View Full Version : Dimension and Time Travel
What you people think about what happened if we can go to past, future, and alternate dimension? For Example Humankind has long been fascinated with the idea of parallel dimensions, the theory being that alongside our own universe lie virtually identical universes in which people just like us live out their lives (and perhaps fantasize about parallel dimensions). The popular notion is that in a parallel dimension, some different decision was made, some random event occurred differently, or that some element in the composition of the Earth is more common—and, as a result, the universe is different to some degree or another. What if Wellington lost the Battle of Waterloo? What if the cataclysm that wiped out the dinosaurs never happened? What if Hitler conquered the world?
Of course, it could all be considerably more subtle than all that; perhaps all humans have gray eyes, and that’s the only difference. The point is that in alternate realities, life could be different. Without ever leaving their home world, dimensional explorers could face challenges every bit as daunting as the challenges faced by space explorers.
The parallel universe idea has been explored in multiple Star Trek episodes.:p
Well, according to my skills in phsyics:
The idea of travelling to the future is likely if one passes the speed of light, the "Brane" phenomenon that corresponds with the Supersting theory, proves alternate realities, whole universes, an infinite number of them, further proven by the strange Quantum physicis:
An electron does not move from a spot like A - B, but rather moves taking many different paths at the same instant and reaches spot B all at the same time, what are these different paths? Those are alternate realities, for every sub-atomic particle that moves, every movement, the smallest action in the universe anywhere, would change reality and future history, the realities are infinite in number, they occur the exact same time that this reality is going on, for example:
Say Rnett said: The parallel universe idea has been explored in multiple Star Trek episodes.
without the smiley, then this is a different course in history, some realities are similar to ours, others are radically different, it all depends how large a certain path. Imagine at this one period of time, all universes are set at A, then one small action: X, would change the course of history, action Y, would also change the course of history, and the point we want to reach: B, would be taken by different paths, realities are all different because there is a different product
A + X = B
will not be the same if:
A + Y = C
where C is a different future, but at the same time more realities exist that are always instantly similar to ours, but change after small actions create a different product:
A + XY = D
A + YX = E
A + X^Y = F
And so on, you can change the equation to many different realities, depending how many small actions, or large actions are taken, and because there are so many particles, cells, humans, planets, starts. There will always be actions from the path an electron takes to point B, to a start dying several fractions of a millisecond after what it would have died in another reality.
I see, IWM, you are confused about the topic of dimensions:
There are 10 dimensions +1
0 D is time, time has no dimension of it's own, so it is represented by 0. All reality is created by Time and Space (Every particle and everything else, you, me, Earth and the universe), Space has 3 dimensions:
1 D, one dimension, length or width, a straight line if you will.
2 D, two dimensions, length and width, a square
3 D, Length, Width and height/depth, this is what makes us. A cube is 3-D
4 D, 5 D ,6 D, 7 D, 8 D, 9 D and 10 D are more complex to ever comprehend. These dimensions are the dimensions used to explain Quantum Physics and possibly explain Supersymmetry when you add 11 D, Supersymmetry is the difficult process of theoritical physicits trying to connect Gravity, with the other 3 forces of existence, Electro-magnetism, Strong Nuclear force and Weak Nuclear force, if done with the assistance of 11 Dimensions, and combined with the M-theory (All 5 theories of strings) then the theory of superstrings, or theory of everything is created. So realistically, you cannot travel to another dimension, that makes no sense.
Well, I could be talking more, but how could I show mathematical details here? And I may need the help of pictures, I think it's good enough. At least we have the basics of the physical view of dimensions and time travel (with a little bit of the theory of everything)
Yes. That's true. But I think there're more of it. And What do you think if Wellington lose Waterloo?
Yes. That's true. But I think there're more of it. And What do you think if Wellington lose Waterloo?
Well talking from a historical point of view, if Wellington lost waterloo, the same thing would have happened that Napoleon did in the first 6 coalitions, advance further while the allies attempt to form another coalition until he is defeated. With his strategies well know, possibly Gebhard von Blücher would have crushed Napoleon in the second battle of waterloo after Wellington lost.
Besides it is highly unlikely that the allies would have lost at Waterloo, the British and Prussians outnumber Napoleon 10 - 1
Besides it is highly unlikely that the allies would have lost at Waterloo, the British and Prussians outnumber Napoleon 10 - 1
Just to continue the offtopic.
If you are talking about the forces at the battlefield of Waterloo, then i was rather 2:1. Napoleon had around 70 000 men and so did Blücher and Wellington. If Crouchy had held back Blücher in Wawre, Napoleon could have defeated the English and then take care of the Prussians also.
Just to continue the offtopic.
If you are talking about the forces at the battlefield of Waterloo, then i was rather 2:1. Napoleon had around 70 000 men and so did Blücher and Wellington. If Crouchy had held back Blücher in Wawre, Napoleon could have defeated the English and then take care of the Prussians also.
Wellington had 60,000 men and Blücher had 60,000 men also, Napoleon had 70,000. Napoleon might have defeated the English if Blücher did not come, but how do you know that Napoleon's Grand strategy and levee en masse tactics have not been studied by the allies? Napoleon might have been defeated by the British alone, but the Prussian reinforcments sealed his fate.
Wellington had 60,000 men and Blücher had 60,000 men also, Napoleon had 70,000. Napoleon might have defeated the English if Blücher did not come, but how do you know that Napoleon's Grand strategy and levee en masse tactics have not been studied by the allies? Napoleon might have been defeated by the British alone, but the Prussian reinforcments sealed his fate.
I wasn't actually trying to say that Napoleon had defeated both of the enemies separately. Napoleon's brilliance was a far cry from the glory of Austerlitz, his tactics was hopeless aganist the British and the mistakes he had already made at the battlefield made his victory highly unlike. However, nothing wasn't decided before the Prussians showed up. It was all just bad luck, that's want I'm saying.
Now, about the topic. I think that the thing with the parallel universes is quite unreal. I mean, I can as well say that the Big Bang happened when someone lifted his foot in a shoe and now we are living on a piece of dust in this shoe and in a 5 billion years (which is 5 seconds for him) he is going to crush us and the same thing will keep happening until he stops walking. And as many of these "people" are walking, twice as many universes exist. I wouldn't discuss too much about such topics, since there is no way we can ever be sure about anything.
I wasn't actually trying to say that Napoleon had defeated both of the enemies separately. Napoleon's brilliance was a far cry from the glory of Austerlitz, his tactics was hopeless aganist the British and the mistakes he had already made at the battlefield made his victory highly unlike. However, nothing wasn't decided before the Prussians showed up. It was all just bad luck, that's want I'm saying.
Now, about the topic. I think that the thing with the parallel universes is quite unreal. I mean, I can as well say that the Big Bang happened when someone lifted his foot in a shoe and now we are living on a piece of dust in this shoe and in a 5 billion years (which is 5 seconds for him) he is going to crush us and the same thing will keep happening until he stops walking. And as many of these "people" are walking, twice as many universes exist. I wouldn't discuss too much about such topics, since there is no way we can ever be sure about anything.
About the shoe thing, I hope you are kidding. Recent studies on the string theory suggest that the big bang might have occured due to brane movement, Branes short for Membrane are large structures that are neither time nor space, because of their movement they were named Memebranes. The Branes colliding might have created a bang, in our case the Big Bang, but this leaves even more questions unanswered, What exactly are the Branes made out of, How many are there? Where are they located? If they are located in their own universe, then is their universe created by more Branes in an infinite loop? And these Branes collide all the time, that means there must be other "Big Bangs" happening all the time. For now, we just have to wait and see until Physicists manage to create the theory of everything to explain...well everything!
One last thing, Time traveling to the past is physically impossible and lives in the realms of Philosophy and Fantasy.
About the shoe thing, I hope you are kidding. Recent studies on the string theory suggest that the big bang might have occured due to brane movement, Branes short for Membrane are large structures that are neither time nor space, because of their movement they were named Memebranes. The Branes colliding might have created a bang, in our case the Big Bang, but this leaves even more questions unanswered, What exactly are the Branes made out of, How many are there? Where are they located? If they are located in their own universe, then is their universe created by more Branes in an infinite loop? And these Branes collide all the time, that means there must be other "Big Bangs" happening all the time. For now, we just have to wait and see until Physicists manage to create the theory of everything to explain...well everything!
One last thing, Time traveling to the past is physically impossible and lives in the realms of Philosophy and Fantasy.
@Carbon:So they Spiritually or mentally possible?
About the shoe thing, I hope you are kidding. Recent studies on the string theory suggest that the big bang might have occured due to brane movement, Branes short for Membrane are large structures that are neither time nor space, because of their movement they were named Memebranes. The Branes colliding might have created a bang, in our case the Big Bang, but this leaves even more questions unanswered, What exactly are the Branes made out of, How many are there? Where are they located? If they are located in their own universe, then is their universe created by more Branes in an infinite loop? And these Branes collide all the time, that means there must be other "Big Bangs" happening all the time. For now, we just have to wait and see until Physicists manage to create the theory of everything to explain...well everything!
One last thing, Time traveling to the past is physically impossible and lives in the realms of Philosophy and Fantasy.
I'm quite distrustful about topics like these. Theories about very small or giant things are usually based on conjectures. We can't even be completely sure that atoms or tectonic plates actually exist as we believe they do. Not to mention some Branes.
I also don't think it is possible to go back in time. However, perhaps we could see the past. Just imagine if it would be possible to move faster than light. Then we could move 1000 years ahead of light and see the earth as it was 1000 years ago.
I'm quite distrustful about topics like these. Theories about very small or giant things are usually based on conjectures. We can't even be completely sure that atoms or tectonic plates actually exist as we believe they do. Not to mention some Branes.
I also don't think it is possible to go back in time. However, perhaps we could see the past. Just imagine if it would be possible to move faster than light. Then we could move 1000 years ahead of light and see the earth as it was 1000 years ago.
Branes are certainly a mall aspect of the bigger superstring theory, it's still a theory with as of yet, no empircal evidence. But it makes so much sense when we add this theory to the the four fundamental forces of the universe, just like particle theory, they both make alot more sense in science than any other theory, but they cannot be proven because nobody can see them.
Technically speaking, you cannot travel in the future or the past, because nothing in the universe travels faster than light according to general relativity, period. But in the realm of fantasy it would be an intereting thing to talk about, if you travel 1000 years ahead of light, you would see the earth 1000 years before your current time period, here's an example:
Say someone, Person A lives in the year 2007, and travels 1000 years ahead of light, so techincaly he is in the year 3007, but he cannot see anything on the Earth that is in the year 3007 because light is still in 2007, thus creating the illusion of the past, but because time is linear nothing can go before 2007, and the day he left. If he waits it out, time will reach him and he will see 3007 Earth.
Let's see a real life example, when you look at the night sky, you will notice there are alot of stars in a non-urban area. Some of these stars don't exist, but you can see them. That is because they are so far away, you see them several months, years, decades or centuries ago, they may not even exist because they blew up, but until light reaches you, you will see the past, the time when light last entered your eyes from the star, even the sun, whenever you look at it (not directly!), you will see it 10 minutes in the past than what it actually is.
Technically speaking, you cannot travel in the future or the past, because nothing in the universe travels faster than light according to general relativity, period. But in the realm of fantasy it would be an intereting thing to talk about, if you travel 1000 years ahead of light, you would see the earth 1000 years before your current time period, here's an example:
Say someone, Person A lives in the year 2007, and travels 1000 years ahead of light, so techincaly he is in the year 3007, but he cannot see anything on the Earth that is in the year 3007 because light is still in 2007, thus creating the illusion of the past, but because time is linear nothing can go before 2007, and the day he left. If he waits it out, time will reach him and he will see 3007 Earth.
Let's see a real life example, when you look at the night sky, you will notice there are alot of stars in a non-urban area. Some of these stars don't exist, but you can see them. That is because they are so far away, you see them several months, years, decades or centuries ago, they may not even exist because they blew up, but until light reaches you, you will see the past, the time when light last entered your eyes from the star, even the sun, whenever you look at it (not directly!), you will see it 10 minutes in the past than what it actually is.
I was actually talking about that if you travel 1000 light years ahead of 2007, you can see the Earth as it was in 1007. And the theory with the disappeared stars you told was exactly what made me think about that.
Another point: if nothing can move faster than light, then how come the black holes can stop (or catch or suck) it?
I was actually talking about that if you travel 1000 light years ahead of 2007, you can see the Earth as it was in 1007. And the theory with the disappeared stars you told was exactly what made me think about that.
Another point: if nothing can move faster than light, then how come the black holes can stop (or catch or suck) it?
1000 light years is a method of measuring distance not time, despite the title of years in it. 1 light year = the distance light can travel in 1 year
So it's a fairly large unit of measuring distance. Also, nothing can physically travel faster than light, it's generaly accepted as fact. Black holes have such intense gravity they suck even light which makes them invisible, but this doesn't say anything about black holes travelling faster than light... also Black Holes are considered a singualirity, a mathematical object where the laws of physics no longer apply.
Another point: if nothing can move faster than light, then how come the black holes can stop (or catch or suck) it?
Actually the Black Holes twist the space-time in their vicinity. The light is "trapped" by them only from our point of view. From the "light" point of view, it still goes as straight as usual. .. Errgh .. or may be not ;) I am amateur!
Actually the Black Holes twist the space-time in their vicinity. The light is "trapped" by them only from our point of view. From the "light" point of view, it still goes as straight as usual. .. Errgh .. or may be not ;) I am amateur!
You are partially correct, but light is litterly sucked in forever into the void. Thats what makes it invisible.
You are partially correct, but light is litterly sucked in forever into the void. Thats what makes it invisible.''Nothing lasts forever``. Black Holes can evaporate and do send out radiation, Hawking radiation.
''Nothing lasts forever``. Black Holes can evaporate and do send out radiation, Hawking radiation.
True, but they last over 100 trillion years...
Also, things don't come out of the black hole so they are forever in the void.
True, but they last over 100 trillion years...That depends on it's mass.
To the original topic: going to an alternate dimension, as explained, is impossible when you use the physical definition of the word. If 'parallel universe' or anything alike is meant: pure speculation.
About time travel: I don't think it will be possible. There is one interesting thing though, somewhere on the internet, of some strange person, John Titor, claiming to have come from the future. Fake, but I find it fascinating anyway.
That depends on it's mass.
To the original topic: going to an alternate dimension, as explained, is impossible when you use the physical definition of the word. If 'parallel universe' or anything alike is meant: pure speculation.
About time travel: I don't think it will be possible. There is one interesting thing though, somewhere on the internet, of some strange person, John Titor, claiming to have come from the future. Fake, but I find it fascinating anyway.
Black holes have no mass, they are the mathematical object known as a singualirity...
About the John Titor, have you checked his mental health history?
Black holes have no mass, they are the mathematical object known as a singualirity...
I in the contrary would say that the Black Holes should be extremely heavy (in the meaning of dense) to suck even light in them. It should work in the same way as the earth is trying to suck everything in, but it's not dense enough.
Black holes have no mass, they are the mathematical object known as a singualirity...
About the John Titor, have you checked his mental health history?I in the contrary would say that the Black Holes should be extremely heavy (in the meaning of dense) to suck even light in them. It should work in the same way as the earth is trying to suck everything in, but it's not dense enough.Exactly - from the things in the universe, the black holes are the surest to have mass! What else did you think would keep that light trapped? It's the huge gravitational bending of space time, as Frujin aptly wrote, that makes sure that things which pass the event horizon will not be able to escape the gravitational pull anymore.
You are right that they are (probably) singularities [physical], though, but that simply means a that a huge amount of mass is compressed into one point.
Exactly - from the things in the universe, the black holes are the surest to have mass! What else did you think would keep that light trapped? It's the huge gravitational bending of space time, as Frujin aptly wrote, that makes sure that things which pass the event horizon will not be able to escape the gravitational pull anymore.
You are right that they are (probably) singularities [physical], though, but that simply means a that a huge amount of mass is compressed into one point.
Well, density and mass are not related, a black hole has the density of a gigantic star.
As for the bending of space-time, you are partially correct, this is called general relativity, absolutely every object has a mass that bends space-time, large objects such as planets or stars bend this space-time web to the point where a "bowl" shape is formed, as objects get near the edge of the bowl they will start to travel around the curved edge, like a marble in a bowl. This is what we now call gravity, in previously unexplainable Newtonian theories of gravity, it was assumed gravity is force that travels the speed of light and if the sun would suddenly dissapear, the Earth would immediatly be sef off course into the middle of space, Einstein disproved that the theory of relativity, since nothing can travel faster than light, it was assumed that gravity travels as fast as light, when our sun or any object dissapears, it sends a wave, like a pebble thrown in water, this wave will reach us with the last ray of light we see from the sun, so the speed of light. Black holes have such a high density, their bowl is the bowl of an absolutely massive star, stellar evolution tells us when a high density star, such as a red supergiant for example, explodes after helium depletion, it will implode, yes implode not explode. The outer layer will be blasted away as a Supernova, however gravity will remain, sucking the core into itself in an infinite void, forming a black hole with the same gravity as the previous dense star, without the mass which makes it's "bowl" so massive that not even light escapes as mentioned before, it's bowl is also so deep it may as well poke through the space-time continuem, but this has no empirical evidence since black holes are invisible, all we can see is light and black holes eat that as well. Now you mention a singualirty as, what I used to think. Some sort of a "point", however the topic of singualirty is far beyond something that us humans can imagine, let me explain this: A dog cannot learn basic physics, because it's brain cannot physicially comprehend such immense topics, our brains can, but only some can become theoritical physicists because they have the brains advanced enough to comprehend such extreme topics as Quantum physicis, but even the most developed of our brains cannot comprehend the idea of singualirty, because it is not space so it cannot be a point, a star, a person or anything for that matter, neither is it time, which makes it unimaginable by defintion. For example, a black hole sucking everything into itself, including light defies all laws of physicis, making it a singualirty. There are other singualirties however, such as a technological singualirty, not relating to physicis at all, I don't know if you have heard of such a thing? A basic defintion is that humanity will be formed into one consciosness if we are to think through machine-internet network, suck as uploading or processing internet data, such as binary code into our brains, this will merge all minds together and make ourselves omnipotent, which is inconcievable by defintion. So you can see, a singualirty is not a mass into one point, singualirty lies in the fields of mathematics and even philosophy due to it's nature, infact the defintion of singualirty is anything that defies the laws of physicis. I can see you are confident in saying a black hole has an incredible mass, but it's mass is rather small compared to it's density, which are two very different things. Infact, if the Earth is squashed to the size of a small pea, it would collapse into itself, it's density and mass is transformed into a black hole with the same properties of density and gravity as the earth, but with now it has become a point.
Wow, that's quite a story! :) Let me read and react on a few things.
* Density and mass are related quite simply: density is mass per unit of volume.
* A black hole has the mass of a gigantic star, but a density much higher than that of a star, in general relativity an infinite density (but only one point: singularity). In reality, and in the still not-found theory of quantumgravitation, black holes may well have a finite density.
* The Newtonian theory did not say that the force of gravity travelled at the speed of light, it's Einstein (and Maxwell) who concluded this. Newton had an instantaneous force in mind: if the sun would disappear, the earth would immediately follow a straight path. Now we now that the earth will continue to turn around the (no longer existing) sun for about 8 minutes and then follow an unaccelerated path.
For the last part, I agree that it is the density of the object that makes the Black Hole a Black hole.
When you compress the sun to beyond it's Schwarzschild radius, the point where it becomes a black hole, the mass of the black hole will be the same, but the gravity sure will not. The gravity is much stronger due to the mass being compressed. Also, the density has changed very much. The only thing conserved is mass - density and, due to that, the gravitational force in points around it, increase.
Wow, that's quite a story! :) Let me read and react on a few things.
* Density and mass are related quite simply: density is mass per unit of volume.
* A black hole has the mass of a gigantic star, but a density much higher than that of a star, in general relativity an infinite density (but only one point: singularity). In reality, and in the still not-found theory of quantumgravitation, black holes may well have a finite density.
* The Newtonian theory did not say that the force of gravity travelled at the speed of light, it's Einstein (and Maxwell) who concluded this. Newton had an instantaneous force in mind: if the sun would disappear, the earth would immediately follow a straight path. Now we now that the earth will continue to turn around the (no longer existing) sun for about 8 minutes and then follow an unaccelerated path.
For the last part, I agree that it is the density of the object that makes the Black Hole a Black hole.
When you compress the sun to beyond it's Schwarzschild radius, the point where it becomes a black hole, the mass of the black hole will be the same, but the gravity sure will not. The gravity is much stronger due to the mass being compressed. Also, the density has changed very much. The only thing conserved is mass - density and, due to that, the gravitational force in points around it, increase.
Well, this is an awsome debate, all the time debates have to be political or religious, this is a true intellectuel debate! I think we should get technical now...
Lets start with density and mass debate, this is the equation for density: D = M/V, where D is the density of the object and M is the mass, V is for volume: measured in cubes, for example the mass of an object were to be 12 KG, and its volume at 5^3 M, then the density would be 2.4 Kg - M^3, where ^ is used for exponent because this forum has no exponent text formatting. Now that we have the density problem out of the way, we can see the similarities between density and mass, and now volume. Density is basically how much mass M, per set volume V, so volume and mass are both needed before we can calculate density, mass alone cannot tell us the density, and a high mass is not necesserily needed for a high density, simply the smaller the volume and higher the mass, the more dense the object is. Even me and you, with our tiny mass compared to planets and stars, can become black holes if we were to have a volume of say, a sub-atomic particle or even smaller. You have explained this however, that we need a set number of mass in a set number of volume to calculate density, but this proves we need volume to also calculate density, and as I mentioned before, as long as the volume is small enough, even a relatively small mass can achieve critical mass with a small enough volume. Black holes, have a definite finite density, we can define this as Aleph-null, a finite natural number within a set smaller than infinity. An infinite density can only be achieved if ∞M/-∞V, negative infinity volume and infinity mass. This is almost impossible, since infinite mass is larger than the mass of the universe, which black holes are not, and negative infinity volume is smaller than the smallest quark or string, which makes no phyisical sense. So, the density of a black hole is Aleph-null, but this is too vague, and it's density can be calculated by SM/SV, where SM is for Star's mass and SV is for small volume, if the mass of star (depending on it's mass) is crushed to about the size of something greatly smaller in volume compared to it's previous volume, then the density of having such an incredible mass as a red supergiant squashed to micro-scopic size will be so dense the gravity will suck itself in, thus a black hole is formed. Nothing is infinite about a black hole, it has a life span, though incredibly long (bound to exist all the way until way after all the stars of the known universe have long been destroyed). It has no infinite gravitational radius (otherwise we would be sucked in from a black hole infinitly far from us), the only thing infinite about the black hole is it's void, which as far as we know it, anything that goes in does not come out. Let's now talk about the Newtonian theory, I took the time to create several pictures illustrating what I meant earlier about general relativity:
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/7503/spacetimewi4.jpg
From here you can see, that the sun forms a bowl shape out of this grid (green line represents imaginary space-time grid or web), we roll around the sun's imaginary grid, since the sun's mass is so high, it litteraly bends the space-time grid and when an object gets caught, it will start to follow this bowl around, like a marble in a bowl. If the sun suddenly dissapears, the wave action will ocur, this is according to general relativity (image below). According to Newton, who didn't know how gravity worked in detail, he just know the concept, not the mathematics behind it, gravity was simply a force, if the sun dissapears, just like how you said it, the Earth would suddenly drift away into space, in an instance. This seemed plausible, and later accepted as confirmed fact for hundreds of years until Einstein proved nothing can go faster than light, in which case this left gravity in the water, how would gravity bee explained? Einstein proposed a theory, gravity is not a force, but simply they way large masses have a certain weight on an imaginary space-time grid we cannot see. As the sun is very heavy in mass, it will bend the space-time grid greatly, and I explained before the process of gravity. But the problem Newton tried to explain remained a mystery, if the sun suddenly dissapears, what would happen to the Earth? Einstein said, it would take about several minutes, 8 as you said, until light from the sun reaches Earth, that is when gravity reaches us when it dissapears. If the sun dissapears, it would immediatly lose it's mass, and so the space time web will jump and, like throwing a rock into water, would form waves, when these waves reach us at Earth, our planet would drift away. Here's a diagram:
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/1341/wavesdz3.jpg
The first image, marked number 1: Say something out of the ordinary happen, a little science experiment we cannot do in reality, we can only do in theory, the sun dissapears, what would happen to us? Alot of things, we lose warmth, light and other things. But what about gravity? We are safe in our solar system, out in space are black holes, dust, rocks and other space objects waiting to destroy our home of Earth. Well, this wont happen immediatly, if the sun dissapears, we would continue our normal following orbit around the now defunt existence of the sun. Meanwhile, the space time web (Image 2), would have started to morph back into a straight plane, it would split into a large wave, the bowl would dissapear, as the waves reach us (No. 3), our orbit would be distrubted, we would no longer see the sun, as the last rays of light from the sun reach us, no more come to us, thus we see nothing in the horizon. When the waves go past us (no. 4), we would simply drift to the middle of space in no formal direction. Since the wave reached us, the space-time grid has flattened itself out anywhere behind this wave (that is morphing back the space-time grid to a pre-sun status, a flat plain no bowls, bents or anything since no mass to bend space-time exists now), with no bowl, our Earth has nothing to roll around in, other than space, like a marble being rolled on top of a flat table, drifting endlessly in space.
Another topic, is the bowls of black holes I want to emphasize, these are no longer bowls due to their extremly small volume and high mass, it's almost like a thin funnel.
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/8012/blackeholeoi8.jpg
Here, you can see that this funnel is really deep. Due to the black hole's mass, it might seem like it would penetrate the invulernable space-time grid, it will not penetrate anything, but there are some theories about how this could create a time machine. So coming back on topic, time travel can be possible if 1, of several proposed theories on the shape of the universe is correct. Here is another image, showing the different universes that might exist. I would focus on one of them, but I will talk about all of them. Of course, in reality nobody can ever understand how the universe is shaped, because you would have to travel billions of times faster than light before you can catch up, as you know light from just about any star, will continue to travel eternally, the farthest light might or might not be the edge of the universe, so somewhere in the universe there could possible be a place where light has not traveled. But, thinking deeply, before the big bang, before the universe, what could have possible existed, there was no space so no colours, no matter, it was not black or white, no time, it makes one wonder.
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/3149/universelt7.jpg
The first picture to the top left, is a cube shaped universe, the universe expands as a cube, and the bottom left, shows spherical universes, along with the multiverse theory, more than one universes exist, connected by wormholes. Let me talk about wormholes, if Space-time grid would be stretched to it's limits, and another side of the universe, like the third and last figure shows, it will poke a hole through and create a temporary hole in space and time from which someone could litteraly travel instantly in space (teleportation) and time (time-travel).
Finally, I will explain (briefly) strings and branes in two images.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3121/branespu2.jpg
Here the branes are blue, as I explained before one part of the superstring theory states before the big bang, existed huge objects known as branes (they exist elsewhere, beyond our universe), and when they clash they cause a big bang, which ends up creating space and time, thus a universe is born, but what about other branes? How many times do the they clash?
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1310/stringsvt2.jpg
Rather simple, a water droplet, zoomed to the extreme would show molecules, taking the extremely zoomed in centre of an atome from this molecule and we get the nucleas, the quantum phyisics of sub-atomic particles is of course very strange, complicated and overwhelming. Beyond that, inside a Proton in an atomic nucleas, are quarks, and over 1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 times smaller than a quark, are stings. Rods and circle of energy, who's very vibrations create particles, (since energy and matter are essentially the same, as explained by E = mc^2).
One note: I don't think it's a debate, in the sense that we have a fundamental difference of opinion, but rather a monologue -which is fine by me- whereupon I posted some corrections of the statements that I thought needed them.
That's a nice introduction to general relativity you wrote!
Wow! Great job everyone!
I want to post since 21 sep but i banned