Are Space and Time Inseparable?

I think we would have to figure out how to represent some guy as light particles, or at least his brain, and entangle those light particles with other light particles, and shoot those particles out into space to achieve light speed travel, first....then we might work on interdimensional travel after that...and that might enable a form of time travel to some degree...

Would one have to travel faster than light to get to the place(location) in the past?A calculation would involve calculating where the past will be in the travel time to it.

If time is passing at the speed of light,it will be impossible to get to at C and will have to exceed C to arrive at a distant point in time and space.The further back,the faster one must travel.

Well I suspect there would be a difference between traveling to the future vs the past...but maybe not...

..."Earth orbits the Sun at an average speed of 67,000 mph, or 18.5 miles a second."...

..."In addition, our solar system--Earth and all--whirls around the center of our galaxy at some 220 kilometers per second, or 490,000 miles per hour."...or around 137 mps...

Data from the CMB suggests that the universe is expanding at the rate of about 41.9 miles (67.5 kilometers) per second per megaparsec

....add all this up, and light still seems to win the race, in the short term anyway....the problem would be stopping to smell the roses...

Did you learn incorrect typing technique from your alleged father?

Were you a born pedantic,or is it an acquired skill from your alleged father?

We're on that train travelling toward the future at about 1 second per second. You can slow that rate by moving through space (canting your velocity vector at an angle to the time axis.) You can also slow that rate by living in a gravitational field where space-time is "bent".

So you can walk backward on the train, but never as fast as the train is moving forward.

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/time-travel/en/

<... to travel back in time...travel back in space...>

Relative to what (rhetorical question - NNTR)? There is no such thing as an absolute position in space because everything is in motion relative to everything else.

One can always <...travel back in space...> to anywhere that one has been before. That doesn't correspond to <...travel back in time...> except in one's mind. Which is the only place reality exists, BTW.

"In the movies, time travelers typically step inside a machine and—poof—disappear. They then reappear instantaneously among cowboys, knights or dinosaurs. What these films show is basically time teleportation.

Scientists don’t think this conception is likely in the real world, but they also don’t relegate time travel to the crackpot realm. In fact, the laws of physics might allow chronological hopping, but the devil is in the details.

Time traveling to the near future is easy: you’re doing it right now at a rate of one second per second, and physicists say that rate can change. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, time’s flow depends on how fast you’re moving. The quicker you travel, the slower seconds pass. And according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, gravity also affects clocks: the more forceful the gravity nearby, the slower time goes."

more:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-time-travel-possible/#:~:text=According%20to%20Einstein's%20special%20theory,nearby%2C%20the%20slower%20time%20goes.

<...dream...> on.

If one might truly <...travel back in time...> then one would need to erase all experience between that moment and whenever and wherever the starting point was. Otherwise cause and effect become circular instead of linear.

The mind cannot currently do that except in fantasy.

Travelling faster than light means that observable effects precede their causes, which is outside human experience and understanding depending on the substances consumed.

i guess we have to unravel the infinite to know what it really is.

Thinking and believing that light has the same velocity to all observers is an un-provable lie. Which for some unknown reason has become a priority dogma. If the speed was the same for all observers, one would never see a shift of frequency or phase.

In order to fit such an idiotic pretense, Albert"s equation did the impossible for a continuous wave function dynamic. He simply made time and length variable. Only NOW can light be the same speed for all observers.

Now this whole spacetime thing is dogma. And even farther from the truth.

But here is a much better solution.

Light is not a wave, but an intermittent sawtooth acceleration ramp of EM field density, being instantly emitted as a chunk with a 1/2 period duration and length at the speed of c. Without relative motion the timing duty cycle is 50%. Motion of the emitter can only change the dead time between emissions. Not the length of the emission. A inverted duty cycle shift.

An inverted duty cycle shift solves all your red shifts without space time. AND without expanding space.

Back to normal physics. No more voodoo.