HallsofIvy said:
The problem, then, is than neither you nor Eusonance has said what you mean by "dimension" or what your understanding of the word is. In order to specify position in space, you must use three numbers. That is true no matter what type of "coordinate system" you use. In its simplest sense, that is what "dimension" is- how many numbers you need to specify something. You could, for example, specify position in space with a single vector but it would still require three numbers- a "three dimensional" vector.
I didn't say what a dimension is because, frankly, I don't know. If you go back you can see where I asked : )
This makes a lot of sense, a dimension being the grounds on which a thing is defined. I have some strange Idea in my head about the difference between a dimension and a measurement but I don't think it's valid nor can I articulate it fully.
DaveC426913 said:
A physical object cannot exist without all three spatial dimensions, true, but it is perfectly normal to have length without the existence of the other dimensions.
What is the length (in km) of a journey from Toronto to Huntsville? 130km. A journey does not have a width or depth.
I like the use of a "Journey" in this explanation, I've never realized distance as a measurement of one dimensional space, as area is a measure of two dimensional space. Regardless of their intangibility these measurements are extremely practical even in everyday conversation.
RazorRose said:
because even if you draw a line on a piece of paper with a pencil that line has some amount of width. think about it one can't exist without the other. following so far? questions?
A drawn line on a piece of paper has depth too : )
But, the line as a one dimensional distance between two points exists only as an Idea: It cannot independently as it cannot exist without operating under the preconception that there is someone there to imagine it.
HallsofIvy said:
Physics, rather than dealing only with position, deals with "events"- things that happen at a specific position at a specific time. That requires three number to give the position and one number to give the time- that is what is mean by "four dimensional".
DaveC426913 said:
There are 3 spatial dimensions, all orthagonal (bascially, perpendicular) to each other. Their names (length, width, height, forward, etc) are entirely arbitrary in name and entirely subjective in direction.
VERY informative, I'm not sure if I can see time as a dimension as our measurement of it is inconsistent with our other measurements of reality, almost purely quantitative (seconds, minutes, hours, days...), and any point-by-point measurement is generalized and inconsistent: Time didn't exist before some ******* with a finger pointed at the sky and shouted "Noooon!" Rather than existence depending on it, like the other dimensions, Time seems to govern and dictate; if time were a dimension, we could move through it, and we may move through it. But, any movement through time is entirely imperceptible as our perception is exists within it rather than on it. it seems to flow at a constant rate and, the way I'm describing it, could rewind and fast forward. But, because our perception and measurement is subjectively existent within it, we are entirely oblivious to the hypothetical fluctuations. Just a thought, an inarticulate one at that.
We have such little control over time in comparison to space. One can pick up an object and move it slightly to the left, but what in terms of time is there to move? A moment? A second? To move a second would be an equivalent to the movement of a journey: one can move a journey from Toronto to Boston, just as he can move a second from Noon to Midnight. One can also traverse a second as he can a journey, but he does not need to go anywhere. -another scattered thought.
Somebody please quote Einstein or some other Nobel prize winner and prove me wrong before I become delusional :)
Eusonance