Hello, I am new to this forum, and am curious about Special Relativity and the idea of time travel.
From the very moment I first heard of the story if Einstein watching the clock's hand moving backwards, time travel made perfect sense to me. Although i know nothing about the mathematics or physics of the whole theory.
For me, the thought if traveling faster than the speed of light has always been some thing I would toy with as a way of giving me something to do when I was bored. One day I was imagining I was going to race myself to a distant star (bright object in space). 1, 2, 3, go, and the race was on. Only this particular day, I decided to see if I could travel faster than the speed of the light emanating from my light bulb. I noticed immediately that I could begin to see the past, one minute ago, then 10, the as I approached five times then ten times the 100 times the speed of light (in my imagination) time began to move so fast into the past I was seeming to travel backward in time while still moving forward along the path of my race to the distant bright object in space.
However that backward time travel was only visible along a certain light path, or light tunnel as I called it as a young boy. Outside that light tunnel, and I could no longer see the past I could only see space and everything else around me. I had to enter back into that tunnel in order to see the past.
It wasn't till many years later when I was in Jr. High while not paying attention to my teacher as he went on and on about time travel and physics and then some guy named Einstein and his theory of Relativity. I was one step away from dream land when i heard that Einstein came up with the idea as he watch the hands of a clock begin to move backwards as he approached and passed the speed of light.
I think understand the concept of traveling faster than the speed of light and time moving slowly for the traveler as he approaches the speed of light; however my thinking is, when the traveler matched the speed of light time would appear to stand still and as the traveler began to go faster than the speed of light then time would appear to be going backwards. the faster the traveler would speed along the faster time (events) would go in reverse. If the traveler was able to view the events outside he would see the past. This I believe is why so many think time travel is theoretically possible.
As the traveler traveled at greater than light speed along his path he would in no way be able to interact with the past because the past he is viewing is just a projection of light as it traveled along a certain path, as if viewing a movie screen.
When the traveler turned around and headed back to his original location, time would have passed normally for everyone from his launch point. As he traveled back he would be able to observe that events outside his craft are now passing at a much accelerated rate. (Images of events traveling towards him at the speed of light and his travel speed greater than the speed of light, has a closing speed.)
This seems absolutely normal and easy to comprehend, however why does the theory state that travel into the future is easier than travel into the past? Again since I have no idea of the math involved, just from a common sense stand point, it only makes sense to me that travel into the past is easier than travel into the future.
Interacting with events either in the past or in the future to me is absurd, because the traveler is traveling from point A to lets say point B at speeds greater than the speed of light, and once the traveler arrived at point B he is no longer at point A and point B is somewhere in the distance away from point A.
For example, we look into the night sky with a (powerful telescope) and see a bright star (planet/object) and if we could focus that telescope to see the planet surface, (kinda like real time, like a futuristic google earth concept, just zoom in to ground level), we could see daily life on that planet as it played out second by second.
So daily we tune in to that planet and watch the normal activities on the planet surface. Then later we find that information has proven that planet was destroyed a millions years ago and what we are now seeing is the past, life as it was on the planet surface.
The light images from the planet surface are traveling outwards from the point of origin, and we were just viewing the light images as they speed past our telescope's focal point.
If this makes sense in this context, then why would any theory based on traveling from point A to point B regardless of the speed traveled, have the traveler arrive on the same planet in which he departed just at a different time? If anything, the traveler departs point A, travels towards point B, accelerates past the speed of light to the point at which time is now spinning backwards at a rapid rate, the traveler would then soon arrive back at point A having never left, and the only thing to show for his efforts is the clock on board is a different time and he hasn't aged.
My next concern is time travel concerning worm holes. Worm holes exist in physics and have been proven to exist, but no worm holes have been found to date, and yet the search continues. Many believe that alternate universes exist, and different fragments of our current realities play out on a different plane of existence; would it not make more sense to travel backward and forward in time interdenominationally by traveling laterally through an alteration of vibration or frequency, rather than through traveling at or greater than the speed of light?
The need for a time traveling machine would be obsolete, because of the variations of the various components and their respective vibrational rates would disrupt the journey having the machine break apart and arrive at different points in time all at once, leaving the traveler stuck or worse fragmented throughout time also. One would need a "travel suit" that alters the dimensional frequency of the suit and occupant?
In order for this type of travel to be possible, the traveler would have to travel to a known location (future or past) where there are no obstructions where he could have the possibility of traveling and arriving inside a stone wall or traffic or other known or unknown obstacles?
If this were the case, would it not stand to reason that the traveler would travel in a safe location that could possibly be hundreds of miles away from anything that could interfere with his arrival?