Political Crossfire Forums

[thehollowman]

cap'n queasy wrote: ieatfood wrote: Is it possible that many dimensions exist (perhaps 20-30) and that we simply can't comprehend anything beyond 3?

It may be there are an infinite number of dimensions.

Then how can we comprehend Time, or the passage of it? It is my understanding that time is the human way of measuring a series of events in our universe. For example, we measure time according to our standard, the sun. Everything we do is in correlation to this heavenly entity and its movement throughout space. "Time" is simply the name we call the passage of such events, or length of them. From our understanding of the first 3 dimensions, length, width, and height, it here follows that time is another name for the length of such events.

[cap'n queasy]

thehollowman wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: ieatfood wrote: Is it possible that many dimensions exist (perhaps 20-30) and that we simply can't comprehend anything beyond 3?

It may be there are an infinite number of dimensions.

Then how can we comprehend Time, or the passage of it? It is my understanding that time is the human way of measuring a series of events in our universe. For example, we measure time according to our standard, the sun. Everything we do is in correlation to this heavenly entity and its movement throughout space. "Time" is simply the name we call the passage of such events, or length of them. From our understanding of the first 3 dimensions, length, width, and height, it here follows that time is another name for the length of such events.

We can only comprehend time in a linear manner, this is because we are limited to knowing only three dimensions.

But time is not really a linear progression.

[thehollowman]

cap'n queasy wrote: thehollowman wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: ieatfood wrote: Is it possible that many dimensions exist (perhaps 20-30) and that we simply can't comprehend anything beyond 3?

It may be there are an infinite number of dimensions.

Then how can we comprehend Time, or the passage of it? It is my understanding that time is the human way of measuring a series of events in our universe. For example, we measure time according to our standard, the sun. Everything we do is in correlation to this heavenly entity and its movement throughout space. "Time" is simply the name we call the passage of such events, or length of them. From our understanding of the first 3 dimensions, length, width, and height, it here follows that time is another name for the length of such events.

We can only comprehend time in a linear manner, this is because we are limited to knowing only three dimensions.

But time is not really a linear progression.

Yes, thats true. Time is not progressing, we are the ones moving. Einstein envisioned time as a series of measurements based upon an individuals point of observance. Our point of observance is the earth, and we observe the sun's movement. While in fact, the Sun is the stationary object and we are the ones moving. In the same way we cannot comprehend our own motion on the worldline, and in failing to do so compensate by calling this motion "time". Just as you can't feel the movement of the earth as it spins, you cannot feel our movement through the stationary timeline. We measure this movement as time, again bringing me back to my earlier point of time being the length of space that it takes for a series of events to take place on the timeline.

[cap'n queasy]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: cap'n queasy wrote:
It is not a dimension.

Of course it is.

It has all the other properties of the first 3.

How so? The first three are directly related to space. Time is physical movement/existence within space.

Time is a function of physical existence within three dimensional space.

Hence the physics term "space-time continuum". In the simplified Euclidean mechanics model time is used to play the role of another dimension for mathematical convenience, but it is not really a dimension in and of itself.

From the viewpoint of relativistic concepts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space.

[bla bla]

cap'n queasy wrote: tman_ndsu08 wrote: cap'n queasy wrote:
It is not a dimension.

Of course it is.

It has all the other properties of the first 3.

How so? The first three are directly related to space. Time is physical movement/existence within space.

Time is a function of physical existence within three dimensional space.

Hence the physics term "space-time continuum". In the simplified Euclidean mechanics model time is used to play the role of another dimension for mathematical convenience, but it is not really a dimension in and of itself.

From the viewpoint of relativistic concepts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space.

In the three dimensions you measure from point A to point B, in time
you measure from beginning to end.
Since you need time for energy to vibrate, and create matter, you have
no physical reality without it.
As I motioned earlier, I think time comes first in the order of significance.

Three dimensional space is an expression of time. Time is the product
of energy. So they are all parts of the same thing.
That being said, calling any of them a dimension is simply a classification,
and does not make one more relevant than the other.

[cap'n queasy]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

[bla bla]

cap'n queasy wrote: I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

It's hard to find words, sorry, I can see my little theory in my head.

I see it as all one thing, with us naming it's parts as dimensions, and in
doing so trying to make them independently significant.

I see our dimension as an expanding space/time bubble. Calling length,
width, and height, three separate dimensions is artificial. Space is the
volume inside time.
The three "physical" dimensions are just a convention used to describe the
geometry inside time. Geometries than can change drastically in very
high gravity, even to the extent of shrinking to nothing inside a black hole.

A black holes gravity crushes energy, stopping time, and compacting it's
space down to a single point. That solid energy/matter collects at one
point until it reaches some critical state and explodes in another Big Bang
event. The energy then begins to expand into swirls of matter and
space once again.

I kind of think, with the way space bends, that if you went in a straight line
forever you would always eventually end up in a black hole.

[thehollowman]

bla bla wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

...I kind of think, with the way space bends, that if you went in a straight line
forever you would always eventually end up in a black hole.

I don't follow.

[MplsBison]

cap'n queasy wrote: In the simplified Euclidean mechanics model time is used to play the role of another dimension for mathematical convenience, but it is not really a dimension in and of itself.


Because...?

How do you know that the first 3 dimensions are actually dimensions?


If it's correct to say that a point exists 3 units up, 6 units to the right, and 4 units in from some reference, then why isn't it correct to say that a point is 4 units in the past from some reference?

It's mathematically the same exact thing.

And since dimensions are defined mathematically, it makes sense to me to say that time is a dimension.

[cap'n queasy]

tman_ndsu08 wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: In the simplified Euclidean mechanics model time is used to play the role of another dimension for mathematical convenience, but it is not really a dimension in and of itself.


Because...?

How do you know that the first 3 dimensions are actually dimensions?


If it's correct to say that a point exists 3 units up, 6 units to the right, and 4 units in from some reference, then why isn't it correct to say that a point is 4 units in the past from some reference?

It's mathematically the same exact thing.

And since dimensions are defined mathematically, it makes sense to me to say that time is a dimension.

The past doesn't really exist, neither does the future, so a point doesn't actually exist there except as a mental phantom. So, while mathematically speaking this method may be convenient when used concerning Euclidean mechanics, for other more advanced applications this model fails.

Time is more of a vector or a scalar quantity than a dimension.

[Mapmaker15]

We are in effect fourth dimensional beings. Since our continued existance is facilitated by time. I percieve time. I'm wearing a watch right now. In a moment I will have to breath again... now. Time is obviously passing for me. Here's a neat trick.
Watch the clock. It seems very slow doesn't it? Now set a clock near where you sleep. As you go to sleep your perception of time slows as you prepare for sleep. There is a whole bunch of REM and non-REM stuff here but lets skip that. Watch the clock. It seems to speed up. Going faster.
I think this is neat. You get the opposite effect after drinking a whole buncha coffee!

[MplsBison]

cap'n queasy wrote:

The past doesn't really exist, neither does the future, so a point doesn't actually exist there except as a mental phantom.


Why? Because you can't see it?

A man born with one eye can only see 2 dimensions, does that mean a point can't exist with any depth simply because he can't see it?

Come on.


Quote: Time is more of a vector or a scalar quantity than a dimension.

What does that mean?

[cap'n queasy]

Vector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_(spatial)

Scalar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_(physics)
That ought to get you started.


A vector quantity has magnitude and direction, a scalar quantity has only magnitude.

Personally, I would say that time is a scalar wave cycle,rather than a vector quantity because I believe time to be non-linear (without direction).

But there is some argument about that.

[MplsBison]

cap'n queasy wrote: Vector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_(spatial)

Scalar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_(physics)
That ought to get you started.


A vector quantity has magnitude and direction, a scalar quantity has only magnitude.

Personally, I would say that time is a scalar wave cycle,rather than a vector quantity because I believe time to be non-linear (without direction).

But there is some argument about that.

I know what vectors and scalars are.


Your system claims that the position of a particle is 10 times larger simply because time has gone from 10 to 100 when it's quite possible that it could've stayed in the same position the whole time.

A vector doesn't do any better because, again, a particle could've stayed in the same position the entire time while the vector would've been increasing magnitude with time.


Obviously that's not correct.