10th dimension

**jasonf** · 12-06-2007, 09:10 PM

The problem with time travel is that even if it was possible to revisit past events, i.e. move back again along the 4th dimension, it would be impossible to change anything because all of the atoms, electrical charges and other sub-atomic particles which have moved, interacted, reacted and so on would be back in their original positions with their original momentums and charges, once the play button was pressed on the 4th dimension once again, all of the atoms, charges and sub-atomic particles would resume their merry dance and end up exactly where they were at the moment you travelled back in time, in effect, going back in time wouldn't change anything because you can't bend the 4th dimension like a train track, you can only imagine replaying a past event.. although it would happen exactly the same as before..

It would like trying to bend up so it becomes down...impossible, up is up. (Up being an absolute direction not a direction relative to a body, in the same way that Forward and North are completely different.. if you were to continue absolutely forward, you would eventually gain altitude and end up in space.. North on the other hand is relative to the Earth and can become South if you continue far enough)

**savage** · 12-06-2007, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by jasonf

Didn't Savage post something about this a few months ago? I still have the headache from trying to understand it :lol:

Yes I did

.

**savage** · 12-06-2007, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Angelo

So darkness cant be quicker then light since it is nothing...

It is nothing we can measure at the moment. But maybe in the future we will, but they can probably already measure it in one of the other dimensions!

**JSoftware** · 12-06-2007, 10:43 PM

Uh now physics isn't my favorite class but I seem to recall that the teacher said something about speed of light once(I was playing Alpha Centauri so I didn't hear it all).

When person 1 approaches the speed of light for an external observer, person 2, person 1 would approach the speed of light at a slower rate than person 2 percieve it. So when person 1 actually reaches a velocity of the speed of light person 2 will percieve it as a speed higher than light.

I can't remember the details but I think that was it

**WILL** · 13-06-2007, 01:53 AM

You know in another reality darkness and vacuum is essential to life and the darkness is produced by energy all else is shrouded in light.

**Angelo** · 13-06-2007, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by WILL

You know in another reality darkness and vacuum is essential to life and the darkness is produced by energy all else is shrouded in light.

Hmm, WILL, I still think you are too much in the game/hollywood scene.

Physics is my favorite

@savage, you might be right about that one. So let me correct my statement, in these days darkness is nothing.

@jason, I trully have to agree with that. Its not that I am believing this time-travelling thing, I'm just trying to put some things on a row [size=9px](or however you say it in english, its a dutch statement, so hard to translate!)[/size]

And at least (sorry), Bijo. There is no proof for that, neither there is for that time does exist.

**DarknessX** · 13-06-2007, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by savage

Originally Posted by Angelo

So darkness cant be quicker then light since it is nothing...

It is nothing we can measure at the moment. But maybe in the future we will, but they can probably already measure it in one of the other dimensions!

Or might it just be that darkness is actually something... Maybe it is the lack of something? It still is something... Because if it was nothing, you could not describe it, move in it, see through it, or in any other way, interact with it. Space, in a complete vaccuum, is SOMETHING. But if you say darkness is nothing, does that not technically mean space is nothing?

In case you haven't found out yet, I'm a very philosophical person

**Angelo** · 14-06-2007, 01:29 PM

Hmm Im more a scientific person

I believe that darkness is nothing.
It is the result of nothing, and it is black because if we close our eyes we see black...
SO nothing should be black.

But if you say darkness is nothing, does that not technically mean space is nothing?

Watch out! Here you are comparing total different things.
Space is not equivalent with darkness.
There is a hell of alot in space which we can not see.
But that doesnt mean there is darkness/nothing...

**jasonf** · 14-06-2007, 02:19 PM

Apart from a small body of matter in the universe, which was the result of the big bang, we can assume that nothing is infinite... i.e.. you will get to a point after travelling very fast to the edge of the expanded universe.. infinite nothingness lies beyond..

So as nothing is infinite and light has a finite speed, it is entirely true that Nothing is in fact faster than light.

The biggest issue I think of when it comes to considering travel at speeds comparible with light is gravity and the effects of gravity.

Here's my theory...

If you can apply extreme gravitational forces, like those near the event horizon of a black hole (space and gravity have been proven to be related according to Einstein), then you would be able to travel through compressed space using conventional rockets (assuming that if you travel through compressed space you don't need power relative to the amount of compression). However, there is a chance that by compressing space at a particular point, you would in fact destroy everything within influence of the gravitational effect.. you'd certainly destabilise the fragile orbits of the solar systems within the area of influence of the grav jump, dragging everything to the point of the compressed space, untill you'd passed through and stopped the effect. Unless there was a way to apply stabilising forces outside of the area of infuence until the gravity jump was complete... even so, if this was possible, it would involve a tunnel of gates to apply an anti-force which would appear to come together at the point of jumping and even then, the maximum possible speed would be the speed of light.

This type of travel would be nearly impossible and far too dangerous to try for real as the reverse gravitational field needed to prevent complete gravitational collapse would need to be so efficient that the slightest anomaly would mean that continued use would yield noticable results to orbits of objects nearby.. possibly far away too... plus the power required would be so gigantic that it would be impossible to harness.

But this is my understanding of the universe, and more than likely wrong.

**WILL** · 14-06-2007, 02:35 PM

Well actually becoming serious for a post here.

It has been proven that there are forces and sources of energy that cannot be seen, so therefore it can be assumed that the fact that you can see it has nothing to do with it's speed. ie. Can you hear a sonic jet flying by?

Another famous theory is that of Sir Issac Newton in which a change in force requires an equal and opposite force. Which somewhere along the lines means that for converted matter to be corrupted or destabilized you'd have to run into something. A self contained segment of space that has been converted into a form or energy that could possibly travel at the speed of light would also need to be sifted into some sort of 'phase' to use a likely sci-fi term so that it would not collide with anything along the way.