# Thread: time, is it a true dimension? I say not

1. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by north
but in reality, in the Universe, movement is the cause of time, and that movement is caused by the interactions and/or actions by energy and/or matter, coupled with the enviroment they are in. time is a resultant.
But to say that something has moved is completely arbitrary. According to your reasoning, if nothing moves then there is no time. This means that we must either simultaneously believe that time exists and time does not exist, or, more reasonably, that time always exists even if we choose a coordinate system in which there is no movement.

2. Originally Posted by Fortis
But to say that something has moved is completely arbitrary. According to your reasoning, if nothing moves then there is no time. This means that we must either simultaneously believe that time exists and time does not exist, or, more reasonably, that time always exists even if we choose a coordinate system in which there is no movement.
If there were no motion of any kind of anything in the universe (or of the universe itself), not even a flicker, not even in the remotest region, then no, there is no time. At the very least, there is no need for it, or even the concept of it. There is only existance. But if anything did move, even a little (but continuously), then there is time. The zero motion of other objects relative to each other is still a valid quantity over time when compared to that which does move.

3. And if there would be no objects whatsoever, would there be spatial dimensions in your reasoning?

4. Originally Posted by Nicolas
And if there would be no objects whatsoever, would there be spatial dimensions in your reasoning?
Interesting. I hadn't thought about that. But I guess the same thing would apply. There would be no distance, since there would be nothing to reference to, and therefore no need for spatial dimensions. Since there are no reference points, only nothingness, emptiness, there is nothing to measure distance to. Or direction, for that matter. There would be no up, or down, or sideways. They would all melt together, and cease to exist in any practical sense. There would be no spatial dimensions or time, at least as we would normally measure them, nothing to relate anything to, only void.

5. I understand your reasoning, but I don't see dimensions as existing only when necessary. I can also imagine a complete nothingness in which the 4 dimensions still exist. They aren't being used, but that doesn't alter their existence. The reference frame is the reference, which does not need objects or change to be defined (but gets quite arbitrary of course )

6. Originally Posted by north
first, I don't purposely misunderstand any ideas, whether by you or anybody else. plain and simple.
So you just have rotten reading comprehension skills, then. I think I may be done, here.

okay fair enough. but to me length is also height, breadth is width,full circle, and depth is an extension of the "x" axis up, down and around.
You saying so doesn't make it right. Also, I have no idea what the last part of that meant. No axis goes around. It's kind of the definition--they go straight to what is essentially infinity. For practical terms, on Earth or other planets, we envision them curved, simply because our viewing platform is an oblate spheroid. However, if we move our viewing platform to space, they don't curve except where space-time does.

time is nothing more than a measurement of movement. and has nothing to do with the existence of the object in the first place.
So you keep saying. You're still wrong, as the dictionary definition I've cited for you twice indicates.

your right all three will not tell you "a" time. but that does not mean that a movement of some particlar type did,does and will not happen.
Quite right. However, it requires time even when it's not moving. If it didn't exist in time, it could not exist in our space, just the same as if it didn't have height. After all, even a sheet of paper laid flat has height, just not very much.

if however you think that time has something to do with an objects existence and further that time is more important then the other three fundamental dimensions, then explain how.
When did I ever say it was more important than the other three? I didn't. I said it was equally important, which is quite different. However, I do believe that time is just as much part of something's fundamental existence as the other three. (Note, by the way, that you just referred to them yourself as "the other three," which actually puts you in agreement with the rest of us, though no doubt, you didn't mean it that way.) An object without height can't exist in our universe any more than one without time could.

what question?
See, this is one of those times that I long for nesting quotes. You said, "for what physical aspects does time have in order to contain anything?" I don't know what you mean by that. That quote appeared in my last post, so clearly, you didn't read your own post in order to respond to mine.

Let's clear this up once and for all. Despite what you think, no one dimension describes the other three; each are distinct but necessary. The height of my DVD/video rack does not tell you its breadth or depth. For example, I'm 5 feet 7 1/2 inches tall. How wide are my shoulders? What is the depth from the tip of my nose to the back of my skull, either with or without my hair? You see? You can't answer that, any more than knowing how tall or wide or deep I am will tell you when I was born.

What's more, time doesn't cause motion any more than height does. Take my height. Will it tell you how quickly I can move? No. Motion is a whole different issue. It's caused by the use of energy. However, without time to move in, I couldn't move at all--even my heart, lungs, brain, and digestive system, which are moving all the time, would stop. There is no existence at all without time.

7. Member
Join Date
Oct 2006
Posts
79
Hello People!
I found this article on Astronomy Magazine, From a Dr Written, His statement of time has me a little confused, can someone clarify this one for me? you can get this article online but I believe you have to log in.

Quote:A: Many physicists have suggested that such seemingly intuitive concepts as "space" and "time" might be illusions — that they may be approximations of something deeper. What does string theory say?

EW: It does very much look, in the context of string theory, that space and time are approximations that are good for ordinary purposes. If you have a human-size distance, like three meters, or a human-size time period, like … five seconds, time is a good notion and space is a good notion. But when you get down to very, very tiny levels — even below the subatomic level — it looks like our ordinary notions of space and time break down. We don't really understand what's behind space-time — it's probably tied up with the fact that we don't yet understand the basic ideas that string theory is based on :end Quote.
Ok Now Im Puzzled I thought time was better understood, and is Used in GR.
Dennis

8. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2006
Posts
318
EW: It does very much look, in the context of string theory, that space and time are approximations that are good for ordinary purposes. If you have a human-size distance, like three meters, or a human-size time period, like … five seconds, time is a good notion and space is a good notion. But when you get down to very, very tiny levels — even below the subatomic level — it looks like our ordinary notions of space and time break down. We don't really understand what's behind space-time — it's probably tied up with the fact that we don't yet understand the basic ideas that string theory is based on :end Quote.
Ok Now Im Puzzled I thought time was better understood, and is Used in GR.

I completely disagree with string theory. It is purely a mathematical concept and has no real explanation of time and space. It is good for dumping singularities but that’s about all.

Any true theory of this Universe will work on both the macro and micro scales and should be geometric in form. Well that’s my opinion anyway.

I do agree to certain extent with North that time is not a true dimension. In my opinion it is the flow of our three dimensional space from each and every object that is responsible for time, nothing else. This makes time and space truly relative which is why we all have our own inertial frame of reference as does each and every object in this Universe.

9. Why do you see change exclusively as motion?

10. If you are asking me, I said 'change' because I figure most people would think of motion as moving from point A to point B. Speed, acceleration, that sort of thing. But there is also motion on a subatomic scale, with molecular and radioactive decay and so forth. One may be a sub-category of the other, or they may be considered the same thing, I'm not sure, but I wanted to include all possibilities for how one might view it.

11. Subatomic molecules. Now there's a thought

12. Originally Posted by worzel
Subatomic molecules. Now there's a thought
I guess I could have just as easily said that they are acting on an 'atomic scale', but my thinking is that the motions of particles that combine to cause atoms to act in a particular way is subatomic. I don't believe, however, that I ever said molecules were subatomic.

13. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2005
Posts
2,358
Originally Posted by north
Originally Posted by north
first, I don't purposely misunderstand any ideas, whether by you or anybody else. plain and simple.
Originally Posted by Gillianren
So you just have rotten reading comprehension skills, then. I think I may be done, here.
OR you have a lousy way of explaining things.

Originally Posted by north
okay fair enough. but to me length is also height, breadth is width,full circle, and depth is an extension of the "x" axis up, down and around.
Originally Posted by Gillianren
You saying so doesn't make it right. Also, I have no idea what the last part of that meant. No axis goes around It's kind of the definition--they go straight to what is essentially infinity.
were talking about a three dimensional object here. NOT geometry. further, when taking about a three dimensional object the "x" axis does not go fully around the object? how so? it seems to me are talking in two dimensions NOT three dimensions.

Originally Posted by Gillianren
For practical terms, on Earth or other planets, we envision them curved, simply because our viewing platform is an oblate spheroid. However, if we move our viewing platform to space, they don't curve except where space-time does.
explain further. Earth is not curved? Earth is flat?

Originally Posted by north
time is nothing more than a measurement of movement. and has nothing to do with the existence of the object in the first place.

Originally Posted by Gillianren
So you keep saying. You're still wrong, as the dictionary definition I've cited for you twice indicates.
the dictionary is wrong. obviously

Originally Posted by north
your right all three will not tell you "a" time. but that does not mean that a movement of some particlar type did,does and will not happen.

Originally Posted by Gillianren
Quite right. However, it requires time even when it's not moving.
WHY does an object "require" time? and HOW does time exist when an object is NOT moving? explain.

Originally Posted by Gillianren
If it didn't exist in time, it could not exist in our space, just the same as if it didn't have height.
non-sense. see the problem with what your saying is "in" time. which is a measurement of an objects existence, whether it be now or latter. but for an object to exist in the first place, is because of what goes on "in" space between objects, energy. this is the only reason that our concept of "time" exists in the first place. existence has all to do with the objects fundamental three dimensional aspects height, breadth and depth. for how does time affect just height and breadth for instance? without any depth? or breadth and depth? time can't.

Originally Posted by Gillianren
After all, even a sheet of paper laid flat has height, just not very much.
of course

Originally Posted by north
if however you think that time has something to do with an objects existence and further that time is more important then the other three fundamental dimensions, then explain how.

Originally Posted by Gillianren
When did I ever say it was more important than the other three? I didn't. I said it was equally important, which is quite different. However, I do believe that time is just as much part of something's fundamental existence as the other three. (Note, by the way, that you just referred to them yourself as "the other three," which actually puts you in agreement with the rest of us, though no doubt, you didn't mean it that way.) An object without height can't exist in our universe any more than one without time could.
I disagree

the other three must come first. because as I have mentioned before, without the other three fundamental dimensions, where does time fit in? after the existence of the object, and not before when you think about it.

Originally Posted by north
what question?

Originally Posted by Gillianren
See, this is one of those times that I long for nesting quotes. You said, "for what physical aspects does time have in order to contain anything?" I don't know what you mean by that. That quote appeared in my last post, so clearly, you didn't read your own post in order to respond to mine.

Let's clear this up once and for all. Despite what you think, no one dimension describes the other three; each are distinct but necessary. The height of my DVD/video rack does not tell you its breadth or depth. For example, I'm 5 feet 7 1/2 inches tall. How wide are my shoulders? What is the depth from the tip of my nose to the back of my skull, either with or without my hair? You see? You can't answer that, any more than knowing how tall or wide or deep I am will tell you when I was born.
but the point is that I keep raising by the way, is that all three, fundamental dimensions, height,breadth and depth are simply necessary for existence in the first place, your existence. see your arguement is based on whether I can "measure" any of the other two based on knowing just one. I can't. but I'm not trying to either. I'm just saying that without ALL three fundamental dimensions, you simply wouldn't exist in the first place and neither would or does anyother object.

Originally Posted by Gillianren
What's more, time doesn't cause motion any more than height does. Take my height. Will it tell you how quickly I can move? No. Motion is a whole different issue. It's caused by the use of energy. However, without time to move in, I couldn't move at all--even my heart, lungs, brain, and digestive system, which are moving all the time, would stop. There is no existence at all without time.
your contradicting yourself here first you say "time doesn't cause motion" and then you say "energy does" and then contradict your self again by saying "however, without time to move in, I couldn't move at all".

and if "time moves in" your impling that "time" has some sort of fabric which then becomes more important than energy its self!!! so then describe this fabric that time has!!

14. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2005
Posts
2,358
Originally Posted by north
Originally Posted by north
but in reality, in the Universe, movement is the cause of time, and that movement is caused by the interactions and/or actions by energy and/or matter, coupled with the enviroment they are in. time is a resultant.

Originally Posted by Fortis
But to say that something has moved is completely arbitrary.
arbitrary? not to the object.

Originally Posted by Fortis
According to your reasoning, if nothing moves then there is no time.
of course

Originally Posted by Fortis
This means that we must either simultaneously believe that time exists and time does not exist, or, more reasonably, that time always exists even if we choose a coordinate system in which there is no movement.
NO. only that has time has "potenial" too exist. and this "potenial" can ONLY come about if movement again resumes by the object(s). and then only because some being "measures" this movement. otherwise this movement by the object(s) continues regardless of time.

15. after the existence of the object, and not before when you think about it.
And the only thing that defines that time comes after existence and is no necessary element to allow for existence is you saying so.

I could just as well say that time is needed for the existence of any object in a geometrical coordinate system, yes even for the coordinate system itself. Just because I say so.

My personal opinion is that all 4 are needed as a group before we can speak of existence in the dynamic Universe, that is before an object is fully defined.

16. your contradicting yourself here first you say "time doesn't cause motion" and then you say "energy does" and then contradict your self again by saying "however, without time to move in, I couldn't move at all".
Ability and cause are different things.

Let's put it this way. A bed doesn't cause me to sleep, fatigue does. However, without a bed to lay in, I can't sleep.

(well, I can sleep outside of a bed, but I hope you know what I mean). Time together with space defines a dynamic universe in which objects can move, just as my bed allows me to sleep. But it ain't a cause of anything.

17. Thank you, Nicolas; that explained exactly what I meant, for, oh, the tenth time or so.

I'm done here. When you get to "the dictionary must be wrong because I disagree with it," that's a level of hubris that I cannot penetrate. I therefore see no need to try.

18. The analogy came out of nowhere, but I thought it was illustrative. I did sleep for only three hours this night, so that might give a clue as to how I suddenly came up with it .

19. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by north
arbitrary? not to the object.
Are you familiar with Galilean Relativity? If you were, then you would not write what you have written. There is no basis for determining if an object is at rest or is moving.
NO. only that has time has "potenial" too exist. and this "potenial" can ONLY come about if movement again resumes by the object(s). and then only because some being "measures" this movement. otherwise this movement by the object(s) continues regardless of time.
Are you now saying that time does not exist even if an object moves? Time only exists if we measure it?
Last edited by Fortis; 2006-Oct-27 at 06:17 PM. Reason: To correct a typo

20. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Let's ask the question, can an electron exist without time or space? An electron is, as far as we can tell, a point object. It has no width, no depth, and no height. Can it exist exist without being in a 3-dimensional space?

21. If you want to define it, you need to give the electrion (point) a position. That requires geometrical dimensions to define the place, and in case of a dynamic Universe also a temporal dimension to define when it is at that location.

22. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2005
Posts
2,358
Originally Posted by north
Originally Posted by north
arbitrary? not to the object.
Originally Posted by Fortis
Are you familiar with Galilean Relativity? If you were, then you would not write what you have written. There is no basis for determining if an object is at rest or is moving.
"determine" is the key word here. the object and its movement does not care quite frankly, whether we can "determine" if an object is at rest or moving. the object just behaves as it does because of the energy within its self or without.

Originally Posted by north
NO. only that has time has "potenial" too exist. and this "potenial" can ONLY come about if movement again resumes by the object(s). and then only because some being "measures" this movement. otherwise this movement by the object(s) continues regardless of time.
Originally Posted by Fortis
Are you now saying that time does not exist even if an object moves? Time only exists if we measure it?
YES ( and actually I've been saying this all along).

23. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2005
Posts
2,358
Originally Posted by Fortis
Let's ask the question, can an electron exist without time or space?
without time, YES. without SPACE, NO.

Originally Posted by Fortis
An electron is, as far as we can tell, a point object. It has no width, no depth, and no height.
actually it does. since it can and does manifest and further AFFECTS things. just because its fundamental three dimensions are extremely mi-nute, does not mean that it is in fact missing the dimensions of height, breadth and depth.

Originally Posted by Fortis
Can it exist exist without being in a 3-dimensional space?
NO

24. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2005
Posts
2,358
Originally Posted by Nicolas
If you want to define it, you need to give the electrion (point) a position. That requires geometrical dimensions to define the place, and in case of a dynamic Universe also a temporal dimension to define when it is at that location.
Nicolas

if you want to "define" the electron as far as being in a position or location in a dynamic Universe then you would use "time" to do so. we use "time" as way of "understanding" an electron. what it does and doesn't do. I have no problem with this.

but this is NOT addressing my position of whether time is a true dimension or not.

for I have been saying that for time to be a true dimension ( inotherwords, time is NOT based on any type measurement, of any sort) it must affect things, physically, time does NOT do so. time is an end resultant ONLY. and this comes about because of the interactions, actions of matter and the enviroment the matter finds its self.

25. I think you misuderstood me due to me using the phrase "if you want to".

I didnt 'mean to a human defining it, I didn't mean putting numbers on it. I meant, "if it exists in an unambiguous way, it needs to have a position".

I am fully awware that not measuring something or not being able to measure something doesn't change anything to the object, but that was not the point of my remark.

What I meant that in order for an object to exist, it needs to be unambiguously defined in the Universe (defined as in existing, not as in measured by humans!), and IMO this definition of the onbject requires a geometrical position and temporal indication to remove the ambiguity otherwise left in a dynamic Universe. Just like geometry, this temporal indication is not depending on any scale or measurement when simply being one of the 4 dimension defining objects in a dynamic universe.

for I have been saying that for time to be a true dimension ( inotherwords, time is NOT based on any type measurement, of any sort) it must affect things, physically, time does NOT do so. time is an end resultant ONLY. and this comes about because of the interactions, actions of matter and the enviroment the matter finds its self.
So according to this time does not affect things hence it is no dimension. Ergo geometry are dimensions because they affect things in your reasoning. I fully disagree that geometrical dimensions affect anything. As I said before, the Z direction does not make a tree grow. It merely is a dimension allowing the tree to have a height. But the dimension doesn't alter its height. Just like the temporal dimension allows the tree to live during a certain frame in the totaluity of the Universe, but it doesn't make it grow in itself. Biological processes do this, not geometrical or temporal dimensions. Cause and allowance once again. Fatigue and the bed once again.

I still see no difference between the nature of temporal and geometrical dimensions in dynamic space.

26. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by north
"determine" is the key word here. the object and its movement does not care quite frankly, whether we can "determine" if an object is at rest or moving. the object just behaves as it does because of the energy within its self or without.
I am still confused. Is it moving or not? As "movement" is a key part of your concept, you surely must be able to say one way or the other? Let's look at the concept of kinetic energy, (which I assume is what you are referring to in the bit I highlighted in bold). What is the kinetic energy of, say, a 1 kg ball?

YES ( and actually I've been saying this all along).
Does length, breadth, or width exist if we don't measure them?

27. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
May 2004
Posts
4,139
Originally Posted by north
without time, YES. without SPACE, NO.
I'll get back to this.
actually it does. since it can and does manifest and further AFFECTS things. just because its fundamental three dimensions are extremely mi-nute, does not mean that it is in fact missing the dimensions of height, breadth and depth.
Care to take a guess at its height, breadth, and depth?

28. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2005
Posts
2,358
[QUOTE=Nicolas;855967] I think you misuderstood me due to me using the phrase "if you want to".

I didnt 'mean to a human defining it, I didn't mean putting numbers on it. I meant, "if it exists in an unambiguous way, it needs to have a position".

I am fully awware that not measuring something or not being able to measure something doesn't change anything to the object, but that was not the point of my remark.

Originally Posted by Nicolas
What I meant that in order for an object to exist, it needs to be unambiguously defined in the Universe (defined as in existing, not as in measured by humans!),
NO, the object does not need to be defined in order to exist. for example is not our biology, based on fundamental elements,such as carbon, oxygen etc. come before our ability to define either? the answer is of course yes, obviously.

Originally Posted by Nicolas
and IMO this definition of the object requires a geometrical position and temporal indication to remove the ambiguity otherwise left in a dynamic Universe. Just like geometry, this temporal indication is not depending on any scale or measurement when simply being one of the 4 dimension defining objects in a dynamic universe.
erroneous thinking. above.

Originally Posted by north
for I have been saying that for time to be a true dimension ( inotherwords, time is NOT based on any type measurement, of any sort) it must affect things, physically, time does NOT do so. time is an end resultant ONLY. and this comes about because of the interactions, actions of matter and the enviroment the matter finds its self.

Originally Posted by Nicolas
So according to this time does not affect things hence it is no dimension.
exactly.

Originally Posted by Nicolas
Ergo geometry are dimensions because they affect things in your reasoning.
the only geometry dimensions that are important are height , breadth and depth.

and really whether we define these three dimensions as apart of geometry thinking does not really matter.

for example if I were to go out and examine a tree, I can see that the tree goes up,top and down,roots , it has breadth, around the trunk of the tree, and has depth, extension of the breadth , up , towards the top of the tree and down, to the ground. and this is true whether we are aware of geometry or not.

Originally Posted by Nicolas
I fully disagree that geometrical dimensions affect anything. As I said before, the Z direction does not make a tree grow.
yes, your right "Z" is irrelevant. to the growth of the tree. but the other three dimensions are, entirely relevant, to the growth of the tree.

Originally Posted by Nicolas
It merely is a dimension allowing the tree to have a height.
erroneous "z" plays no part, at all with a trees growth in height. "z" just measures a "change" in height, only, of the tree.

Originally Posted by Nicolas
But the dimension doesn't alter its height. Just like the temporal dimension allows the tree to live during a certain frame in the totaluity of the Universe, but it doesn't make it grow in itself.
HOW does time do this exactly? allow a tree to live for a certain frame in the totality of the Universe? how does time physically influence anything? define the physical Nature then of time.

Originally Posted by Nicolas
Biological processes do this
of course

Originally Posted by Nicolas
not geometrical
erroneous

actually yes, the fundamental geometrical dimensions( length, breadth and depth) have everything to do with a trees height, since they all are fundamental to the existence of the tree in the first place.

Originally Posted by Nicolas
or temporal dimensions.
temporal dimensions are irrelevant. since they are based on the measurement of the change of heigth, by the tree. if the tree does not change in height or girth. time becomes still.

Originally Posted by Nicolas
Cause and allowance once again. Fatigue and the bed once again.
I still don't understand this example.

Originally Posted by Nicolas
I still see no difference between the nature of temporal and geometrical dimensions in dynamic space.

the Nature of temporal dimension is based on movement of a said object. which is further based on the existence of an object in the first place. and the object is based on the three fundamental dimensions or properties of length,breadth and depth. which give the object physicicalality.

the geomentric dimensions are the essence of existence in the first place. and I use "geometric dimensions" for simplicity sake. call the fundamental physical Nature of an object what you will, length, breadth and depth are still there.

This is a serious question. I want to know if it really was written that unclear.

Anyway North, to me it appears as if you simply can't distinguish between cause and allowance, and from there your whole reasoning differs from mine (and that of physics and dictionaries as we know it). Added by your fixed notion that for some reason the temporal dimension's existence should be depending on measuring (of movements).

Another question, is there anybody elso who doesn't understand this example showing the difference between cause and allowance:

A bed allows me to sleep, but it does not cause me to sleep. Fatigue causes me to sleep.
This can be seen as a metaphor for

"the vertical direction allows a growing tree to define its growing height, but doesn't cause it to grow. Biological processes cause it to grow".
And in my reasoning a similar statement can be made for the temporal dimension, but anyway let's leave that out of this example.

I'm looking for a better word for "allowance" but can't find one in English. Is it clear what I mean with it?

30. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2005
Posts
2,358
Originally Posted by north
Originally Posted by north
"determine" is the key word here. the object and its movement does not care quite frankly, whether we can "determine" if an object is at rest or moving. the object just behaves as it does because of the energy within its self or without.

Originally Posted by Fortis
I am still confused. Is it moving or not? As "movement" is a key part of your concept, you surely must be able to say one way or the other? Let's look at the concept of kinetic energy, (which I assume is what you are referring to in the bit I highlighted in bold). What is the kinetic energy of, say, a 1 kg ball?
the object would move if the enviroment that it is in causes it too move.

the kinetic energy of a 1kg ball, is entirely dependent on what causes it to move in the first place and if at all.

Originally Posted by Fortis
Does length, breadth, or width exist if we don't measure them?
first breadth and width another way of saying the same thing. extension of the "x" axis, outward along the "x" axis. and 360 degrees if you'd like.

otherwise absolutely!!

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•