN THE NEAR FUTURE
3. A SOCIETY OF LIFE FORMS INCAPABLE OF IMMORAL THOUGHT AND ACTION

Of time is a measure of movement, then it would be putting you to the movement and placement of the universe of your choosing.

you can only travel back in time to the time you invented the time machine, no earlier. moran.

>he cant understand abstract thought

Yeah they go slightly faster to account for the drag high speed objects suffer. My bad, was drunk yesterday coming from a festival

What is "our time". What is the smallest unit, or "frame rate" of the universe.

We don't fucking jump from time unit to time unit because there fucking aren't any. It's one fluid motion

Really. Please do explain.

>All you're giving meaning to is MOTION.

V = X/T

Speed = Distance Traveled / Time Elapsed

Everything that exists, exists with temperature greater than absolute zero.

Everything with T>0 has average kinetic energy in it's constituent molecules and particles.

K = Mass * (Speed * Speed) / 2

That means they move. In order for them to cover distance, time must elapse. Therefore you can't have space without time, for all of reality as we know it.

You need "Spacetime" (t.Einstein)

Actually neither space nor time is conserved, the conserved quantity, the Spacetime Interval, is:

Tau = SQRT[x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (c^2)*(t^2)]

Time is just as real as space, user.

Thank you for these brilliant high school equations but this is as nothing-saying as everything else. None of this requires time to be an actual physical thing in the universe. Where is it? What is it made of?
Can you slice me some?

ITT: OP doesn't understand time is simply the change of entropy in the system.

>inb4 You can't possibly record every atoms data in a local zone and revert it back to its state
>KYS retard

>None of this requires time to be an actual physical thing in the universe. Where is it? What is it made of?
Jesus fuck you're dumb. People have repeated explained to you that it's a dimension, not an object.

or, more likely,

Highly trained agents go back in time to the present day and seamlessly blend in around us.

And what is a dimension? Take the first 3. Width height and depth apparently are dimensions but stand alone they're not actual things. Just ideas. Concepts. Just like time. Point out width in the universe please?

Space and motion is all there is you fucking brainless amerimonkeys

The universe has 3 spatial dimensions as well as one time dimension?

Type in x y z w coordiantes (relative to current positing i guess, atleast for the first three), and thats that.

Am i missing somethign here?

Jesus you are dense. That can be said about literally everything you fucking moron. Kys, mr everything is an idea man.

You just don't get it yet. You might, some time. When you grow up and start to do your own thinking

The earth, EMR, your thick skull, these things all exist and are present in the physical universe. Gravity is measurable and predictable and has a clear effect but hasn't got an actual body. It's a result of something.

Time on the other hand is neither. It's nothing. Seriously, look at your own posts and tell me you've answered my question. All I see is triggered brainlet murichildren

>Oh noes this goed against my jewish indoctrination. MUST OBEY MASTERS

>And what is a dimension?
It's a quantity of measurement that can't be directly derived from any other chosen dimension.

>Width height and depth apparently are dimensions but stand alone they're not actual things. Just ideas. Concepts. Just like time.
They're concepts created by people in order to discuss properties of nature. Unless you want to retreat into hard solipsism, you have to acknowledge that those underlying properties of nature are actually objective - they "exist" in some sense.
A rock has mass.
A tree has height.
A day has duration.

>Point out width in the universe please?
Again, the word "exist" has several different meanings. My phone (for example) exists in a fundamentally different kind of fashion to how "width" exists. You appear to be confusing those meanings.

i debunked your mum in the ass yesterday, which means i'm debunking her now and forever

Time is a concept. Of course you can't go backwards in "time". Only brainlets come up with that time travel bullshit. Which there seems to be a lot ITT.

Post this shit where it belongs.

CPT-symmetry is absolutely mandatory. Logical arrow of time is property of spacetime. Math isn't physics, you need to be able to make sense of the predictions.

>Yeah they go slightly faster to account for the drag high speed objects suffer. My bad, was drunk yesterday coming from a festival

I'm sorry, but you still dont seem to get it even when you are sober. GR doesn't say anything about time-dilation due to velocity. What you are thinking of is special relativity(I guess, but I never heard any one bring up drag to explain it.) Satellites do get a tiny bit slower from time-dilation due to their relative speed. But the net result when you consider both GR and SR will be that GPS clocks are going faster than us. GR tells us that objects deeper in a gravity well(curvature of space Time) will go slower than ones that are not as deep. So you can even measure a difference if you go in a really high building, with out going high relative speed.

>relativity
wut?

Frequency.

The principals of spacetime can be extorted via frequency. The alcubierre drive in principal relies on destructive interference. To sum it up...
"Make Chronos kiss his own ass and ram his head up there..."

Chronoverses.
Separated from the Multiverse once a change has been initialised...

I don't know if it's been mentioned already, but how are you accounting for potential energy as a form of motion?

>It's a quantity of measurement
So just like a meter/yard. It's nowhere in the universe just on our papers. Thus proving my point

Yeah and the whole purpose of this thread is to acknowledge that these are mere concepts and do not actually physically exist in the universe like EMR or our planet.
Of course we work with "time" because we're a time oriented species. We observe it that way so it must be an actual thing! Just like the earth being the center of the universe. It looked that way back then! But tell me. How would EVERYTHING be different if we weren't the center of the universe but we build our foundation on that knowledge? Nothing. Just because it looks that way we can sure figure out the maths even though having a completely wrong view of things.
And no, I'm am certainly not confusing those meanings. By "exist" I mean that it has an actual physical body or substance in the universe. And "Time" is absolutely meaningless. Time as an actual thing does not have to exist and nothing we know would change
Me too

That Bingo chart is a bit ...wrong. But I do agree with you on the fact that "time travel" as allowed by GR and other maths and physics got mixed up. No, and I mean absolutely NO generally accepted theories today allow for destination based time travel. You can slow down your relative motion as opposed to others by going fast of hugging a fat chick or other heavy celestial body. But that's not time travel. That's a result of universal properties loosely described in the relativity theory.

Speed and mass causes a drag on matter, which causes it to move slower. Thus letting us, a time oriented species believe, we're moving slower through "time".
The faster you go, the slower you go. That makes absolute perfect sense. That's my whole point. The sum of vector -5 and +5 is always 0. Space and Time are 2 opposing vectors. More Space means less "time" (more drag). The universe is perfect, this is also the best solution .

Reached character limit.

Agreed

Oh man NOW I get it. *hands over Nobel prize*

What..?

Bitch you best be trolling or go back to fucking kindergarten

This idiot is right... All we've got are avoiding answers, desperately clinging on our "studies" even though science is about breaking out of that. But we don't do we

>Speed and mass causes a drag on matter, which causes it to move slower. Thus letting us, a time oriented species believe, we're moving slower through "time".
>The faster you go, the slower you go. That makes absolute perfect sense. That's my whole point. The sum of vector -5 and +5 is always 0. Space and Time are 2 opposing vectors. More Space means less "time" (more drag). The universe is perfect, this is also the best solution .

I'm struggling to response because I genuinely can't tell if this is your own butchered way of understanding relativity or your own theory.
Are you trying to explain an alternative to GR, or show that you understand it.
Whey you talk about drag on the matter, is it an analogy, or do you have some kind of new drag theory? If so, please elaborate.
If your point is that there is a connection between space and time, then I dont think anyone would disagree here, its not exactly a new concept.

If you unleash a potent enough frequency the expression of it can move spacetime. In theory with a veritable ass load of energy you can cause the fabric to "rip" and therefore escape the universe. Assuming this doesn't, and I quote; "kill the shit out of everything." Then you can use a subspace created and observe thr universe as a line and simply travel back in time. This however will create an alternate universe where you go back in time. Seeing yourself as a child. Killing yourself will do nothing because you "started" an alternate timeline and dissapeared from your own.

It is technically possible to jump back to your own timeline while in this alternate past using an exploit and kill yourself...once you do that though you will dissapear and have to answer to the big man himself...

The "magic" of timetravel is that...it makes alternate universes everywhere you use it. The mechanisations of it were always speculated to be somewhat possible within the realms of probabillity...I would not worry about it too much until you have aquired either Galaxy level energy sources or a collosal understanding of efficiency and harmonics....

Hollywood education everyone. Yes I've watched discovery as well. Thank you for your input.

Also, a "frequency" is not a standalone thing. It's how many wavelengths of something else occurs a second

Gud jaaawb "murica

It's a bit of both my interpretation as well as a new" theory". More a logical result of everything known and accepted today though.

Do you not see a problem in the fact that you can't understand subject matter without first being told how to interpret it..? Take it as is. Do your OWN fucking thinking mate

>It's a bit of both my interpretation as well as a new" theory"
You can make your own theories all you want. I don't think you can improve GR without even understanding it though.

Does your """""model""""" predict stuff like gravity waves, bending of light or black holes?
Can it even predict something as fundamental as planetary orbits? GR can do all this. and even did the first 3 i mentioned before we had experimental proof for them. That is something useful and in the end, if a model isn't useful in telling us about our universe, then its not worth shit.

You can say do your own thinking all you want, but I don't think you have put in even an afternoon of thinking into this.

What does your model say about to objects that are traveling at the same relative speed with each other, but different gravitational potential?
What does it tell us about red and blue shift of light due to speed, and due to gravity? Some mysterious drag doesn't seem to help with any of this, but maybe I dont understand your incredible theory, but I'm happy read your explanation of it.

>Whey you talk about drag on the matter, is it an analogy, or do you have some kind of new drag theory? If so, please elaborate.
Not him ,There is space being dragged by matter
Frame dragging.so there is some resistance happening.

Fucking pop sci faggots. Leave this fucking board!!!!!!!

If you slice a tree in half you manipulated its mass and decreased it by half. Even if time isn't a physical thing it could manipulated the same as dimensions could hypothetically of course

Point out space in the universe? Where is it? What is it made of?
Can you slice me some space?

Frame dragging is not drag on the matter, like we were talking about.
Time-dilation is about geometry, there isn't anything dragging or resisting the matter, and frame dragging doesn't say that either.

>Not understanding frame dragging is dragging of two unequal frames of reference to eachother meeting equilibrium a.k.a. gravity
u fucking brainlet

>Unless you manage to install a framework in the univer-

>pleonasm.
>claiming that the phrase "kinetic energy" is using more words than are necessary
>meaning 2 words is unnecessary to describe "kinetic energy", an only one is adequate
>implying both of those things is really one thing
>meaning the concept of "energy" is not different from or separated in any way from the concept "kinetic"
>meaning that the phrase is redundant because there is no difference in the meaning of the concept
>meaning if it's energy, it's also kinetic and therefore there can't be any type of energy that is not kinetic
>therefore there is no type of energy that is not kinetic, including different types of energy
>therefore solar, mechanical, nuclear, and all other types of energy do not exist, only kinetic
>physics falls apart
>your argument is contradictory and therefore invalid.

Ignorance of objective scientific concepts aside, OP's writing style is so fucking cringy that it makes me want to drink bleach. It's like every edgelord "little professor" stereotype rolled into one.

That being said, traveling large distances back in time on a macroscopic level is impossible. Nobody anywhere has said otherwise except for /x/ tier fuckos.

>Tell me, where exactly is next week? or last week?

Beyond the causal horizon. If you could somehow travel faster than light then you would also travel (from a stationary observer's point of view) backwards in time.

you are aware that your fucking GPS on your phone only works with that much precision because you have correction terms because GR

how did we tell the machine that

Going back in tome requires going faster than the speed of light in a non cheating way, which by its very nature is already going backwards in time. It's also impossible.

>tfw you realize time only exists so people in different reference frames can agree things happened

>you see star explode
holy shit
>proximity ayy's know it happened before we were born

that is all time is. In reality there is only now.

>inb4 debate on free will vs time as a dimention

What's impossible about an Alcubierre drive?

>Going back in tome requires going faster than the speed of light in a non cheating way,
Not necessarily. That's one way to do it, but closed timelike curves are another.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve

What did he mean by this?

That's a cheating way. You aren't actually experiencing any time dilation because you are not moving through space, it's moving with you. A warp drive could be turned off mid trip and you would instantly stop moving with no felt G forces, because you were never accelerating. The only way you can "go back in time" with a warp drive is by breaking apparent causality. Eg, travelling faster than your own emitted light to a destination. You can then look backwards and see yourself arrive at your destination after you've arrived at it. This isn't actually happening, it's just what the light reaching you appears to show.

This is the only way to achieve an illusion of time travel and it's what people who mention "world lines" often refer to, without fully understanding it.

But you really are moving through space, even if you're "stationary" compared to your local patch of space. If you moved away from your starting point then travelled back to it, keeping above the speed of light all the way, you would literally arrive before you departed.

No, you wouldn't. Time dilation only occurs when you move through space. At light speed, you acquire infinite dilation and the universe immediately ends. A photon experiences the entirety of its existence in an instant just like that.

Theoretically, if you had two ends of a very stable wormhole, you could move one end at near light speed for a while in circles around the other end. In theory, the end that was moved at relativistic speed will become a gateway to the past for people entering the stationary end. This clashes with the notion that time is an illusion, in my opinion. Physically travelling to the past and being able to kick your 12 year old self in the crotch isn't an illusion. I think it's impossible and wouldn't work like that.

Does time exist in a four dimensional way the same way that other space dimensions exist.
I mean, the way I see it, every instant in time of this Universe is actually a "frame" of the Universe in that given instant, and there is an infinite number of those frames, as there is an infinite amount of instants. Think of it like one of those old movie rolls that are made of a quick succession of pictures. What happens when you pile up hundreds of two dimensional pictures one over the other? They start looking more and more like a cube right? So couldn't each instant in this 3D universe actually be just a picture that is piled up infinitely forming a 4 dimensional thing called spacetime? My question was serious. The way I see it time is actually a collection of "Universes" "paused" in infinitely distinct instants. The same way a lot of 2D pictures that are shown in a certain fashion cause the feeling of time to someone watching a movie, and the same way if those pictures are piled up they'll look more 3D than 2D, it's how I perceive time as a whole. That is to say tomorrow already happened, tomorrow has always happened, and will always have happened. It happened at the same time as both the beginning and end of "time". What do you think Veeky Forums?

Time is the progression of events in the universe which is constant at most every level and scale

>you need to be able to make sense of predictions
Literally the exact point I was making. The fact that something, like time travel, doesn't create mathematical contradictions doesn't change the fact that it creates nonsense scenarios. I brought up causality as an example because without that condition you still will never run into any contradictions but you will completely fail to model spacetime.

You just said we have 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension. Why the fuck would you use coordinates for 4 spatial dimensions then? The only "position" you can use for time is the calendar on your wall.

I think you're saying time is a dimension.

What is motion? I get that time, energy, and space are all concepts,but what is force or the driving component behind vectors of force?

Your own time dilation has nothing to do with it. If you travel around at superluminal speeds you're going to be seen to be travelling backwards in time from some reference frame.

>thing that's already well known to be impossible DEBUNKED!!!!! xD I'm a genius!

You can't debunk something that isn't a thing to begin with, time travel is not a thing, no one seriously believes it's a thing who isn't a moron.

>no one seriously believes it's a thing who isn't a moron.
It's not actually ruled out by current physics.