The Problem of Composition: Why Time Travel is Limited by Our Physical Makeup

[googlecubed]

Whatever other arguments that one make for or against time travel, the one that limits us to the greatest degree is one of composition.

Each of us is made up of cells made up of physical elements from the air we breathe, the food we eat and even have a brain that is shaped by the experiences and thoughts that we’ve had. The air we have breathed is dependent on the Earth's weather patterns. The food we have eaten has come from all over the country and the world and is dependent on the soil, rain and CO2 content of the atmosphere and any other number of variables that change on a continuous basis. Each molecule of our body has come from the various reaches of the world or universe.

Any point in time, any NOW, can only be described by fixing the positions of a particle or selection of particles in comparison to other particles or selection of particles.

To physically move from now to any time in the past would mean that all of the molecules that make up our being would have to return to a previous position in the world or universe. Therefore we could only move exactly backward in time, basically like rewinding a video tape. We would have no knowledge of our trip because the molecules in our brain would move to a former position and our memories would be the same as at a former time.

To physically move to any point other than a point in our own former lives would not be to move back in time but would be to move to another reality.

 

[sol2]

Whatever other arguments that one make for or against time travel, the one that limits us to the greatest degree is one of composition.

I don't agree.

Memory is a strange thing when we seal it in time. We can always reflect on it? Relive it, but we can never change it.

We know that in the future, in order not to repeat, we would look at the reaction taken, in sealing that memory. To repeat to ourselves, what we might do different.

Those previous lines just took place on a very fine level, and yet, we used the matter and natures of our constitutution.

The space in between those matters would have to raise the issue of what dimenison might mean here?

Dimension woud have to be scalable then, and what we use in the finest aspects of thought, might allow certain degree of freedoms admist all these matter forms?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6841/images/411986af.0.jpg

Eric Adelberger and Blayne Heckel of the University of Washington in Seattle are no strangers to difficult gravity experiments. In the 1980s, they led one of a number of groups that investigated the existence of a postulated fifth force, which would show up as a gravitational anomaly over distances of up to 100 metres. Their findings helped to kill the idea.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6841/box/411986a0_bx1.html