Wait what?:confused:
Ok. I'm not going to argue with you about this any more. But I have one last question. So is it safe to say that physics does not deal with static concepts at all?
Why are you rolling your eyes?:confused: Did I ask a stupid question? If an object is at rest and time requires...
But isn't a laser beam 'ruler' is an indirect measuring device that infers distance from the speed of light? I think I see where you are going with this but I'm really curious to see so i'll say yes.
From what I understand here, you are saying you can't measure the brick's time with a clock...
ok.
What if the object isn't moving?
It's relevant because there's a difference between objects and concepts and the two shouldn't be conflated. Don't you agree?
Yes, if the metric (measuring device, ruler, what ever) used to calculate the distance is same.
Any dictionary. Here's one: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dimension
(definition "b")
I meant length by the way, which is not synonymous with distance or else their definitions would be...
Yes, in the first case you're right! I just realized that. And you're also right in the second case. The only way i can measure the internal dimension of a continuous solid object is by inference--if this is what u mean by "indirect method". Now I'm assuming you're about to tell me how this is...
I agree with this. A word can have a meaning within a specific context that different from it's meaning in another. This is how language is. My problem, what confuses me, is when a word's meaning in one context is applied in another different context. Don't u see how this can be an issue?
that's not my definition. I suggest we stick to my actually definition of dimension: a concept used to specify the structure/orientation or shape/geometry of a physical object. These are qualitative attributes. Duration is a quantitative attribute.
my first post in this thread...
funny u say this because i stated this in one of my first posts but when a dimension can be literally anything that kind of sets the stage for lots of confusion doesn't it?
No. I'm not the one mixing dimensions here. Define a term within a given context and stick to it. I have no issue with that. What i have issue with is when terms are used inconsistently within the same dissertation. x,y,z as dimensions are used to ascribe structure and shape to physical objects...
No. I believe there's a fundamental error in the relativist's notion of distance. What's actually being measured as "distance" is actually "distance traveled". hence why "distance" is defined in terms of c. Relativity alludes to the qualitative static distance (between two objects or "events")...
Ok.
"The term 4-D means that it takes 3 spatial coordinates and 1 temporal coordinate to specify the position of a point or event.
"An object is said to have as many dimensions as there are axes required to locate its position in space"
Are both definitions above correct?
Ok. ur right.
u realize that implicit in ur question is the notion of measuring time as a distance? besides, spacetime interval addresses an issue created by the conception of space and time as a single entity. it's like a custom designed solution.
My short answer to ur question is that it's irrational and...
But there are several cases where it introduces self-contraction.
What qualifies one as a crack-pot?
physical duration? as opposed to non=physical duration?:confused:
How was it measured before clocks were invented?
Denigration? :confused:OK. I'll stop because it seems like I'm upsetting...