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.

[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.

[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?

[Sam5]

Without time there literally could be no motion.

Look at it the other way around. Without motion, there can be no time. And without energy there can be no motion.

Consider the frozen embryos. While frozen, the motion of their molecules is reduced to a minimum. So they don't age. Yet all around them, things not frozen do age. They don't age because they are frozen and there is almost no motion within them. Warm them up (give them energy), cause their molecules to move, then they begin to age.

[Fortis]

Look at it the other way around. Without motion, there can be no time. And without energy there can be no motion.

How do you know that there is motion? You compare positions at 2 different times...

[Sam5]

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.

Movement generates time. Kinetic energy generates movement. Time is the by-product of kinetic energy causing things to move.

Look at a still photo of anything. The object in the photo never ages. Because nothing in the image ever moves. However, the photo paper ages, because the things in it, that make up the paper, are moving.

Motion is required before time can exist.

[SirThoreth]

Guys, I think we've all fallen for another "drive-by posting" in the same style of StevenCrum.

[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.

Movement generates time. Kinetic energy generates movement. Time is the by-product of kinetic energy causing things to move.

Look at a still photo of anything. The object in the photo never ages. Because nothing in the image ever moves. However, the photo paper ages, because the things in it, that make up the paper, are moving.

Motion is required before time can exist.

exactly

[punkrockbong151]

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.

time is a dimension, wether u count it with our system on earth or not, movement takes an amount of time to do sumthing, if time stopped so would the object, (this isn't much of an explanation, but i don't kno how to explain) as u speed up time moves slower so if speed of light was possible and faster than that then time would slow to a stop then movement would cease, (somehow i feel that still doesn't explain)

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

Time isnt truly a spacial dimension.

agreed

[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.

[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]

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?

[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
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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

[Fortis]

to your first statement I agree.

fiber bundle? explain further.

In the context of Galilean relativity, the fiber bundle structure comes about by thinking of spacetime as being constructed from a 1-dimensional base space (in the mathematical sense), i.e. time, to which is attached, at every point, a set of 3-dimensional "fibers", i.e. the usual spatial spaces.

[Lurker]

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

You have experimental evidence of this??

[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.