Fourth dimension=time?

[arkain101]

I agree with Boerseun here,

 

The concept of a hypersphere is the only non-philosophic way to make an observation of the universe, call it legal observation, obeying identified laws.

 

When we imagine, to exist outside of the universe and picture the 'entire universe' we break away from 'legal observation'. When you do this, you have this picture of space extending out beyond objects, this is your paradox.

 

But if you abide by the notions that you can not observe the universe at this point in time any other way than you observe it now, regardless of your position, then there is no problem, nor a boundary.

 

If you were to reverse the time from this legal observation, eventually all would become one and space would be inconceivable.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Boerseun, Arkain101,

 

The universe being a hypersphere, is not philosophy.

 

Scientists make the worst philosophers period. Lets just agree to disagree.

[arkain101]

I don't understand Laurie. Why would you say that?

 

The universe being a hypersphere, is not philosophy.

 

It is not philosophy in the sense that, if I look at the sun, I can not determine what the sun is actually doing, I can only experience what that sun has already done. So any observer obeys these limitations, which translates into a hyperspheric observation bubble.

 

I encourage you to start a thread that exposes clearly, the paradox(s) involved in current cosmological models, and if possible your methods of resolution.

 

Insulting people in the work of science abroad is by no means any more 'productive' than the science you have concerns with. I don't want to go down that road.

 

I am not a scientist, but I could be considered a philosopher, and what my efforts have been was to share with you as clearly as I could, some of the most effective theory that science has to offer.

 

I would love to discuss our disagreements but I fail to understand where they are. I say this because I don't feel you have communicated 'the other side of the story' to the extent I am aware of how it is you disagree.

 

I personally don't hold claim that space-time theory is the answer to all the questions, and I even theorize other possible interpretations myself.

 

I am looking forward to anything you can provide as alternative solutions.

[Boerseun]

Hi Boerseun, Arkain101,

Scientists make the worst philosophers period. Lets just agree to disagree.

Laurie, the proposition of the Universe as a hypersphere, is not philosophy, although it might have serious philosophical implications.

 

Consider, for instance, a right triangle, with the short sides being 1 and 1 unit in length. Pick a unit, it doesn't matter. Pythagoras tells us that the long side will be the root of the sum of the squares of both short sides. In other words, the long side will be:

 

(Sorry, no LaTex over here)

x = Square root of (1²+1²)

x = Square root of (1+1)

x = Square root of 2

 

Now, the square of any odd number is odd, and the square of any even number is even. Which means that the root of 2 must be even, not so? But we have seen that the sides are 1 and one, clearly odd. Which means that we haven't reduced the numbers to the lowest common denominator, no? Whatever the case might be, it turns out that the square root of 2 is irrational.

 

And you can philosophize the result of the above to oblivion (it does make prime fodder for philosophical diatribe over a bottle of red wine into the wee hours of the morning regarding the perfection/imperfection of maths, numbers, and the universe in general) but it makes no wit of a difference to the mathematical reality of the existence of irrational numbers.

 

The same with the universe being a hypersphere.

 

Although it does make for prime philosophical fodder, the nature of this hypersphere universe stays unchanged, be it scientifically or mathematically.

 

If you want to agree to disagree, that's fine. But reality might be a harsh mistress at times.

[Qfwfq]

Scientists make the worst philosophers period. Lets just agree to disagree.

And perhaps you could agree to quit being a troll.

 

To all: I don't see the point of getting into a science vs. philosophy debate, especially as there are diffuse misconceptions about what the latter is and the relation between the two. Besides, it isn't the topic of this thread.

[arkain101]

Yes, I've encouraged a new topic for those matters. :Alien:

[LaurieAG]

Alternative theories A place for all the non-mainstream science

 

Could all of you mainstream trolls go back to your own forums and threads.

 

Space-time is a mainstream theory, so is the BB. It doesn't take a philosopher or a scientist to work out that.

[Rade]

On one hand I would answer yes to OP question, on the other hand it is not "the" forth dimension, just 1 of 4. Time (t) could just as well be the first dimension, then add x-y-z as 2-4 dimensions. But then, the OP question does not ask if time = "the" forth dimension, only if time = forth dimension. So, looking at the OP from this view, I find the answer to the OP question to be yes.

 

The reason I say yes derives from definition of 'dimension'. A dimension = a measureable extent. Time is continuously extended, thus meeting the second part of the definition of a dimension. And, time is also a type of measure, a type of number, it is what is counted as relates to movement of some thing that exists in respect to moments in the before (past) and after (future). Time is what is intermediate between these two moments. Thus, given that time is an extent (what is intermediate between the past and future), and that also it is "what is counted" within this extent (that is, the extent can be measured), I conclude that it is a true statement that, "time = forth dimension', but then, also is a truth statement "time = first dimension".

[Qfwfq]

Could all of you mainstream trolls go back to your own forums and threads.

Who do you think you are?

 

There's a difference between non-mainstream and not making sense. The rule against trolling does not depend on which forum you do it in. You have been annoying people here Laurie, that's enough.

[Boerseun]

Could all of you mainstream trolls go back to your own forums and threads.

 

Space-time is a mainstream theory, so is the BB. It doesn't take a philosopher or a scientist to work out that.

Space-time and the Big Bang is not "mainstream", it's Standard Theory. Tomato, Tomatoe. Who cares. Standard Theory is the set of theories supported by current evidence.

 

What you're saying here, is that there is no place for established science in this particular thread? What you're saying is that we should support some kind of a looney fringe non-Standard theory in order to participate here?

 

This has to be probably the most non-sensical post I've seen in Hypo for a very, very long time.

[Moontanman]

This thread has wondered greatly from my original idea of time as a 4th dimension. Time is not philosophy, time is real at some level. Rotten apples do not appear out of the ground, become solid, jump up onto the tree, turn green and shrink into blossoms and disappear into the tree. Time is real, it has direction, everything is based one way or another in time.

 

Time is maybe an effect of something else but the effect is real. I suggested that time is our perception of a forth dimension, as in if the universe is a hypersphere it contains an infinite number of 3d spheres. Each one of these 3d universes would represent an instant in time in the 4d sphere. We travel through the 4d universe in a 3d sphere moving from instant to instant, 3d sphere to 3d sphere in some ways like the frames in a film.

 

The alternative is that time is in no way a dimension but a property of the universe independent of dimensions and if we lived as 1728 dimensional beings we would still see time and maybe even think of it as the 1729th dimension.

 

What version of reality you subscribe to, BB, BV, membrane, Static, no mater which one time is active in all of them and none of them can work without a concept of time.

 

What i wan to know is this, is time a dimension, an emergent property, or a basic property of reality?

 

After reading all the posts in this thread i say time is a basic property of the universe no matter what it's reality is.

[modest]

Time is maybe an effect of something else but the effect is real. I suggested that time is our perception of a forth dimension, as in if the universe is a hypersphere it contains an infinite number of 3d spheres. Each one of these 3d universes would represent an instant in time in the 4d sphere. We travel through the 4d universe in a 3d sphere moving from instant to instant, 3d sphere to 3d sphere in some ways like the frames in a film.

 

This sounds like eternalism to me—as opposed to presentism.

 

I find the idea of time as a dimension naturally appealing. If time is real (or some kind of real effect) as you say then we might as well represent "it" in the most-useful way available. 3+1 spacetime works pretty well. It certainly seems to give good answers.

 

After reading all the posts in this thread i say time is a basic property of the universe no matter what it's reality is.

 

Yeah, a good question would be: is it possible to describe reality without some concept of time?

 

~modest

[LaurieAG]

Hi Moontanman,

 

What version of reality you subscribe to, BB, BV, membrane, Static, no mater which one time is active in all of them and none of them can work without a concept of time.

 

What i wan to know is this, is time a dimension, an emergent property, or a basic property of reality?

 

After reading all the posts in this thread i say time is a basic property of the universe no matter what it's reality is.

 

While time may be a property of all theories the reality is that the speed of light is what actually changes in relation to its proximity to mass, not time itself. Therefore in the concept of space-time, time is paradoxically different to when time alone is used as a separate dimension on its own.

[modest]

While time may be a property of all theories the reality is that the speed of light is what actually changes in relation to its proximity to mass, not time itself.

 

Yeah, and lines of longitude seem closer together near the north pole versus the equator because the speed of a plane flying east-west near the pole is greater (in degrees of longitude per hour) versus the speed of an equivalent plane flying east-west over the equator (in equivalent units). Yup—it's the speed of the plane that actually changes in the two locations, not the degrees of longitude themselves.

 

That's a good point Laurie, and not troll bait at all—seems directly related to what MTM said. Huzza!

 

~modest

[Qfwfq]

Actually it's called the VSL interpretation of General Relativity and some serious folks have investigated it. However, it isn't quite the point of this thread and, also, Laurie's wording smacks of a claim rather than a quite controversial alternative model.

[modest]

My understanding is that VSL is not an interpretation of GTR. Only by confusing coordinate speeds with velocities (which I possibly failed to analogize well-enough in my last post) can such a comparison be made. VSL is, I think, an entirely separate model.

 

~modest

[Qfwfq]

I think VSL is so controversial mainly because there is so much confusion and misunderstanding about it.

 

"Either the well was very deep, or she fell very slowly, for she had plenty of time as she went down to look about her and to wonder what was going to happen next." (Lewis Carroll, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", quoted by Stephen Weinberg in "Gravitation and Cosmology")