Time Travel - Possibility and Speculation

[Tigron-X]

Time travel isn't possible but an illusion of it is because there is no such thing as a true paradox; only anomalies that we do not yet understand.

That said, time travel isn't possible because time isn't a real dynamic of existence. It is only a numeric value we assign to events so that we can have awareness and a frame of mind as we measure events for whatever reason or purpose. An event that happened is done and "reversing", as people say, an event is actually creating new events no matter how anyone folds space, speeds through space, inverts space, or whatever.

Such travel would allow a traveler to experience a domain that might resemble past experiences and the traveler can believe whether he/she is in the past by comparing the new experience to certain frames of mind in memory. He/she might believe that one is in the future if he/she begins to have new experiences when all along that person is only becoming more aware of existence as he/she travels through infinity where probability becomes only self relevant as the mind assesses the new event, even if it is an anomaly that leads you to a point in space that is reflective of one minute ago and you're ten steps behind what appears to be you. The future of one cannot be the past of the other because presently, it's only another event in existence that is seperately experienced; relativly speaking and on a whole because time isn't real. It is only a tool that provides awareness and frame of mind.

 

[AWolf]

Defining Time as the fourth dimension, creates a lot of confusion.
One current definition of our Universe is having 3+1 dimensions.
This is 3 real dimensions and 1 virtual dimension.

Our perception of Time allows us to talk about past,present and future as if they were directions.

The virtual dimension is just that, virtual, it doesn't actually exist.

The fact that relative time can slow down or speed up is due to what happens in the 3 main dimensions, not some manipulation of an additional dimension.

If Time was a real dimension then you would be able to move around in it relative to some reference point.
You could move forward 10 minutes, the question is would there be anybody there.
If you walk from your house, when you stop at the end of the street, your house remains where it was. Dimensionally it is now not in the same place as you.
So if you could walk forward or backward in Time, everybody else would remain in their original dimensional place, so like I said, would you be alone ?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by AWolf
The virtual dimension is just that, virtual, it doesn't actually exist.

The problem with that is that time most certainly does exist.

The fact that relative time can slow down or speed up is due to what happens in the 3 main dimensions, not some manipulation of an additional dimension.

Without time, there is no such thing as "speed."

If Time was a real dimension then you would be able to move around in it relative to some reference point.

You can. I got up at 7:30 this morning and have been moving forward through time since that reference point.

If you walk from your house, when you stop at the end of the street, your house remains where it was. Dimensionally it is now not in the same place as you.

Your house exists in a range of times, just like the street exists in a range of lengths.

So if you could walk forward or backward in Time, everybody else would remain in their original dimensional place, so like I said, would you be alone ?

[looks around] No.

 

[AWolf]

The problem with that is that time most certainly does exist.

But does it exist as a dimension ?

would you be alone ?
[looks around] No.

They've just kept up with you. You'll have to try walking through time faster than them.

I know this isn't the book review forum, but Stephen King's book The Langoliers had a similar thread where at the end, the passengers catch up with normal time and other people start appearing.

 

[Tigron-X]

You would be alone if you isolated yourself just like right now I'm alone at home and I will be 10 minutes later. I know no one is coming here until later on, and I can further isolate myself by not answering the door or picking up the phone or not talking to anyone online. I can project myself in the future through imagination based on relative known properties of nature, and I can do the same thing with the past. Western movies do it all the time and so do Sci-fi movies, but that's as far as "time" travel goes. The reason is because time isn't the fourth dimension, it's gravity; again, relatively speaking. We judge time relative to gravity and time remains constant as long as the law of gravity is applied and remains constant. But, then you have to consider the forces that creates gravity, and those have to remain constant for gravity to remain constant. I can go on forever with this. Relatively speaking,I can also go on forever as long as my relative gravity remains constant, but gravity doesn't actually remain constant; only the force that binds dimensional properties during a given relative moment remain constant and only during that quantum instant. Why else can you be live on tv while 10 minutes away from your house that has you on the tv and still all be in the same dimension with you and everyone thousands of miles away in different dimensions?

Someone already basically said it in here, but I don't think they really understood what they said or how to compile it into a frame of mind that is relative to his existence and our existence. Anyhow, the question is to show you how the illusion of time travel would work. You might think you're there, you might feel you're there, and you will be there, except it's a future of a past event that has not yet happened relative to you and it will remain within the parameters of the gravitational existence you would be encountering unless once again the relative gravitational constant is manipulated to a new desired result which can be done in many mathematical ways by applying the correct force which at some point in infinity must balance out to return you to your relative gravitational equilibrium to have your same relative form and same frame of mind or else you return to infinity in its many finite forms. Some might be similar forms, but genetically mutated. You might find yourself as a monkey, but how would you know if you couldn't conceive the notions of logic like you can now? That's just one of the many things that can happen while traveling space in such a manner.

There's a reason for the way things are. There's a congressional order to physical structures in its infinite combinations which is understood by using applicable laws of physics. We use and manipulate them everyday since we first discovered how to make fire. See, we can't change that order, but we can prolong it. :D It's a balanced equation away. You can go back through time and kill yourself a billion times over and laugh at it tomorrow as long as something doesn't happen to your relative equilibrium.

 

[AWolf]

We judge time relative to gravity and time remains constant as long as the law of gravity is applied and remains constant. But, then you have to consider the forces that creates gravity, and those have to remain constant for gravity to remain constant.

Doesn't SR deal with time dilation in the absence of gravity ?

 

[pallidin]

Interesting reading, to be sure.

Question: Since the "future" only exists as non-actualized reality, how then, could it be possible to "travel", "observe" or otherwise relate directly with it?

John has a time machine. He activates on July 4th, 2004 and "time travels" to the White House Oval Office on Dec 1, 2004 and observes the events.
Jill also has a time machine. She departs to the same location and time, but earlier, say May 4th, 2004, and similarly observes the events.
Back in their own real time, John and Jill get together on July 5th, compare notes and find the events to be identical in observation.
Dec. 1, 2004 comes around, and John and Jill are pleased to find their observations to be accurate.
Conclusion: Under this circumstance, future events are now proven to be pre-determined.

So, help me with this everyone. If future time travel is possible, than are not the events pre-determined?

 

[AWolf]

So, help me with this everyone. If future time travel is possible, than are not the events pre-determined?

What you would see is one version of events, because having observed them, you would have changed them.
Until John and Jill visited the Oval Office in the future, nobody knew who was President. Maybe they decided that their guy got in anyway, so decided not to vote. Their two non-votes could change the result, hence there could be a different future.
Maybe this comes down to Time-Lines. There are infinite possible futures, and if you kept making the same journey you would never see the same future.

By the way, you couldn't ask John and Jill who did win, I may want to put a bet on.

 

[Pergatory]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The problem with that is that time most certainly does exist.

Without time, there is no such thing as "speed."

You can. I got up at 7:30 this morning and have been moving forward through time since that reference point.

Your house exists in a range of times, just like the street exists in a range of lengths.

[looks around] No.

A street is a collection of molecules. While the street may exist on a range of lengths, each molecule that defines the street exists in only one location at a given moment.

I don't believe he was arguing that time did not occur, rather that it was a representation invented by humans. In other words, time is constant, you can't move around within it. It's not a dimension because it defines dimensions; a single entity (particle?) can only occupy one location in a dimension at a given time. (Current experiments have created the illusion that in some cases this is not true, but I'm willing to bet we will soon discover that it is always true.) Therefore, time cannot be a dimension, because just as you said, matter would then be able to exist in multiple positions throughout the dimension simultaneously, because time would change as the position in the time dimension changed. Assuming time is infinite, this creates a paradox of infinite energy. You can, however, alter your perception of time as to how fast is passes. I know I'm drawing several assumptions here, but it sounds like everyone agrees that altering perception of time is the only definite method for 'time travel.' (If it could even be considered that.)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by AWolf
They've just kept up with you. You'll have to try walking through time faster than them.

EVERY person already travels through their own personal timeline independent of everyone else's based on their altitude and speed. Looking through a telescope provides a glimpse into the past. The sort of time travel you describe already exists and does not work the way you are describing it.

So, help me with this everyone. If future time travel is possible, than are not the events pre-determined?

No. The scenario you describe does not conform with reality. Again, we are traveling through time right now. Watch your clock. That's time travel and its the only type of time travel that exists.

A street is a collection of molecules. While the street may exist on a range of lengths, each molecule that defines the street exists in only one location at a given moment.

No. A molecule is not a point. It takes up a finite amount of space.

Assuming time is infinite, this creates a paradox of infinite energy.

That does not follow logically.

 

[AWolf]

Here's an alternative definition of Time.
See if it fits the facts.

All matter consists of particulate energy. This energy is by no means static, but has a repeating cycle. which is governed by its environment.
The length of the cycle for each particle, within the same basic environment will be the same.
This cycle is the length of sequence and it will have duration. This sequence and duration is the basis for our determinination of Time.

Taking a single particle for examination.

If the particle is given velocity, kinetic energy is added, then the cycle now has to process the additional energy. The result is that the cycle has now been extended, and subsequently the time to complete one cycle.

Now place the particle in a gravity field. The warping of spacetime causes compression of both the particle and the space it occupies. The distance the energy has to travel to complete one cycle is now extended due to the increase in space. More space between two points will increase the distance between those two points.

Time is based on how long it takes our constituent particles to complete a single cycle.
This cycle is not the spin of a particle or any other property attributed to the system called particle, but the energy that comprises the particle.

 

[Tigron-X]

Originally posted by AWolf
Doesn't SR deal with time dilation in the absence of gravity ?

You mean light delusion? :P

I think you need to explain what you're asking a little more further because time dilation deals with many principles, such as the principles of diffraction or reflection, of course in reference to and/or concerning light, and if you even take into account different intensities of light, then you have a whole other ball game because the true speed of light is infinite until certain forces act on it and finite it to a relative median such as seen from the perspective of Earth when looking at a star or on Earth when looking into water. In other words, all we can do is calculate how long it takes for light to reach infinite speed as it passes through a certain median in retrospect to our gravitational equilibrium.

Anyhow, before I go any further with that, the true absence of gravity isn't possible, however a change in gravitational force on a certain object by a certain other object is possible. That force itself can even be at such an infinite value that it becomes finite by "ripping" space, so to speak; hence black holes and how they contain and absorb in all light and objects. I like to call them space pockets. Anyhow, in retrospect to Earth and our current technology, we push off from Earth's gravitational field and break through it in order to reach a certain balanced median that makes Earth's gravitational affect on our spaceships to approach zero. Of course, as long as Earth exists, then that gravitational force will remain present in space, and our astronauts have a home to come back to. Well, assuming they don't disburce into light as there bodies ignite into flames during that process because of some miscalculation of their relative equlibrium in comparison to Earth's equilibrium as they return. Scary way to travel space and through its many medians.

So, if you could elaborate on your question or ask it in another way or state an objection, then I might be able to give you a more specific answer or elaborate on what I said.

Thanks,

Tigron-X

 

[AWolf]

The reason is because time isn't the fourth dimension, it's gravity; again, relatively speaking. We judge time relative to gravity and time remains constant as long as the law of gravity is applied and remains constant. But, then you have to consider the forces that creates gravity, and those have to remain constant for gravity to remain constant.

So you are saying that Gravity is the Fourth dimension and Time is proportional to Gravity.
We determine time based on our proximately to a gravity well (our planet/solar system/galaxy) and our velocity relative to universal dead stop.


If it's true that Gravity is the cause of warping SpaceTime, then how can one dimension influence another. This would have to imply that the 3 primary dimensions are caused by gravity.
If matter exists in 3 dimensions, and gravity is proportional to mass, then how can the effect because the cause ?

So, if you could elaborate on your question or ask it in another way or state an objection, then I might be able to give you a more specific answer or elaborate on what I said.

Special Relativity deals with the velocity of an object in the absence of gravity. At any velocity an object's mass will increase in proportion to the velocity and time will also dilate at the same rate.
There is no mention of the Relativistic Mass producing any increase in gravitational force.
So, according to SR, Time is not Gravity.

then you have a whole other ball game because the true speed of light is infinite until certain forces act on it

In other words, all we can do is calculate how long it takes for light to reach infinite speed as it passes through a certain median in retrospect to our gravitational equilibrium.

You are saying that Light under goes acceleration, which would imply that the Speed of Light is not constant.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by AWolf
Here's an alternative definition of Time.
See if it fits the facts.

All matter consists of particulate energy. This energy is by no means static, but has a repeating cycle. which is governed by its environment.
The length of the cycle for each particle, within the same basic environment will be the same.
This cycle is the length of sequence and it will have duration. This sequence and duration is the basis for our determinination of Time.

Taking a single particle for examination.

If the particle is given velocity, kinetic energy is added, then the cycle now has to process the additional energy. The result is that the cycle has now been extended, and subsequently the time to complete one cycle.

Now place the particle in a gravity field. The warping of spacetime causes compression of both the particle and the space it occupies. The distance the energy has to travel to complete one cycle is now extended due to the increase in space. More space between two points will increase the distance between those two points.

Time is based on how long it takes our constituent particles to complete a single cycle.
This cycle is not the spin of a particle or any other property attributed to the system called particle, but the energy that comprises the particle.

I think to be capable to observe all of n-dimensioms , it is necessary to be in (n+1)–dimension.
My point about Time Cycles is here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1054

 

[AWolf]

Michael,

your Time Cycle thread mentions from the Atom upwards. Each object with its own Time Cycle.

What I proposed was more fundamental in that each object is made up out of particulate energy and it is these particles and the time taken to process their energy for one complete cycle that determines Time. The faster they cycle, the quicker the time that we experience.


With your thread, if you take a very long steel bar, you propose that the steel bar has its own time cycle.

If you were to stand the bar on its end here on Earth, the bottom of the bar would experience a different time measurement from the top. Doesn't this conflict with your time cycle ?

If you left the bar in place long enough, the atoms at the top of the bar would decay before those at the bottom. This would mean that your bar had varying time cycles along its length.

 

[Antonio Lao]

elibol,

Did someone already mentioned?? that it's not enough to be able to just travel forward or backward in time. We also need to travel forward or backward in space. These two degrees of freedom must be coordinated properly.

If we just travel forward in time, we will reach a place where the universe has not reached it yet during its expansion. So basically we travel outside the universe which is really impossible (possible only if ending up in another parallel universe). But if we synchronized our space travel with the expansion then we can still reach a point inside the universe by going forward in time.

Antonio

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by AWolf
Michael,
your Time Cycle thread mentions from the Atom upwards. Each object with its own Time Cycle.

From atom downwards too.
It means preservation of the frequency (energy) inherent at object ( a wave) too.

What I proposed was more fundamental in that each object is made up out of particulate energy and it is these particles and the time taken to process their energy for one complete cycle that determines Time. The faster they cycle, the quicker the time that we experience.

Energy and time is one thing.
We cannot experience the time of other object. We can observe changes of this object only.

With your thread, if you take a very long steel bar, you propose that the steel bar has its own time cycle.

Yes.

If you were to stand the bar on its end here on Earth, the bottom of the bar would experience a different time measurement from the top. Doesn't this conflict with your time cycle ?

No.

If you left the bar in place long enough, the atoms at the top of the bar would decay before those at the bottom. This would mean that your bar had varying time cycles along its length.

The alive lion and dead lion is a different things, though amount of atoms in them is identical.

 

[AWolf]

Michael,

if your proposed time cycle exists outside of conventional time, ie varying time dilation on the same object, then it would appear to have very little to with time.

Are you not talking about the life cycle, because if it was time, then it would have to have some reference to how we determine the measurement of time.

Energy and time is one thing.

If everything in the universe consists of differing quantities of energy or to put it simpler the Universe is Energy, then how can Energy/Universe be Time ?
The energy in the Universe is constant, so that would make time constant, which we know it isn't.

Surely it is what happens to the energy that determines time.

 

[Sariaht]

v/V

Speed of matter divided with volume.

Yes. You could call it time.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

We, as an inhabitants of 4-dimension world , can to observe 3-dimensional objects. We can travel in 3-d. To be capable to observe 4-dim. and to travel in the Time we should be inhabitants of 5-dim. Some of people have the such privilege. It is so clear.

 

[AWolf]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
to travel in the Time we should be inhabitants of 5-dim. Some of people have the such privilege.

Who ?

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by AWolf
Who ?

Nostradame, for example.

 

[neutroncount]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Nostradame, for example.

You mean the guy that made general, ubiquitous statements about the future that could in no way be proven other than through massive interpretation by numerous individuals that believed them to be many different events? Nostradame wasn't ever right, nor was he even a good guesser. It doesn't help that so many people make up predictions and blame them on Nostradame.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by neutroncount
You mean the guy that made general, ubiquitous statements about the future that could in no way be proven other than through massive interpretation by numerous individuals that believed them to be many different events? Nostradame wasn't ever right, nor was he even a good guesser. It doesn't help that so many people make up predictions and blame them on Nostradame.

You are wrong. He has made predictions which were carried out.
He has predicted Napoleon, the first and the second world wars, a nuclear bomb, flu, AIDS. He has predicted destruction of two giants in the eagles’ country also.
Is it not convincing?

 

[neutroncount]

Have you even READ any of those predictions? They are very ambiguous predictions. Something akin to "there will be trouble in a place called the middle of the earth". I could easily say that that was Iraq, or Afghanistan or the Palestinian Israeli war. Plus that last one wasn't even real. It was a hoax.

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-...date-range=-1&sp-x=any&sp-c=100&sp-m=1&sp-s=0

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/predict.htm

He wasn't real. He wasn't even a good guesser. You're wrong and aren't a real scientist if you believe that junk.

 

[klaw]

as a person ages they become more helpless, more childlike
in a sense traveling back in time

we travel to the past in our memories and to the future in our dreams

 

[AWolf]

Originally posted by neutroncount
He wasn't real. He wasn't even a good guesser. You're wrong and aren't a real scientist if you believe that junk.

Blunt and to the point.

I'm not aware of anybody translating his visions into an event before that event actually took place with any accuracy.

His visions are always interpretted after the event, but then I'm sure we could all do that if were vague enough with our predictions in the first place.

 

[underworld]

possibly philisophical

consider the following:

if you were able to "travel" backwards in "time" - would you really know it? in other words, not only is existence tightly coupled with your location in space, but also with your location in time (or "spacetime"). in fact, existence is very nearly defined by movement through spacetime by following the arrow of time.

but if you moved along time in the "other" direction, would your "consciousness" realize it? in other words, not only would the things external to you follow time in reverse, but you would as well. it's very difficult to imagine a scenario where your consciousness functions in reverse. and if it did, would you really be able to recognize it? the whole concept seems very strage and absurd, and certainly approaches a philosophical argument as much as a physical one.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Time travel and in other worlds travel a possible without a body as an observing point not involved in events. Such observations was made by John Lilly and many other researchers. Thus, wormhole is in our sub consciousness.

 

[AWolf]

One of the main elements that is raised to oppose Time Travel is that the Universe contains a fixed amount of energy and in traveling in time this would be disturbed, implying that it is not possible.

The Universe has a finite amount of energy. Energy conservation says that it can neither be created nor destroyed.

Conservation of energy deals with closed systems, all the energy must be accounted for.
If you add some energy from outside the closed system, this does contravene the conservation of energy.

What difference would it make to us if another Galaxy gained a insignificant amount of energy ?

Assuming for a moment that all the components of the Universe are independant, ie they are not governed by the Universe, but through their interactions with other components define what the Universe is.

This would mean that any energy removed from the Universe will not cause an imbalance, destabilising the Universe, but rather the Universe, as a whole system, will be uneffected. The component from which the energy was removed would have slightly different properties, but in the overall scheme of things, the effect will be a reduction in mass/gravitational field.
The effect will be so small as to be insignificant.

Time Travel would effectively be taking energy from one closed system and adding it to another.
As far as the same energy not occupying the same space, the additional energy is just that, additional. It has been removed from one system and added to another - not a problem.

As for Time Lines. The only effect on a system can be from the energy contained in the system. If you remove some energy, it can no longer have any effect on the system it came from.

If you could travel to the future, you would have to wind time forward, but from outside. Whatever the future looked like, you could have no impact in it from the time you started your journey. You effectively ceased to exist from that moment until the moment you finished your journey.

Travelling backwards though time, you would have to wind time back. Your presence in the past will effect the future.

Could you effect the future to the extent that you didn't exist ?
No.
Once you take yourself outside the system, you could travel whenever you wanted. Your energy is no longer governed by the system you originated from.

 

[ewoodlief]

Contemporary proponents of time travel make the erroneous assumption if B occurs after A then B is caused by A; or more specifically, time is caused by velocity/motion. I will elaborate: as the velocity of an object increases, time decreases to the point which when velocity becomes c time becomes zero. This observation has been experimentally proven and can therefore be regarded as true. But, when science enters the realm of unsubstantiated conjecture as proof, it becomes fatally flawed. People see patterns and so begin merely associating cause and effect. The advocates ask, “What if velocity is greater than c?” They answer, “Time must be negative!” It certainly fits into the speculative construct. But this notion fails to further analysis. Because of its length, I will skip over the rigorous proof and get right to the point.

Time is not caused directly by velocity alone. There is an intermediating variable, that is, the effects of gravity are felt more prominently at higher velocities and this stronger gravitational field decreases time. It is in recognizing that velocity is limited by gravitational forces and that these forces hinder change from occurring in systems that one realizes that time is nothing more than an abstraction of observed change. So, if an object were to evade the effects of gravity, its velocity would no longer be limited to c (the speed of gravitational propagation.) Instead, one would find that time dilation suddenly “goes away”, or is at least dramatically reduced, when an object’s velocity is higher than c because the object is able to outrun its own propagating gravity. It turns out that for velocities greater than c, the rate of time experienced by that object is equaled to that felt by an object with zero relative motion to surrounding massive bodies. Obviously, this only holds true if the speed of gravitational propagation is, in fact, equaled to c. Unfortunately the validity of this claim toggles every year; thus, it should be considered, for now, a foundational assumption for this conclusion. Of course, how to avoid the effects of gravity is currently unknown. And so, at present, the maximum speed limit of c is accepted.

The bottom line is that forward motion through time at varying rates is possible whereas backward motion through time is very, very unlikely. Because time is not a dimension through which one can travel, the illusion of backward motion could only be accomplished if one were to (1) pause the universe, (2) arrange all spatial materials and associated properties like location, direction of momentum, etc. that represents a snapshot of the desired time's universe, and (3) set everything in motion again. It sounds crazy because it is.

 

[AWolf]

The bottom line is that forward motion through time at varying rates is possible whereas backward motion through time is very, very unlikely.

I agree. Time is our perception of sequence and duration, and sequence is always incremental.
Within our Universe, there are certain rules that appear to be rigid and would make time travel, as you put it, very, very unlikely.

I proposed that What if you could step outside of the rules of our Universe/system.

how to avoid the effects of gravity is currently unknown.

By stepping outside of our system, you would effectively avoid the effects of gravity and all other rules.
Everything that currently restricts us, such as limiting velocities to the speed of light, would no longer be the case.

the effects of gravity are felt more prominently at higher velocities

If time is directly related to gravity, then if gravity didn't exist, or could be avoided, then time would not exist.

This is not time being zero, but time being null.
When you stepped back into the system, the time would not be relative to when you were outside, because it can't be relative to null.
So maybe, just maybe, from outside you could pick a point in time to return to...

 

[ewoodlief]

Backward time travel is virtually impossible even if one were to "step out" of the universe. That is because even if one is outside of the universe, changes still occur on the inside. By realizing that time is not a dimension, one can begin to see why a time line is merely an accumulated recording of events that can only be traveled by, as klaw put it, "our memories ... [and] our dreams."

Furthermore, "universe" is accepted to mean all matter and energy as a whole. So trying to step out of the universe is like trying to come up with a number that is not between the ranges of negative infinity to positive infinity. Simply stated, if you were go beyond what is considered the boundaries of the universe you would still be inside of it because its definition is ever changing to encompass all matter and energy no matter its shape or configuration.

However, if you simply mean "outside" to be circumventing natural laws and forces while still being somewhere inside the universe then this word choice leaves much to interpretation. In a sense we are saying the same thing and just using different words--varying definitions can mean the difference between refutation and recognition.

 

[ewoodlief]

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the fourth dimension that many people suffer from. Obviously, the three spatial dimensions are a result of matter and energy being in a certain place. But most people tend to think that just as one can travel the first three dimensions, they can also move about the fourth and this is incorrect. The fourth dimension t of the model x,y,z,t is not a place in time rather it is the rate of time experienced by the point x,y,z based on matter, energy, gravitational forces, etc. occupying that point. So the full blown model is really x,y,z,t'[x,y,z] but to keep it simple it is just referred to as x,y,z,t.

Basically, if you were to step outside of the effects of universal forces you could travel unaffected by surrounding matter and energy and not affect that matter or energy yourself. But when you step back in at the same or a different x,y,z, the new t of that point would just be a result of the natural processes that took place there for however long you were away. The two primary reasons for wanting to avoid universal forces during travel is to remove the maximum speed limit of c, to be able to travel from one point to another quickly, and to travel without experiencing time dilation.

 

[AWolf]

Originally posted by ewoodlief
However, if you simply mean "outside" to be circumventing natural laws and forces while still being somewhere inside the universe then this word choice leaves much to interpretation. In a sense we are saying the same thing and just using different words--varying definitions can mean the difference between refutation and recognition.

That is what I mean.
To travel beyond the boundary of our Universe, if at all possible, would be quite a long journey.

You would have to step outside of the system while still being within the confines of the Universe.
It would not be enough merely to circumvent natural laws and forces. The laws and forces would have to be nullified.
Rather than get round them, they would have to be removed.

A close analogy would be something like a whirlpool.
If you jumped in a body of water, you would get wet. You would be subjected to the properties of the water.
If you now disturbed the water in such a way as to create a large whirlpool, you could now travel beneath what should be the surface of the water without getting wet.
A bit similar to a worm-hole, but without the worm - just the hole.

The fourth dimension t of the model x,y,z,t is not a place in time rather it is the rate of time experienced by the point x,y,z based on matter, energy, gravitational forces, etc.

In your model, the t dimension only ever has one active value : 1.
More accurately is should be zero, being that it is always the point of origin whenever the past or the future are referenced. This would imply, with time being zero, that there are only 3 dimensions.
Time is always now. You can change any of the other dimensional values, but not Time (within our universe/system).

Example. Bill and Ted travel in separate craft at different speeds. At any point during their journey you can measure their relative distance, even calculate their relative time dilation, but the point at which you make the measurement would be now for both Bill and Ted.
At the end of their journey, when the two met up again, the time would be now.