|
[quote=magg0t;2057404]
You present what to-date stands as a theory, about which there has been no proof, and is likely another example of unintended fiction fantasy presented by a wrong-turning physicist(s).
Regardless, all you've presented is a form of cryogenic-like suspension, and that is not time travel.
Whether you freeze someone or accelerate them into tininess suspension and wait for their "journey" forward in time to finish, you simply have not time travelled in the common meaning of the term that was presented in the inital post of this thread.
Even if in your quite fantastic example the person doesn't die either from the process or from old aging while in the speed of light itself or whatever, the fact that the process to the "traveller" will take just as long as the time that passed on Earth, regardless if in fantastic comparison he doesn't "seem" to have aged any when he "returns", that simply isn't time travel.
I think theres a misunderstanding here. Lets say we have a set of twins, A and B, who are 20 years old.
B jumps into a spaceship and travels near the speed of light. A stays on Earth.
30 Earth years later A is now 50 years old.
B then lands back on Earth on is a lil older than 20 (his age would be determined from his speed)
So he basically took some amount of time and travelled 30 years into the future.
And this has been shown in experiments, the most notable being the airplane example, where atomic clocks were put on airplanes allowed to take flights around the world. The physicists predicted how time would be manipulated and when the clocks returned, their time was different (and nearly exactly what had been predicted) than their stationary counterparts.
|