If you vibrate furiously you'll statistically, eventually, be at the exact same position you were a small delta time ago. You won't know when that's gonna happen, but you know it will eventually, probably, happen.
I find the idea that I'm not eventually gonna be everywhere an infinite amount of times ridiculous. Sure the universe can be infinite, but then there's also infinite me's. It's inevitable.
Correction: systems do not _often_ rearrange themselves into a previously ordered state. It is neither impossible for them to end up by chance in their original configuration, nor is it true that it has never happened. It is merely true that it should not be _expected_ to. Likewise, in this case, I feel the argument here about how there is no location that is non-relative is merely an assumption based on the fact that we need to define relationships between where things are to determine location. I do not agree. If we had perfect knowledge of not only where everything is, but where it has ever been and will ever be, and when it will be there, you can use those dimensions of time and space to form a coordinate system, and while allowing for non-matching coordinates along the time axis, you can thus return to a spacial location. The location will be the same because it will have been defined as being the same according to the coordinate system, regardless of whether that location in any way currently resembles what it did previously in time. Even if we take into account the possibility that the coordinate system is itself changing over time, we can simply convert the change of the system itself as another axis like we did with time, and use the new system as our definition of location. We can continue to do this across infinite dimensions and axes to eliminate infinite variables that prevent may get in our way, and in the end what this means is that location and its subjectivity are things we have defined and have control over. We defined location as how some place is related to some other place, but that is not the only way to define location and it is not the only way we have ever defined location. The problem is to do entirely with the perception of location, which is an unnecessary variable. One does not need to know their location for it to be their location, and similarly one needs not be able to understand how to measure it for it to be true. There are many things we have measured that were previously impossible for us to measure, that we have done only because we changed how we define the process of measuring or understanding those measurements. Thus things that were "impossible" to us once, were all the same, still always true, in spite of our definition of it being that it is false, and so applies to location. Relativity is not the truth... it is a possible truth and is not the only possible truth, nor a purely mutually exclusive truth, as it inherently depends on us to define it as true.
There is a thing called momentum that you have to reverse if you wanted to travel back in time, like the momentum of everything. The thing that was moving forward you would have to apply a force to make it go backward and vice versa. That's a lot of work you would have to apply on a universal scale.
But momentum is relative like velocity, so momentum can only be reversed relative to some reference frame - a stationary object reversed relative to a moving one will be sent flying at twice the speed to catch up to it
The CMB Dipole suggests that there are absolute positions in space. We are moving about 600 kps relative to the CMB, which is only about 4 times the maximum speed reached by the Parker Solar Probe, meaning there's no theoretical reason we can't position something stationary relative to the universe, move away from that point, and return to it.
This is a common sense video. Because if you could genuinely travel back in time, it would exactly be like a video or song played backwards. All your thoughts, your breathing patterns your body chemistry would have to be acting in reverse. All of that is going on when you play a video backwards. But you can not see it because it is all internal and not visual. But that is exactly what is going on when you play content in reverse. There was an iconic rap group in the 90s called the Pharcyde. They had a video that they came out with called "Drop". That video is actually a timeless classic. If you watch that video and find out how it was composed, you will see how it correlates to this video about space and time
Thanks for this video @dialectphilosophy. For a long time now, I thought that motion in space (both backward and forward) was silly. Of coarse all matter only travels forward! I've been thinking about doing a video myself, but yours is very good. Thanks.
No, actually, for any spacelike vector, an object's 4-velocity may be oriented with any inner product sign with respect to that vector (i.e. toward or against it), but for a timelike or lightlike vector, an object's 4-velocity may only be oriented one way with respect to that vector, depending on which way that timelike/lightlike vector points. You may travel against any space-directed 1-form, but not against forward-pointing time-directed 1-forms (which come from the exterior derivative of your "time" coordinate).
Well done, and great points. There's a saying that you can never step in the same river twice. The water flows, fish swim, gravel tumbles, branches float by, and so on. It is a close enough approximation of the same river, but it is not exactly the same. That's true of your house, too. You come home at the end of the day, and many things that you don't notice (or maybe do) have changed. Some paint chipped off there. A newspaper landed on a flower and smashed it. A window now has bird poop on it. The roof is hotter and some composite has come off and rolled into the rain gutter. Wasps started a nest in the eaves. And thousands of other details, mainly small -- but maybe big! The newspaper maybe broke a window, or a large tree branch landed on your roof. You can never return to the same exact house as it existed in the point in spacetime from where/when you left it.
Glad someone understands spacetime. Your logic hasn't fallen on deaf ears. One thing about AE's equation states forward motion isn't possible without breaking that light barrier. Tweaking it will allow forward motion. However, that breaks his law on time travel. Only conclusion: one speed one direction.
I tried to explain this when talking about traveling backwards in time and how you would end up dead in space and not on Earth. People we're very confused.
@@robertbeaman5761 Traveling back in space-time, because they are linked, you would end up on earth at its previous state (coordinates in space-time). Traveling backwards in space, while the arrow of time isn't reversed, well, then you would end up dead in space. which is pretty much the point of this video - you can't, because space-time coordinates exist only in relation to initial inertial frame of reference, which must be at absolute rest where absolute rest is impossible for something that exist and also it's also relative...
Depends, if you use consensus science and pick any old constant in some made up equation and call it a "dimension" you can travel, maybe it won't happen like that.
Some of these ideas are down to language and definitions. To 'travel in space' suggests space is a 'thing' like a fabric that you move 'through', in other words with respect to. Space has to be a total featureless void (as you are in fact saying) for relativity to hold, there's nothing there to travel through in the first place. You can only move between objects so you're only altering the configuration of you and the objects. Then of course you can reconfigure things back to the original position. As for the mug even if you could put it back together exactly in absolutely every respect you're only making a perfect copy of the past in normal time, you're not going back in time. To go back in time you'd have to obliterate any evidence or memory that the mug broke from the universe or you'd have two pasts: one where it broke and another where it didn't, again we need to sort the semantics before delving into the physics.
Mark W That means Galileo could be wrong =)) . I think the solution for all of these is we have to figure out what truely fixed is in the whole universe.
@@aaronmorris1513 acceleration isn't comparative, it's absolute, and can be detected with a set of scales. If you stand on the scales in your bathroom and it shows a "weight" (actually a force), your home is accelerating with respect to something.
Watching your various videos has helped me a little to understand the differences between absolute and relative space and time. Would you do a video that in simple terms explains the debate between Newton and Leibniz about absolute and relative space and time? Maybe that was what you are talking about at 3:07 to 3:24. My mom wonders why Leibniz would say absolute rest is not possible, is that partially explained in the Newton's spinning bucket with water video you made?
This video makes less sense the more I think about it. I wonder if he's changed his mind on this given his newer videos. This one makes some of the same mistakes that he criticizes other videos making.
I think yes, it'd require you to put everything back in the state it was in the past, which would require energy you could take from the rest of the universe, kind of like putting in energy to cool down your fridge, but you'd have to know everything about the system
@@mementomori7160 You still can't because second law of thermodynamics still holds in any isolated system. Unless you are talking about quantum systems with very few particles. Then you may return to the exact state in the past.
@@MrNicePotato We're talking about reversing time locally, and I said you'd have to take the energy from the outside, therefore we don't consider it as an isolated system that reverses time on it's own, that's why I think it is possible, just like cooling inside of your fridge by heating up the outside of it
@@MrNicePotato You can, because as he says it "would require energy you could take from the rest of the universe". So long as the entropy created in the outer universe is equivalent or greater than the entropy that was reduced by resetting the objects locally, the total entropy still increased. Imagine having a hot meal on a cold plate. The meal slowly cools down until the heat of the warm meal is equally spread out across the meal and the plate (more entropy). Then you rewind time to when the meal was still hot and the plate was cold (less entropy). If this takes no energy at all, then you just reduced the total entropy in the universe and broke the second law of thermodynamics. But, if the action of rewinding time for the meal created an equal amount of entropy elsewhere (inside the device you used to perform the rewind?), then it's fine because the total amount of entropy in the universe did not go down. It decreased in one place, but increased by an equal (or greater) amount elsewhere. It's just that your _local-time-rewind-device_ needs to - _will_ - release enough heat (or other form of entropy) to compensate for the entropy reduction caused by the local time travel. I like to think that rather than heat, a local-time-travel-device would have to increase the passage of time on some other object. Just as an AC produces more heat than it removes from the air, a device that manipulates time could rewind one thing, but would have to fast-forward another, and by more than was rewound. Could be a neat science fiction plot. Like a little rewind gun with an "entropy battery": You aim and shoot to rewind an object which fills the entropy battery as the object is rewound more and more, but you can't go too far or the entropy battery will explode. Then if you want to rewind more, you must first release all entropy from the battery by fast-forwarding other objects.
Surely absolute spacial location is an ill defined concept. 'Where are you in space?' is not a sensible question, that is the whole idea of relativity no? All we need to do is define what ever coordinate system/reference frame is most useful and then there is nothing stopping us from returning to a prior location in those coordinates. Also if you want the most global reference frame possible choosing the cosmic microwave background seems like a pretty good shout. We'd need a pretty bad ass rocket to get us where we were yesterday but theres nothing in physics that would stop us. (maybe in biology haha, might involve some serious G force).
@@PulseCodeMusic I get that but it’s still interesting to think about. Also I think the main point of the video wasn’t really about going back to your old position but about that neat relationship between space and time
I am so glad someone made a video about this because I've been thinking about this for a long long time. If you want to travel back in time you have to return all the matter back to where it used to be and also account for the space created or let's call it the expansion of space and contract that as well. I guess I'm not the only idiot who thinks about pointless stuff like this.
I feel the same. I’ve been thinking about this ever since I started to understand Relativity theories. I’m so glad I found this video. I’ve always wondered why high level physicists still talk about this incorrectly. This simple idea builds on and makes Einsteins theory of Spacetime. more easily digestible
looking in the hubble space telescope is technically watching a movie of that planet or sun in real time from the past as it happened 100 years ago if that planet is 100 light years away..so you are actually seeing the matter from 100 years ago interacting we can't go back but we can observe the past 😉 Einstein was wrong we can't go forward or back no matter what we do we can observe the past that's all and there is zero physical proof that time would stop for a person on a space ship traveling light speed our observation of that ship would appear to stop because the light can't travel to us. But there is no proof or logical reason why the person in the ship would age slower or there clock would magically tick slower .as spock would say that's illogical..lol
@@sailingmohican2767 You completely correct with looking in the past.. Though it is 'proven' by General Relativity that if you were traveling through spacetime at the speed of light ( which really nothing with mass can) your time / clock would stop..⌚ It's the same situation with GPS.. They have to always take General Relativity time dialation into account or GPS would never be distance accurate .. 🛰️GPS satellites are traveling around the earth, through 'space-time' faster than we on the ground are, so their time/ clocks tick a little slower ( tiniest difference, but enough to throw out distance accuracy )slower than ground clocks do, so the GR calculations adjust for the difference.. ( With this next bit it helps having a space-time axis diagram to picture what I mean.. ( An L shape, with time⬆️ & space➡️ ) & remembering that our movement / travel always adds up to the speed of light through 'space- time'.. Not thru space alone nor through time alone , but both added up ) So, now if we are traveling through spacetime at the Speed of light.. Because we ( with mass) don't go fast compared to the S.of L., nearly all of our movement through space-time is through time (We experience 1 sec/sec along the time axis) but not much movement through space ( stuck going slow on a planet, or on the space axis).. But.. If you travel fast, 🚀zooming through space-time so fast, at the speed of light, suddenly all of your movement is through space,🌠 or on the space axis, leaving no movement left over to experience time.. That's cos the speed of light is not about light, it's about the speed of causality.. The fastest that anything can happen.. I don't reckon we'll ever go back in time, but forward in time , or changing our time compared to someone else happens all the time.. 🤦♀️ Despite the crappy explanation it's true.. 🤯It so cool & freaking amazing how spacetime works.. Basically it's saying that the faster you go through spacetime, the slower your clocks tick/ run.. As in satellites clocks all run slower than any clocks on the ground.. The bigger the difference in speed, the bigger the clocks are out.. It is actually taken into account for so many things.. 🌏☮️♾️
Well, I guess a discussion about CTCs (van Stockum/Goedel 1937/1949) and the self-consistency principle by Novikov (mid-1980s) could be way more interesting.
If you move from a point to the "next" point in any direction you change positions. Period. Local or not. Or if some object changes position with respect to you, it changes position. Who moved? Who should move to recover the previous "position". Also if you ignore other frames to turn around is irrelevant you still have to increase your distance from where you are to where you're going. You can't draw a line with a negative length.
This assumes that global space is not related to your temporal space and thus time dilation couldn’t exist, but it does. Otherwise we would experience different time dilation when the Earth’s spin move with the motion around the sun or against the sun. But the GPS satellites don’t have to take this into consideration. Because in reality local spacial frames of reference govern out total motion
If you and your spaceship were travelling across space in the left direction, at say 260,000 km/s, but you then fired your rocket engines while pointing toward the right direction, and for some time you had obtained a spatial velocity of say 130,000 km/s, where in space you were located a minute ago, is now ahead of you. Thus, you have travelled backwards in space.
Earth, sun, galaxy etc are moving in locked orbits. But what if you are traveling in a spaceship and do not experience any gravitational force so you can chose freely where to move. Then, unless you believe that space itself is moving, you can get back exactly where you were.
If we are watching or moving relative to time. what kind of reference frame that time would use to see us if we travel approximately at the speed of light ? SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER THIS FOR ME 🤔🤔🤔🤔
We don't know what space _is_ and how it works exactly (how it grows, or whether its parts rearrange for instance), we could even add the issues of ontology of time (eternalism, presentism, ...) and identity of objects. All in all, you should remain agnostic on whether you can or cannot travel to some point in space that you've occupied earlier (with a spaceship for instance).
Cf. Einstein's Hole argument, that bothered him for many years. Some locations may not be “locations” in the full sense of the word, i.e. be possible to assign coordinates to. That, or not fully covariant. As for traveling backward in space... in which theory? Such a theory requires, at the least, to define what is "traveling," "a location,” and a distinction between forward and backward (which you've noted so keenly). Incidentally, the theory does not require a notion of time; the “traveling” subsumes it, and simply time isn't enough. These prereqs are easy to satisfy, but it's helpful to keep in mind that they ain't givens. Very good point, thanks for bringing ti up!
We stole the idea for this video from a passage written in a textbook we came across once. Later, we discovered Einstein had written about the very same thing in the prefaces to a discourse he had written on relativity. It seems like he had borrowed it from elsewhere as well, so it is certainly not a new argument. It does raise the issue of the relationship between space and time, which, even from a classical standpoint, can be viewed as blended to a certain extent. We feel that was what was most compelling about the topic... also of course, that it hints at why both absolute space and absolute time are impossible, or at least unknowable.
Position is defined in refence to a frame. So this is just being obtuse...we might as wll say we can't move in space at all since we are always at the origine of our own rest frame. Also you are refering to an inconvenience as an impossibility.
So if space fllows as time do and we can localy go backward in space, what is the equivalence in time ? can we go backward in time "loacaly" ? Is it equivalent to just slow the time flow ?
As I understand, the going "locally" backwards is just defining that a forward state is the "same" as the backward one. And of course it is arbitrary, as you can define what you choose to ignore(your reference system). So it is possible to do it with time, but as in space you are not going backward in time, you are going forward to a state that is defined as "the same" under an arbitrary reference system. An example might be just fixing something, you didnt go backwards in time but you might say its the same as before in some arbitrary way like the case of going back home. So you can say it went backwards on time locally. Although I dont know If I understood correctly.
I agree. Notice how the spatial structure of the universe seems to mirror as it scales up or down. An atomic nucleus or particle is exceedingly small compared to the spatial size of the overall atom. Same with stellar systems. Same with large structures such as galactic clusters.
changing with every evaluation the system of reference and adding more and more movements, lead to video conclusion, of course. But if you don't change the reference system and you don't add new movements to the system, lead to the same conclusion?
but not being able to travel backwards in space is not as absolute as not being able to travel backwards in time. Just because lets say the processes of entropy are reversed in a system it doesnt mean it has traveled to the past, it just reaarranged. The same is not the case with space, except space itself is moving inside another dimension or wtf idk
😂 Entropy fucks it up. It doesn't like us trying re-arranging things to a order we like, yet we are here and somehow we live in those small pockets of stability amidst a unforgiving universe that doesn't give a shit to us.
The equivalence is here bad presented: the question is not if you can return to the exactly point of departure, but if you can go back, or go laterally or go forward, in short: if you can choose a direction and a toward, yes, you can, even if you are transported by space flow. But with the time you haven't these freedom degrees, you can only eventually slow the time or accelerate it by moving you near to ou farer from a mass (scalar modification of the time speed), without vectorial degrees of freedom: direction and toward. So, not: the time and the space are not equivalent and are not "dimensions".
I agree with you. Space may be a dimension but time is not. Also, if to move in ''time'' which I consider as non-existent, one would change the surroundings and that would affect the cause and effect rule even on microscopic level. One can flow through space but not through time and time itself does not flow either. It's always always.
Your entire argument is predicated in the existence of absolute positions and motion through space. That’s obviously not what we mean. Since space and distance are intrinsically relative, we can absolutely “return” to a location in space. All we have to do is return to the same relative distance between objects of reference-a point you even acknowledge at the end of the video.
You don't get it. One can return to an object or place locally but not to the same position in space that object was when you left. That's what he acknowledges at the end... Everything is moving at once, you can only return "home" because both you and your house are moving at the same rate is relation to the planet, so it seems like everything is perfectly still, but the planet is moving through space, so you'll never get back to same position in space. get it now?
@@MultiVigarista No, YOU don't get it. Read my comment again. The reason you can't "return" to a point in space is because there was never a "point in space" to begin with. It is literally meaningless to think about space in this way. And since that's not what we mean when we say "point in space," the argument itself is a gigantic fallacy of equivocation built on a false premise.
@@AntiCitizenX we can call it "general region in space" then, if that makes you feel better I guess. For all it matters we can be talking about a region 5 m^3 in 3d space the argument still holds, you can't return to it... 😅
But hold on... there is a perfectly valid frame of reference in which I can go back to the exact same place I was earlier. What you're actually saying, is that there is no absolute frame to contradict me. Okay... fine! So, here I am ... inarguably back where I was : ) Of course, whether the "me" that goes back can be said to be the same "me" that left, is a far knottier problem : )
Well, one should understand that physics is local! There is no point in imposing global constraints in every conceivable scenario. You can move to and fro in space, but not in time. Period.
The point is that it’s the same as time. You can move through time at different rates relative to other matter, as you can move through 3D space at different speeds, but you can never move backwards in either.
Dialect 2 objects in empty space. One steps on the gas, accelerates, moves away, turn's around, come's back and meets the 2nd object... No Earth, no fixed stars, no nothing else in the Universe... Are you still saying that even then - these 2 objects when they meet again, they will not be at the same point in space as they were before their separation? Is that because of the Universe expanding? And if not, then why? Is it because we assumed that the 2nd object is inertial when if fact we can't say for sure if it really is inertial? Is that the point of this video?
Under those philosophical conditions, time wouldn't allow being able to be in the same space even if you could physically go back there anyways. Entropy would ensure you wouldn't be the same you when you made it back. For instance, the last heard, which is admittedly a while back now, that the human body changes every cell in its body every seven years. So, if you did actually manage to get back to an exact point in space you existed in before, likely none of the atoms that made you up would make it back there with you, just your consciousness.
Hold up. This is an argument from ignorance (a common fallacy). Not knowing what direction in space the spot you were at some finite amount of time in the past was does not equate with it being impossible to move to that location. It only means that if you do it, you won't know it.
Good point, and bravo for bringing that up! Is it merely a sort of epistemological confusion to equate an inability to define a past place to ontological unreality of that place? If something cannot be known to truly exist, then empirically speaking does it really exist? These sorts of questions are the true fun of the philosophy of physics!
@@dialectphilosophy If there is a reality that exists independently of being observed or known about -- I hope we all agree on that -- then events, like an object returning to a prior location (whatever that means in expanding spacetime), occur with or without someone being able to determine whether they have happened. It is of course still entirely reasonable to take the view that one should not concern oneself with the unknownable. I agree with the latter but I don't see how the admissions of one's epistemological limitations would impact on the ontological state of affairs.
@@Blackpill149 Facts don't care about our knowledge. It is good to know about one's limitation to know things, but it is hybris to think things don't happen because we are unaware of them. The same nonsensical school of thought led some to believe that a wave collapse needs a conscious observer. To me, this is no better than people in the middle ages thinking the universe revolved around the earth.
Came thinking this would be the same argument as you can't have a negative speed (but you can have negative velocity). Which might be related to negative energy. Also interesting that in 2D random movement will certainly result in returning to the same location - maybe the 2nd law of thermodynamics isn't necessarily true in 2D (or especially 1D) due to the dimension itself.
I love this. We all have a path, a lifeline, which is predetermined, from start to end. Free will is an illusion. We feel time as a river that cannot be tampered with. But we feel that we ourselves determine our movements in space. But this is an illusion. A very convincing illusion. However, why there is a difference between our perception of the temporal and the 3 spatial dimensions is still a mystery.
It's all abstract anyway. Dimensions and quantities are useful for explaining observations and evidence but don't definitively manifest themselves. We don't really know what 'existence' means or where to draw the universal line between conscious and unconscious.
@@coopergates9680 What absolutely exists is what all observers agree upon. An observer is a coordinate system on the 4D Lorentzian manifold of spacetime.
@@tyedee7552 It's our best guess and still philosophical, you can't point to an x, y, or z axis (let alone an origin) sitting there among celestial bodies, just imagine it. "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
the CMB is different depending on where you observe it. Obviously as the biggest and farthest observable thing in the universe, it is impractical to get a significantly different perspective on it. But hypothetically, just as the constellations would look different in a different solar system, the CMB would look different from a different galaxy (especially very distant galaxies) hm.... actually the more I think about it this doesn't really dispute your point... I mean sailors use the stars to navigate. So to repeat your question, why can't a space traveler use the CMB to gauge their motion? I mean the entire CMB will be blue/red shifted hemispheres depending on your direction of travel. Maybe it is a dumb distinction but "relative to CMB is still relative". Relativity doesn't stop you from comparing reference frames, it just says that no reference frame is privileged or more authoritative than others.
Rather than it being impossible, it sounds like we have no definition for places in an absolute sense. You can travel back to your home if you define your home as being the place where your house is. The definition of the place is anchored to your house, so wherever the house is that's where we agree your home is. But what does it mean to go to where your house was 1 second ago? We don't have any definition of where that place is. We could say that since your house 1 second ago was in the past, that the place should also be 1 second in the past, in which case we can't go there and it would be impossible. Alternatively we could say that it's the position of your house relative to the earth that your house had 1 second ago (e.g. in latitude and longitude), in which case you could go to "the same place", despite the earth moving relative to the sun and so on. Whether it's possible or impossible depends on what we mean by going "back" or a place being "the same".
This is the 4th video I watched on your channel. I already had a headache from not being able to stop my mind from thinking about physics, but now it’s worse because I can’t tell what you’re trying to prove with your videos or if you’re just messing around for the sake of being funny or if there’s a point you’re trying to make by being funny.
If an event is marked by the emission or reflection of a photon, then an observer at a distance will view that Photon. If the light is in fact a wave, it expands in a spherical surface at c. If the observer wants to vies the event again, he would have to travel faster that the speed of the wave, c, but this is impossible. It doesn't matter how fast the observer travels, he can never go back to the emission or reflection of that photon or wave...
What do you mean time is a "static block"? We perceive a "flow" to time because you can spill the milk, but it will never unspill it, you can yell, but not unyell, heat moves from hot to cold, never from cold to hot. Same with breaking the glass, burning a stick and a myriad of other "one way" reactions. Time it is a measure of the capability of a particular reference frame to accommodate change. The limit to this capability of change is the speed of light.
"Time" as we know it - as it is marked by the hands of a clock - is a measurement of space's capacity for change. Just as a yardstick is a measure of the "spatial" component of space - time so is a clock the measure for the "time" component. This capacity for change ranges from subatomic events to events spanning thousands of light years. Time seems to flow because, each event begins with the final condition from the pervious event. The apparent "one-way" flow arises from entropy or the tendency for events to lead to a more disordered, low energy state. The glass falls, hits the ground and breaks. It never unbreaks, jumps off the ground to land back on the dining room table.
Well if you somehow teleported to 2300 lightyears -or whatever- from here and looked towards here with a telescope, then yes; you could watch those events. When we see the Sun, it is how it was 8:20 min before we saw it, since it's what it takes for the light to travel the distance to the Earth. I have a question for it, though. Is it really the past? From what I understand, after learning so much about relativity, the speed of time equals the speed of light, so we aren't seeing the "past" of the Sun, only the present that the light tells us is present.
@@rektaltotal is all right Joker man. I see your handle. Reminds me of another story with time travel elements. Rich little who plays w.c fields , an offscreen and on screen misanthrope,in his rich littles Xmas Carol. Maxwell smart is the ghost of an Xmas past' " I'm here for your RECclamation". Scrooge: RECclamation ? I think I gave... at the Doctor's". Now to find your actual reply.. if I can. Tech tard. Among other things that is .
It's a terrible movie. It's a movie that pretends to be clever by incorporating physics concepts, but it's execution is ridiculous because humans in our current physical form can't exist under those conditions. When he's moving in reverse time for example, hot becomes cold, which means that the light from the sun would have frozen him to death. Not to mention that light wouldn't even bounce of objects and into his eyes, instead light would be projected from his eyes and onto objects before it returned to it's original source. So he'd be bind with glowing eyes. If you keep thinking about it it just gets worse and worse. So when watching a movie like that you're not supposed to think about it, because if you do it won't make any sense. It even tells you in the movie to not think about it to hard, basically telling you to shut up and eat your popcorn.
While I agree with the conclusion, that there is no backward in space, the reasoning is flawed. First, there is reason to believe that there may be an inherent position of space, suggested by the directionality of the CMB. But even if we could determine that precisely (which seems likely to some degree of accuracy in the future), any designation of "forward" or "backward" could only be arbitrary and the possible selections infinite. So you can't go "backward" in space in any absolute sense, and anyway considering space as separate from time isn't scientifically meaningful.
You mean, such as the dipole moment of the CMB? Yes, sure, and there are speeds at which the CMB is so blue-shifted it would vaporize all known materials. But that's not really about space _per se_ any more than _up_ is about space rather than the planet you are on. It's still relative to other stuff. One could conceivably build a Faraday cage big enough to keep that stuff out.
@@deadman746 my point is that if you got off the earth and stopped moving relative to "space" (by which I meant the universe, using motion relative to the CMB as reference) it would be possible to retrace a path taken away from that point, back to that point, but I wouldn't refer to it as backward motion, the notion of which seems seems arbitrary. It wouldn't be inaccurate though if you were moving in the direction of the rear of your craft. There are other factors which I won't get into, after all it's a purely academic question on a topic of little academic interest 😄
Imagine an impossible object... Object is one inch sphere Object is indestructable Object is the only thing in this Universe that does not ever move. Every other object moves relative to sphere. For anyone who notices sphere it would seem to move very very strangely, and would be scary too...
@@LastSuperiority if object is switched to Metric? One Kilometer sphere instead of one inch... Imagine that approaching at 5% of light speed; destroy planets, damage stars... There are three impossible things about it, so changing diameter does not make it any weirder. However larger would be more intimidating if an indestructable object could exist.
@Mark G Not my intention. Sphere could be Dark Matter, or for other reason, not interact with regular matter, but in some way detectable if entity is nearby...My intention was to describe a single object that never ever moves for the duration of this Univers; Absolute Referance Object that could be used to define every other object via distance and direction to immovable sphere. Just a thought of what if...
A person on another comment said something similar, but an object that had zero dimensions. I think you just described could be some sort of white hole, kinda like the big bang that started this universe and brought into existence all of its energy, matter and laws of physics. But in this case, it's just an annoying destructive alien parasitic universe (an alternative universe) that collide with our universe and it is just sticking through the fabric of space-time like a sore thumb, like a big fuck-you middle-finger pointed to any sapient life form in this universe observing such cosmologically horrifying object.
