Time dimension doesnt exist

[Tim_Lou]

if time is a dimension, that means there are others worlds with the same thing but different time.

 

but acording to the quantum rules, things happen in a chance. which means when something happened again in the same condition, it wouldnt be the same. then the other world with different time would have different events, as time goes on, the world would be totally different. so, there is only 1 time for one world, if there were more, those worlds would be different worlds.

 

sorry about my english, im a chinese.

[AGThePoet]

By the beginning sentence I am assuming you mean that right now there is this exact same history going on in a different dimension, but just on a differnet spot in the timeline identical to ours. This could happen. Things do happen to chance according to quantum mechanics, but if there are seperate dimensions for every time, then there are infinite timelines going, thus every possible change that could have happened, is happening, or ever will happen is contained in it's own, unique timeline someplace. Which we as humans cant really imagine, infinity is a pretty big number

 

Alex

[vishnall]

time isn't a dimention... never did einstein or his supporters concluded that time can exist independently.( only independent variables qualify to be called as a dimention), i see many people here are not aware that time is calulated as a difference of change relative to light travelling inbetween the two events, ie taking a measure of distence covered by light in some human contsants ( like one earth revolution..which again in subtle terms is not a constant) . time is abstract concept , but then we cannot understand universe without time can we?, well time is something that makes understanding this universe more logical and explainable, we need no time to live, we need time to understand, we can really never need time but yes we need to identify everyposition of every object in this universe with some number relative to some constant to better identify its position later relative to our position , what better can we take other than our own revolution of earth, which we know verywell.. hence as someone stated "time travel" is some concept of undoing the changes,, am i right?? we need not worry about time to undo changes if we can ever undo, for once if we do, time isnt required for us to interpret this universe, hence in laymen language we are eternal..

[whatever]

if you are standing still in space, then all of your speed is in the time

dimension. Then you start moving, so you are taking some

of your speed to the space dimension from the time dimen-

sion. Therefore, if you move at light speed in space, then

your speed through time would become ABSOLUTELY ZERO,

meaning time would stop for you or would it stop for every one

ther would be no tellin becouse u would have to get back to the time dimension to tell

but then u would be no longer in the space dimension to be able to stop the time in

its dimention.

If you somehow got past

the speed of light in the space dimension, then you would be going in REVERSE in

the time dimension, meaning you could go back in time by

exceedind light speed, even though this is allmost completely

impossible.but whilst in the warp betweeen time dimension and

space dimenstion were are you and if it is possible to go back in time how do we

know if sum1 all ready has been back in time mebe thats what dayzchavoo is,

when the things in our time now have to be

altered uterly becouse someone has gone back in time and changed soemthing in our passt

which meens we would have to go into the space dimetion to be able to have our pasts

changed so does that meen nearly every1 in the world has been into space.

and what is we somehow moved slower then still in the space dimension is that possible?

would we be exeeding the time dimension and entering a new dimention in the future

or would the universe somehow collapse just coz sum geeza thought is would be good

to play with people past present and future, innfact wwould we even have a present

End lecture. So, what do u think?

[whatever]

my name is joe and ive just descovered summit new

 

 

 

 

 

im clever haha i sat ther for hours workin on that

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: vishnall

time isn't a dimention...

 

Time IS a dimension. Just as X, Y, Z... (height, length, width)

 

Dimension - 1 a (1) : measure in one direction; specifically : one of three coordinates determining a position in space or four coordinates determining a position in space and time (2) : one of a group of properties whose number is necessary and sufficient to determine uniquely each element of a system of usually mathematical entities (WWWebster)

 

When we are discussing something, we describe the item/ action based on it's existence relative to other items/ actions. This requires a description of it's RELATIVE position in space/time.

 

never did einstein or his supporters concluded that time can exist independently.( only independent variables qualify to be called as a dimention),

 

Nor has "length" ever been shown to exist independantly. Nor height, nor width... So if your def was to be accepted, ALL dimensions would be shown to NOT be dimensions.

 

i see many people here are not aware that time is calulated as a difference of change relative to light travelling inbetween the two events,

 

As is length (height/ width). A length can not be measured without knowledge of it's relative time component. As an object's fixed length stretchs/ compresses based on it's speed relative to the source of measurement, one can not give a length meansurement without giving it's realtive time dimension. When a time dimension is not given, it is assumed as being the same as the measurement source's. That does not mean it does not play a factor.

 

Thought experiment time. Two people are standing "next to each other" relative to a line on say an X co-ordinate. Person B walks 10 feet foreward on the Y (perpendicular) axis. Person A now measures how far they have to walk to reach the same (X coordinate) line that B had marked as 10 feet. Yet person A has measured the distance as 20 ft. How could this be? Person B was on a train moving foreward at the time. The RELATIVE time dimension of each was different, resulting in a different Y dimension even with a given distance measurement length (feet). Thus the dimension of Y was affected by the dimension T(ime).

 

time is abstract concept

 

so are the other 3. They are all RELATIVE to each other and the observer.

 

we need to identify everyposition of every object in this universe with some number relative to some constant to better identify its position later relative to our position

 

Thus you prove that TIME is a dimension.

[motherengine]

maybe there is a constent moment within which all things occur and within which the brain perceives occurance and its own reaction to occurance and therefore a sense of duration. this would not mean that time exists as anything but a manner in which to measure the shared sensation in an evolving perceptive brain. did the universe begin so many eons ago? many scientists (or measuring brains) believe that the universe has always been while many believe it had a beginning. like string theory none of this has been proven so none of it has more weight than the philosophical hope that spurns them on. time may exist or it may be only another way for the human brain to link its perception to the universal (and therefore god) and so feel at least somehow related to the divine whatever. one must take an impossible step back before judging such things (there is a fundamental flaw in the measuring stick using itself to measure that which seems to exist around it.

[Tormod]

one must take an impossible step back before judging such things (there is a fundamental flaw in the measuring stick using itself to measure that which seems to exist around it.

 

A strange claim. What is the fundamental flaw? Are you saying that you cannot measure the size of your house because you live in it?

[motherengine]

i was thinking more along the lines of a house measuring a forest. ;) the flaw would be in questionable perspective: as one cannot see a forest through the trees the mind cannot see beyond its perceptive abilities (taking into account the use of enhancement tools like a microscope).

[Tormod]

the flaw would be in questionable perspective: as one cannot see a forest through the trees the mind cannot see beyond its perceptive abilities (taking into account the use of enhancement tools like a microscope).

 

But the wonders of the universe is that its physical properties can be expressed with marvellously simple equations - like E=mc2, for example. We might never know everything, but we can explore and learn more. There is no flaw in that. The real flaw lies in people not accepting that the exploration of the universe is a worthwhile cause.

[motherengine]

there is an argument that in exploring, however inevitable to our predicament, humans do far more damage to themselves and their environment. though religion is looked on with distain by many inthe scientific community specifically for the amount of suffering associated with it, science has caused more suffering than religion by far (to say that it was not the intention of scientists to cause the events at hiroshima and nagasaki is missing the point that likewise the influence of religion has not directly caused any suffering though its interpretation by violent people has). but my point was more that the human brain cannot fully trust information it aquires as being representative of the universe (or whatever if anything exists) beyond its perception. this does not mean i believe exploration of space is a waste of time, just a process which requires great humility from an animal with arrogant tendencies.

[Tormod]

but my point was more that the human brain cannot fully trust information it aquires as being representative of the universe (or whatever if anything exists) beyond its perception. this does not mean i believe exploration of space is a waste of time, just a process which requires great humility from an animal with arrogant tendencies.

 

I fully agree with your last sentence. However, the first one is a tautology. We have to accept that we are biased in may ways (we only see visible light, for example) but we can also realize our bias and do something with it (like studying the universe with radio telescopes and infrared light).

 

that is why we must never accept anything that is based on one dataset or which is built on an uncertain foundation. We need several observations and we need to try and test and retest. That is why the scientific method is in place.

 

The scientific method does not guarantee that we get things right. Hell, it doesn't even guarantee that we don't get everything wrong! But it does let us match our best theories against what we observe and see whether they fit or not - like how light bends around stars because the star warps the space-time around it.

 

Which isn't bad for a start.

[motherengine]

sorry for being a stickler here but the first sentence (though poorly structured) is not a tautology. to say that there is an argument against scientific progress because it may ultimately be more dangerous for our species than beneficial is the identification of an argument. if this is tautology than any declarative statement is redundent and substanceless (in philosophy the statement often preceeds the evidence of fact).

[Tormod]

the human brain cannot fully trust information it aquires as being representative of the universe (or whatever if anything exists) beyond its perception

 

...

 

to say that there is an argument against scientific progress because it may ultimately be more dangerous for our species than beneficial is the identification of an argument.

 

My bad, I did not mean to say that it is a tautology. Sorry. What I meant to say was that it is a claim which warrants some backing up by supporting evidence or a reliable source. Otherwise it is just an empty argument.

 

WHY cannot the human brain trust the information it aquires, and why cannot this information be accepted as representative of the universe?

[motherengine]

i suppose i am suggesting that we are all still in plato's cave measuring shadows when it comes down to it. we can only percieve through perception and for me human perception is not trust worthy. i understand this puts me in the rather absurd position of requiring a leap of faith just to communicate (am i actually typing letters or does it just seem that way because i cannot step outside of what i am) but actually i am just uncomfortable with the idea that the mind of man can truly understand the nature of the universe let alone itself. and in case you haven't noticed i am a philosophical rather than scientific minded person.

[maddog]

Einstein said, "Time is a way of everything not all happening at once". ;)

Time is a particular kind of dimension with respect to the definition of spacetime in SR.

Your X, Y, Z dimensions can be related together and are considered together as a vector

in 3-space. You can form cross products or dot products on such vectors. To make a

4-space (spacetime) work the same way is a conversion of a scalar dimension as Time

by multiplying by the velocity of light ©. By doing so a metric can form in 4-space.

 

ds^2 = (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + (i*c*dt)^2) <= where i = (-1)^(1/2)

 

In differential form this is the spacetime metric. ;)

 

Maddog

[Tormod]

i suppose i am suggesting that we are all still in plato's cave measuring shadows when it comes down to it. we can only percieve through perception and for me human perception is not trust worthy.

 

Then that is a personal opinion. Even though you have a philosophical bent, which I applaud, it does not mean that you are free to generalize your statements to include all of humanity without showing us why. Philosophy also requires logic to work.

 

No offense, but your view comes forth as slightly religious (as in "there is a Truth out there") in that you are building on ancient concepts and want to discard all knowledge acquired over the past two millennia since Plato. I don't question your right to do so, but I still want you to understand that in this forum we will need to understand what you are basing your philosphical views on.

 

and in case you haven't noticed i am a philosophical rather than scientific minded person.

 

I think that was pretty obvious to us all the moment you posted at Hypography. ;)

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean to harrass you - you are very welcome to post your ideas at Hypography. But the term "philopsopher" does not free anyone from the need to explain the logic behind their thinking.