Ask Lemmy

1. I hold that the physics this world's establishment holds-to is obviously flatland "physics", as it doesn't include mind/will, and you CAN'T have real physics, if you're handwaving & saying "oh, but those phenomena aren't really real". The fact that .. Jacob? ( see Curt Jaimungal's videos, on yt ) discovered that the difference between statistical-probability theory vs quantum-probability theory, is that quantum-probability includes knowing. Knowing, aka "information", as physicists call it, is physics-real. Pretending that information is real, but knowing isn't, is .. defective. Pretending that knowing is real but mind isn't real, is absolutely shameless. Ideological-prejudice is what's really going on. Look for the "Non-Markovian" probability video, & you'll see it spelt out plain as day: knowing is physics-required.

2. The fundamental-technology should be possible, but the durations might be absurd.

3. the way it works is this:

Speed-of-light-limitation is WITHIN a given SPACE.

So, if you've got time & multiple different 3D-spaces ( think leaves on a branch: each leaf being a 3D-space ), then the speed-of-light-limitation in EACH is limited-to limiting speeds in THAT space:

There isn't any speed-limit BETWEEN spaces, see?

So, "rotating" from another space into OUR space, then moving 100km within our space, then "rotating" back into their space, means you've now moved 3 parsecs..

Simply because our 3D-space & their 3D-space don't happen to be at the same "angle" to the universe's underlying-structure..

then travel which is simultaneously slower ( from the perspective of the traveler ) & faster ( from the perspective of they got from point A to point B faster than light within this space could have done ) becomes doable.

So, it'd be required to 1. know the underlying-structure of the universe, 2. be able to engage a "rotation" from our 3D-space to another one, intentionally, & make it be one that is travel-useful ( that may not be possible ), & then 3. do that rotation, move within that other space, & then "rotate" back into our space, at a drastically-different location.

All that'd be required is for the "rotation" to remove our having inertia/mass within this 3D-space for it to be useful, but more-complete "rotation" may be required for accomplishing real interstellar travel.

IF you go look for Susskind's "Time as a Fractal Flow" video, on yt, watch it to the end, as the lightbulb goes on at the end, mentally..

but consider the implications of that:

IF time is fractal, THEN space must also be, since they're part of the same 4D thing.

NOBODY in physics is dealing with it that way, ttbomk.

& if space is fractal, then it simultaneously is, & isn't, there, & that may be usable.

( it's there from within it, but it can be not-there from the perspective of other 3D-spaces which simply don't "see" it: because each is only fractionally-dimensional, they can all be crammed into some kind of superspace, without colliding with each-other )

Anyways, this is just how the shape of it feels, & as I figure-out more, this understanding gets revised, but that's the fundamental sense of it.

There are .. thousands? of 3D-spaces in this universe, & we're in 1 of them.

Electromagnetism is limited to within a 3D-space, but gravity isn't: it diffuses throughout them all.

"Dark Matter" is just conventional matter in other 3D-spaces which are .. how to say that .. "coincident" with our 3D-space, but the falsifying-quotes are important: their 3D-space & ours are not-colliding, they are each fractional-dimension/fractals.

So, we've got "Dark Matter" galaxies simply because there isn't any matter in OUR 3D-space, but in other 3D-spaces which are coinciding with ours, without colliding, there ARE actual-matter galaxies, & their gravity is present, weakly, in our 3D-space ( I'm presuming that gravity is weaker between-3D-spaces, that may not be true, or if it is true, it may be .. anywhere from slightly-weaker to orders-of-magnitude weaker )

We've got a couple diffuse galaxies with NO "Dark Matter", simply because there's matter in OUR 3D-space, but not in the other, underlying-us 3D-spaces..

etc.

It also affects the smoothness of the Cosmic Microwave Background, too: instead of requiring that space inflated at zillions-of-times-the-speed-of-light, you can instead have thousands, or zillions, of dimensions expanding, all of the 3D-spaces expanding, but none of them going translight..

& you get the same degree of smoothness, because it's happening in more dimensions, simultaneously, instead of happening in only 1x 3D-space, at translight speed..

The fact that gravity is nonlinear & QM is linear ( another of Curt Jaimungal's videos, some utterly-hyper balding scrawney guy explaining this ), so if you put mass somewhere, the mass's gravitational-field ITSELF has gravity/gravitational-field: it's self-amplifying, whereas all quantum-mechanics stuff is linear.. proves that the 2 theories are fundamentally incompatible: they're different KINDS of mechanics.

I'm saying that all the QM stuff is within-a-3D-space, & that gravity isn't within-a-single-3D-space: it's affecting ALL of them, simultaneously.

& that we need to discover the underlying-structure which gets both perspectives into the correct relationship.

_ /\ _