time, is it a true dimension? I say not

[north]

for time to a true dimension it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist.

the thing is that time can cease to exist but not affect the existence of things. but take away a things length,breadth and depth, now you affect a things existence. it becomes non-existant.

for time is nothing more than a measurement of movement. and movement is based on matter. its energy and interactions with other forms of matter. which in the end actually dictates what time it takes to come to certain result. it has nothing to do with time, in and of itself.

time is nothing more than a point on a coordinate system.

time is a mathematical concept, not a real dimension

[korjik]

you do realize that without time there is no motion?

[north]

you do realize that without time there is no motion?

do you realize the essence of time is movement.

so you can take away time( since time is a measurement of movement) but movement its self would carry on.

[Demigrog]

do you realize the essence of time is movement.

so you can take away time( since time is a measurement of movement) but movement its self would carry on.

I don't see it; time is not a measurement--"seconds since event A" is a measurement. Motion is an observation that implies time. Without time there literally could be no motion. Think of it in equation form: Velocity = change in distance / change in time. Without a change in time, therefore, velocity is undefined.

[Doodler]

I think it is, I just don't think its the one we think it is. Particularly since the structure of the universe requires at least four spatial dimensions to work per current theory.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
do you realize the essence of time is movement.

so you can take away time( since time is a measurement of movement) but movement its self would carry on.

I don't see it; time is not a measurement--"seconds since event A" is a measurement. Motion is an observation that implies time. Without time there literally could be no motion. Think of it in equation form: Velocity = change in distance / change in time. Without a change in time, therefore, velocity is undefined.

it doesn't matter whether velocity is undefined. velocity or speed of an object still takes place. and velocity or speed of an object takes place because of the inteactins and/or actions of the physical dynamics of this object(s), only. time is irrelevant.

[Robert Andersson]

for time to a true dimension it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist.

How about the past and the future? That's a big chunk of stuff...

[north]

I think it is, I just don't think its the one we think it is. Particularly since the structure of the universe requires at least four spatial dimensions to work per current theory.

then the current theory is wrong, in thinking that time is, in and of its self , is a physical dynamic. time has NO ultimate physical consequence of anything.

only the physical dynamics and the resultant physical movement of a said object and the resultant consequences do.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
for time to a true dimension it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist

How about the past and the future? That's a big chunk of stuff...

movement only.

otherwise for example?

[Thomas(believer)]

time is a mathematical concept, not a real dimension

I'd say: dimension is a real mathematical concept. What else could it be?
According to Einstein's theories of relativity x,y and z are depent of time.
That makes it, IMO, mathematical a dimension.

[Demigrog]

it doesn't matter whether velocity is undefined. velocity or speed of an object still takes place. and velocity or speed of an object takes place because of the inteactins and/or actions of the physical dynamics of this object(s), only. time is irrelevant.

Interactions cannot take place without time.

I do agree, however, that time is not a spacial dimention, at least not in Newtonian physics. However, if you consider the expansion of space, then does n't time become at least a component of the spacial dimentions?

[north]

Originally Posted by north
time is a mathematical concept, not a real dimension

I'd say: dimension is a real mathematical concept. What else could it be?

reality. tell me that there is no depth,length and breadth by just observing reality its self. look around you.

According to Einstein's theories of relativity x,y and z are depent of time.
That makes it, IMO, mathematical a dimension.

x,y and z are dependent on time because we want to know position, at such and such time.

but the essence of its,(object), position in time is based on the fundamental movement of such and such object. and the movement is based on the interactions and/or actions of a said object. time has no bearing or influence at all, on the objects movement.

[Robert Andersson]

How about the past and the future? That's a big chunk of stuff...

movement only.

otherwise for example?

Example? If you take away time, all events in the past and in the future are "affected" per your requirements. Perhaps unusaul to think about time that way, but it is perfectly analogous to remove, say, the z dimension; everything along the dimension in both directions from your current point in space-time cease to exist.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
it doesn't matter whether velocity is undefined. velocity or speed of an object still takes place. and velocity or speed of an object takes place because of the inteactins and/or actions of the physical dynamics of this object(s), only. time is irrelevant

Interactions cannot take place without time.

sure they do. look at the atomic clock comprized of ammonia molecules and a nitrogen atom. this interaction takes 20.9 microseconds. time and knowledge of ammonia molecules, plus the inclusion of a nitrogn atom did not PREDICT this alone. it was the interactions betwen the two that does. time is a resultant of this interaction, not the cause.

I do agree, however, that time is not a spacial dimention, at least not in Newtonian physics. However, if you consider the expansion of space, then does n't time become at least a component of the spacial dimentions?

Newtonian Physics is right.

time is still a resultant of this expansion( assuming expansion it true) and can become a component only, with in mind that time is not the cause of this expansion.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Andersson
How about the past and the future? That's a big chunk of stuff...

movement only.

otherwise for example?

Example? If you take away time, all events in the past and in the future are "affected" per your requirements.

NO. because it is the physical interactions and/or actions of objects that dictate past and future events. NOT time. beause time is as I have said a resultant, not the cause of the objects result.

Perhaps unusaul to think about time that way, but it is perfectly analogous to remove, say, the z dimension; everything along the dimension in both directions from your current point in space-time cease to exist.

NO. no my mind you have misunderstood what the "Z" point means.

"Z" is already IN space, and space is independant of time. all that "Z" is doing is pin-pointing an object IN space. so "Z" has no bearing on the essence of space its self.

[Doodler]

then the current theory is wrong, in thinking that time is, in and of its self , is a physical dynamic. time has NO ultimate physical consequence of anything.

only the physical dynamics and the resultant physical movement of a said object and the resultant consequences do.

I never said time wasn't a dimension, just not the one we think it is.

The first three dimensions of physical space are easy to grasp, then there's the fourth spatial dimension which defines the "shape" of the expanding universe can be rationalized with the "balloon skin" analogy easily enough that its within rational grasp. That says that the universe is experiencing time in at least four dimensions, which means time is somewhere in the 5+ realm. It would seem to me to be one of the compressed dimensions, because our capacity to move within it is incredibly constrained, with only one real direction available, even if through acceleration and gravitation, we can alter the rate of progression on a local level.

That's just my .02, take it for whatever its worth.

[korjik]

reality. tell me that there is no depth,length and breadth by just observing reality its self. look around you.

without time there is no length depth or breadth. you cannot observe reality without time. light travels at a velocity, sound travels at a velocity, smell travels at a velocity, touch requires a velocity.

time is not a spacial dimension like z,y,x, but it is linked to them through general relativity. It is required for the universe to exist just like x,y,z are.

Interactions cannot take place without time. Once the state of a system is set, only a time evolution can change it. Your atomic clock example is a good example. When the system is set into a specific state this system will stay in the same state unless a time evolution operator acts on it.

Using Newtonian physics, postion is fixed unless you have a rate of change with respect to time. Without this derivitive, you have no change.

The change does not happen first, then time occurs, time occurs so the change happens

[korjik]

I never said time wasn't a dimension, just not the one we think it is.

The first three dimensions of physical space are easy to grasp, then there's the fourth spatial dimension which defines the "shape" of the expanding universe can be rationalized with the "balloon skin" analogy easily enough that its within rational grasp. That says that the universe is experiencing time in at least four dimensions, which means time is somewhere in the 5+ realm. It would seem to me to be one of the compressed dimensions, because our capacity to move within it is incredibly constrained, with only one real direction available, even if through acceleration and gravitation, we can alter the rate of progression on a local level.

That's just my .02, take it for whatever its worth.

Time isnt truly a spacial dimension. The three spacial dimensions are vector quantities while time is a scalar. the only time that I know of where they act together is in relativity, where the quantity ct is used together with the spacial vectors to determine the shape of the local space

[north]

Originally Posted by north
then the current theory is wrong, in thinking that time is, in and of its self , is a physical dynamic. time has NO ultimate physical consequence of anything.

only the physical dynamics and the resultant physical movement of a said object and the resultant consequences do

I never said time wasn't a dimension, just not the one we think it is.

The first three dimensions of physical space are easy to grasp, then there's the fourth spatial dimension which defines the "shape" of the expanding universe can be rationalized with the "balloon skin" analogy easily enough that its within rational grasp. That says that the universe is experiencing time in at least four dimensions, which means time is somewhere in the 5+ realm.

here again it is NOT time that dictates any expansion of the Universe but the dynamics of the Universes' action. we then take these dynamics of expansion and express this dynamics with time. time as I've mentioned before is a resultant, not the cause of the result.

It would seem to me to be one of the compressed dimensions, because our capacity to move within it is incredibly constrained, with only one real direction available, even if through acceleration and gravitation, we can alter the rate of progression on a local level.

That's just my .02, take it for whatever its worth.

only through actions. it has nothing to do with time.

[north]

Time isnt truly a spacial dimension.

agreed

[perfessor]

North, suppose we agreed to meet at some location (x,y,z) - say, the 39th floor of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Later on, you call me up and say "Where were you? I was there!"

Me: "I was there too, yesterday at noon."

You: "Well I was there at 1:00."

Obviously, we failed to meet up because we were never at the same point in space-time. We failed to specify the fourth dimension - the time of meeting. Equivalently, if we had both been there at noon but you were on the 37th floor, we would not have been at the same point in space-time.

A dimension is a way of describing the location of an object, and it makes perfect sense to include a time component for specificity.

[Fortis]

Time is a coordinate required to specify an event. This is true in Minkowskian spacetime, as well as the space+time of Galilean relativity (where "spacetime" has the structure of a fibre bundle.)

[north]

North, suppose we agreed to meet at some location (x,y,z) - say, the 39th floor of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Later on, you call me up and say "Where were you? I was there!"

Me: "I was there too, yesterday at noon."

You: "Well I was there at 1:00."

Obviously, we failed to meet up because we were never at the same point in space-time. We failed to specify the fourth dimension - the time of meeting. Equivalently, if we had both been there at noon but you were on the 37th floor, we would not have been at the same point in space-time.

A dimension is a way of describing the location of an object, and it makes perfect sense to include a time component for specificity.

I agree

but what I'm driving at is that "time" alone is not the cause of the movement itself. some think that "time" is the cause of movement. in this I disagree.

[north]

Time is a coordinate required to specify an event. This is true in Minkowskian spacetime, as well as the space+time of Galilean relativity (where "spacetime" has the structure of a fibre bundle.)

to your first statement I agree.

fiber bundle? explain further.

[SirThoreth]

I agree

but what I'm driving at is that "time" alone is not the cause of the movement itself. some think that "time" is the cause of movement. in this I disagree.

By the same token, neither are "length", "width" or "height" - or any other term you wish to describe the three spatial dimensions.

Just like the three spatial dimensions describe either the position or boundaries of an object in space, the temporal dimension describes the position or boundaries of an object in spacetime.

Remove time from the universe, and the effect is just as dramatic as removing a spatial dimension - things stop working. After all, without all three spatial dimensions, it would be impossible to describe, for instance, where the boundaries of my body end, and those of the guy in line next to me begin. By the same token, it's impossble to describe movement, ie. a change in position, because without time, there is no change - the entire universe is static, and my trip through this line, instead of just feeling like it's taking forever to move, actually would take forever to move.

(BTW, I'm at my cable TV company, trying to get my cable box swapped out)

[north]

Originally Posted by north
I agree

but what I'm driving at is that "time" alone is not the cause of the movement itself. some think that "time" is the cause of movement. in this I disagree.

By the same token, neither are "length", "width" or "height" - or any other term you wish to describe the three spatial dimensions.

Just like the three spatial dimensions describe either the position or boundaries of an object in space, the temporal dimension describes the position or boundaries of an object in spacetime.

agreed

Remove time from the universe, and the effect is just as dramatic as removing a spatial dimension - things stop working.

things don't stop working just because we take time out of the picture, at all.

time is the measurement of change of position or movement. and this measurement, is in essence, the measurement of the movement CAUSED by the interactions and/or actions of matter. therefore strictly speaking to take time out of the equation does not necessarily imply that the interactions and/or actions of matter have ceased.

After all, without all three spatial dimensions, it would be impossible to describe, for instance, where the boundaries of my body end, and those of the guy in line next to me begin. By the same token, it's impossble to describe movement, ie. a change in position, because without time, there is no change

this is the key, as you said " by the same token , its impossible to describe movement."

yes it would be impossible to describe movement but that does NOT mean that movement its self is reliant on time, to instigate movement. time is in fact a resultant of matters movement.

the entire universe is static, and my trip through this line, instead of just feeling like it's taking forever to move, actually would take forever to move.)

actually no. not really. see above.

[Lurker]

things don't stop working just because we take time out of the picture, at all.

You have experimental evidence of this??

[worzel]

This thread is virtually pointless, north, unless you're going to define "dimension" first. If we take your "it would have to affect things if it ceased to exist" as a definition (and ignore the fact that to affect something implies some sort of causal link which requires an ordering of events which implies the existence of time) then obviously time meets that definition - how could you even imagine a universe without time, let alone claim that our universe would be unaffected by its absence - utterly ridiculous!

If, as I suspect, the definition you're actually thinking of is more along the lines of the wikipedia's first entry...

In common usage, a dimension (Latin, "measured out") is a parameter or measurement required to define the characteristics of an object—i.e. length, width, and height or size and shape. In mathematics, dimensions are the parameters required to describe the position and relevant characteristics of any object within a conceptual space/

...then you would be right that in Newtonian physics time isn't a dimension (by that defintion - it still could be called a dimension by a more general definition). But even if you're using that limited definition of dimension then either you are wrong or special relativity is wrong [ you don't need GR and expanding space to make this point ]. In Newtonain physics the distance between two points in 3D space (the metric) is agreed by all. In SR time and space are interwoven such that this is no longer true, but the distance between two events in spacetime (a 4 dimensional "space" that includes a time dimension) is - so to unambigously describe the extent of an object you need time as a dimension too.

If you're going to tell us that relativity is wrong you'd better have a better argument than some metaphysical musings about the non-existance of time.

[Lurker]

This thread is virtually pointless, north, unless you're going to define "dimension" first.

No... he's right... I just stopped my watch and dropped my pencil... it still fell to the floor. You can stop time, but motions still happens I was skeptical, but not anymore... not anymore...

[north]

Originally Posted by north
things don't stop working just because we take time out of the picture, at all.

You have experimental evidence of this??

sure. its easy. take your drive or walk to work or where ever, don't time it. you still arrive don't you? you still move. its the same with any action anywhere in the Universe. and as well any interactions and /or actions in the Universe.

look at the atomic clock based on the ammonia molecules and nitrogen atom for instance, neither on there own suggests, with time, that it would take the nitrogen atom, 20.9 micrseconds to do what it does. it is ONLY understanding the interactions of the ammonia molecules with the nitogen atom that gives us a "time" resultant. not before but AFTER this interaction do we give this interaction a "time" period.