[Simtrad (OP)]

Hi, my theory is the speed of light is the fastest you can travel through space time but it travels at the rate at which one moment passes into the next. Just like the first three dimensions you can't leave them just move around within them. So it is with time you can't leave it just travel around within it.

On another forum this theory was called word salad hopefully you guys will be friendlier.

[Halc]

Hi, my theory is the speed of light is the fastest you can travel through space time

A thing cannot travel through spacetime.  Spacetime does not exist in a second kind of time, so there is no motion in it.  Objects (and photons) have worldlines in spacetime.

but it travels at the rate at which one moment passes into the next.

A view that posits a current moment that passes from one to the next is a model of space, and separate time, not of spacetime.  You can frame it this way if you like, but if you combine the terminology as you seem to in your post, then it indeed becomes nonsense.  My objection is mostly a terminology one.  Don't use 'spacetime' because you're not talking about it.

So the speed of light is the fastest a thing can travel through space, but nothing travels through spacetime.

If your view is the 3D one where time 'travels at the rate at which one moment passes into the next', then what rate does that pass?  How might one measure/compute this?

[Jaksonslayer]

I believe this fits within my own theory of space having dimensional layers near matter. moment to moment is extended if addional dimensional layers exist that it travels through appearing to slow to an outside observer.

also I believe this could be measured if we could measure the expansion "time" flow of one dimensional space.

[Simtrad (OP)]

Ok, so if you travel infinitely fast you pass from point a to b without any time having passed. You would be outside time. Which seems the same as if you the reduced the mass of an object until it is nothing it would be outside space. Nothing can exist beyond space and time. So at what speed can you move from a to b with time still having elapsed, if this is the same as the speed of light then that is rate at which one moment passes into the next.

[Halc]

Ok, so if you travel infinitely fast you pass from point a to b without any time having passed.

Points a and b are events (points in space at a certain time), and in some frames, b would be in the past of a, so you'd be traveling back in time.  Saying 'without time having passed' is the same as saying events a and b are simultaneous, which is a frame dependent relation.

You would be outside time.

No, you'd still be in it.  You correctly said in the OP that you can 'move about' in it but not leave it.  You're describing leaving it here.

Which seems the same as if you the reduced the mass of an object until it is nothing it would be outside space.

I have no idea how that followed from the first impossible idea above.

Nothing can exist beyond space and time.

You don't know that.

So at what speed can you move from a to b with time still having elapsed, if this is the same as the speed of light then that is rate at which one moment passes into the next.

Hard to parse these words.  Don't want to say 'salad'.
I can get anywhere (say the next star over) in as little time as you like, but not zero time.  One second say, as measured on my own watch.  There's no lower limit.  In my own frame, I'm never moving at light speed.  In fact I'm stationary, and the next star over is the thing moving.

As for the rate of time passing, that is a meaningless concept since it has no units.  It's like asking how many meters there are per meter.

[Hayseed]

I believe we exist in one dimension.  And because there is only one dimension, we have a rotating perpendicular around it.

That one dimension is length, which comes with duration, resulting in area.

[Simtrad (OP)]

Ok I stop now thanks