time, is it a true dimension? I say not

[north]

what I've noticed, is that nobody has proved that time is actually a dimension, in and of its self

The burden of proof is for the one making the against the mainstream claim.

I've done this several times.

again how DOES TIME INFLUENCE the physical dynamics of objects?

by now Nicolas you should know "exactly" what I mean by "dimensions". if you don't, then you have NOT been paying attention to what I mean by dimensions. fundamentally.

Thanks for clearing that up....

Can you please just say what of both possible meanings of dimensions you use, as some of your claims make it unclear to me. You seem to be talking about dimensions as representing distinct categories, and the next line as object size components. That makes me wonder what of both possible meanings you mean then. Because time obviously is not a size component, but it is representing a distinct category. And can you also explain what "fundamentally not paying attention" means.

refer to post #298.

[Michael Noonan]

I am a newcomer but find that the turning points are good reference points for dimension so to say time stops at zero is like saying time stops at three. Would it help to see time from the speed of light where it has a theoretical turning point?

Cheers

[north]

I am a newcomer but find that the turning points are good reference points for dimension so to say time stops at zero is like saying time stops at three.

why?

Would it help to see time from the speed of light where it has a theoretical turning point?

Cheers

define what you mean, here.

[Fortis]

this quote is CERTAINLY NOT by me Fortis. I would not have said any such,of time. if you think so give me the page # on this thread.

It was this post. I guess it was a dodgy quotation tag, which is why I thought that I should ask you.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
this quote is CERTAINLY NOT by me Fortis. I would not have said any such,of time. if you think so give me the page # on this thread.

It was this post. I guess it was a dodgy quotation tag, which is why I thought that I should ask you.

mistakes happen.

lets move on

[Fortis]

by now Nicolas you should know "exactly" what I mean by "dimensions". if you don't, then you have NOT been paying attention to what I mean by dimensions. fundamentally.

The thing is that your use of the word "dimension" seems to be a bit idiosyncratic. I also don't see where restricting dimension to the 3 spatial dimensions is getting us.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
by now Nicolas you should know "exactly" what I mean by "dimensions". if you don't, then you have NOT been paying attention to what I mean by dimensions. fundamentally.

The thing is that your use of the word "dimension" seems to be a bit idiosyncratic.

I do so for simplicity of communication with those who are following this thread.

otherwise what other terminology would you suggest I use?

I also don't see where restricting dimension to the 3 spatial dimensions is getting us.

your point is.

[Cougar]

Time is obviously not a spatial dimension, but it works quite well as a fourth dimension within the construct of spacetime. Like the x, y, and z axes, the "t" axis is a line -- a timeline -- along which time ticks off its measure.

You ask Fortis what his point is. I ask you what is the point of claiming time is not a dimension when it clearly works so well when it is viewed as one? What is the point of arbitrarily limiting the definition of "dimension"?

I find it difficult to understand why this thread continues to run...

[Nicolas]

refer to post #298.

I did read post 298, thank you very much. I tend to follow a discussion I participate in.

From that post, I read things such as:

actually yes, the fundamental geometrical dimensions( length,
breadth and depth) have everything to do with a trees height

And then again I wonder if you are speaking of dimensions as representing distinct categories in a Universe or as the size of a specific object, as both occur in one sentence.

If you would just answer my question instead of sending me away with a non-answer implying that I don't pay attention twice, this thread would have a somewhat larger and more constructive pace.

[Nicolas]

again how DOES TIME INFLUENCE the physical dynamics of objects?

How does this have anything to do with proving time is a dimension?

Dimensions as representing distinct categories in a Universe do not influence any object properties in their own, they only are allowances for object properties of that category.

As I said I don't know how many timmes before, the Z direction (upwards geometrical dimension) is an allowance for objects to have a height property in, but doesn't influence say the physics of an upward bounce or a growing tree.

The temporal dimension is an allowance for objects to have a time history in, but doesn't influence things such as the relationship between fall velocity and gravitational pull of an object on earth, or the velocity of my car when driving it.

[Nicolas]

Time is obviously not a spatial dimension

Agreed 100%. And that's why i find it so important to make fully clear whether North implies the use of the word "dimensions" as in "object size", in which case time is not included, or "representing a distinct category", in which case it is included in a dynamic Universe.

(I'm not starting the discussion on the use of the terminology of dimensions as distinct unit categories, which also often includes mass in physics and hence implies more than 4 dimensions, before this current discussion limited to geometry and time is more or less finished)

[Michael Noonan]

Dimension is related to the reference it is given. Please define 'true' so that we can participate in whether to accept your logic. Under certain circumstances it could be argued for less dimesions.

Take a photo of a flat object source unknown. The time is not known so has no dimension here. Depth is by perception of a non flat surface which can only be calculated from known distance of photo to source.

So in this example there can only be understanding that the photo was taken.The time dimension is not attributed. Depth needs perception at least and in this reference does not exist as a dimension.

Therefore do we say there are two empirical dimensions and if these give no size reference we argue that in all cases exist in ratio x : y or just in this case.

If you state that you allow for x, y, z only in your model that is an accepted statement. But then why is that proof for the exclusion of time unless it applies to your definition of 'true'.

By inclusion or exclusion we define dimension.

Cheers Michael Noonan

[Fortis]

otherwise what other terminology would you suggest I use?

You could use "spatial dimension" and then you would see no disagreement.

your point is.

I assume that there is a point to your claim that "Time is not a true dimension", otherwise you would not be trying to bring it to everyone's attention. Can you tell us what the point is, beyond just the statement in the title of the thread?

[north]

Time is obviously not a spatial dimension, but it works quite well as a fourth dimension within the construct of spacetime. Like the x, y, and z axes, the "t" axis is a line -- a timeline -- along which time ticks off its measure.

You ask Fortis what his point is. I ask you what is the point of claiming time is not a dimension when it clearly works so well when it is viewed as one? What is the point of arbitrarily limiting the definition of "dimension"?

I find it difficult to understand why this thread continues to run...

well space-time puzzles me. because neither space nor time have the abiltiy to affect anything physically.

space can't because it has no fabric unto its self, because if it did, and is as some say, "the reason" why there seems to be an expanding Universe then space would be doing this three dimensionally, which leads to a null expansion. since you have a "space expansion" drawing in opposite directions. the left hand of space is drawing in the opposite direction to the right hand. then expand this example three dimensionally. you get a three dimensional null.

time doesn't affect anything physically, since time is nothing more than a measurement of an object(s) movement.

so space-time I think leads to misunderstandings about what is going on in our Universe.

for instance there is no actual "warping" of space-time, since this actually impossible, but what is actually happening, is that there is a "warping" of matter in space.

[north]

I did read post 298, thank you very much. I tend to follow a discussion I participate in.

From that post, I read things such as:

actually yes, the fundamental geometrical dimensions( length,
breadth and depth) have everything to do with a trees height

And then again I wonder if you are speaking of dimensions as representing distinct categories in a Universe

exactly. and these fundamental dimensional categories are what is needed by the objects in the Universe in order to manifest and then therefore,effect,cause and affect things. from galaxies>planets>life.

[north]

again how DOES TIME INFLUENCE the physical dynamics of objects?

How does this have anything to do with proving time is a dimension?

because it shows that time is actually a measure, mathematical, of the object(s) movement. and NOT essential for the existence of the object its self. or has any part to play in the ability of the object to manifest in the first place.

Dimensions as representing distinct categories in a Universe do not influence any object properties in their own, they only are allowances for object properties of that category.

but they influence the ability for the object to exist in the first place. that is what I'm getting at here.

As I said I don't know how many timmes before, the Z direction (upwards geometrical dimension) is an allowance for objects to have a height property in, but doesn't influence say the physics of an upward bounce or a growing tree.

above

The temporal dimension is an allowance for objects to have a time history in, but doesn't influence things such as the relationship between fall velocity and gravitational pull of an object on earth, or the velocity of my car when driving it.

agreed

[north]

Dimension is related to the reference it is given. Please define 'true' so that we can participate in whether to accept your logic. Under certain circumstances it could be argued for less dimesions.

"true" dimension. whether it has any influence on the ability of the object to manifest, physically.

Take a photo of a flat object source unknown. The time is not known so has no dimension here. Depth is by perception of a non flat surface which can only be calculated from known distance of photo to source.

the flat object still exists. since you were able to take a photograph of it. therefore the object, no matter how flat, still has the three fundamental dimensions of length,breadth and depth. if not, how otherwise do you photograph nothing?

So in this example there can only be understanding that the photo was taken.The time dimension is not attributed. Depth needs perception at least and in this reference does not exist as a dimension.

Therefore do we say there are two empirical dimensions and if these give no size reference we argue that in all cases exist in ratio x : y or just in this case.

If you state that you allow for x, y, z only in your model that is an accepted statement. But then why is that proof for the exclusion of time unless it applies to your definition of 'true'.

By inclusion or exclusion we define dimension.

Cheers Michael Noonan

the object exists.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
otherwise what other terminology would you suggest I use?

You could use "spatial dimension" and then you would see no disagreement.

I wish all you guys would use the FULL quote, it makes it easier for others and myself to follow the thread.

I assume that there is a point to your claim that "Time is not a true dimension", otherwise you would not be trying to bring it to everyone's attention. Can you tell us what the point is, beyond just the statement in the title of the thread?

post # 374

[Celestial Mechanic]

Well space-time puzzles me. because neither space nor time have the ability to affect anything physically.

Then by your definition of dimension space cannot be dimensional either.

Space can't because it has no fabric unto its self, [Snip!] Time doesn't affect anything physically, since time is nothing more than a measurement of an object(s) movement. So space-time I think leads to misunderstandings about what is going on in our Universe.

Since you have figured it all out, maybe you can tell us "what is going on in our Universe".

For instance there is no actual "warping" of space-time, since this actually impossible, but what is actually happening, is that there is a "warping" of matter in space.

What proof do you have that space-time warping is "impossible"? I'd really like to see that. Oh, and warping of matter has been tried (Fitzgerald, Lorentz, and others) and found wanting.

[Nicolas]

Then by your definition of dimension space cannot be dimensional either.

I agree with this. As unique as your defined relation between dimensions and cause might be, I see no difference between geometrical and temporal dimensions for that criterion.

[Fortis]

I agree with this. As unique as your defined relation between dimensions and cause might be, I see no difference between geometrical and temporal dimensions for that criterion.

Agreed.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
Well space-time puzzles me. because neither space nor time have the ability to affect anything physically.

Then by your definition of dimension space cannot be dimensional either.

in my definition of dimension, space is implied . for without space an object cannot manifest. or exist

Originally Posted by north
Space can't because it has no fabric unto its self, [Snip!] Time doesn't affect anything physically, since time is nothing more than a measurement of an object(s) movement. So space-time I think leads to misunderstandings about what is going on in our Universe

Since you have figured it all out, maybe you can tell us "what is going on in our Universe".

in time.............................................. .......................

What proof do you have that space-time warping is "impossible"? I'd really like to see that.

I do but I don't. I do using reason. I don't from physical experiment. what proof do you have that space-time is "possible", other than mathematical.

Oh, and warping of matter has been tried (Fitzgerald, Lorentz, and others) and found wanting.

they have tried "warping matter in space"? how was this done?

what does "warping" mean to you though?

to me "warping" of matter IN space, means a change in direction of which otherwise the matter would flow. and the cause of a change in direction,by matter, would say be, the rotation of a said astronomical body.

[north]

Then by your definition of dimension space cannot be dimensional either.

I agree with this. As unique as your defined relation between dimensions and cause might be, I see no difference between geometrical and temporal dimensions for that criterion.

I was talking about effect,cause and affect of space-time guys.

which has nothing to do with my definition of dimension;


for length,breadth and depth to exist one needs space, space doesn't effect,cause or affect existence of the object, space is a necessary or vital property,dimension, within which the object has the ability to manifest. all of which happens simultaneously. length,breadth, depth and space. all four are intertwined.

which is very much different from saying that space-time actually,physically,effects,causes and affects anything.

[Fortis]

in my definition of dimension, space is implied . for without space an object cannot manifest. or exist

If an object has zero temporal extent, can it exist?

[north]

Originally Posted by north
in my definition of dimension, space is implied . for without space an object cannot manifest. or exist

If an object has zero temporal extent, can it exist?

of course.

since temporal extent has nothing to do with the fundamental existence of the object.

[Jeff Root]

north,

Is it your belief that a one-minute egg is the same as a
three-minute egg? If not, how are they different, and
what causes them to be different?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jeff Root]

If an object has zero temporal extent, can it exist?

of course.

since temporal extent has nothing to do with the fundamental
existence of the object.

What do you mean by "existence"? If an object has no temporal
extent, then it cannot have any effect on anything. It cannot
be detected. There would be absolutely no difference between
the object existing and the object not existing.

You must have a strange definition of "existence"! What is it?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Fortis]

of course.

since temporal extent has nothing to do with the fundamental existence of the object.

OK. Let's say that an electron "exists" for zero seconds. Does it really exist?

[north]

north,

Is it your belief that a one-minute egg is the same as a
three-minute egg? If not, how are they different, and
what causes them to be different?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

1) no

2) assuming the same "type" of egg but one is cooked shorter than the other, there not. the time they are cooked

[north]

Originally Posted by north
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortis
If an object has zero temporal extent, can it exist?

of course.

since temporal extent has nothing to do with the fundamental
existence of the object

What do you mean by "existence"?

the object has the three fundamental dimensions, length, breadth and depth with space. all of which are intertwined. take out one, the object ceases to exist.

If an object has no temporal extent, then it cannot have any effect on anything. It cannot
be detected.

so..... that does not mean the object its self does not exist. just that you have not detected it.

There would be absolutely no difference between
the object existing and the object not existing.

there is a difference between an object existing and and an object not existing. ( which is oxymoron)!!!

the existing object still has potential. non-existence obviously has NO potential.

You must have a strange definition of "existence"! What is it?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

above