You have reached the Help Desk

Once upon a time, long ago, before concrete understanding of the properties of the world we live in were understood, philosophers were the ones that sought to answer these questions. Specifically, the field was later called natural philosophy, because it sought to explain questions like: "Why do things fall?" or "How does sound travel and what is it?". This eventually paved the way for what we know to be physics, when we had a solid grasp of such concepts. However, we now begin to face questions that we can't answer, again. At least not yet. Thus I think, it's about time to dig out some old natural philosophy, and think our way through these obstacles. Namely, the question of time and travel through time.
It's difficult to say if travel through time is possible, for that time has to exist, and there are reasons to believe it does not. At least, not in the way we perceive it. One understanding of time is that it is merely the constant state of change in the universe: It cannot be stopped, changed, prevent or returned to a former state. The reason we perceive time as a linear concept isn't because it's linear travel across some frame of reference, but rather because that's the way our brain stores and orders memories: In a linear fashion. That is one proposition that would make travel through time impossible. However, if we were to (for a moment,) assume that time is just another axis along which we can travel freely, this raises an entirely different set of questions which I believe may not have really been asked or looked into.
What I am talking about is the practicality of time travel. Before I pose any of these questions though, I am going to abstract away one object that related to this concept: The canonical time machine. We are going to assume that we can travel through time freely with the help of some device, but we will not look into any specifics relating to a device of such nature. With that, I pose my first question: Say you decide to travel 50 years into the past. You activate your time travel device and are transported successfully to the date you desired. Where do you end up?
We know the answer of when, you are in a time 50 years before yours, but where are you physically? Most people seem to assume that you would end up exactly where you stood when you traveled before. By that notion, you'd be no where near where you were before. The earth it self rotates and is in constant orbit around the sun. The sun itself is in orbit around the center or our galaxy, which is hurtling through space at an astonishing speed. Assuming that the point of reference for where is the only logical point of reference in the universe, that is to say, the middle: You are now probably somewhere in the depths of space, a good number of light years away from the earth.
However, if you were to assume that this time machine we use is somehow capable as using your position on earth, through-out time, as a reference point, you'd end up on earth, as before. However, this raises another question: What happens to your momentum during time travel? Is it preserved or is it lost?
If we were to assume you lose all momentum during time travel, you'd likely be hurled in some random direction which such speed, that you'd burn up before leaving the atmosphere. This is because, as I mentioned before, every part of the system we are in is in constant motion. However, if you were to assume that your initial velocity is kept, this would be equally bad since it is extremely improbable that your momentum would coincide with the velocities of everything else in the current time frame. So in all likely hood, you'd still be blasted into so random direction, potentially faster than otherwise.
If you where to however, try to argue that this time machine were say, able to both account for your position and your velocity relative to your system upon arrival, I would call you out on one issue: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it is impossible to accurately measure and object's (or system of objects') position and velocity at the same time, since measuring once of these parameters will undoubtedly affect the other. While the principal is usually applied unto scenarios when working with objects which are very small, it is also equally relevant when extreme precision becomes important, in this scenario as we cannot accurately what the result of measuring either of the two parameters will be. This also raises the question of how one would measure the position and velocity of and object, in a previous frame of time, especially because, if we took a frame of time to be a point, velocity would not exist within that point since we define velocity distance travel within a given span of time in a given direction. When working in a single time frame, measuring velocity would be akin to trying to measure the velocity of a car in a movie, while the movie is paused.
Do you not agree?

 

My question is, what happens if I necro-bump this?