Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

captainstormy t1_j0zoflb wrote

Reply to comment by NefariousNaz in What if time travel is impossible because of this? by [deleted]

> Time travel to the future is pretty easy by moving at relativistic speeds due to time dilation.

It's not really time travel. Time just moves slower for the person affected by heavy gravity or moving at the speed of light.

2

jumpmanzero t1_j0zqqe4 wrote

Sure... but I mean.. if you went to sleep and woke up in the year 4500, it would feel a lot like time travel, right?

2

captainstormy t1_j0zr09i wrote

It doesn't matter what it feels like. It isn't time travel. That's like saying you time travel 8 hours into the future when you go to sleep because you didn't perceive those 8 hours.

−3

pab_guy t1_j0zsbq1 wrote

> That's like saying you time travel 8 hours into the future when you go to sleep because you didn't perceive those 8 hours.

Which is actually perfectly valid from a certain perspective. But I think your simile is not really accurate... in the case of time dilation your entire presence is not experiencing time at the same rate, which is simply one method of time travel. With sleeping the time travel is purely experiential.

1

jumpmanzero t1_j0zsspk wrote

We don't call it time travel because it's too familiar - but it is, in a way. We're all travelling through time, all the time. Or it least it feels like we are.

I mean, say I made a ship that produces WARP SCOOBY-DOO fields that distort the flow of time, and when I get in it, press a button, and get out, I'm in the year 4500.

But when I get there, some bald guy is like "oh, you weren't time travelling, you were just in STASIS for 2500 years". I'd dramatically tell him to "STEP OFF MY TIME BISTRO" - but how would I prove any sort of difference?

What is the real difference? That the ship was sitting there, with me looking frozen the whole time? Is that what counts? Would it make a difference if it was cloaked behind the scooby-doo rays?

What if I got in the ship and then got out in the past - would it matter then that the ship was sitting there with me frozen inside "during transit"?

1

Odh_utexas t1_j10o115 wrote

I’m with you. People are arguing semantics without ever defining the bounds of this conversation

2

takenbysubway t1_j0zrck0 wrote

That is time travel. Similar to using cryogenics, you’ve effectively skipped over x amount of time into the future.

1

captainstormy t1_j0zrp24 wrote

But you haven't skipped over it. It still happened and your body was there for the whole thing. Your consciousness simply wasn't able to perceive it.

0

takenbysubway t1_j0zs16g wrote

If I fall asleep and wake up in the year 3000 (something I never could reach in a normal lifespan), I would say that’s time travel. The end result is winding up in a time that is not naturally my own.

1

captainstormy t1_j0zse87 wrote

If you lay there for 978 years before waking it. It absolutely isn't time travel. It can appear that way to you. But it isn't. Your body simply laid there for 978 years.

1

takenbysubway t1_j0zspbr wrote

Agree to disagree, but Stephen Hawking used the term “time travel” to describe this very thing in Into the Universe.

1

ApexTheDestroyer t1_j0zrk23 wrote

You would appear to time travel to others looking on. NDT explained it well.

1

captainstormy t1_j0zsk82 wrote

Something appearing to be the case doesn't make it scientifically true. Magicians have made a living out of things appearing to be the case that aren't really true.

2