Time as an objective entity is invalid as an actual object

[HeavensWarFire]

They time is the forth Dimention, and they say this as if it were at all similar to width, height, weight, length, and breadth in general. But how many actually think about the very idea of measurement? Why do we act as if the idea of an inch, a foot, or a yard are real things in themselves? Its almost as if a persons name is really the same as the object for which the name is a reference for. But how absurd is this?

I will conclude, that in terms of emperical entities, there is no such as time. Time is a human construct, and it does not pertain to anything outside the minds of humans.

[Eepl]

What if space and time are two different dimensions. Maybe we have the wrong classification of a dimension. There are only two dimensions. Time, and space. And space would have length, width, and height. Maybe to be a dimension it has to be on a totally separate plane. What if each brane is a different dimension, and maybe time is the connecting force between all of these.

So in my conclusion. Each brane in one separate dimension, each with there own length(s), width(s) and height(s). And time connects all of us. Just think someone in another dimension could be standing right next to you.

[suyver]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
Time is a human construct, and it does not pertain to anything outside the minds of humans.


Then why do not all things happen at the same time?

Furthermore, different people do agree on how long the time between certain events is (ignoring special relativity here), so you're saying that this human construct is somehow the same for all people? Even though they may reason completely different?

[HeavensWarFire]

I am not sure i even understand your thoughts:

Then why do not all things happen at the same time?

Why does difference in when things happen have to do with the very idea of time per se?

Time is a system of measurement in the same way a "yard," a "foot," or an "inch" is a system of measurement. It is an idea for the distance in length, or range, between one point, and another. This is why we use different kinds of measuring rods (if you will). Even if we didnt have words like "months,"years, decades," and the what not, you could still say things like, "I will see you in 3 moon rises" instead of saying, "in three days."

with regards to time, we can say that it relates to the ideas of "change," and "duration." For example, we mark a "year" on earth as "365" days, a day as 24 hrs, a minute as 60 seconds, and so on, and on.

But do all planets take 365 days to go around the sun? No. Why not? Hence, we use the ideas of time as a way to referring to duration, and change, or observable cycles of some kind in an actual object that has physical structure.

But realistically, if it were not for change, i am not sure you would have gotten the idea of time. I dont know exactly how the rules came about, but i know time in the olden days was marked by what is called the sun dial, which i presumed was subdived to major sections like a piece of pie depending on how the shadow was cast, and relating the differences in shadow cast with the actual position of the sun in the skies. Hence, midday would be where the sun was directly above the sky, eliminating any real shadows since the sun is beeming directly down on the stick. A shadow is only formed when there is an obstruction of light by an object, hence by marking where the shadow is made by the stick, you could come up with a crude system of time sectors, in the same way you can slice a piece of pie.

But over and beyond this, there is no such thing as time in the same way a person's "name" is really a real thing. Person's name, or "social security number" is a label that is associated to a particular person. But over, and beyond that, the name is not really a part of a person. In the same way, the idea of a "year," a "minute," and so forth are all labels that relate to the idea of duration, but duration is just something that is made thinkable by the observation of cycles, and based on the smallest system of a cycle, you can compare other cycles. Hence, the earth rotating on its axes is a cycle that seems to have some degree of regularity, and consistantsy. A year, in like manner, is one of those things that is a cycle. Hence, from this sense, we can say that a year constitutes 365 actual spins on the earch part upon its axes as it changes location when it tries to go all the way around the sun. From there, you had to somehow come up with another way of sub-dividing the actual duration of a single spin to get the idea of an hr. From "an hour," you had to move onto a "minute," and so on, and on. In a certain sense, time is really just a labeling system that refers to durations between difference objects of change, or motion. Nothing more.

But the point is, that in terms of reality, all you have is what is called change, and change is simply the alteration of an objects form, or the location of an object. In this sense, then, there is no such thing as time.

Think about this way: Suppose nothing moved in the universe except you. How would know that there was a passage of time? Nothing is moving. All is stationary. So how can you say to yourself something like, "that planet over there has spun this amount of times since i have been here." How would yu be able to say, that the sun rose, and the sun sat? What is the rising, and the sunset anyways? Nothing but the actual rotation of the earth. But not all planets rotate at the same speed, hence time is really not an objective reality.


Furthermore, different people do agree on how long the time between certain events is (ignoring special relativity here), so you're saying that this human construct is somehow the same for all people? Even though they may reason completely different?

I think you have confused your ideas.

What i am saying is, that time is just like the idea of a "foot, a mile," and so on. They are all labels that stand for different units of measurement, but in actuality, all you have is objects that are different in size in relation to one another. The idea of how big certain units are is all man made.

As for why people aggree, that is explained only by the fact that clocks are manufactured, hence, one clock works like any other clock, and you can objectively click on a button and mark how long it took a runner to do a lap around a track. But over, and beyond that, time is a just a system of measurement that relates to speed, duration, and change.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by suyver
Then why do not all things happen at the same time?
Furthermore, different people do agree on how long the time between certain events is (ignoring special relativity here), so you're saying that this human construct is somehow the same for all people? Even though they may reason completely different?
Because time is the 'Illusion' of motion/movement, "Illusion" because it is not an inherant (or pertinent) physical quality of 'matter', but an abstraction, (a useful one though) that is applicable to aid in (more accurate) measurements.

[suyver]

If you conclude (or rather: postulate) that there is no such thing as time, or that time is the 'Illusion' of motion/movement, then you should also be able to explain to me why different things do not happen at once, but at different times. This I do not understand, and HeavensWarFire's rant didn't help at all. Maybe you can clearly and logically explain your postulate that there is no such thing as time?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by suyver
If you conclude (or rather: postulate) that there is no such thing as time, or that time is the 'Illusion' of motion/movement, then you should also be able to explain to me why different things do not happen at once, but at different times. This I do not understand, and HeavensWarFire's rant didn't help at all. Maybe you can clearly and logically explain your postulate that there is no such thing as time?
Basically predictive ability is predicated upon the notion of "A start point" and an "Ending Point" but when we want to measure that in the Universe, we find that we cannot know the start point (to the degree of detail required) such that, all that has flowed as motion/movement, since them, has all been a function of cause and effect, nothing else, but as you can (easily?) see, it is waaaay to much information.
As for different things happening at once, you mean you typing there an me typing here "at the same time", things happen at different times because of the sequential nature of cause, and effect, and cause, and effect, and cause, and effect....."ad infinitum" from the beginning!

[suyver]

This is not an answer to my question. And the 'too much information' argument is really strange...

We'll try it another way: if I drop a stone, it doesn't immediately hit the ground after I let go. This takes time. You claim to call this 'cause and effect' rather than 'time'. What's the difference?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by suyver
This is not an answer to my question. And the 'too much information' argument is really strange...

We'll try it another way: if I drop a stone, it doesn't immediately hit the ground after I let go. This takes time. You claim to call this 'cause and effect' rather than 'time'. What's the difference?
So you think that when you let go of the stone it should instanteously be on the ground? it's a longer 'explain', as in, (cause) letting go of the stone allows the pull of gravity to re-gain motion upon the stone, (that it had ceaselessly been pulling on) (effect) pressure between the air molecules and the face of the stone cause a slight photonic exchange to arise, as the pressure of the now, gravitationally induced to motion, "rock" is pressing upon air molecules causeing motion in them (heating) and falling through them (pressing/pushing them out of the way) which involves exchanges of energies (that occur at lightspeed, appropriate to the medium) that help to cause the displacement of the air molecules (by overcoming there resistence to motion)....because the rock needs to push all of that air out of the way and it only has so much force/energy to do it, cause/effect/cause/effect that/those motions give the appearance of time, but you should note, clearly, "all energetic exchanges of energy happen at light speed!" (appropriate to the medium of propagation)

That is about the only real measurablity of time there really is, "lightspeed" as that is the only speed that anything/everything in the Universe really goes at....but you are fooled by that? by the "lightspeed inside" and the "lightspeed outside"? never heard of C2?

[HeavensWarFire]

Since you didnt read what i said, i will try to use another approach using your analogy:

We'll try it another way: if I drop a stone, it doesn't immediately hit the ground after I let go. This takes time. You claim to call this 'cause and effect' rather than 'time'. What's the difference?


Had you read what i said, that in reality, in terms of physical structures you have what is called "change." Change has 2 primary forms: an actual alteration of the objects very nature, or an alteration of geographical location.

In one moment in time (to use the term) the stone is in your hand. But in another moment of time, it is on the ground. It traveled, hence, it changed locations.

But like i said, movement is dependant on how you compared it to something else. Generally we use clocks to time things, but the ideas of different durations of time are all man made. We can say that the stone traveled at such, and such a speed, but what is speed?

You can say, that it took the stone yee so long to go from point A, to point B, but what determines the duration of the travel? Spead. But what is speed? Once more, it is the idea that there is differenrt rates of travel, and travel once more goes back to changes in location.

I think, that this subject is really beyond you, and that you need to maybe read what others write before you can rebuttal.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
(SNIP) I think, that this subject is really beyond you, (SNoP)
Completely disagree with that!

[suyver]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
That is about the only real measurablity of time there really is, "lightspeed" as that is the only speed that anything/everything in the Universe really goes at....but you are fooled by that? by the "lightspeed inside" and the "lightspeed outside"? never heard of C2?

I agree that most forces have massless carriers (photon, gluon & graviton) and therefore they indeed go with the speed of light. (However, the W and Z bosons do have mass...) But apart from that, yes you could define time in terms of the speed of light. But that doesn't change anything: you've still got a time-dimension this way.

I do not understand your comment about C2


Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
I think, that this subject is really beyond you, and that you need to maybe read what others write before you can rebuttal.

Interesting. [6)] I think you should learn some real physics and stop posting nonsense on this board (and not just in this thread!). Also, I think a much more friendly attitude would really suit you! However, such a change will already come too late as far as I am conserned. You're on my ignore-list. [zz)]

[HeavensWarFire]

That was not, directed at you, Mr Robinson. Please read my post, and as you will see, i have quoted the dude who was talking about the stone in his hand.

Completely disagree with that!

Heres the post:

Since you didnt read what i said, i will try to use another approach using your analogy:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We'll try it another way: if I drop a stone, it doesn't immediately hit the ground after I let go. This takes time. You claim to call this 'cause and effect' rather than 'time'. What's the difference?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Had you read what i said, that in reality, in terms of physical structures you have what is called "change." Change has 2 primary forms: an actual alteration of the objects very nature, or an alteration of geographical location.

In one moment in time (to use the term) the stone is in your hand. But in another moment of time, it is on the ground. It traveled, hence, it changed locations.

But like i said, movement is dependant on how you compared it to something else. Generally we use clocks to time things, but the ideas of different durations of time are all man made. We can say that the stone traveled at such, and such a speed, but what is speed?

You can say, that it took the stone yee so long to go from point A, to point B, but what determines the duration of the travel? Spead. But what is speed? Once more, it is the idea that there is differenrt rates of travel, and travel once more goes back to changes in location.

I think, that this subject is really beyond you, and that you need to maybe read what others write before you can rebuttal.

[HeavensWarFire]

No problem.

Think about it, if i have to explain to you the "idea" of a measurement as opposed to a "physical substance," then clearly you do not comprehend anything. Time is not a physical structure for the last time. It has no properties like a tree does. Time is a context that allows us to communicate about speed, and duration. But apart from the context that it gives, there is no object in the Universe that you can say this is a Time thing. So learn to read.

Interesting. I think you should learn some real physics and stop posting nonsense on this board (and not just in this thread!). Also, I think a much more friendly attitude would really suit you! However, such a change will already come too late as far as I am conserned. You're on my ignore-list.

Learn to read.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
[Had you read what i said, that in reality, in terms of physical structures you have what is called "change." Change has 2 primary forms: an actual alteration of the objects very nature, or an alteration of geographical location. This "change" is also called "time." Its as if you use the definition but don't like the word itself. From the dictionary: -A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
-An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
-A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
-A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M.
-A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time. It also appears that you make no distinction between the CONCEPT of time and the MEASUREMENT of time. This may also be the source of the confusion.

I'll admit though to not reading the whole thread - maybe tonight.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by suyver
I agree that most forces have massless carriers (photon, gluon & graviton) and therefore they indeed go with the speed of light. (However, the W and Z bosons do have mass...) But apart from that, yes you could define time in terms of the speed of light. But that doesn't change anything: you've still got a time-dimension this way.
I do not understand your comment about C2 inner lightspeed as opposed to the outer kind we watch going away at just C.....could explain more, just not the right place/time...sorry.

Well after getting the interspacial spaces going at C, (your answer above) we are left with the idea of motion of the rest of the mass in the universe, if it all 'clumps back up' into the identical structure, that it started from, what amount of time has passed? or is there any consequence to that time?

Aside from that what qualifies as "Benchmark" for what 'speed of time' really is" We currently use Earth/Sol relationship for our time basis, but what if that mismeasures the actual time of existence of the Universe, by some yet unknown principal, or simpler yet, why that rate/meter of motion? why not another? (the obvious answer is because we inhabit this planet, and it is habitual to us, but there is a deeper question in that one)

And HeavensWarFire I had not though it was directed at me, but none the less know that "Everyone Can learn!" so the comment is well, you know already......but clearly I agree with what you are saying about time, unsubstantive and simply an "Ideal" being employed, a useful one at that.....

[HeavensWarFire]

And to make things clear before there is "additional misreadings," i will declare that this is direct at Mr Robinson.

It has become apparent, that this is going nowhere. I guess, people dont understand the difference between a "conceptual object," and for a lack of a better phrasing, an "emperical object."

Yes, thoughts are objects in the sense that they are the contents of a person's mind/contemplative material. But seperate yourself a bit from the politics of linguistic gymnastics.

"Time" is not at all like a "physical object" in the sense that it has "properties" like texture, and color. To a primative mind, a "rock," can be held in their hands, hence, the object has some form of reality that does not depend on having a "Westen Type Level of Education." Even a dog can pick up a rock with its mouth, and move to a different spot in his backyard. Hence the idea of an emperical reality that does not depend on a living orgasming having the power to think any highly "elevated thought."


"Time," on the other hand, requires a mind developed enough to the point where it can abstract, and thus, percieve, something that is without any actual "physical structure." In this sense, time is not an object reality in the same way fire buring your hand is. It is a concept, that allows us to "contextualise" some ideas-----ideas like "duration, intervals," and "speed."

This "change" is also called "time." Its as if you use the definition but don't like the word itself. From the dictionary:

Are you to tell me, that a concept cant have a practical purpose? My useage of language in general doesnt say anything other than it is the tool by which i express my thoughts. From this perspective, i see no relevance at all in your above comments.

-A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
-An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
-A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
-A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 A.M.
-A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.

You dragging in the above expressions from a book, does not really tell me anything. But since you feel theres relevance in making the above reference, ok, i will play ball with you.

How do you know, or understand, ideas like, the present, the past, and the future?

Is it not by observing with your very own eyes things like something happening, hence, in the present tense occurance? And once its done, is it not then in the past tense that we mean when we talk of the past? And something that could happen, in the future, what does that mean? What, that something could happen, such the earth running into the sun, but it hasnt as of yet, or if you are cooking something in the microwave, the completion of your cooking? So the idea of a future then is what? A potential change in the way physical objects are currently related to one an another?

Now lets break things down even further:

When we speak of things occuring, what exactly is it that we are speaking of?

Let me guess, an event?

Ok, what is an event?

Let me see, a change?

Ok, what changes?

Lets see an object?

Ok, how has the object changed?

Lets see, the object was somehow affected by another object?

Ok, in what ways can an object be affected by another object?

Lets see, by being either, altered, or relocated?

Ok, so what then can we say about the changes that can occur in the canvas of physical things"? What, that objects can give the mind an idea about different aspects of what is otherwise known as an event, or a change?

Ok, in what way can we get the ideas of Time related conceptual things? Answer: duration, context, speed, past, present, and future notions.

But what do all the above relate to?

Answer: to an interaction of some kind amongst objects.

And what is an object?

Answer, anything that is more than a thought, and that is the opposite of "nothingness."

But aside from physical things existing, can you ever get an idea for a lack of a better word, "Time." Answer: NO. Hence, time, is an abstraction. Nothing more.

It also appears that you make no distinction between the CONCEPT of time and the MEASUREMENT of time. This may also be the source of the confusion.

I'll admit though to not reading the whole thread - maybe tonight.

The measurements themselves are a part of a concept. Sort of hard to get an idea of time differences without the mathematical symbols. Kinda hard to talk about thoughts without language, dont you think? But isnt language to a considerable degree a conceptual scheme?

And yes, i gathered you didnt read what i wrote. That was not news to me.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire

And to make things clear before there is "additional misreadings," i will declare that this is direct at Mr Robinson.
It has become apparent, that this is going nowhere. I guess, people dont understand the difference between a "conceptual object," and for a lack of a better phrasing, an "emperical object."
Yes, thoughts are objects in the sense that they are the contents of a person's mind/contemplative material. But seperate yourself a bit from the politics of linguistic gymnastics.
"Time" is not at all like a "physical object" in the sense that it has "properties" like texture, and color. To a primative mind, a "rock," can be held in their hands, hence, the object has some form of reality that does not depend on having a "Westen Type Level of Education." Even a dog can pick up a rock with its mouth, and move to a different spot in his backyard. Hence the idea of an emperical reality that does not depend on a living orgasming having the power to think any highly "elevated thought."
"Time," on the other hand, requires a mind developed enough to the point where it can abstract, and thus, percieve, something that is without any actual "physical structure." In this sense, time is not an object reality in the same way fire buring your hand is. It is a concept, that allows us to "contextualise" some ideas-----ideas like "duration, intervals," and "speed."
Are you to tell me, that a concept cant have a practical purpose? My useage of language in general doesnt say anything other than it is the tool by which i express my thoughts. From this perspective, i see no relevance at all in your above comments.
You dragging in the above expressions from a book, does not really tell me anything. But since you feel theres relevance in making the above reference, ok, i will play ball with you.
How do you know, or understand, ideas like, the present, the past, and the future?
Is it not by observing with your very own eyes things like something happening, hence, in the present tense occurance? And once its done, is it not then in the past tense that we mean when we talk of the past? And something that could happen, in the future, what does that mean? What, that something could happen, such the earth running into the sun, but it hasnt as of yet, or if you are cooking something in the microwave, the completion of your cooking? So the idea of a future then is what? A potential change in the way physical objects are currently related to one an another?
Now lets break things down even further:
When we speak of things occuring, what exactly is it that we are speaking of?
Let me guess, an event?
Ok, what is an event?
Let me see, a change?
Ok, what changes?
Lets see an object?
Ok, how has the object changed?
Lets see, the object was somehow affected by another object?
Ok, in what ways can an object be affected by another object?
Lets see, by being either, altered, or relocated?
Ok, so what then can we say about the changes that can occur in the canvas of physical things"? What, that objects can give the mind an idea about different aspects of what is otherwise known as an event, or a change?
Ok, in what way can we get the ideas of Time related conceptual things? Answer: duration, context, speed, past, present, and future notions.
But what do all the above relate to?
Answer: to an interaction of some kind amongst objects.
And what is an object?
Answer, anything that is more than a thought, and that is the opposite of "nothingness."
But aside from physical things existing, can you ever get an idea for a lack of a better word, "Time." Answer: NO. Hence, time, is an abstraction. Nothing more.
The measurements themselves are a part of a concept. Sort of hard to get an idea of time differences without the mathematical symbols. Kinda hard to talk about thoughts without language, dont you think? But isnt language to a considerable degree a conceptual scheme?

And yes, i gathered you didnt read what i wrote. That was not news to me.

Please try re-reading your own post and explain to me Mr. ROBIN Parsons exactly how this is Directed at me Given that the person you are "quoteing" and "agrueing the word" of, is russ_watters....Perhaps you should really follow your own advice respective of 'reading' cause I had said this...
Originally posted by Moi (M.RP)
And HeavensWarFire I had not though it was directed at me, but none the less know that "Everyone Can learn!" so the comment is well, you know already......but clearly I agree with what you are saying about time, unsubstantive and simply an "Ideal" being employed, a useful one at that.....
Clear enough??

[HeavensWarFire]

I think mixed names when i was scrolling up, and down, and just quickly looking at the names above the pictures.

But you are right: we should all listen to our own advise.

My apologies.

My eagerness to answer a few posts as fast as i could i guess intercepted my neuro firings, and in the process throw out of wack the actual order of my thoughts.

My bad.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
[B"Time," on the other hand, requires a mind developed enough to the point where it can abstract, and thus, percieve, something that is without any actual "physical structure." In this sense, time is not an object reality in the same way fire buring your hand is. It is a concept, that allows us to "contextualise" some ideas-----ideas like "duration, intervals," and "speed."[/B] Time has physical structure. If it didn't, we wouldn't be able to measure it. Again, you are not distinguishing between the CONCEPT of time and the MEASUREMENT of time.Are you to tell me, that a concept cant have a practical purpose? No. I'm simply telling you that besides being a "concept," time is a physically real property of the universe. Its as physically real as "lenght" and "width."But aside from physical things existing, can you ever get an idea for a lack of a better word, "Time." Answer: NO. Hence, time, is an abstraction. Nothing more. Huh? What "physical things" are you talking about? Objects? If objects didn't exist, then "length" and "width" would be without meaning as well.

It appears you do not accept the idea that time is a physically real dimension very much like lenght and width. It is.

And now I'm reading the rest of the thread. A few snippets:
The idea of how big certain units are is all man made. Well, ok, it appears you have the same misunderstanding about the spacial dimensions as you do with time. The fact that the units are arbitrary does not change the length of an object. Example: a meter stick. If I change the definition of a meter to make the stick two meters long, does that make the meter stick twice as long? No. Hence, both the concpet of length and the measurement of length are physically real. Time works EXACTLY the same way. But the point is, that in terms of reality, all you have is what is called change, and change is simply the alteration of an objects form, or the location of an object. In this sense, then, there is no such thing as time. Thats a contradiction. If those alterations are physically real, then any comparison made between them is also physically real.As for why people aggree, that is explained only by the fact that clocks are manufactured, hence, one clock works like any other clock, and you can objectively click on a button and mark how long it took a runner to do a lap around a track. But over, and beyond that, time is a just a system of measurement that relates to speed, duration, and change. Thus proving that time is physically real. Otherwise, no two clocks could ever be made to agree. But like i said, movement is dependant on how you compared it to something else. Generally we use clocks to time things, but the ideas of different durations of time are all man made. We can say that the stone traveled at such, and such a speed, but what is speed? Why? Similar to above discussion of lenght, the fact that we define a second as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of a cesium atom does NOT change the fact that a cesium atom oscillates 9,192,631,770 between two events happening a second apart. If we defined a second as 4,596,315,885 oscillations, would that make mean that a cesium atom oscillated 4,596,315,885 between those two events? No.

Again, the fact that the units are arbitrary does not change the fact that time is physically real. ...the "idea" of a measurement as opposed to a "physical substance," .... Time is not a physical structure for the last time. It has no properties like a tree does The only one who is making that connection is you. time doesn't have the properties of a tree, a tree has properties such as time.

[HeavensWarFire]

Time has physical structure. If it didn't, we wouldn't be able to measure it. Again, you are not distinguishing between the CONCEPT of time and the MEASUREMENT of time.

This subject is beyond you. It is clear you do not understand English.

You can measure with a measuring tape someones height, but you do not measure Time with a Rule.

You are not fit to comment on this concept known as Time. It is beyond you. So quite your repulsive use of the English Language.

Huh? What "physical things" are you talking about? Objects? If objects didn't exist, then "length" and "width" would be without meaning as well.

It appears you do not accept the idea that time is a physically real dimension very much like lenght and width. It is.

First of all, this is what i said "But aside from physical things existing, can you ever get an idea for a lack of a better word, "Time." Answer: NO. Hence, time, is an abstraction. Nothing more."

Learn to read. I said, "aside from," physical things, you can not get an idea of time. Learn to speak English. I did not say i did not believe in PHYSICAL THINGS.

Second of all, Width and Length refer to actual dimensions of an object. The mere fact that we use numbers for different pionts of time does not prove that time has a Physical Property like a 3 dimensional object. You need to go to Collage, take a few English courses, and then come back to this. This is way over your head.

Thats a contradiction. If those alterations are physically real, then any comparison made between them is also physically real.

There is no contradiction at all. You simply can not read.

Thus proving that time is physically real. Otherwise, no two clocks could ever be made to agree.

Obviously you never heard of a Manufacturing Plant.
Edit:
Fixed Font size
Integral

[suyver]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
You need to go to Collage, take a few English courses, and then come back to this. This is way over your head.

May I ask: what training in physics and mathematics do you have?

[russ_watters]

HeavensWarFire:

I said this in the other thread. If you wish to continue posting here, you will need to drop the personal attacks and attitude. Its as simple as that. Accept it and you can stay, don't accept it and you will leave. May I ask: what training in physics and mathematics do you have? No need for that surveyor. We have our fair share of kids in their early teens who do just fine here. Education isn't all that relevant, its all about how you handle yourself.

[HeavensWarFire]

Out of curiousity, what does my private life have to do with any of this?

May I ask: what training in physics and mathematics do you have?

I did not sign on here to provide you with information about my personal life. This is a forum for discusion. As such, you either judge the content of what is said, or you leave it as such. It is not exactly like i see everyones personal bio on every post. If you are basing the acceptance of anyones posts on the mere grounds they have a PH.D in Phsyics, then i would suggest you make that clear at the door, and automatically ban anyone who can not give you their University transcripts.

My personal details is of no relevance to whether or not i can say anything that is within the correct use of language.

From the mere fact that some have admitted to being non collage graduates, i would say your question is not even appropriate.

[Integral]

You need to go to Collage, take a few English courses, and then come back to this.

LOL,

[chroot]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
You need to go to Collage, take a few English courses, and then come back to this.
Too bad... I went to college instead. [:(]

- Warren

[HeavensWarFire]

Too bad you werent awake.

[chroot]

It certainly does sound like someone was neglected human contact as a child or something... not only does he hate the ignorant (e.g. he belittles everyone by calling them children with simple minds who cannot grasp concepts and so on), he also hates the educated (e.g. he claims that an doctorate in physics does not make a person more able to speak about physics). Who do you not hate, HeavensWarFire? Yourself? I bet you even hate yourself, too. Pathetic.

- Warren

[HeavensWarFire]

Have i said any thing about what you think concerning my view of the Educated?

It certainly does sound like someone was neglected human contact as a child or something... not only does he hate the ignorant (e.g. he belittles everyone by calling them children with simple minds who cannot grasp concepts and so on), he also hates the educated (e.g. he claims that an doctorate in physics does not make a person more able to speak about physics). Who do you not hate, HeavensWarFire? Yourself? I bet you even hate yourself, too. Pathetic.

- Warren



Seems like you know an aweful lot about what is in my life, and about how i think. I find that quite intriguing. So i guess you have docorate in Psychology, as well as Physics? And you have a PH.D in anything?

I have not said that a PH.D in physics does not make one more fit to comment on the subject. Please find me where anywhere in this forum i have declared such a statement.

But yes, you are correct about one thing: I have little patience for anyone who can not communicate as if though they have had an actual education of some type. To this, yes, you are quite right.

But to the rest, i think all of that is really going beyond your mental powers.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
I think mixed names when i was scrolling up, and down, and just quickly looking at the names above the pictures.
No problemo, had thought it was something like that...
But you are right: we should all listen (And follow) to our own advise.
My apologies. Accepted, thank you....

My eagerness to answer a few posts as fast as i could i guess intercepted my neuro firings, and in the process throw out of wack the actual order of my thoughts. At least you do seem capable or recognizing your own, well distinguishments, that is a path that helps in , well working on them, but that is "entirely up to you....."

My bad. Nah, just a simple little mistake.....

But the rest of these people, Whew!! gonna eat you alive?????

[chroot]

HeavensWarFire,

For GOD's sake, it's a Ph.D., not a PH.D -- that's right, a lowercase h, and two periods. I suppose you learn these things when you go to Collage, but your young mind has not yet learned these concepts.

Keep tryin', junior. The bell tolls for thee.

- Warren

[HeavensWarFire]

No such thing. All they can do is ban me, but what does that prove?

I can always come back under a different name. So it isnt like they really can do anything. They can try, but i have gotten an education, and i have read enough to be able to hold my ground, so i do not worry the little ones trying to bite. I aint no spring chicken, and i certainly do not fear a challenge.

I really am sorry about the miss naming of who it was that i was addressing. But beyond that, i do not feel like i have to apologise for anything. Heck, according to the New Testament, Jesus Christ was nailed because he was preaching his morality. And like albert Eistient said, "opposition has beset even the greatest of minds." Or something like that. I could be paraphrasing.

[HeavensWarFire]

I guess I am supposed to be an infallable speller too eh? So i am not a typing princess. Sue me. Not like that's a greater crime than not using English correctly.

As Voltare once said, "If you wish to converse with me, then define your terms."

This is a discussion on theories, and concepts in general. To that end, i think all that you can demand of people is that they at least know what they are talking about when they start to type away.

Otherwise, you might as well start disqualifying posters on all misspellings. This is not a research lab, where we have to test things. This is a discussion board in which people expose their thoughts for others to see, and comment upon.

[jcsd]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire

To that end, i think all that you can demand of people is that they at least know what they are talking about when they start to type away.


And that's why your getting on peoples nerves, because you didn't know what you were talking about when you started to type.

If you want to talk about physics at a certain level you have to make sure your knowledge is up to it, otherwise it's completely counter-productive and frustrating for everyone else.

[jcsd]

I have to admit that I'm just as careless and make frequent typos and more than the odd spelling mistake, but when you start to attack other peoples English you should make sure your own house is in order first.

[chroot]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
As Voltare once said, "If you wish to converse with me, then define your terms."
Perhaps you mean Voltaire.
Otherwise, you might as well start disqualifying posters on all misspellings.
You have told probably ten people in this thread alone to "learn English" and "go to Collage [sic]" and so on. If you're going to demand that other posters use English properly, it only seems appropriate that you should, also. Don't you agree?

- Warren

[HeavensWarFire]

Everyone supposedly is getting all wrecked up about me, but yet, all i see are thoughts that highly allegational without any real grounds behind them. How is that different than from what i am doing?

And that's why your getting on peoples nerves, because you didn't know what you were talking about when you started to type.


If i have actually been wrong, then why is it that no one can show it?

[jcsd]

That's 'cos you're obviously wrong; time is emprical, it's effects can be observed quite clearly and it's easy to find ways of measuring it, it's not something that can just be 'transformed away'.

[HeavensWarFire]

Emperical eh? Like a tree, or a rock is emperical? Where can i find a piece of this thing called Time?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
Emperical eh? Like a tree, or a rock is emperical? Where can i find a piece of this thing called Time? No, I explained this already. Time is like the HEIGHT of the tree, not the tree itself. Its a physical dimension very much like the other 3. And you can also measure time according to the tree in various ways of course. Age for example.

[HeavensWarFire]

I have explained my meanings, but no one is reading.

Time relates to change. I have explained this.

But we are back to semantics on the word "Physical"?

[jcsd]

What's unempirical about time?

I'd challenge you construct any model that tries to represent physical reality without time (though I am told that time disappears in the Wheeler-Dewitt equation).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
No, I explained this already. Time is like the HEIGHT of the tree, not the tree itself. Its a physical dimension very much like the other 3. And you can also measure time according to the tree in various ways of course. Age for example.
Russ, a pause, if you measure the distance something travels, then you measure the time, you are measuring space twice.....

Time is not a physical thing he is right about that, it can be measured, but it has no solidity..............in my past posting(s) I had mentioned that time was 'limited' at around lightspeed, but even that is an "Illusion" (of sorts) as a Black Hole's gravitational well must have speed(s) exceeding lightspeed as escape velocity, ergo even light speed is an "Illusory Benchmark".

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by jcsd
What's unempirical about time?

I'd challenge you construct any model that tries to represent physical reality without time (though I am told that time disappears in the Wheeler-Dewitt equation).
Simple, "end point" and "start point" are identical in physical construct, now explode it out into Xx pieces, energetically enabled to reconsruct itself into it's own (identical) origin, the motions within result in having "No Relative Meaning" with respect to any (individual/collective) metering of them, as the end result is gauranteed, all your measuring is the motions of them.

[jcsd]

But you cna't define the 'start' or 'end' without time.

[chroot]

Originally posted by HeavensWarFire
If i have actually been wrong, then why is it that no one can show it?
Because you have made no falsifiable statements. Physics works this way:

Alice: I claim that my theory says the value of parameter \alpha should be 2.

Bob: My experiment measures the value of \alpha as 4.1 ± 0.23 with a confidence interval of 99%. This means your theory is probably incorrect.

It does not work this way:

Alice: I claim that time as an objective entity is invalid as an actual object.

Bob: But time is like space.

Alice: It depends on how you define 'time.'

Notice the difference. In the first case, the claim is falsifiable. One can do an experiment and reach one of three conclusions:

a) The theory agrees with experiment within experimental error.
b) The theory does not agree with experiment within experimental error.
c) The agreement is not well-established due to experimental error.

In the second case, the claim is not falsifiable. It does not make any predictions which can be used to gauge the claim's validity. No one can say whether or not it is right or wrong. It is philosophy.

This is the reason why no one can show why you're wrong: because you're talking about philosophy, not physics. All we can do is go on and on about what your definition is, what my definition is, and so on. Philosophers seem to enjoy this kind of dialogue, but physicists don't usually care too much for it. Note carefully that our disinterest in your philosophy does not mean your philosophy is right -- it simply means we don't care about it.

- Warren

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Russ, a pause, if you measure the distance something travels, then you measure the time, you are measuring space twice.....

Time is not a physical thing he is right about that, it can be measured, but it has no solidity. Well, then maybe we do need to define what "physical" or "physically real" means. Because obviously whether time is or isn't follows directly from the definition.

You appear to be defining "physical" as having dimensions in space (length, width, height). By that definition, its axiomatic that time isn't a physical dimension.

The dictionary is not that specific: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=physical
1. Of or pertaining to nature (as including all created existences); in accordance with the laws of nature
2. Of or pertaining to physics, or natural philosophy; treating of, or relating to, the causes and connections of natural phenomena

Clearly by these definitions, time is physically real: Time is something we can observe, measure, and experience in the physical universe (nature in the first definition). And time is a connection between natural phenomena that pertains to the the laws of physics (second definition). I had mentioned that time was 'limited' at around lightspeed, but even that is an "Illusion" (of sorts) as a Black Hole's gravitational well must have speed(s) exceeding lightspeed as escape velocity, ergo even light speed is an "Illusory Benchmark". Ironic choice of example - by definition, what lies inside of a black hole's event horizon is not a part of the physical unverse. All we THINK we know about the inside of a black hole is from data collected outside the event horizon. All we can do is go on and on about what your definition is, what my definition is, and so on. Philosophers seem to enjoy this kind of dialogue, but physicists don't usually care too much for it. This is of course because scientists and engineers all agree (implicitly) to a set of rules and definitions as a starting point for all discussions. The terms don't have to be defined at the start of a conversation because they've already been accepted. Its a lot like learning a language really.

Applied to the points above, if you want to argue the definitions, you do that in the philosophy forum. If you want to argue the implications and physical to the laws of physics, you do that here. But by posting here, it is implied that you accept the accepted definitions.

[deltabourne]

HeavensWarFire, your whole argument seems to be based on calling other people names and being generally unagreeable to anyone who doesn't agree with your 'theory' (which i'll have to say is quite wrong imo). I think you should stop calling people names when you can't spell above an elementary level and try to READ and COMPREHEND what people are telling you.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
(SNIP...sorta...) Well, then maybe we do need to define what "physical" or "physically real" means. Because obviously whether time is or isn't follows directly from the definition. O.K. "physical" is tangible, having mass/shape/and longevity of existence...
You appear to be defining "physical" as having dimensions in space (length, width, height). By that definition, its axiomatic that time isn't a physical dimension.
The dictionary is not that specific: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=physical
1. Of or pertaining to nature (as including all created existences); in accordance with the laws of nature
2. Of or pertaining to physics, or natural philosophy; treating of, or relating to, the causes and connections of natural phenomena
Humm, you state that the dictionary is "NOT that specific", then state that by these definitions "time is physically real" but NOTHING in those definitions says that!
Clearly by these definitions, time is physically real: Time is something we can observe, measure, and experience (Only as an "Idea" not as a 'physical' {Tangible} phenmenon) in the physical universe (nature in the first definition). And time is a connection between natural phenomena that pertains to the the laws of physics (second definition). Ironic choice of example - by definition, what lies inside of a black hole's event horizon is not a part of the physical unverse. All we THINK we know about the inside of a black hole is from data collected outside the event horizon. This is of course because scientists and engineers all agree (implicitly) to a set of rules and definitions as a starting point for all discussions. The terms don't have to be defined at the start of a conversation because they've already been accepted. Its a lot like learning a language really. (SNoP)
Humm, O.K.(?) (why are you telling me this?) you mean like the 'outside' observation of the fact that light does not escape from the interior of what would otherwise surely be emitting light, (as evidenced by all of the energetic activity in the immediate area) from whence we draw the conclusion that the escape velocity must exceed lightspeed....you have a problem with this kind on logic/knowledge@work????

[Kanelous]

I agree.

Time is a man made increment to describe observable events.

Time does not exist except as a mathematical relationship between distance and the increment required to get from place to place.

For example. Point your finger at a star, then move it quickly to the next nearest star. If you extend the plane of your finger - then how fast is the plane moving as it arcs to the next star.

In feet per second it would be astronomical, but if you decided that it represent 1 star (star1) second it would seem slow.

Einsteins prediction of E=mc2 was correct that mass has an enormous amount of stored energy, but since it requires that time exists as a dimension - it is obviously flawed.

If Einstein predicated that E=(m)(Star1) would he have been wrong?

The reason his prediction seemed so accurate was likely due to the relationship between primary force (gravity), light and the creation and evolution of mass through the accumulation of accelerating force.

I believe that light is the stimulation of primary force and that it does not travel at all.

Yes, the observation of it appears as though it is traveling at a high speed, but in reality it is not moving - it is doing nothing more than creating a ripple in the nearly solid force field. That is why the speed of light appears to be constant whether you are traveling toward or away from the source at any speed.

You are not seeing the light, but are seeing what the light did to the force field.

[russ_watters]

Sorry, MRP, those definitions were so straightforward that I can't reword them in any way to make them more straightforward. All I can say is try reading them again (though you even used the word "longevity" - a reference to time, so it almost seemed like you got it).

And my point about the black hole was simply the irony of your trying to describe something in the observable universe by citing an example not in the observable universe.

Let me try a different tack: describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by jcsd
But you cna't define the 'start' or 'end' without time.
They are identical, I need not identify them, they are interchangable.........because 'No time' as substance/substantive/object-reality......

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Sorry, MRP, those definitions were so straightforward that I can't reword them in any way to make them more straightforward. All I can say is try reading them again (though you even used the word "longevity" - a reference to time, so it almost seemed like you got it).
And my point about the black hole was simply the irony of your trying to describe something in the observable universe by citing an example not in the observable universe. What I've used is observable, the event horizon, and the 'blackness' indicative of a lack of "luminesence" that tells of the inability of light's escape...
Let me try a different tack: describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)
From that site russ; "Of or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics." the definition of "physical" but time is neither energy nor matter, but a measurement of a comparitive cycle rate agaist the motion to establish differences betweens motions.....point being the cycle rate that is choosen is entirely arbitrary, nd there is NO physical entity that tells us what the exact/correct/right/precise/UNIVERSAL time actually is, cause ther is none.

"In an infinity, there can be/is no time", if this universe is born of the infinite, then the 'time' that we so frequently use, in the Universe must be some sort of "illusion", it is how that little dilema gets resolved as even though it is a highly practical tools, it is not based upon anything other then an idea....the practising of an "Ideal".....but no substatiation, no "meter" ('cycle counter' AKA clock) that can be proven as having "relative meaning" to the entirety of the Universe. (Ain't there)

[jcsd]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
They are identical, I need not identify them, they are interchangable.........because 'No time' as substance/substantive/object-reality......

You must define the distance in time between them otherwise you can only obtain time indpenednt solutions which will not give you as good results as time-dependnet solutions.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
From that site russ; "Of [b]or relating to matter and energy or the sciences dealing with them, especially physics." the definition of "physical" but time is neither energy nor matter Time is most certainly a piece of information relating to matter and energy in the same way that length and width and mass are. "In an infinity, there can be/is no time" I'm not sure where that quote is from, but its quite simply wrong. That would rule out lenght and width as well. They are identical, I need not identify them, they are interchangable.........because 'No time' as substance/substantive/object-reality...... [?] [?] So you've never been in a race before? I can certainly tell the difference between the start and end of a 5k and my sister looks a lot different at the end of a marathon than at the start.

It seems as though you are starting with the assumption that there is no time and using that assumption to define things like "start" and "end." You are free to do that (in philosophy anyway - physics already has definitions you must use in physics) but even assumptions have to agree with applicable observations - and yours do not.

And I'd like an answer to this challenge: Let me try a different tack: describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Time is most certainly a piece of information Please read the title, "...Invalid as an actual object" relating to matter and energy in the same way that length and width and mass Sorry, NOT mass! as that is physical and you cannot show me a physical component of time are. I'm not sure where that quote is from, but its quite simply wrong. That would rule out lenght and width as well. infinity does that, "un-measurable"

[?] [?] So you've never been in a race before? I can certainly tell the difference between the start and end of a 5k and my sister looks a lot different at the end of a marathon than at the start. In the Analogy that I had set up, (to provide jscd with a MODEL!) I had stated that the beginning point and end point were identical, please follow along with what is written, or the way it is written, (not what you would like to think is written(?))

Russ. of all of the cycles of motion that I can use to establish a "rate of timing" (earth time, Jupiter time, Mercury time, Solar time) which one of the right one? the universal one, which one arises from physicality?? or physical reality??

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Russ. of all of the cycles of motion that I can use to establish a "rate of timing" (earth time, Jupiter time, Mercury time, Solar time) which one of the right one? the universal one, which one arises from physicality?? or physical reality?? All are equally valid and which to use depends only on the specifics of the application. There is no universal one. If your arguement is based on a lack of a universal time, thats the same as saying there is also no universal length, width, or height.

Again, the fact that the UNITS of time we use are arbitrary does not mean time itself is not real.

Also: Describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Describe for me in words the position (location in the physical universe) of an object (a specific building for example) WITHOUT using any reference to time. I claim it can't be done. (similar to what jcsd said)
...this planet! (Earth) at, roughly the center of the Universe, the Universe's Luminous 'sphere'........whenever...

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
All are equally valid and which to use depends only on the specifics of the application. So your use, is just as arbitrary... There is no universal one. If your arguement is based on a lack of a universal time, thats the same as saying there is also no universal length, width, or height. Good point...and is there?

Again, the fact that the UNITS of time we use are arbitrary does not mean time itself is not real. Humm, don't know for certain just that one, but clearly it doesn't prove that it is real, and (sorry) you haven't either....

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
...this planet! (Earth) at, roughly the center of the Universe, the Universe's Luminous 'sphere'........whenever... "whenever" is a time reference - and beyond that, an incorrect time reference. "Whenever" implies that it has always and will always be here. So your use, is just as arbitrary I never said it wasn't. What's your point? Good point...and is there? [universal spacial coordinates] No.

Be careful here, MRP, whether intentional or not, you are spiraling rapidly down into what ends up looking like an attempt to prove that "reality" itself does not exist.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

My point is simple if it isn't all arbitrary then it has a physical component that would lead me to believe that it was existent, since there isn't one, the "arbitrariness" of it all leads me to see that there is a reason(s) why there is no physical proof, and helps me to know that it is simply the application of an "Ideal" hence no "physically existent" component to it.

Location/location/location?

(this planet! (Earth) at, roughly the center of the Universe, the Universe's Luminous 'sphere') [:)] [:)]

As to your last statement, HUH?

P.S. case you hadn't notice I haven't tried to disprove time as "A useful thing", as "An ability to meter motion", especially relative motions as that it what 'timing' is about, the act of it, but in the 'Largesse' of nessecary knowledge of the construct of the Cosmos it is requisite that the conundrum of how an infinity could have "No time", and our universe "Have time", must be "resolvable" by anyone who proposes tackling those kinds of questions....so perhaps it is you who should be more careful...HUH! whatdayathink? [t)]

[russ_watters]

A cesium atom does not oscillate at an arbitrary rate.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
A cesium atom does not oscillate at an arbitrary rate.
(Sorry!) So you mean that if you heat it, chill it, electrocute it, magnetise it (or all of the space around it) it still keeps that oscilation rate? even in the center of the Sun at the Gravitational pressure(s) achievable there???? Ya sure 'bout that???

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
(Sorry!) So you mean that if you heat it, chill it, electrocute it, magnetise it (or all of the space around it) it still keeps that oscilation rate? even in the center of the Sun at the Gravitational pressure(s) achievable there???? Ya sure 'bout that??? I said nothing of those effects. But they are not arbitrary either.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I said nothing of those effects. But they are not arbitrary either.
Humm, I did, and it renders the 'oscillations of the Cesium atom' as arbitrary, AKA not fixed, not "physically attached", no "Objective entity".....just the application of an 'Ideal' to a reality..

After all russ, all a clock is is a secodary counter/measure that permits us to measure 'relative' measurements...when a 4 inch dia. clock, cycles once, we have a 'foot' of time, we use that measure to relitivize the other measures of space that we took in the distance travelled and then apply the entirely arbitrary secondary measure as to allow us a baseline of comparision, but the baseline is not derived from anything that qualifies as "objective entity", but simply the observation of the distance traveled, by the Earth, in respect of the Sun.....No time russ, not as an "object existent in reality".
(even though we can create the 'objects' to do this kind of cyclic counting for us)

[Jimmy]

Hello. I'm new here and found this thread interesting. I'll state up front that I have no formal education in physics above an associates degree in electronic egineering technology. Anything I say may be taken with a grain of salt. I should say, rather, I won't be offended if someone tells me to get lost. :)

I've often thought about time as it relates to physics (SR) and how we perceive the 'flow' of time or alternately, our motion through time. Don't worry, this isn't the beginning of some cranky theory. [:D]

Consider the three spatial dimensions. 3D-Space has three axes which are mutually perpindicular. These three axes define the degrees of freedom of motion which we can experience in that space. We can move forward, backward, left, right, up and down. We can also rotate around each of these axes in two different directions.

There are two other degrees of freedom that I have not mentioned: Faster and slower. On the surface, they seem to be completely unlike the other motions I've listed above.

Consider Space-time. When an object is plotted on a space-time diagram, acceleration (a change in speed) appears to be a change in direction or a rotation around a fourth axes. I realize that this isn't evidence that time is a physical dimension but wouldn't a fourth physical dimension be necessary to accomodate the extra degree of freedom that acceleration entails? This is not a rhetorical question and I am interested in everyone's thoughts on this.

If we consider the three spatial dimensions as physical and time as just an abstraction, does that leave any room physically for acceleration? It seems to me, and I freely admit that I could be wrong, that a fourth 'physical' dimension is needed to go faster and slower. The physical sensation of a change in speed is curiously similar as that of a spatial rotation. Again, I realize that this isn't proof but it is compelling for me.

Of course, there are definite asymmetries bewteen spatial rotations and acceleration (change in speed). An object can rotate indefinately in space but we certainly can't 'rotate' indefinitely around this fourth axis. There is a definite limit on how fast we can go or how much we can rotate around this fourth axis. Can acceleration in this sense be considered a hyperbolic rotation? I'm not sure of the details but wouldn't you have to use the hyperbolic functions to describe acceleration in a 4D context?

When considering time to be a physical property of the universe, as in SR and GR, the physical implications such as time dilation, length contraction, etc, seem to be confirmed to a high degree of accuracy eperimentally.

Like I said above, I'm not a physicist and I am curious as to whether my thinking is correct if even partially.

[ranyart]

Originally posted by Jimmy
Hello. I'm new here and found this thread interesting. I'll state up front that I have no formal education in physics above an associates degree in electronic egineering technology. Anything I say may be taken with a grain of salt. I should say, rather, I won't be offended if someone tells me to get lost. :)

I've often thought about time as it relates to physics (SR) and how we perceive the 'flow' of time or alternately, our motion through time. Don't worry, this isn't the beginning of some cranky theory. [:D]

Consider the three spatial dimensions. 3D-Space has three axes which are mutually perpindicular. These three axes define the degrees of freedom of motion which we can experience in that space. We can move forward, backward, left, right, up and down. We can also rotate around each of these axes in two different directions.

There are two other degrees of freedom that I have not mentioned: Faster and slower. On the surface, they seem to be completely unlike the other motions I've listed above.

Consider Space-time. When an object is plotted on a space-time diagram, acceleration (a change in speed) appears to be a change in direction or a rotation around a fourth axes. I realize that this isn't evidence that time is a physical dimension but wouldn't a fourth physical dimension be necessary to accomodate the extra degree of freedom that acceleration entails? This is not a rhetorical question and I am interested in everyone's thoughts on this.

If we consider the three spatial dimensions as physical and time as just an abstraction, does that leave any room physically for acceleration? It seems to me, and I freely admit that I could be wrong, that a fourth 'physical' dimension is needed to go faster and slower. The physical sensation of a change in speed is curiously similar as that of a spatial rotation. Again, I realize that this isn't proof but it is compelling for me.

Of course, there are definite asymmetries bewteen spatial rotations and acceleration (change in speed). An object can rotate indefinately in space but we certainly can't 'rotate' indefinitely around this fourth axis. There is a definite limit on how fast we can go or how much we can rotate around this fourth axis. Can acceleration in this sense be considered a hyperbolic rotation? I'm not sure of the details but wouldn't you have to use the hyperbolic functions to describe acceleration in a 4D context?

When considering time to be a physical property of the universe, as in SR and GR, the physical implications such as time dilation, length contraction, etc, seem to be confirmed to a high degree of accuracy eperimentally.

Like I said above, I'm not a physicist and I am curious as to whether my thinking is correct if even partially.

The problem seems to relate to the SPACE itself that is dynamic, ie:Contracting Frames and Expanding Frames.

If one was to know that the spacetime you occupy is in Expansion, then say you move to another part within this spacetime, then it is obvious that the space you trancend is scale dependant. From one location to another the space that surrounds you will be moving away from you in all directions (expansion) what you experience is the dilation of movement 'in-between', from loaction to location.

Now if one was to move from a 'contracting' frame to an Expanding frame, then you would have to move from Galaxy to Galaxy, with the intervening space being the 'Expanding frame', upon arrival you would have to agree that the Galaxy that arrive at would appear to be in Contraction.

It seems counter-intuitive that we exist inside spacetime (Galaxy) that is steady, the space we have all around us is expanding by a different process that of the intervening space between Galaxies, namely Galaxies have Stars that produce Photon Pressure, this gives Spacetime its own steady-state of Spacetime.

Quote:It seems to me, and I freely admit that I could be wrong, that a fourth 'physical' dimension is needed to go faster and slower. The physical sensation of a change in speed is curiously similar as that of a spatial rotation. Again, I realize that this isn't proof but it is compelling for me.
But this cannot have another dimension hidden within?..this is what Galaxies are, they are fused space(the intervening expanding space) with another space (photon-space around matter) into a dimensional area we call Spacetime. Any motion within Galaxies is along 3-dimensional routes that are equivilent, not until you leave a Galaxy would you be able to determine the space you are moving in(intervening space) has no Time componant, and is completly 2-dimensional, and all routes are now restricted to just motions along these dimensional routes, fixed and have constant restrictions such non-rotational motions.

The straightest path through spacetime(Galaxies-the more matter the more curved space) is along the curves caused by Matter.

The straightest path through space is always fixed as there is no Matter, no 'Time-curves', and is therfore instant and direct.