Cheap Time travel

[gingerjedi]

He didn't say it did.

No but (relative) movement does. If you sit on the bottom of the ocean or on a hill, you are moving at a different speed.

Thankyou d000hg

The OP starts off with a scenario where he introduces the idea that an almost inconceivably small time delay equates to time travel and then has the cheek to debunk my valid point (admittedly equally inconceivable), I should have clarified that it is relative to the observer.

Double standards.

Not my workings but here you go:

Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[d000hg]

I can't remember, do GPS satellites need relativity adjustments? If so is that predominantly due to reduced gravity or greater velocity relative to us on Earth?

[gingerjedi]

I can't remember, do GPS satellites need relativity adjustments? If so is that predominantly due to reduced gravity or greater velocity relative to us on Earth?

Yes, they 'tick' faster as gravity is weaker.

I admit I did have to look it up.

http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm

Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I would like to say there's no such thing as 'now'.

It's quite difficult to remove this idea from your head once it's made a home. But as others have pointed out my 'now' will be moving at a different rate from your 'now'. There's no such thing as a universal 'now'.

Holding onto that thought, everybody's personal 'now', it's become possible that I could see into your past.

More worryingly it suggests that free will is an illusion. Regardless of how our 'nows' are played out our destination is the same.

Time for a coffee.

'Free will' doesn't even make sense. Why on earth would you want non-deterministic 'free will'? If it's non-deterministic then it's random, and where is the value in random decision making?

[SpontaneousOrder]

He didn't say it did.

No but (relative) movement does. If you sit on the bottom of the ocean or on a hill, you are moving at a different speed.

You've got that wrong.

If you're at the bottom of a hill then you are moving slower (Relatively speaking) - so you experience more time passing, not less.

You are, however, in a region of less gravitational potential which means that time will pass slower in that respect.

I don't know which will outweigh the other, and it would depend on how deep down you are and how dense the particular planet you're on is (i.e on a very large, but not very dense planet then the speed difference could be large while the gravitational potential difference is very small.).

[SpontaneousOrder]

Thankyou d000hg

The OP starts off with a scenario where he introduces the idea that an almost inconceivably small time delay equates to time travel and then has the cheek to debunk my valid point (admittedly equally inconceivable), I should have clarified that it is relative to the observer.

Double standards.

Not my workings but here you go:

Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You did say it:

That's wrong isn't it? I thought time travelled slower at altitude?

[scooterscot]

Thankyou d000hg

The OP starts off with a scenario where he introduces the idea that an almost inconceivably small time delay equates to time travel and then has the cheek to debunk my valid point (admittedly equally inconceivable), I should have clarified that it is relative to the observer.

Double standards.

Not my workings but here you go:

Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh calm down, don't get your panties in a twist.

[scooterscot]

You did say it:

He did right enough.

Top gun science rules of engagement exist for your safety and for that of your team, they are not flexible nor am I. You either obey them or your history Mr, is that understood?

[gingerjedi]

You did say it:

But the man on the mountain lives longer relative to the man on the ocean floor, I did also say I should have clarified that it is relative to the observer.

Someone at sea level would conclude that time has passed more slowly for the man on the mountain.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Someone at sea level would conclude that time has passed more slowly for the man on the mountain.

No. They aren't moving relative to each other, so there is no relative velocity time dilation - only gravitational time dilation. Gravitational time dilation doesn't mirror both ways because it falls outside of special relativity (and into general relativity).

In this case the man on the mountain would age more.


I believe Scoots comment, though, is related to you using the word 'travel' - time is a dimension and so it doesn't travel. Infact the word travel by definition implies a change in position in relation to a change in time; so that's a limitation in the english language - it's very hard to talk abut time in a non-recursive way.