reply to post by Thought Provoker
Thanks for mentioning dimensions, actually another good example of how I feel some scientists "conclude" to fast.
Now I understand that "tesseracts" in the context of A Wrinkle in Time
refers to a wormhole like concept so I will focus on that first and
tackle dimensions in section 2.
Tesseracts (as used in A Wrinkle in Time)
Now from what I understand it could be thought of as a mirror that upon looking into it gives you the choice of which version of your surrounding you
want to exist in (very simplified)?
I do see the attraction of such hypothesis' but I just can't shake the feeling that we make stuff more complex than it needs to be. Thus my
attraction to "travel without movement" being just that, literally. Just slow down and wait for where you want to go.
The waiting problem
Now my "waiting for point B" hypothesis is not without it's holes. Main problem being that if the amount of reduction in movement through space
gives an equal increase in exposure to time, then as a result everything else would moving incredibly fast and have less exposure to time than the
waiting object who's exposure to time would increase exponentially and could actually for all practical purposes render the trip equal or even
"longer" than the opposite solution.
Think of it like this (simplified)
Limit : C (constant)
Space : S = C - T
Time : T = C - S
Speed limit = S = C - ( T = 0 )
Absolute standstill = S = C - ( T = C )
To me it seems like the solution to space travel would essentially be stopping time. Maybe the solution could be combining "waiting for point B"
with a Star Trek bubble kind of approach.
The bus shelter approach
To get around the waiting problem one could possibly apply a local movement in some sense, this would require a way to enclose a fast moving object
withing a slow moving object. Now this might be tricky as any object enclosed within another object inherits it's parent's time & space properties
and would have to reach incredible speeds within an confined space compared to the parent object.
I've always had an issue with the "higher-dimension than we can perceive" because we never hear anybody say "lower-dimension than we can
perceive". Last time I checked nobody has ever produced any proof that anything can exist only in the first or second dimension and thus if anything
could exist we are not able to perceive it. But what about the higher dimensions?
Let's look at Carl Sagan's flatland thought experiment as an example.
He assumes that a three-dimensional object may enter the second dimension, but doesn't a three-dimensional object exist in three
not in the
How can a object that requires a set amount of dimensions exit one of it's lower dimensions?
They try to get around it by explaining how it may be perceived if it enters a lower dimension with "slicing" and that is all well and good and I
agree but at this point it can be perceived
by lower dimensions. The higher dimension argument falls flat once they try to remove it from a
The higher dimension hide & seek problem
A cube has these three dimensions;
- If we removed the depth (third dimension) everyone agrees that it becomes a two dimensional object.
- Then if we removed height it's suddenly still a three-dimensional object that's just not perceivable in the second dimension?