∆ How to build a time machine.

An excellent book, (I think all the Science books I read are genuinely excellent), that explains relativity very clearly.

However, it starts with the assumption that time clearly exists in some form, and that our task is just to understand and manipulate this form and ask questions about it.

E.g. In the page above Davies asks "Where exactly are the past and the future ?". I would say we have no valid reason to assume things called 'the' past and 'the' future exist. It may be true we have patterns of matter in our brains we can access, and we may 'call' some of these 'the past' or 'the future' - but they only prove patterns of matter exist in our minds- and do not prove there is also a thing or a place called 'the' past, that exists, or 'is' somewhere.

The Past and Future exposed.

But, it seems to me, that if matter could just exist and move - in accordance with the distortions that Einstein's relativity describes - but - do so just in place - now - Then this would explain all that we see, and attribute to time - and explain that which we attribute to time travel.

In other words, while relativity shows us that mass, dimensions, and rates of change distort, or dilate in unexpected ways as objects accelerate rapidly or approach the speed of light - there is no reason to think that in doing this they travel into 'the future' or sink back into 'the past'. Especially if the existence of ether of these 'places' has not been proven.

"how to build a time machine" is of course built on assumptions about Einstein's relativity, but i think it can be shown that. like most people, Einstein 'assumed' it is 'probably fairly obvious' that something  like 'Time' must exist (and that others must have proven it) and then when on to describe his findings 'as if' 'Time' exists, and in the language of time.

In Einstein's first relativity paper 'Electrodynamics' there are around 70 occurrences of the word time, but no occurrences of the words 'past' or 'future', and, as far as i can tell Einstein does not demonstrate anywhere, that extra to matter and motion, and warped space, there is also a past , or a future, or a thing called time that flows between them.

So, while what "how to build a time machine" says would be correct IF 'Time' exists, it does not contain any proof that time exists.

see >>> Does Relativity prove the past and future exist?

see also >>> Young looking Cosmonauts.

Also - 
We generally see the time order of events as being very clear and unmistakable, or to quote professor Paul Davies, in  - ‘How to build a time machine’; 
‘There is never any ambiguity about the time order of a sequence of events happening at one place; Nobody claims that the battle of Hastings came after the battle of Waterloo’.
I have a slight problem with this idea as well, and wrote the following piece related to the order of historical events...