time, is it a true dimension? I say not

[north]

for time to a true dimension it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist.

the thing is that time can cease to exist but not affect the existence of things. but take away a things length,breadth and depth, now you affect a things existence. it becomes non-existant.

for time is nothing more than a measurement of movement. and movement is based on matter. its energy and interactions with other forms of matter. which in the end actually dictates what time it takes to come to certain result. it has nothing to do with time, in and of itself.

time is nothing more than a point on a coordinate system.

time is a mathematical concept, not a real dimension

[korjik]

you do realize that without time there is no motion?

[north]

you do realize that without time there is no motion?

do you realize the essence of time is movement.

so you can take away time( since time is a measurement of movement) but movement its self would carry on.

[Demigrog]

do you realize the essence of time is movement.

so you can take away time( since time is a measurement of movement) but movement its self would carry on.

I don't see it; time is not a measurement--"seconds since event A" is a measurement. Motion is an observation that implies time. Without time there literally could be no motion. Think of it in equation form: Velocity = change in distance / change in time. Without a change in time, therefore, velocity is undefined.

[Doodler]

I think it is, I just don't think its the one we think it is. Particularly since the structure of the universe requires at least four spatial dimensions to work per current theory.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
do you realize the essence of time is movement.

so you can take away time( since time is a measurement of movement) but movement its self would carry on.


I don't see it; time is not a measurement--"seconds since event A" is a measurement. Motion is an observation that implies time. Without time there literally could be no motion. Think of it in equation form: Velocity = change in distance / change in time. Without a change in time, therefore, velocity is undefined.

it doesn't matter whether velocity is undefined. velocity or speed of an object still takes place. and velocity or speed of an object takes place because of the inteactins and/or actions of the physical dynamics of this object(s), only. time is irrelevant.

[Robert Andersson]

for time to a true dimension it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist.
How about the past and the future? That's a big chunk of stuff...

[north]

I think it is, I just don't think its the one we think it is. Particularly since the structure of the universe requires at least four spatial dimensions to work per current theory.

then the current theory is wrong, in thinking that time is, in and of its self , is a physical dynamic. time has NO ultimate physical consequence of anything.

only the physical dynamics and the resultant physical movement of a said object and the resultant consequences do.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
for time to a true dimension it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist


How about the past and the future? That's a big chunk of stuff...

movement only.

otherwise for example?

[Thomas(believer)]

time is a mathematical concept, not a real dimension

I'd say: dimension is a real mathematical concept. What else could it be?
According to Einstein's theories of relativity x,y and z are depent of time.
That makes it, IMO, mathematical a dimension.

[Demigrog]

it doesn't matter whether velocity is undefined. velocity or speed of an object still takes place. and velocity or speed of an object takes place because of the inteactins and/or actions of the physical dynamics of this object(s), only. time is irrelevant.

Interactions cannot take place without time.

I do agree, however, that time is not a spacial dimention, at least not in Newtonian physics. However, if you consider the expansion of space, then does n't time become at least a component of the spacial dimentions?

[north]

Originally Posted by north
time is a mathematical concept, not a real dimension


I'd say: dimension is a real mathematical concept. What else could it be?

reality. tell me that there is no depth,length and breadth by just observing reality its self. look around you.

According to Einstein's theories of relativity x,y and z are depent of time.
That makes it, IMO, mathematical a dimension.

x,y and z are dependent on time because we want to know position, at such and such time.

but the essence of its,(object), position in time is based on the fundamental movement of such and such object. and the movement is based on the interactions and/or actions of a said object. time has no bearing or influence at all, on the objects movement.

[Robert Andersson]

How about the past and the future? That's a big chunk of stuff...
movement only.

otherwise for example?
Example? If you take away time, all events in the past and in the future are "affected" per your requirements. Perhaps unusaul to think about time that way, but it is perfectly analogous to remove, say, the z dimension; everything along the dimension in both directions from your current point in space-time cease to exist.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
it doesn't matter whether velocity is undefined. velocity or speed of an object still takes place. and velocity or speed of an object takes place because of the inteactins and/or actions of the physical dynamics of this object(s), only. time is irrelevant


Interactions cannot take place without time.

sure they do. look at the atomic clock comprized of ammonia molecules and a nitrogen atom. this interaction takes 20.9 microseconds. time and knowledge of ammonia molecules, plus the inclusion of a nitrogn atom did not PREDICT this alone. it was the interactions betwen the two that does. time is a resultant of this interaction, not the cause.

I do agree, however, that time is not a spacial dimention, at least not in Newtonian physics. However, if you consider the expansion of space, then does n't time become at least a component of the spacial dimentions?

Newtonian Physics is right.

time is still a resultant of this expansion( assuming expansion it true) and can become a component only, with in mind that time is not the cause of this expansion.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Andersson
How about the past and the future? That's a big chunk of stuff...

movement only.

otherwise for example?



Example? If you take away time, all events in the past and in the future are "affected" per your requirements.

NO. because it is the physical interactions and/or actions of objects that dictate past and future events. NOT time. beause time is as I have said a resultant, not the cause of the objects result.



Perhaps unusaul to think about time that way, but it is perfectly analogous to remove, say, the z dimension; everything along the dimension in both directions from your current point in space-time cease to exist.

NO. no my mind you have misunderstood what the "Z" point means.

"Z" is already IN space, and space is independant of time. all that "Z" is doing is pin-pointing an object IN space. so "Z" has no bearing on the essence of space its self.

[Doodler]

then the current theory is wrong, in thinking that time is, in and of its self , is a physical dynamic. time has NO ultimate physical consequence of anything.

only the physical dynamics and the resultant physical movement of a said object and the resultant consequences do.

I never said time wasn't a dimension, just not the one we think it is.

The first three dimensions of physical space are easy to grasp, then there's the fourth spatial dimension which defines the "shape" of the expanding universe can be rationalized with the "balloon skin" analogy easily enough that its within rational grasp. That says that the universe is experiencing time in at least four dimensions, which means time is somewhere in the 5+ realm. It would seem to me to be one of the compressed dimensions, because our capacity to move within it is incredibly constrained, with only one real direction available, even if through acceleration and gravitation, we can alter the rate of progression on a local level.

That's just my .02, take it for whatever its worth.

[korjik]

reality. tell me that there is no depth,length and breadth by just observing reality its self. look around you.



without time there is no length depth or breadth. you cannot observe reality without time. light travels at a velocity, sound travels at a velocity, smell travels at a velocity, touch requires a velocity.

time is not a spacial dimension like z,y,x, but it is linked to them through general relativity. It is required for the universe to exist just like x,y,z are.

Interactions cannot take place without time. Once the state of a system is set, only a time evolution can change it. Your atomic clock example is a good example. When the system is set into a specific state this system will stay in the same state unless a time evolution operator acts on it.

Using Newtonian physics, postion is fixed unless you have a rate of change with respect to time. Without this derivitive, you have no change.

The change does not happen first, then time occurs, time occurs so the change happens

[korjik]

I never said time wasn't a dimension, just not the one we think it is.

The first three dimensions of physical space are easy to grasp, then there's the fourth spatial dimension which defines the "shape" of the expanding universe can be rationalized with the "balloon skin" analogy easily enough that its within rational grasp. That says that the universe is experiencing time in at least four dimensions, which means time is somewhere in the 5+ realm. It would seem to me to be one of the compressed dimensions, because our capacity to move within it is incredibly constrained, with only one real direction available, even if through acceleration and gravitation, we can alter the rate of progression on a local level.

That's just my .02, take it for whatever its worth.

Time isnt truly a spacial dimension. The three spacial dimensions are vector quantities while time is a scalar. the only time that I know of where they act together is in relativity, where the quantity ct is used together with the spacial vectors to determine the shape of the local space

[north]

Originally Posted by north
then the current theory is wrong, in thinking that time is, in and of its self , is a physical dynamic. time has NO ultimate physical consequence of anything.

only the physical dynamics and the resultant physical movement of a said object and the resultant consequences do


I never said time wasn't a dimension, just not the one we think it is.

The first three dimensions of physical space are easy to grasp, then there's the fourth spatial dimension which defines the "shape" of the expanding universe can be rationalized with the "balloon skin" analogy easily enough that its within rational grasp. That says that the universe is experiencing time in at least four dimensions, which means time is somewhere in the 5+ realm.

here again it is NOT time that dictates any expansion of the Universe but the dynamics of the Universes' action. we then take these dynamics of expansion and express this dynamics with time. time as I've mentioned before is a resultant, not the cause of the result.



It would seem to me to be one of the compressed dimensions, because our capacity to move within it is incredibly constrained, with only one real direction available, even if through acceleration and gravitation, we can alter the rate of progression on a local level.

That's just my .02, take it for whatever its worth.

only through actions. it has nothing to do with time.

[north]

Time isnt truly a spacial dimension.

agreed

[perfessor]

North, suppose we agreed to meet at some location (x,y,z) - say, the 39th floor of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Later on, you call me up and say "Where were you? I was there!"

Me: "I was there too, yesterday at noon."

You: "Well I was there at 1:00."

Obviously, we failed to meet up because we were never at the same point in space-time. We failed to specify the fourth dimension - the time of meeting. Equivalently, if we had both been there at noon but you were on the 37th floor, we would not have been at the same point in space-time.

A dimension is a way of describing the location of an object, and it makes perfect sense to include a time component for specificity.

[Fortis]

Time is a coordinate required to specify an event. This is true in Minkowskian spacetime, as well as the space+time of Galilean relativity (where "spacetime" has the structure of a fibre bundle.)

[north]

North, suppose we agreed to meet at some location (x,y,z) - say, the 39th floor of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Later on, you call me up and say "Where were you? I was there!"

Me: "I was there too, yesterday at noon."

You: "Well I was there at 1:00."

Obviously, we failed to meet up because we were never at the same point in space-time. We failed to specify the fourth dimension - the time of meeting. Equivalently, if we had both been there at noon but you were on the 37th floor, we would not have been at the same point in space-time.

A dimension is a way of describing the location of an object, and it makes perfect sense to include a time component for specificity.

I agree

but what I'm driving at is that "time" alone is not the cause of the movement itself. some think that "time" is the cause of movement. in this I disagree.

[north]

Time is a coordinate required to specify an event. This is true in Minkowskian spacetime, as well as the space+time of Galilean relativity (where "spacetime" has the structure of a fibre bundle.)

to your first statement I agree.

fiber bundle? explain further.

[SirThoreth]

I agree

but what I'm driving at is that "time" alone is not the cause of the movement itself. some think that "time" is the cause of movement. in this I disagree.

By the same token, neither are "length", "width" or "height" - or any other term you wish to describe the three spatial dimensions.

Just like the three spatial dimensions describe either the position or boundaries of an object in space, the temporal dimension describes the position or boundaries of an object in spacetime.

Remove time from the universe, and the effect is just as dramatic as removing a spatial dimension - things stop working. After all, without all three spatial dimensions, it would be impossible to describe, for instance, where the boundaries of my body end, and those of the guy in line next to me begin. By the same token, it's impossble to describe movement, ie. a change in position, because without time, there is no change - the entire universe is static, and my trip through this line, instead of just feeling like it's taking forever to move, actually would take forever to move.

(BTW, I'm at my cable TV company, trying to get my cable box swapped out)

[north]

Originally Posted by north
I agree

but what I'm driving at is that "time" alone is not the cause of the movement itself. some think that "time" is the cause of movement. in this I disagree.

By the same token, neither are "length", "width" or "height" - or any other term you wish to describe the three spatial dimensions.

Just like the three spatial dimensions describe either the position or boundaries of an object in space, the temporal dimension describes the position or boundaries of an object in spacetime.

agreed

Remove time from the universe, and the effect is just as dramatic as removing a spatial dimension - things stop working.

things don't stop working just because we take time out of the picture, at all.

time is the measurement of change of position or movement. and this measurement, is in essence, the measurement of the movement CAUSED by the interactions and/or actions of matter. therefore strictly speaking to take time out of the equation does not necessarily imply that the interactions and/or actions of matter have ceased.

After all, without all three spatial dimensions, it would be impossible to describe, for instance, where the boundaries of my body end, and those of the guy in line next to me begin. By the same token, it's impossble to describe movement, ie. a change in position, because without time, there is no change

this is the key, as you said " by the same token , its impossible to describe movement."

yes it would be impossible to describe movement but that does NOT mean that movement its self is reliant on time, to instigate movement. time is in fact a resultant of matters movement.

the entire universe is static, and my trip through this line, instead of just feeling like it's taking forever to move, actually would take forever to move.)

actually no. not really. see above.

[Lurker]

things don't stop working just because we take time out of the picture, at all.
You have experimental evidence of this?? :)

[worzel]

This thread is virtually pointless, north, unless you're going to define "dimension" first. If we take your "it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist" as a definition (and ignore the fact that to affect something implies some sort of causal link which requires an ordering of events which implies the existence of time) then obviously time meets that definition - how could you even imagine a universe without time, let alone claim that our universe would be unaffected by its absence - utterly ridiculous!

If, as I suspect, the definition you're actually thinking of is more along the lines of the wikipedia's first entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensions)...

In common usage, a dimension (Latin, "measured out") is a parameter or measurement required to define the characteristics of an object—i.e. length, width, and height or size and shape. In mathematics, dimensions are the parameters required to describe the position and relevant characteristics of any object within a conceptual space/

...then you would be right that in Newtonian physics time isn't a dimension (by that defintion - it still could be called a dimension by a more general definition). But even if you're using that limited definition of dimension then either you are wrong or special relativity is wrong [ you don't need GR and expanding space to make this point ]. In Newtonain physics the distance between two points in 3D space (the metric) is agreed by all. In SR time and space are interwoven such that this is no longer true, but the distance between two events in spacetime (a 4 dimensional "space" that includes a time dimension) is - so to unambigously describe the extent of an object you need time as a dimension too.

If you're going to tell us that relativity is wrong you'd better have a better argument than some metaphysical musings about the non-existance of time.

[Lurker]

This thread is virtually pointless, north, unless you're going to define "dimension" first.

No... he's right... I just stopped my watch and dropped my pencil... it still fell to the floor. You can stop time, but motions still happens I was skeptical, but not anymore... not anymore... :eh:

[north]

Originally Posted by north
things don't stop working just because we take time out of the picture, at all.

You have experimental evidence of this?? :)

sure. its easy. take your drive or walk to work or where ever, don't time it. you still arrive don't you? you still move. its the same with any action anywhere in the Universe. and as well any interactions and /or actions in the Universe.

look at the atomic clock based on the ammonia molecules and nitrogen atom for instance, neither on there own suggests, with time, that it would take the nitrogen atom, 20.9 micrseconds to do what it does. it is ONLY understanding the interactions of the ammonia molecules with the nitogen atom that gives us a "time" resultant. not before but AFTER this interaction do we give this interaction a "time" period.

[Lurker]

sure. its easy. take your drive or walk to work or where ever, don't time it. you still arrive don't you? you still move. its the same with any action anywhere in the Universe. and as well any interactions and /or actions in the Universe.

This is your hypothesis?? This isn't right... this isn't even wrong!!

If I don't measure the distance or direction I travel, then there are no dimensions... :)

[worzel]

sure. its easy. take your drive or walk to work or where ever, don't time it. you still arrive don't you? you still move. its the same with any action anywhere in the Universe. and as well any interactions and /or actions in the Universe.
So if I don't measure the distance with a ruler as I work to work that proves that length, width and height don't exist either? A sort of inverted version of "if I can't measure it then it doesn't exist", like "if I can chose to not measure it then it doesn't exist"? Does that apply to IQ tests? I won't ask the obvious question :)

[north]

This thread is virtually pointless, north, unless you're going to define "dimension" first. If we take your "it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist" as a definition (and ignore the fact that to affect something implies some sort of causal link which requires an ordering of events which implies the existence of time) then obviously time meets that definition

my definition of dimension was that, if you take away, from an object length,depth and breadth then the object itself ceases to exist. obviously.

the Universe and the objects in it don't care about order, they just react Naturally. if they produce a certain order, then they do. time is irrelevant.


how could you even imagine a universe without time, let alone claim that our universe would be unaffected by its absence - utterly ridiculous!

its of course ridiculous to think time as any affect or influence at all on the interactions and/or actions of matter. since that would imply that time has some sort of physical fabric. care to explain "times" physical fabric then?

If, as I suspect, the definition you're actually thinking of is more along the lines of the wikipedia's first entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensions)...

In common usage, a dimension (Latin, "measured out") is a parameter or measurement required to define the characteristics of an object—i.e. length, width, and height or size and shape. In mathematics, dimensions are the parameters required to describe the position and relevant characteristics of any object within a conceptual space/

...then you would be right that in Newtonian physics time isn't a dimension (by that defintion - it still could be called a dimension by a more general definition). But even if you're using that limited definition of dimension then either you are wrong or special relativity is wrong [ you don't need GR and expanding space to make this point ]. In Newtonain physics the distance between two points in 3D space (the metric) is agreed by all. In SR time and space are interwoven such that this is no longer true, but the distance between two events in spacetime (a 4 dimensional "space" that includes a time dimension) is - so to unambigously describe the extent of an object you need time as a dimension too.

actually time is used to aquire knowledge about this or thats movements. thats all. movements is what we are really trying to understand. but the movements themselves are NOT based on time but are in actual fact based on the Nature of the objects themselves only.

If you're going to tell us that relativity is wrong you'd better have a better argument than some metaphysical musings about the non-existance of time.

actually this not about metaphysics or intuition as some on other sites have suggested.

what this is about is REASON.

[north]

worzel

further, look at a simple example, magnets

the REASON that a north pole of a magnet attracts the south pole of a magnetic has nothing to do with time. but the essence of the attraction has ALL to do with the interactions between the north and south poles of the magnet. there inner NATURE. which causes MOVEMENT and now we use "time" to understand the implications of this attraction.

[north]

further again in Newton's equation;

F=ma

it is clear that Force is the essence of any change in position not time. and the Force is from the interactions and/or actions of a mass, with a mass.

time plays no part until AFTER Forces between this or that mass take place.

this is my point.

[worzel]

my definition of dimension was that, if you take away, from an object length,depth and breadth then the object itself ceases to exist. obviously.
And I made the point that if you're defining dimensions as parameters to describe the physical extent of an object then according to relativity you need time as well.

the Universe and the objects in it don't care about order, they just react Naturally. if they produce a certain order, then they do. time is irrelevant.
You seem to be confusing the concept of time with the measurement of time. You'd better define "time" as well as "dimension" if you're going to claim that time is irrelevant to the ordering of events.

its of course ridiculous to think time as any affect or influence at all on the interactions and/or actions of matter. since that would imply that time has some sort of physical fabric. care to explain "times" physical fabric then?
Now you seem to be confusing dimension (a parameter with which to specify an object's extent in space - I'm guesssing) with object. Care to explain the fabric of distance or concede that distance too is not a dimension?

actually time is used to aquire knowledge about this or thats movements. thats all. movements is what we are really trying to understand. but the movements themselves are NOT based on time but are in actual fact based on the Nature of the objects themselves only.
So you keep saying. As has been said already, movement is, by definition, change of distance over time. Just asserting that movement if factual and time isn't is not an argument however many times you assert it.

actually this not about metaphysics or intuition as some on other sites have suggested.

what this is about is REASON.
Then please define time and dimension before claiming that time is not a dimension so that we know what we're reasoning about.

[worzel]

worzel

further, look at a simple example, magnets

the REASON that a north pole of a magnet attracts the south pole of a magnetic has nothing to do with time. but the essence of the attraction has ALL to do with the interactions between the north and south poles of the magnet. there inner NATURE. which causes MOVEMENT and now we use "time" to understand the implications of this attraction.
"inner nature", and this isn't metaphysics. Sorry METAPHYSICS!

[worzel]

further again in Newton's equation;

F=ma

it is clear that Force is the essence of any change in position not time. and the Force is from the interactions and/or actions of a mass, with a mass.

time plays no part until AFTER Forces between this or that mass take place.

this is my point.
Where does this requriement for something to be it's inner nature for it to be a dimension come from? It wasn't in the closest thing you've come to definition of dimension. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. Acceleration is a measurement of change of velocity over time where velocity is a measure of change of distance over time. So it would appear to me that the dimensions required to measure this inner "essence" called force are distance and time. But as I said, you could define dimensions such that that is not true for Newtonian physics, but not for relativity if you want your dimensions to measure the extent of objects (a point you've steadfastly refused to answer!).

[Luckmeister]

worzel

further, look at a simple example, magnets

the REASON that a north pole of a magnet attracts the south pole of a magnetic has nothing to do with time. but the essence of the attraction has ALL to do with the interactions between the north and south poles of the magnet. there inner NATURE. which causes MOVEMENT and now we use "time" to understand the implications of this attraction.
Your example comes in one step too late. It was movement that first allowed the matter to align producing the magnetic force. The "interactions" you speak of involve movement, or they couldn't be called interactions.

Time and movement are inexorably tied together -- neither caused the other. Time is not simply a measurement, it is a property, albeit a very difficult one to pin down.

Well, at least that's what I think at this point in time (which I didn't have to measure to know it existed). :think:

Mike

[north]

Originally Posted by north
sure. its easy. take your drive or walk to work or where ever, don't time it. you still arrive don't you? you still move. its the same with any action anywhere in the Universe. and as well any interactions and /or actions in the Universe.

This is your hypothesis?? This isn't right... this isn't even wrong!!

If I don't measure the distance or direction I travel, then there are no dimensions... :)

of course there is. physical 3D, direction or distance has no bearing on the three fundamental dimensions of the essence of your physical being. at all.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
further again in Newton's equation;

F=ma

it is clear that Force is the essence of any change in position not time. and the Force is from the interactions and/or actions of a mass, with a mass.

time plays no part until AFTER Forces between this or that mass take place.

this is my point.

Where does this requriement for something to be it's inner nature for it to be a dimension come from? It wasn't in the closest thing you've come to definition of dimension.

don't get you here.


Force is equal to mass times acceleration. Acceleration is a measurement of change of velocity over time where velocity is a measure of change of distance over time.

and the essence of Force is??? the interactions and/or actions between matter. time is irrelevant. as I've said over and over.




So it would appear to me that the dimensions required to measure this inner "essence" called force are distance and time.

no, not at all, think chemistry for example.




But as I said, you could define dimensions such that that is not true for Newtonian physics, but not for relativity if you want your dimensions to measure the extent of objects (a point you've steadfastly refused to answer!).

what question have I refused to answer? none that I know of.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
my definition of dimension was that, if you take away, from an object length,depth and breadth then the object itself ceases to exist. obviously.

And I made the point that if you're defining dimensions as parameters to describe the physical extent of an object then according to relativity you need time as well.

no you don't, the extent of the object is already there, hence its existence. time just measures its change of position. from one point in space to another point in space.

[AGN Fuel]

no you don't, the extent of the object is already there, hence its existence. time just measures its change of position. from one point in space to another point in space.

No, a ruler measures it's change in position. A clock measures it's change in time.

You cannot dissociate Time from Force, when (in Newtonian terms) Force is defined by mass x acceleration, and acceleration is defined as a change in velocity on change in time. Take time out and acceleration ceases to exist - take acceleration out, and you have no force.

[north]

And I made the point that if you're defining dimensions as parameters to describe the physical extent of an object then according to relativity you need time as well.


the Universe and the objects in it don't care about order, they just react Naturally. if they produce a certain order, then they do. time is irrelevant.



You seem to be confusing the concept of time with the measurement of time. You'd better define "time" as well as "dimension" if you're going to claim that time is irrelevant to the ordering of events.

time is the measurement of change. dimension I have already done.



its of course ridiculous to think time as any affect or influence at all on the interactions and/or actions of matter. since that would imply that time has some sort of physical fabric. care to explain "times" physical fabric then?


Now you seem to be confusing dimension (a parameter with which to specify an object's extent in space - I'm guesssing) with object. Care to explain the fabric of distance or concede that distance too is not a dimension?

answer my question.

why would an objects' extent in space need a fabric in the first place?



[ Quote=north]
actually time is used to aquire knowledge about this or thats movements. thats all. movements is what we are really trying to understand. but the movements themselves are NOT based on time but are in actual fact based on the Nature of the objects themselves only.


So you keep saying. As has been said already, movement is, by definition, change of distance over time. Just asserting that movement if factual and time isn't is not an argument however many times you assert it.

the CAUSE or the essence of change is NOT because of time. as I've tried to explain, over and over, movement is caused by a FORCE, which is caused by the Nature of the object(s) themselves.


actually this not about metaphysics or intuition as some on other sites have suggested.

what this is about is REASON.

Then please define time and dimension before claiming that time is not a dimension so that we know what we're reasoning about.

time is the change of position of an object.

definition of dimension. look back at the begining of the thread.

[Celestial Mechanic]

My definition of dimension was that, if you take away from an object length,depth and breadth then the object itself ceases to exist. Obviously.
Maybe, but how do you propose to achieve this miracle? :think: This is something of a vacuous definition. :doh:
The Universe and the objects in it don't care about order, they just react Naturally. If they produce a certain order, then they do. Time is irrelevant.
Really? Things do happen in chronological order. We are born, we age, and then we die. Time is quite relevant.
It's of course ridiculous to think time as any affect or influence at all on the interactions and/or actions of matter. Since that would imply that time has some sort of physical fabric. Care to explain time's physical fabric then?
After you explain "physical fabric". Is it like cotton or rayon or polyester?
Actually time is used to aquire knowledge about this or that's movements. That's all. Movements are what we are really trying to understand. But the movements themselves are NOT based on time but are in actual fact based on the Nature of the objects themselves only.
So if movements are not based on time, how do you describe movement without invoking time?
Actually this not about metaphysics or intuition as some on other sites have suggested. What this is about is REASON.
And the poor use thereof.

[Maiouxxx]

for time to a true dimension it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist.

the thing is that time can cease to exist but not affect the existence of things. but take away a things length,breadth and depth, now you affect a things existence. it becomes non-existant.

for time is nothing more than a measurement of movement. and movement is based on matter. its energy and interactions with other forms of matter. which in the end actually dictates what time it takes to come to certain result. it has nothing to do with time, in and of itself.

time is nothing more than a point on a coordinate system.

time is a mathematical concept, not a real dimension

I am in concurrence....

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!] Time is the change of position of an object. [Snip!]
Really? So how much "time" is a change of position of an object by 1 meter? By two meters? By 10 light-years?

Perhaps thou should get thee to a library and reviewest elementary physics. :)

[worzel]

don't get you here.
You said that "it is clear that Force is the essence of any change in position not time". Firstly, I want to know why something must be the essence of change for it to be considered a dimension (which is, afterall, just a parameter used to describe something) and secondly, how do you determine what is essential for change rather than secondary because it is certainly not clear to me that force is essential but not time, contrary to your appeal. How on earth would you define change anyway without reference to time?

and the essence of Force is??? the interactions and/or actions between matter. time is irrelevant. as I've said over and over.
As you've said many times, but you've yet to provide even a coherent argument for your position, let alone a convincing one. Every argument you've made has time inplicit in your definition of the "essential" thing that you suppose can do without time. E.g. force, change, movement, interactions, etc.

no, not at all, think chemistry for example.
You're not discussing, you're just appealing to your notions. Force is defined with respect to time. Telling me to think of chemistry does not change that. The question is how can you say force is essential and time is not when force is defined in terms of time?

what question have I refused to answer? none that I know of.
Maybe I mis-estimated you, I thought the implied question was clear. It's spelt out in reply to your next point.

no you don't, the extent of the object is already there, hence its existence. time just measures its change of position. from one point in space to another point in space.
So say you. But relativity says that the spatial dimensions of an object depend on the reference frame of the observer. And you can't specify the reference frame of the observer with out recourse to time because it is one of the four dimensions of SRs spacetime. The question for you is, do you claim that SR, within its domain of applicability (or GR if you prefer) is wrong?

[Martian]

for time to a true dimension it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist.

the thing is that time can cease to exist but not affect the existence of things. but take away a things length,breadth and depth, now you affect a things existence. it becomes non-existant.

for time is nothing more than a measurement of movement. and movement is based on matter. its energy and interactions with other forms of matter. which in the end actually dictates what time it takes to come to certain result. it has nothing to do with time, in and of itself.

time is nothing more than a point on a coordinate system.

time is a mathematical concept, not a real dimension


I think you're wrong. If time isn't that essential, so that you could remove it from a system without affecting it, then try the following thought experiment. Remove time from an object. Now the object does not have any time anymore, or in other words, an expansion of zero in the temporal dimension. With a zero time to be the object does not exist, because it has no time to be. Hence, removing the time of an object equals removing the period of its existence which means that it isn't there (or here) at all.

Martian
P.S.
Never mind, such misconceptions are quite common for carbon based bipeds.

[hhEb09'1]

You cannot dissociate Time from Force, when (in Newtonian terms) Force is defined by mass x acceleration, and acceleration is defined as a change in velocity on change in time. Take time out and acceleration ceases to exist - take acceleration out, and you have no force.How do you interpret this: I push my left hand against my right hand, with no movement or acceleration of either. Is there a force involved? I say there is, but it would seem from your comment that there would not be.

[worzel]

How do you interpret this: I push my left hand against my right hand, with no movement or acceleration of either. Is there a force involved? I say there is, but it would seem from your comment that there would not be.
That reminds me of our first day of physics at school. A classmate was asked to hold a chair above his head and to not move. While he was sweating away the teaching was explaining to us that he was doing no work at all according to physics :)

[korjik]

further again in Newton's equation;

F=ma

it is clear that Force is the essence of any change in position not time. and the Force is from the interactions and/or actions of a mass, with a mass.

time plays no part until AFTER Forces between this or that mass take place.

this is my point.

your definitions are incorrect

F=dP/dt the change in momentum with respect to TIME

F=ma is a simplistic case. Even if you want to use it tho, the correct usage would be

F=m(d^2)x/dt^2 namely the force is equvalent to the second derivitive of position with respect to TIME

When it comes down to it, physics can survive with more or less space dimensions. A 1D or 2D or 4D system is describable in physics, but it cannot be missing time and make sense. If there is no time, there is nothing else.

[afterburner]

Really? Things do happen in chronological order. We are born, we age, and then we die. Time is quite relevant.

So if movements are not based on time, how do you describe movement without invoking time?.

That right there is the very core of the misconception. What is it that you are? A bunch of matter that goes through constant change/motion and then keeps on going through that motion after the thing that you consider to be "you" dies?

You are reality, the chair you are sitting on is reality, and is no less reality than you or the vacuum of space. That which is existence/reality/the fabric of spacetime/whatever you want to call it...exists and moves...the fact that you, a human, evolved and decided to consider yourself important has nothing to do with that motion. All human concepts that we know of, through the invention that is language, are just inventions. For what is a desk or a human to the Universe? Just a part of it, made of the same thing. To you, however, the two are different.

In other words...saying time exists, is like saying "the color red" exists. Just because you, a human, consider that particular wavelength of EM radiatoin/energy "red", has nothing to do with "red" existing, as without a human to call that wavelength "red", "red" will not exist. But the wavelength will. Similarly, time is just a word, but we base the word on motion, instead of wavelength.

Movement without invoking time. It will be just that...movement. The conscious decision to apply the human concept of time has nothing to do with that motion happening.




I think.

[nutant gene 71]

What's a 'True' dimensional value of 'Time'?

GPS time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps
Ranging: www.atis.org/tg2k/_ranging.html
Ranging GPS errors: www.edu-observatory.org/gps/time.html

If 'True time' is taken as a 'mathematical unit' of measure of change, then whatever unit we create to measure change, this unit is a human construct, not something that exists independently of our manmade mathematical unit. The challenge then is to come as close as possible to 'measuring' that unit over time and distance, so the measured phase 'ranging' geometry matches the expected 'triangulation' geometry. Accurate time is necessary to match the two, which is how GPS works, though current civilian use comes only within about 2 meters accuracy, and sometimes 4 meters due to atmospheric static. (I once got lost downtown L.A. because my GPS was waaaayyyy off!) If there were no errors in ephemeris data, or atomospheric electron interference of ranging signals received, accuracy could be tightened, but as observed in the above reference on GPS errors, there is a limit as to how close we can get on matching geometrical ranging to signal ranging. So the real challenge is not in defining what is a proper unit of time, which is 'by definition' a construct of measured change, such as seconds and minutes, but how to match a 'true' time to 'observable' time, such as experienced in GPS ranging; so the measure of 'true' time will give us a workable 'real' three dimensional spacial reading as to where we are. Needless to say, maybe we invent time in our brains to measure change, which may error drift, but our actual physical body's location is a real deal. :)

[RussT]

According to the logic in the OP, there are 0 dimensions!

X, Y, Z, co-ordinates, length, breadth, and depth are man made!

Space has no concept of up, down or around.

So 'time' as a spatial dimension, is just using any combination of the 3 dimensions...motion.

[Fortis]

to your first statement I agree.

fiber bundle? explain further.
In the context of Galilean relativity, the fiber bundle structure comes about by thinking of spacetime as being constructed from a 1-dimensional base space (in the mathematical sense), i.e. time, to which is attached, at every point, a set of 3-dimensional "fibers", i.e. the usual spatial spaces.

[Fortis]

North, time is the thing that prevents everything happening all at once. :)

[Thomas(believer)]

Or, the limited speed of light makes time, maybe?

[hhEb09'1]

And then there are those of us who suspect that not only does time have a dimension, but it has three (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47242).

[worzel]

Movement without invoking time. It will be just that...movement. The conscious decision to apply the human concept of time has nothing to do with that motion happening.
You could just as easily say that movement is a construct of the human mind due to the way the human mind experiences the dimension of time as a progression from one state of matter dispersed over the spatial dimensions to the next.

But what relevance does either point of view have to the claim in the OP? Without a definition of dimension* how can anyone argue whether time is one or not?

* something a bit more concrete than north's "it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist" - atoms fit that definition, and something a little less circular than north's "my definition of dimension was that, if you take away, from an object length,depth and breadth then the object itself ceases to exist. obviously" - he might just as well have said dimensions are length depth and breadth and not time....therefore time is not a dimension :wall:

[Sam5]

do you realize the essence of time is movement.

so you can take away time( since time is a measurement of movement) but movement its self would carry on.


Movement generates time. Kinetic energy generates movement. Time is the by-product of kinetic energy causing things to move.

Look at a still photo of anything. The object in the photo never ages. Because nothing in the image ever moves. However, the photo paper ages, because the things in it, that make up the paper, are moving.

Motion is required before time can exist.

[Sam5]

Without time there literally could be no motion.


Look at it the other way around. Without motion, there can be no time. And without energy there can be no motion.

Consider the frozen embryos. While frozen, the motion of their molecules is reduced to a minimum. So they don't age. Yet all around them, things not frozen do age. They don't age because they are frozen and there is almost no motion within them. Warm them up (give them energy), cause their molecules to move, then they begin to age.

[worzel]

Are you suggesting, Sam5, that time slows downs appreciably in a freezer?

[SirThoreth]

Guys, I think we've all fallen for another "drive-by posting" in the same style of StevenCrum.

[Fortis]

Look at it the other way around. Without motion, there can be no time. And without energy there can be no motion.
How do you know that there is motion? You compare positions at 2 different times...

[Doodler]

Or, the limited speed of light makes time, maybe?

Given gravity's effect on time flow, it would be just our luck that its the key to tying gravity in the unified field theory. Gravity's effect slows time down enough to keep everything from happening at once. :)

Or, beyond the presence of a certain amount of mass, and therefore a certain amount of gravity, you can no longer have particle/wave duality, because your velocity would have to drop below c because your mass with respect to available energy rises beyond the point where c is an attainable velocity. So ultralight particles like electrons have duality, being a particle orbiting a proton at pretty much the speed of light, taking on the wavelike aspect of a shell all on its lonesome. Same for photons, except they're not bound by an orbit. Where the threshold is? Dunno, somewhere above the atomic level.

[Fortis]

North, if you come back to this thread, can you tell us how many coordinates are required to specify an event?

[north]

North, if you come back to this thread, can you tell us how many coordinates are required to specify an event?

and what has this got to do with the essence of time?

which is the physical dynamics of objects and time being a resultant.

if you take a three dimensional object, say Q, and place it at corrdinate "0" in the x,y axis and then include a "z" then the object has moved, and we can then say that Q has moved which implies a change of position, agreed. I have no problem with that. but this is NOT what I'm getting at, at all.

what I am getting though is that the change in position is not because of time, in and of itself, or the Nature of time( and the Nature of time,(is mathematical measurement), is to show a change of position of a said object, nothing more. for time in and of its self has no capacity or natural ability to do anything more, time is simply a measurement of change.) but because of the physical dynamics( Natural movement) their interactions and/or actions of a said object in the first place.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
do you realize the essence of time is movement.

so you can take away time( since time is a measurement of movement) but movement its self would carry on.


Movement generates time. Kinetic energy generates movement. Time is the by-product of kinetic energy causing things to move.

Look at a still photo of anything. The object in the photo never ages. Because nothing in the image ever moves. However, the photo paper ages, because the things in it, that make up the paper, are moving.

Motion is required before time can exist.


exactly

[north]

Originally Posted by Sam5
Look at it the other way around. Without motion, there can be no time. And without energy there can be no motion

How do you know that there is motion? You compare positions at 2 different times...

Fortis

how do WE KNOW that there is motion the important question. for the Universe does NOT care whether WE know position of an object. for position is based on time and time, the concept of time, is based on the want to know by us.

BUT the Universe is based on interactions and/or actions of object(s). the result, movement. on which time is based. NOT because of time.

[Grand_Lunar]

Time is integral to the universe.

Without it, you're just stuck. Nothing would happen without it.

[north]

Time is integral to the universe.

Without it, you're just stuck. Nothing would happen without it.

wrong.

time is integral to "understanding" of the Universe but time is NOT integral to the Universe its self.

[worzel]

north, could you answer my question:

So say you. But relativity says that the spatial dimensions of an object depend on the reference frame of the observer. And you can't specify the reference frame of the observer with out recourse to time because it is one of the four dimensions of SRs spacetime. The question for you is, do you claim that SR, within its domain of applicability (or GR if you prefer) is wrong?

[hhEb09'1]

north, could you answer my question:As near as I can tell (and I could be wrong, there may be some qualifying remark that I missed along the way), north's position is just a change of variables. If we have SR as a function of spacetime SR(x,y,z,t) and some function F is a function of spacetime F(x,y,z,t), then SR(x,y,z,F) is a possibly valid representation that does not explicitly refer to time. That doesn't mean relativity or north have to be wrong, it's just a difference in philosophy as to which are the "fundamental" variables.

[worzel]

As near as I can tell (and I could be wrong, there may be some qualifying remark that I missed along the way), north's position is just a change of variables. If we have SR as a function of spacetime SR(x,y,z,t) and some function F is a function of spacetime F(x,y,z,t), then SR(x,y,z,F) is a possibly valid representation that does not explicitly refer to time. That doesn't mean relativity or north have to be wrong, it's just a difference in philosophy as to which are the "fundamental" variables.
I don't see how that makes any difference - you just end with SR(x,y,z,F(x,y,z,t)). All four parameters are still needed.

I took north's position to start from the premise that the 3 spatial dimensions are all that are required to describe the extent of an object. And that is not true in SR in any but the object's rest frame.

[hhEb09'1]

I don't see how that makes any difference - you just end with SR(x,y,z,F(x,y,z,t)). All four parameters are still needed.

I took north's position to start from the premise that the 3 spatial dimensions are all that are required to describe the extent of an object. And that is not true in SR in any but the object's rest frame.I'd have to go back through all the comments to make sure, but I seem to remember something along the lines of time being caused by motion. In other words, F is motion, the fundamental concept that "produces" what we know as time: t = t(x,y,z,F) and SR = SR(x,y,z,F)

[worzel]

I'd have to go back through all the comments to make sure, but I seem to remember something along the lines of time being caused by motion. In other words, F is motion, the fundamental concept that "produces" what we know as time: t = t(x,y,z,F) and SR = SR(x,y,z,F)
Ok, I see your point. But one could do the same with any parameter, that wouldn't demonstrate that the parameter is any less fundamental. So, as you say, purely philosophical. What one couldn't do is actually remove any reference to any one of the four dimensions and still agree with SR on the extent of an object. And north's argument was essentially that removing time didn't change the extent of an object:

for time to a true dimension it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist.

the thing is that time can cease to exist but not affect the existence of things. but take away a things length,breadth and depth, now you affect a things existence. it becomes non-existant.

My argument in a nutshell is that length, breadth, and depth are dependant on time (or motion if north prefers). If you take away time then either objects that were moving all suddenly get bigger (thus affecting things by removing time), or the speed with which they were moving prior to removing time would need to be factored in to keep them the same size (so time, or movement if he prefers, is still required afterall).

[ASEI]

I thought the point was that length breadth and depth are independent of time.
If you are going to express the relative position of a bunch of objects in n-dimensional space, you need at least n parameters to completely do it, regardless of the particulars of your coordinate system.

If you want to express the relative postion of stuff in our physical space, you need 3 parameters. (x,y,z) or (r, theta, z) or (r, phi, theta), ect, ect. If you want to express the relative positon of events, including their positions in time, you cannot do it without an additional fourth parameter, no matter how wierd your parameters get.

phi(x1,y1,z1,t1) = phi1
phi(x1,y1,z1,t2) = phi2
phi2 not= phi1
therefore
not all phi(x1,y1,z1) = phi1
(x,y,z) is insufficient to fully describe phi

[Fortis]

and what has this got to do with the essence of time?

which is the physical dynamics of objects and time being a resultant.

if you take a three dimensional object, say Q, and place it at corrdinate "0" in the x,y axis and then include a "z" then the object has moved, and we can then say that Q has moved which implies a change of position, agreed. I have no problem with that. but this is NOT what I'm getting at, at all.

what I am getting though is that the change in position is not because of time, in and of itself, or the Nature of time( and the Nature of time,(is mathematical measurement), is to show a change of position of a said object, nothing more. for time in and of its self has no capacity or natural ability to do anything more, time is simply a measurement of change.) but because of the physical dynamics( Natural movement) their interactions and/or actions of a said object in the first place.
Dimensionality and coordinates are inherently linked. Let's just think about a 3-dimensional space. How many coordinates are required to specify a location? You could use Cartesian coords, spherical polars, cylindrical polars, but you still find that you need 3 coordinates to define a point.

Likewise for events in a 3-dimensional space. You need a minimum of 4 coordinates.

By the way, I'm happy to say that "time" in and of itself does not cause change. Then again, an 'x' coordinate in and of itself, does not inherently cause width or length or height. Would you agree?

[Fortis]

Fortis

how do WE KNOW that there is motion the important question. for the Universe does NOT care whether WE know position of an object. for position is based on time and time, the concept of time, is based on the want to know by us.

BUT the Universe is based on interactions and/or actions of object(s). the result, movement. on which time is based. NOT because of time.
What motion is involved in the decay of a stationary muon? I'm not talking about the resultant particles that fly out after the decay. I'm talking about the interval between its creation and its decay.

As far as I'm aware there is no motion during that period, and yet for a collection of muons I can tell you what the mean lifetime is.

[north]

north, could you answer my question:


Originally Posted by worzel
So say you. But relativity says that the spatial dimensions of an object depend on the reference frame of the observer. And you can't specify the reference frame of the observer with out recourse to time because it is one of the four dimensions of SRs spacetime. The question for you is, do you claim that SR, within its domain of applicability (or GR if you prefer) is wrong

no. but what I will say is that both SR and/or GR are based on perspective. the observer. which means that time is necessary, otherwise you have no reference in which to compare this observer to another.

but this does not make time a true dimension. in that time actually,physically, affects any physical dynamics between objects in the Universe.

[hhEb09'1]

but this does not make time a true dimension. in that time actually,physically, affects any physical dynamics between objects in the Universe.Dynamics?

How do the other three affect physical dynamics between two objects. Say, my desk here and your desk there?

[north]

As near as I can tell (and I could be wrong, there may be some qualifying remark that I missed along the way), north's position is just a change of variables. If we have SR as a function of spacetime SR(x,y,z,t) and some function F is a function of spacetime F(x,y,z,t), then SR(x,y,z,F) is a possibly valid representation that does not explicitly refer to time. That doesn't mean relativity or north have to be wrong, it's just a difference in philosophy as to which are the "fundamental" variables.

exactly

but is more than just philosophy. ( and the physical its the study of physical dynamics within and without of object(s) and there interactions and/or actions between themselves and the end consequences, which we then in turn use time to understand the consequences of the inteactions and/or actions by these object(s)) what I'm trying to get across is that at 0 of x,y we have an object which is ALREADY three dimensional,( meaning that the object has length,breadth and depth) . now the object MOVES to "z" ( ts' position I'm not sure of) which we can now say that it took a certain amount of "time". no problem here.

but what I'm getting at is that, if you look further back as to WHY, (lets call this object Q), Q moved in the first place is because of the physical dynamics in which Q was involved with in the first place, with other Qs' so to speak.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
but this does not make time a true dimension. in that time actually,physically, affects any physical dynamics between objects in the Universe.

Dynamics?

How do the other three affect physical dynamics between two objects. Say, my desk here and your desk there?

the other three dimensions( I have to assume here that what you mean by the "other" three are length, breath and depth) affect your desk because the "other " three are essential,fundamental, for existence of the desk and its constituents in the first place.

[hhEb09'1]

but is more than just philosophy.I'm dubiousbut what I'm getting at is that, if you look further back as to WHY, (lets call this object Q), Q moved in the first place is because of the physical dynamics in which Q was involved with in the first place, with other Qs' so to speak.WHY is philosophy, so you can maybe understand why this sort of discussion does not go over so well on a science board.the other three dimensions( I have to assume here that what you mean by the "other" three are length, breath and depth) affect your desk because the "other " three are essential,fundamental, for existence of the desk and its constituents in the first place.WHY? :)

If you mean to say that a two dimensional Q would not be a part of our real world, because it did not have any extent in a third dimension, then how would an object Q that did not have [i]any[/y] extent in time be a part of our real world? It would be just as non-existent, and immaterial.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
but is more than just philosophy

I'm dubious

perhaps you are, but the fact is, is that my thinking is based on facts of the reality of the physical dynamics of objects,only. I have invented nothing. there is NO fudge aspect or any variation on the theme, at all.


but what I'm getting at is that, if you look further back as to WHY, (lets call this object Q), Q moved in the first place is because of the physical dynamics in which Q was involved with in the first place, with other Qs' so to speak.


WHY is philosophy, so you can maybe understand why this sort of discussion does not go over so well on a science board.WHY? :)

really. my thinking is VERY SCIENTIFIC INDEED.

this is ATM is it not? so I imagine that this is not the first time that a particular discussion has not gone over well.

[worzel]

If your argument is very scientific indeed and not just philosophy then presumably there is some sort of experiment that could, in principle at least, distinguish between motion and time showing which is the more fundamental concept.

Can you come up with any such experiment?

[north]

Originally Posted by north
the other three dimensions( I have to assume here that what you mean by the "other" three are length, breath and depth) affect your desk because the "other " three are essential,fundamental, for existence of the desk and its constituents in the first place.


If you mean to say that a two dimensional Q would not be a part of our real world, because it did not have any extent in a third dimension, then how would an object Q that did not have [i]any[/y] extent in time be a part of our real world? It would be just as non-existent, and immaterial.

I don't mean to say that Q is two dimensional. I said that Q "is already a three dimensional object".

[hhEb09'1]

I don't mean to say that Q is two dimensional. I said that Q "is already a three dimensional object".
Let me re-phrase that, it looks like I need to differentiate between them:the other three dimensions( I have to assume here that what you mean by the "other" three are length, breath and depth) affect your desk because the "other " three are essential,fundamental, for existence of the desk and its constituents in the first place.If you mean to say that a two dimensional object P would not be a part of our real world, because it did not have any extent in a third dimension, then how would a three dimensionsl object Q that did not have any extent in time be a part of our real world? It would be just as non-existent, and immaterial.

[north]

If your argument is very scientific indeed and not just philosophy then presumably there is some sort of experiment that could, in principle at least, distinguish between motion and time showing which is the more fundamental concept.

Can you come up with any such experiment?

movement or motion( I myself perfer movement) is NOT a concept. it is a reality. whereas time is a concept. ours

NO experiment is necessary.

why do you think there should be an experiment to distinguish between movement and time?

[north]

Let me re-phrase that, it looks like I need to differentiate between them:


Originally Posted by north
the other three dimensions( I have to assume here that what you mean by the "other" three are length, breath and depth) affect your desk because the "other " three are essential,fundamental, for existence of the desk and its constituents in the first place.


If you mean to say that a two dimensional object P would not be a part of our real world, because it did not have any extent in a third dimension, then how would a three dimensionsl object Q that did not have any extent in time be a part of our real world? It would be just as non-existent, and immaterial.

"Q" simply doesn't move. so?

now what?

[hhEb09'1]

"Q" simply doesn't move. so?

now what?It is not that Q simply doesn't move. To not have an extension in time means that it does not age either. It's there for one instant, but not the next, nor the one before. It's like a two-dimensional object with length and width but no depth.

I'm beginning to see the ramifications of your treatment of time.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
"Q" simply doesn't move. so?

now what?

It is not that Q simply doesn't move. To not have an extension in time means that it does not age either. It's there for one instant, but not the next, nor the one before. It's like a two-dimensional object with length and width but no depth.

I'm beginning to see the ramifications of your treatment of time.

finally I see what your getting at. your wrong.

as I said in the begining time is irrelevant. movement and the physical dynamics of "Q" is whats important. as well as the system(s) in which it dwells.

just because "Q" doesn't move now does not mean "Q" can't move eventually.

[worzel]

movement or motion( I myself perfer movement) is NOT a concept. it is a reality. whereas time is a concept. ours
I say time is reality and movement is a concept. Movement is a human concept to explain the difference between the reality of the states of the universe at times t1 and t2, for instance. (In case you didn't realize, I'm playing devil's advocate. I'm just pointing out that your argument is no better than mine).

NO experiment is necessary.
How could we ever resolve our disagreement then?

why do you think there should be an experiment to distinguish between movement and time?
Because you claim to be able to distinguish between them scientifically to show which is the more fundamental.

[hhEb09'1]

finally I see what your getting at. your wrong.

::snip::

just because "Q" doesn't move now does not mean "Q" can't move eventually.No, that's not what I am getting it.

If it has no extent in time, it does not exist so that it can ever move.

[Gillianren]

just because "Q" doesn't move now does not mean "Q" can't move eventually.

So it only becomes real when it moves?

[Fortis]

finally I see what your getting at. your wrong.

as I said in the begining time is irrelevant. movement and the physical dynamics of "Q" is whats important. as well as the system(s) in which it dwells.

just because "Q" doesn't move now does not mean "Q" can't move eventually.
And what does "eventually" mean? :)

[Fortis]

By the way, I'm still interested in hearing about your thoughts on the decay of stationary muons.

[Tassel]

just because "Q" doesn't move now does not mean "Q" can't move eventually.

And what does "eventually" mean? :)

And for that matter, what does "now" mean? :)

[Squashed]

It is not that Q simply doesn't move. To not have an extension in time means that it does not age either. ...

How do we define age? The age of bread is defined by the state of deterioration: i.e. fresh baked, stale, moldy, rotted. If we freeze the bread it stays edible longer even though its chronological age has increased.

There are a lot of internal workings inside an atom but unless the atom is struck by another particle or a photon the atom essentially stays the same forever - no age. (Eventually the internal workings of the sub-atomic components can cause the atom to "age" and so if I wanted I could revert to the simplest component of nature, the photon, and ask does it age or does it stay the same forever?)

What's the point of the above? It indicates that, unless an outside force is applied, an object will not age ... or time does not affect the object.

[bRainDance]

Bloody Trekkies

Of course time isnt real

Just an imaginitive way of confusing us into labelling our otherwise linear existence

Hoomans seem incapable of grasping infinity, no beginning ,no end, just is and always has been and will be

There is no North or South, no up no down, no east or west ... just concepts we label to try to understand

Time and space are modes by which you have been trained to think and not conditions you live under

If time is a speed based concept, then where are you measuring from?

Theres no fixed point anywhere, i say nits time we got over it ... dont you OP ?

Western science = The exception proves the rule

Common sense = There's an exception, it cant be a rule, lets start again

Western science is a myth created by einstein and propped up by "the establishment"

Its a magical musical universe

[ASEI]

Western science is a myth created by einstein and propped up by "the establishment"

Its a magical musical universe Oi. Western Science is the reason you're talking to people on the other side of the world, sitting in comfort in an artificial room, in a nation having a highly artificial state of peace, security and prosperity.

It's why you're not currently stabbing your neighbor with a sharpened metal stick, fleeing in terror from barbarian hordes, or trembling before the volcano gods and sacrificing your children. There's your "magical" universe. Isn't what it's cracked up to be, by a long shot.

Time and space are modes by which you have been trained to think and not conditions you live under You can pick space and time, or any combination of terms thereof which maps to space and time, but if you're going to fully describe your situation, you can't but help resort to a set of terms which contain either space or time in part.

[Squashed]

...It's why you're not currently stabbing your neighbor with a sharpened metal stick, ...

Wha ...?? Your people have 'em pointed metal sticks? How you get 'em metal pointed sticks? My people still use pointed wooden sticks.

[hhEb09'1]

What's the point of the above? It indicates that, unless an outside force is applied, an object will not age ... or time does not affect the object.I'm not talking about an object that sits there and doesn't deteriorate--when I said it didn't age, I meant that it didn't exist past or previous to a single instant. That's how I interpret the notion that it does not have an extent in the time dimension.

[bRainDance]

Oi. Western Science is the reason you're talking to people on the other side of the world, sitting in comfort in an artificial room, in a nation having a highly artificial state of peace, security and prosperity.

It's why you're not currently stabbing your neighbor with a sharpened metal stick, fleeing in terror from barbarian hordes, or trembling before the volcano gods and sacrificing your children. There's your "magical" universe. Isn't what it's cracked up to be, by a long shot.

You can pick space and time, or any combination of terms thereof which maps to space and time, but if you're going to fully describe your situation, you can't but help resort to a set of terms which contain either space or time in part.

No,

You are trying to confuse our meagre technology with other fundamental scientific principles

Your brain is obviously beyond seperating the two

and your getting angry because im revealing the veil and to you the problem is not that the world is round, but that it is not as you had always though FLAT

get over it, everything you know is a charade for your tiny brain to conjure with

i also noticed you attacked me and didnt deal with the points i raised

your a fool

[ASEI]

Whose getting angry and ad-hom here?

Anyways,

If you want to compare the rate or extent of anything, you have to have an interval over which to compare it.

dx1/d? ?= dx2/d?
which car is faster?
dx1/dx2 = d?/d?

You have to compare intervals. If the car made the same change in distance, but took twice the time interval to do it in, it's not faster. You might not even be measuring the same thing. You could, for example, be measuring the slope of the line that one car is heading in with the change in mass of the other due to gasoline consumption (which wouldn't make any sense physically). dx1/dx2 = dy1/dm2 ? Measured in m/kg?

A rate implies a rate with respect to something, otherwise there isn't a rate. Time is necessary to express velocities, accelerations, among other things.

If you were to talk about gradients of a flat surface, you would have to do it with respect to a third quantity. If you were measure it with respet to z, the gradient field would imply a 3rd spatial dimension. In the same way, a flow field for a fluid implies and requires the existence of time.

[bRainDance]

Oi. Western Science is the reason you're talking to people on the other side of the world, sitting in comfort in an artificial room, in a nation having a highly artificial state of peace, security and prosperity.

It's why you're not currently stabbing your neighbor with a sharpened metal stick, fleeing in terror from barbarian hordes, or trembling before the volcano gods and sacrificing your children. There's your "magical" universe. Isn't what it's cracked up to be, by a long shot.

You can pick space and time, or any combination of terms thereof which maps to space and time, but if you're going to fully describe your situation, you can't but help resort to a set of terms which contain either space or time in part.


the terms space and time are irrelevant and flawed concepts

so why would you express yourself in a false way? because your incapable of thining for yourself?

incapable of breaking the mold to even try to entertain reality?

i feel for you

you are stuck in the doldrums sunshine,

[ASEI]

Wow. What flipped your switch? You were the one talking about all of science being a myth and the universe being magical.

Could you express energy purely in spatial terms without reference to a timescale? (Hint, the common units for energy involve 1/time^2). Is energy a flawed concept? Is it nonphysical?

[hhEb09'1]

There is no North or South, no up no down, no east or west ... just concepts we label to try to understandSo, are you saying the labels don't exist? I'm pretty you'd be wrong about that.
Western science is a myth created by einsteinEinstein had absolutely nothing to do with its creation.Its a magical musical universeAha, your computer is magic. That's what I thought.

[worzel]

There is no North
Are you accusing someone of sock-puppetry?

[bRainDance]

Whose getting angry and ad-hom here?

Anyways,

If you want to compare the rate or extent of anything, you have to have an interval over which to compare it.

dx1/d? ?= dx2/d?
which car is faster?
dx1/dx2 = d?/d?

You have to compare intervals. If the car made the same change in distance, but took twice the time interval to do it in, it's not faster. You might not even be measuring the same thing. You could, for example, be measuring the slope of the line that one car is heading in with the change in mass of the other due to gasoline consumption (which wouldn't make any sense physically). dx1/dx2 = dy1/dm2 ? Measured in m/kg?

A rate implies a rate with respect to something, otherwise there isn't a rate. Time is necessary to express velocities, accelerations, among other things.

If you were to talk about gradients of a flat surface, you would have to do it with respect to a third quantity. If you were measure it with respet to z, the gradient field would imply a 3rd spatial dimension. In the same way, a flow field for a fluid implies and requires the existence of time.

NO, wrong again! LOL

You have to use intervals because your stuck in a frame of mind that needs time to calculate things based on time which in itself is flawed?


and as you cna only measure velocity in regards to a fixed point ... and there are none ... that car maybe travelling past you at 30mph, but you are travelling on a planet revolving at god knows what speed which is spinning round a sun at god knows what speed which is orbiting round ... ar eyou catching my drift?

Your stuck in your microcosm and unable to comprehend the macrocosm because of your ingrained unbeneficial line of thought


Are you really this stupid or are you paid?

Try thinking about this, i dare you

What is up, if you go far enough 'up' you come back from 'below'

So its a phoney label for our brains to trick into thinking we understand its meaning, when we dont , and it doesnt mean aything like what we were trying to describe .. just a vague direction, same goes for 'time'

You got lead a long way down that vague direction path and are unable to admit you were wrong and start off in the right direction from the beginning

That is your problem, in a nutshell

Your anger stems from me tossing everything you thought you knew in a cocked hat in under 5 minutes and now your questioning your very purpose here ...

Instead of thanking me

Dont worry, thats another ingrained reaction youve had conditioned into you, accuse me of heresy for pointing out the blindingly obvious

I repeat, your a fool, but i forgive you

It is very rare for an imagination to grasp any real concepts when passed through formal education

That was what it was really for

Mr. ExceptionProvesTheRule ... Your understanding of science is laudable and your only rushing further and further in the wrong directio towards true evaluation and meaning

Einstein created these airy fairy myths to antrap your mind in a multitude of bull**** paramaters, and you fell for it, not me

Both him and Tesla knew how things really worked, and had an establishment set up around hiding it and obscuring anyone who dare mentiuon the world ISN'T flat!

Get over it, and start again, i dare you

If your not prepared to accept your lifetimes thinking has been based around a conjured up joke then, there is no hope for you anyway

You stand for nothing and fall for anything, your a fool

peace :D

[bRainDance]

Are you accusing someone of sock-puppetry?

If you go far enough North, you end up in the South

In the end, it's only round and round and round

You think there is such a thing as nightime and daytime because you judge it by whether we can see the sun or not?

were only spinning, no time involved, flawed concept

It is not easy for a mortal to comprehend infinity, much less truly understand it

But you can try if you want, thats the beauty thinking, better do it quick though before its outlawed :D

[ASEI]

Are you really this stupid or are you paid? Soon, I will be paid to be this stupid. :D I'm an engineer, and my ingrained, oh so microcosmic view of the world will help launch things into space. But only if I buy into the established conspiracy of Newton's Laws and Conservation Principles. :D

Yes. Peace. Take a physics class, it could help you with our ingrained fascination with things like space and time.

[NEOWatcher]

...but you are travelling on a planet revolving at god knows what speed which is spinning round a sun at god knows what speed which is orbiting round ...
I would hope god knows, especially since the rest of us know. :whistle:

As for the rest of your post...:naughty:

[bRainDance]

Wow. What flipped your switch? You were the one talking about all of science being a myth and the universe being magical.

Could you express energy purely in spatial terms without reference to a timescale? (Hint, the common units for energy involve 1/time^2). Is energy a flawed concept? Is it nonphysical?

LOL

Your denial is beneath me, i see through you

Keep parroting concepts you label and pretend to understand all loosely based around the same myth to keep all you numbskulls entertained for ... oooh how long has it been now?

Too long

Isn't it about time you stopped, had an original thought, instead of repeating verbatim what your maths teacher beat into you?

Your inability to accept that everyone you know and have learnt from is as pig ignorant as you stops you from getting any higher than the traps they set

You are a fool :D and still havent offored a juxtapose to my original postings are any thereafter you just keep running from one tiny concept to antoher to try to confuse and in an odd way, try to justify your up until now, meaningless thoughtless parrot like existence

Sorry if i scared you :D

Peace

[bRainDance]

I would hope god knows, especially since the rest of us know. :whistle:

As for the rest of your post...:naughty:

Aaaaah yes, another worm comes outta the woodwork and disagreees with no rational comeback unable to contemplate the true nature of infinity in a meaningless pretence to hang onto the one concept he thinks truly exists, time

i think its TIME you let it go, dont you?

otherwise well, if you want to confuse technology with time then ... one day my processor computes at 700 .. the next day it computes at 900 ... so in your world of 'reality' (titter) i now have on my hands a 'time machine' yeah?
laudable , basic, and mediocre responses from a couple of 70 yr old geography teachers

if your going to bother posting to disagree, then say why

instead of just snapping like aturtle and retreating into your cold dark shell

:D

[ASEI]

one day my processor computes at 700 .. the next day it computes at 900 700 what?

[bRainDance]

Soon, I will be paid to be this stupid. :D I'm an engineer, and my ingrained, oh so microcosmic view of the world will help launch things into space. But only if I buy into the established conspiracy of Newton's Laws and Conservation Principles. :D

Yes. Peace. Take a physics class, it could help you with our ingrained fascination with things like space and time.

You didnt mention einstein in your little peice

that was who i was calling a fraud

and i honeslty do not care for peoples credentials more than the words they speak and their validity, unlike you

But if its a dick measuring contest you want i got an I.Q. in excess of 168 and rising ...

I have looked at all your time concepts, all fundamentally based on an illusionary priciple, rather a neat joke wouldn't you say?

Einstein = How to confuse and entertain the minds of fools for a couple of hundred years or more to kee them off the scent and keep their pig noses in the dirt of confusion

LOL peace, it must be weird being you guys though i mean, how can you all get to gether and profess to know so much when you all clearly UNDERSTAND very little

Your education was more than likely drilled in under compunction and as such hold no weight in the mind, i however found out because it excited me, the truth of things that is

Only dead fish swim WITH the stream, because its easier

You chose that path, not me, i wish you well, and i mean that :D

[bRainDance]

700 what?

You tell me, your the one who so UNDERSTANDS the nature of time! LOL :D

Well done for not offering a sensible rapport at all

i can see from your MO and your avatar what your REALLY doing here, brother lol

PEACE (through collective stupidity)

[north]

Originally Posted by Squashed
What's the point of the above? It indicates that, unless an outside force is applied, an object will not age ... or time does not affect the object.



I'm not talking about an object that sits there and doesn't deteriorate--when I said it didn't age, I meant that it didn't exist past or previous to a single instant. That's how I interpret the notion that it does not have an extent in the time dimension.

hhEb09'1;837079

I finally relised how you look at time and space. you understand both as Einstein's space-time. don't you?

[NEOWatcher]

Aaaaah yes, another worm comes outta the woodwork and disagreees with no rational comeback unable to contemplate the true nature of infinity in a meaningless pretence to hang onto the one concept he thinks truly exists, time

Don't put words in my mouth. I was not commenting on your theory, only that your post is very insulting and can be considered a personal attack.:evil:

As for you concepts... I'm letting the people with the knowledge do the debating.

[north]

hhEb09'1;837079

I finally relised how you look at time and space. you understand both as Einstein's space-time. don't you?

you do. and so does Fortis and many others I imagine.

the thing is that if you look at Einstein's space-time as the essence of physical existence and dynamics. then you must show by experiment that this is true.

you must show that space and time have each an independant fabric, innate to themselves and that they are interwoven.

my prediction, you won't find either, a space or time fabric at all. why?

because first, if space its self has a fabric or the ability of space to influence the physical dynamics of the Universe, expansion, because of the nature of space its self would be nulled by the expansion of space in the opposite direction. inotherwords along an "x"axis at say 50 points out from 0 along the "x" axis, and then 180 degree point still along the "x" axis and 50 points out in the opposite direction, along the "x" axis, an extent of both would pull in the opposite direction. ending in a null situation. now carry this analogy into a three dimensional object and you will see that every spacial expansion in one direction has the same spacial expansion pull in the opposite direction. hence a null expansion.

then comes the problem of time. if time its self has some sort of fabric, in which this fabric of time has the ability to fundamentally influence movement its self rather than the Nature of a said object, then why is it that time, coupled with say,the ammoina molecules and nitrogen atom, atomic clock, not be able to predict the behaviour, without an experiment, as to the out come of this interaction( which is 20.9 microseconds)?

time can't because it simply has no influence at all. time is an end resultant of any interaction and/or actions between objects. time is nothing more than the measurement of change.

[Gillianren]

Western science = The exception proves the rule

Common sense = There's an exception, it cant be a rule, lets start again

I'd like to point out here that "the exception proves the rule" actually means the exception tests the rule; it is not in conflict with common sense at all. Well-known etymological fact.

[north]

I say time is reality and movement is a concept. Movement is a human concept to explain the difference between the reality of the states of the universe at times t1 and t2, for instance. (In case you didn't realize, I'm playing devil's advocate. I'm just pointing out that your argument is no better than mine).

actually my argument is much better than yours. it just makes more sense.


NO experiment is necessary.



How could we ever resolve our disagreement then?

okay. so show time has in any way shape or form a fundamental substance or fabric.



why do you think there should be an experiment to distinguish between movement and time.


Because you claim to be able to distinguish between them scientifically to show which is the more fundamental.

I don't just claim it. I've proved it. you just ignore my proof.

[Grand_Lunar]

wrong.

time is integral to "understanding" of the Universe but time is NOT integral to the Universe its self.

How so?

[north]

Originally Posted by north
wrong.

time is integral to "understanding" of the Universe but time is NOT integral to the Universe its self

How so?

because movement in the Universe is based on an objects Natural interaction(s) and action(s) with other objects Nature. look at the atomic clock based on ammonia molecules and the nitrogen atom interaction for example. it takes 20.9 microseconds. we know this, not because we use time with the Nature of ammonia and nitrogen, and come to some conclusion. but because the interaction between ammonia molecules and nitrogen was done as an experiment.

hence time is a resultant. NOT the cause of the result.

[Gillianren]

North, I think you're confusing the time and measurement thereof. Just like "length" or "breadth" doesn't require "feet" or "meters" to exist, "time" doesn't require "seconds"; it's just how we note its dimension.

[Blob]

@North
Hum,
it seems that you are treating matter like tiny billiard balls.
Remove `time` and they are still on the snooker table.

However, if you regard them being `space-time entities` then if you remove one dimension, such as time, then for all intents and purposes not only does the billiard balls disappear, so does the snooker table....

[hhEb09'1]

hhEb09'1;837079

I finally relised how you look at time and space. you understand both as Einstein's space-time. don't you?you do. and so does Fortis and many others I imagine.hey, you could have given me some time to answer instead of answering for me. At least more than an hour and a half. :)

Unless I am defending my own Against The Mainstream theory, I offer my best attempt at a mainstream position. I think that's as it should be, unless I warn people first. So, warning, I do not look at time and space in the same way as Einstein's space-time.the thing is that if you look at Einstein's space-time as the essence of physical existence and dynamics. then you must show by experiment that this is true.

you must show that space and time have each an independant fabric, innate to themselves and that they are interwoven.

my prediction, you won't find either, a space or time fabric at all. why?I'm not sure what your objections are to Einstein's spacetime. The experiments have been done, they've been very successful. You don't mean that I have to run them all myself, do you?

[worzel]

actually my argument is much better than yours. it just makes more sense.
So you say, but unless you have some way to experimentally distinguish between your position and mine (the one I've assumed for the sake of this discussion) then it is just pure philosophy. Once you get that point I might be interested in arguing why I think that time as a dimension is philosophically more appealing than time being a function of motion.

okay. so show time has in any way shape or form a fundamental substance or fabric.
Now you're moving the goal posts again. First you claimed that time isn't a true dimension like the spatial ones because objects could exist three dimensionally without time. By the time I'd pointed out that the extent of the objects' existence does depend on the time dimension according to relativity you'd changed your position to "movement is fundamental, time isn't". Now you're claiming that to prove that time is as much a dimension as the spacial ones I have to show that time has a substance or fabric even though you've said yourself (in this (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=837239&postcount=122) post) that neither time, nor space has a substance or fabric. So to be consistent you'd have to then agree that length, breadth, and depth also are not dimensions, which would be inconsistent with your original argument that time is not fundamental whereas length, breadth, and depth are.

I don't just claim it. I've proved it. you just ignore my proof.
You just don't get it. If there is, in principle, no way to distinguish between two positions then the distinction is purely philosophical. As to ignoring your "proof", which post do you consider proved your point?

[Grand_Lunar]

North, I think you're confusing the time and measurement thereof. Just like "length" or "breadth" doesn't require "feet" or "meters" to exist, "time" doesn't require "seconds"; it's just how we note its dimension.

That's the impression I get from his arguements as well.

After all, there's a reason the term is "spacetime".

[NEOWatcher]

Let's use an analogy.
We can see 3d and we speculate on the 4th

A 2d society can see 2d and speculates on a 3rd.

So lets say a 3d person places a ball on top of a cube on top of a cylinder. What is the 2d person going to see/experience.

If the 2d person can only see a single 3rd dimension, they they will see a cross section of one of the objects. (equated to a 3d person seing a point in time)

If the 2d person sees all 3rd dimensions at once, then they will see a jumble of infinate shapes occupying the same space. (equated to a 3d person seeing a car, train, bus, etc all at the same place at the same time, if in time they all passed him/her)

Therefore each point in time must be deliniated, just like the 2d person requires a deliniation of the 3rd dimension.

[Nicolas]

What I notice here is the lack of distinction in "room" and "cause".

To me it appears as if North argues that the 3 spatial dimensions are the cause of the existence of an object. It is not. It provides room for the object to exist in. Just as time provides room for change. Time is not the cause of change, it is a degree of freedom. An object has 3 spatial degrees of freedom (sorry for the wording, don't confuse with mechanical degrees of freedom) in which it can define itself, as well as a temporal degree of freedom in which it defines itself. As the meeting example shows, we need all 4 degrees of freedom to fully define objects in dynamic space. It appears to me the Universe indeed is dynamic space :).

Time is not the cause of movement, but it provides a necessary dimension to define movement. F = m.a contains the acceleration a, which can only be defined in the 3 spatial and a temporal dimension per definition [m/s^2]. Time is not a handy mathematical aid, it is a necessary universal dimension or degree of freedom.

That said, therre are many cases in which time can be left out of the picture. The fixed relative location of objects in a building construction does not require time. When talking only about geometrical possibilities, one also tends to call full possibilities 3D (think of 3D sound; the temporal aspect is left out of the picture for clarity) But then again, the layout of a letter doesn't require a third dimension, yet still depth clearly is a dimension. Of course the 3 spatial dimensions are of the exact same kind and the temporal dimension is different, but the 4 of them form the necessary dimensions to define objects in dynamic space.

excuse me if I lost track of the reasoning in this thread and hence my remark is irrelevant for the arguments put forward.

[north]

What I notice here is the lack of distinction in "room" and "cause".

To me it appears as if North argues that the 3 spatial dimensions are the cause of the existence of an object.

3D spatial dimensions are beyond cause, they are the fundamental requirements of existence its self. the 3D spatial dimensions are the essence of existence, its self. 3D spatial dimensions are the "essence of cause", therefore reality.

It is not. It provides room for the object to exist in.

non-sequitor.


Just as time provides room for change.

time does not have anything to do with "room" for change.



Time is not the cause of change, it is a degree of freedom.

first, true.

latter. define this.

[north]

An object has 3 spatia