Yes there is a way back. It's called travelling back to the physical location in which you started at the same speed.

For time travel to work as we can conceive it, we must view time as linear.

If I'm moving away from you (you being defined as stationary) at a speed close to that of light, not only will you percieve me as not progressing in time (IE a clock next to you would be ticking faster than the clock next to me), but also you would percieve a massive shrink in my apparent size. But here's the kicker, if I was moving towards you, I would appear to be moving extreemly fast, and to be massively large.

Ever heard of the "twin-paradox?" Well, it only works if I move away from you and then you start moving at non-relativistic speeds towards me.

The twin-paradox doesn't work if I travel away from you, and then travel back to you at relativistic speeds.

As for this dimension BS, I want to see your logic. Not just a claim.

Here's where it get's complicated. What exactly is stationary? If I'm "moving" away from you, who's to say that mine isn't the inertial frame of reference and you're really moving away from me?

The problem is that everybody associates the inertial frame of reference with themselves. We simply can't do it that way.

The point is that until we are able to observe something (with mass) moving at relativistic speeds, we can't be sure about relativity in practice. It makes sense mathmatically, but not conceptually (in all it's facets that is).

Time Dialation is a very, very, very sticky subject.

- SOup