time, is it a true dimension? I say not

[north]

Originally Posted by north
what do you mean by this statement , "but all objects are moving through time as well, whether they're moving or not."?

I mean that time occurs to objects that are sitting still.

"time occurs to objects"? explain further

Just as the other three dimensions do.

again expain further

My rack of videos and DVDs may not be physically moving above the molecular level, but it still has a three-dimensional existence.

what is this "it" your referring to? or is it "they"?

otherwise "they"(videos and DVDs) of course have a three dimension existence.

It's not physically moving above the molecular level, but it exists in time as well. How can I tell? Because it's always there even as time moves forward for me. My bookcases are still there. The stereo I don't use much. My teddy bear that I've had since infancy, which pretty much sits in one place unless I'm moving apartments these days. My kitchen cupboards. All these objects are progressing forward through time at the same rate as I am, even though they're all pretty much stationary.

and your sense of time is based on, or a forward motion of time, is nonetheless based on movement.

for example still everything in the Universe, every atom, every molecule, completely and absolutely,still, where now is time?

[Gillianren]

Time is still there. How do I know? Because there's still time in vacuum. Granted, I have no idea how you'd go about testing that--presumably any object you used to measure it would be the thing experiencing the time, in your view. But it's much more logical to think that the time is still there rather than that it has boundaries.

By "it" I mean my rack of videos and DVDs. I should have thought that would have been perfectly obvious. I should have realized that I have to explain basic concepts to you more meticulously than that.

At any rate, the rack exists in three dimensions visibly. As in, it has height, width, and breadth. It doesn't have to be moving to have those. It doesn't have to be moving to have time, either--if it didn't exist in time, it would disappear. There would be no time to contain it.

[AtemZeit]

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

I'm not sure I buy your THING EXISTENCE criterion for some entity to be called a DIMENSION. But---as a working hypothesis---I'll play by your rules. If there is no time, then how long can things exist? Seems to me that the way to achieve this is to shrink the time axis so much that it only occupies the point (z,y,z,t) = (0,0,0,0). Hence your physical things are unbounded in spatial extension during their existence, but they only last 0 seconds. Therefore, they never really exist.

[Fortis]

and your sense of time is based on, or a forward motion of time, is nonetheless based on movement.

Movement in what reference frame?

[Fortis]

for example still everything in the Universe, every atom, every molecule, completely and absolutely,still, where now is time?

An equally valid view of the above scenario is that everything is moving with a constant velocity. Does this mean that the existence of time depends on your choice of coordinates? This seems a little unlikely as physics should be coordinate independent (what does nature know of spherical polars, etc.)

Perhaps a more plausible notion is that "time" exists even if nothing is moving in your chosen frame of reference?

[Nicolas]

a far as time goes agreed. time has NO ability to cause anything.

otherwise I disagee

cause, the existence of, is because the other three dimensions exist.

I can't understand that last sentence. What do you mean with it? Can you give an example to make it clear?

[Mellow]

In one of Scott Adams later Dilbert books he has an interesting mind experiment that has to do with affirmations and the nature of time.

Imagine that all possibilities exist as stationary universes with no time component (The old, trousers of time arguement). Time from our perspective is just our experience of moving from one state to the next, Scott then asks us to consider what we might be able to do to steer ourselves through these multi-universes in such a path that might be beneficial..

Interesting read anyay.

[north]

Time is still there. How do I know? Because there's still time in vacuum.

explain further.

Granted, I have no idea how you'd go about testing that--presumably any object you used to measure it would be the thing experiencing the time, in your view. But it's much more logical to think that the time is still there rather than that it has boundaries.

time is a tool of potential understanding, of an object(s). and has boundries based on the interactions and/or actions of the Nature of the object(s) involved, and their enviroment, in which they, objects , are situated.

By "it" I mean my rack of videos and DVDs. I should have thought that would have been perfectly obvious. I should have realized that I have to explain basic concepts to you more meticulously than that.

okay... fair enough.

[QUOTE=Gillianren;850350] At any rate, the rack exists in three dimensions visibly. As in, it has height, width, and breadth. It doesn't have to be moving to have those.[\quote]

your right, it doesn't have to moving, to have height( anotherway of saying length). however as far as width and breadth are concerned how are they not the same discription of the same fundamental aspect of an object?

where is depth described?

It doesn't have to be moving to have time, either--if it didn't exist in time, it would disappear. There would be no time to contain it.

explain further

for what physical aspects does time have in order to contain anything?

[north]

Originally Posted by 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

I'm not sure I buy your THING EXISTENCE criterion for some entity to be called a DIMENSION. But---as a working hypothesis---I'll play by your rules. If there is no time, then how long can things exist?

as long as they Naturally can, based on the Nature of a said object, its interactions with other object(s), coupled with the enviroment that the object is in.

Seems to me that the way to achieve this is to shrink the time axis so much that it only occupies the point (z,y,z,t) = (0,0,0,0). Hence your physical things are unbounded in spatial extension during their existence, but they only last 0 seconds. Therefore, they never really exist.

your premise is wrongly grounded in the first place.

your making time as a priortity, as so many have, for the existence of the object in the first place. yet nobody, as of yet, has shown that time, in and of its self, has this potenial, other than mathematically.

I've given this example before and I reiterate;

place a ball on a straight line, what moves the ball? energy or time?

answer: energy obviously.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
and your sense of time is based on, or a forward motion of time, is nonetheless based on movement.

Movement in what reference frame?

why does this matter?

[north]

Originally Posted by north
for example still everything in the Universe, every atom, every molecule, completely and absolutely,still, where now is time?

An equally valid view of the above scenario is that everything is moving with a constant velocity. Does this mean that the existence of time depends on your choice of coordinates? This seems a little unlikely as physics should be coordinate independent (what does nature know of spherical polars, etc.)

my point is that the object, its self, is travelling at what ever that velocity is, regardless of the corridinates or time.

.

Perhaps a more plausible notion is that "time" exists even if nothing is moving in your chosen frame of reference?

HOW so. how then is time measured?

[Nicolas]

It matters because movement in one reference frame can be stationarity in another reference frame.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
a far as time goes agreed. time has NO ability to cause anything.

otherwise I disagee

cause, the existence of, is because the other three dimensions exist.

I can't understand that last sentence. What do you mean with it? Can you give an example to make it clear?

cause, or the essence of, is because the existence of the object. and the existence of the object is based on length(and/or height) breadth and depth.

otherwise, without the object, what can cause...... well cause?

[north]

It matters because movement in one reference frame can be stationarity in another reference frame.

what matters?

( it would be good if you would bring along a "quote" which refers to your response).

otherwise what are you referring to?

[Gillianren]

explain further.

No. I've explained the same points repeatedly and in multiple ways. I've given you dictionary definitions which you have (purposefully?) misunderstood and then claimed to misunderstand my corrections. I have no reason to expect your reading comprehension to improve.

At any rate, the rack exists in three dimensions visibly. As in, it has height, width, and breadth. It doesn't have to be moving to have those.

your right, it doesn't have to moving, to have height( anotherway of saying length). however as far as width and breadth are concerned how are they not the same discription of the same fundamental aspect of an object?

where is depth described?

Case in point. Height is not the same thing as length; width is. Height is how tall it is; width is how long it is; breadth is how deep it is. No one of those measurements will tell you the other two. Nor will knowing all three tell you where it is in time.

for what physical aspects does time have in order to contain anything?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is English your first language?

[Fortis]

why does this matter?

Because a frame exists in which an object is at rest, the "rest frame". According to you, if something is static then time does not exist/occur, as it is movement that somehow creates time.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
explain further

No. I've explained the same points repeatedly and in multiple ways. I've given you dictionary definitions which you have (purposefully?) misunderstood and then claimed to misunderstand my corrections. I have no reason to expect your reading comprehension to improve.

first, I don't purposely misunderstand any ideas, whether by you or anybody else. plain and simple.

Case in point. Height is not the same thing as length; width is. Height is how tall it is; width is how long it is; breadth is how deep it is. No one of those measurements will tell you the other two. Nor will knowing all three tell you where it is in time.

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.


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

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.

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.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is English your first language?

what question?

[Fortis]

my point is that the object, its self, is travelling at what ever that velocity is, regardless of the corridinates or time.

Velocity is meaningless unless you provide a reference frame, i.e. a coordinate system. This is pretty basic Galilean relativity.

Let's say a rocket in space is travelling with the vectorial velocity (1,2,3.1412) km/s. What does that really mean?

HOW so. how then is time measured?

How is distance measured? You use a ruler, or measuring rod. Same for time, you use a temporal measuring rod called a clock.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
my point is that the object, its self, is travelling at what ever that velocity is, regardless of the corridinates or time

Velocity is meaningless unless you provide a reference frame, i.e. a coordinate system. This is pretty basic Galilean relativity.

but not to the object its self. to the object its self, its movement is what it is, regardless of whether we attach a measurement of time to it, in this case velocity.

Let's say a rocket in space is travelling with the vectorial velocity (1,2,3.1412) km/s. What does that really mean?

without time? it means that the rocket is travelling.

How is distance measured? You use a ruler, or measuring rod. Same for time, you use a temporal measuring rod called a clock.

of course. and if the temporal measuring rod was not used how does this affect distance travelled, by the object?

none. time does not affect anything, other than our perspetive of this object and its travels.

[Fortis]

but not to the object its self. to the object its self, its movement is what it is, regardless of whether we attach a measurement of time to it, in this case velocity.

My point is, and I'm obviously not making it very clear, that to quote a velocity is meaningless unless you also define the reference frame, or coordinate system, that you are using. If time only exists because something is moving, doesn't it seem odd that a choice of coordinate systems (which the universe knows nothing about) can create time?

[north]

Gillianren;

further

time is the measuremnet of a three dimension object(s) change in position in space. the object starts at say 0, in the x-y axis. the object then moves to a position, "x" 10. now this extension along the "x" axis has nothing to do with time but has all to do with the source of energy that moved this object from one point to another. which is my point again, movement of a said object has all to do with the interactions and/or action of an object, in a said enviroment, and time has nothing to do with the fundamental existence of the object its self. nor fundamentally its cause for moving in the first place.

as well, I look at the three fundamental dimensions this way. all are in actual fact intertwined. they all depend on each other to give existence too each other.

height has both extension in breadth and depth. breadth has both extension in height and depth. and depth has both extension in heigth and breadth. hence a three dimensional object.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
but not to the object its self. to the object its self, its movement is what it is, regardless of whether we attach a measurement of time to it, in this case velocity.

My point is, and I'm obviously not making it very clear, that to quote a velocity is meaningless unless you also define the reference frame, or coordinate system, that you are using.

true.

but how does this make time a type of a dimension that affects an objects velocity in the first place?

If time only exists because something is moving, doesn't it seem odd that a choice of coordinate systems (which the universe knows nothing about) can create time?

not really. is not time really about OUR perspective? an angle of observation, of the Universe?

thats what time is all about. mathematical perspective, and the consequences thereof.

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.

[north]

further

"time" is used to UNDERSTAND the Universe, its movement and why. but in NO way is "time" responsible for the movement or the fundamental motive force behind the movement in the Universe in the first place.

[AtemZeit]

as long as they Naturally can, based on the Nature of a said object, its interactions with other object(s), coupled with the enviroment that the object is in.

You say "AS LONG". How much TIME does that represent if "TIME ceased to exist" as yourself ask us to consider? Can it possibly be longer than 1 second? No? Then how about 1 microsecond? Too long still? Then how about 1 nanosecond? ...

your premise is wrongly grounded in the first place.

your making time as a priortity, as so many have, for the existence of the object in the first place. yet nobody, as of yet, has shown that time, in and of its self, has this potenial, other than mathematically.

I've given this example before and I reiterate;

place a ball on a straight line, what moves the ball? energy or time?

answer: energy obviously.

True, but only if time exists. The ball is forbidden to move if time has ceased to exist. Movement is a mapping between positions and instants of time. That's the very definition of movement. A moving ball in a universe devoid of time would be an utter absurdity; it would be a universe wherein the definitions of words conspire to contradict themselves. If you are not really talking about a mapping between positions and instants of time when you talk about "movement", then use a different word because that's the word that mankind has ascribed to this action.

[Nicolas]

what matters?

( it would be good if you would bring along a "quote" which refers to your response).

otherwise what are you referring to?

'
You posted in between the post I replied to and my response, and I didn't spot it. It was a reponse to your question

Originally Posted by Fortis
Movement in what reference frame?

why does this matter?

My reply to that was:

It matters because movement in one reference frame can be stationarity in another reference frame.

[Nicolas]

further

"time" is used to UNDERSTAND the Universe, its movement and why. but in NO way is "time" responsible for the movement or the fundamental motive force behind the movement in the Universe in the first place.

And I never claimed so. I separate cause and dimension in my reasoning.

The geometrical directions are also not responsible for movement or the fundamental force behind it, they are dimensions that offer the possibility for this movement. Together with time that is, in my reasoning.

but in reality, in the Universe, movement is the cause of time

I disagree. I completely disagree. Your argument claims that time comes into existence becasue there's a need for it, and without any change you wouldnt'have any time. I look at time as a dimension that is always there, even if nothing makes use of it. Just like the geometrical dimensions still exist when no object whatsoever is to be found, the time dimension also exists when no change whatsoever is to be found.

Dimensions are not depending on need, they are basic parameters describing the dynamic Universe. One can ignore dimensions when simplifying situations, but that does not mean dimensions can pop in and out of existence based on need. In that perspective, time behaves just like geometrical dimensions: they're always there, even if nothing makes use of it (no object, no change).

[Nicolas]

but not to the object its self. to the object its self, its movement is what it is, regardless of whether we attach a measurement of time to it, in this case velocity.

This is not true. To the object itself, there is no own velocity. It has nothing to do with attaching any measurement of time or whatever, it is pure and simple the relative nature of velocity. And that depends on your reference frame. "for the object itself" the reference frame is placed inside the object and travels along with the object, resulting in no velocity when seen from the object itself.

You are reasoning from a global inertial reference frame, but you don't specifiy it.

[Nicolas]

but how does this make time a type of a dimension that affects an objects velocity in the first place?

Time as a dimension does not affect. The Time dimension is not a cause. As said, it is a dimension. Just like the Z-direction does not affect a growing tree. Processes that take nutrition and oxygen out of the air and soil and transform it into "tree" cause the tree to grow; the Z-direction is merely offering the possibility for the tree to be defined in height, but in no way does it casue it to grow. The same goes for time.

If the Z-direction did not exist, trees would not exist. So there must be a Z-direction. If the time dimension would not exist, growing trees would not exist. So there must be a time dimension.

Once more, it has nothing to do with cause whatsoever. Nothing.

[Nicolas]

time is the measuremnet of a three dimension object(s) change in position in space.

That is a measurement in the temporal dimension used to derive a property. The same difference as there is between my length and the Z-direction. My length is a property of my body, the Z-direction is a dimension. Velocity uses a user-defined interval in the temporal dimension and a measurement in the spatial dimensions to measure the velocity property. The other way around, one can equally well use a user-defined interval in the spatial dimensions and a measurement in the temporal dimension to measure the velocity property. The temporal and spatial dimensions are on equal foot regarding measuring the velocity property.

and if the temporal measuring rod was not used how does this affect distance travelled, by the object?

If the clock was not used, how does this affect the distance travelled by the object? In both cases: not at all. Temporal and spatial dimensions allow for object movement. Specifying the velocity property needs measurements in both dimensions. 1m/7s = 1/7m/1s. It doesn't matter which measurement you take as reference interval. It doesn't matter how you defined your unit in the dimensions, as that only affects the number of the expressed velocity, but not the velocity itself. If I call a tomato an apple pie, it remains the same object. It doesn't matter whether you measure time or distance or neither or both for the object's movement of course. IfI don't see the tomato, it's still there. It only matters for the quantification. If I don't measure velocity, I don't know how fast it's going, period. Again, both temporal and spatial dimensions are on equal foot here.

time is nothing more than a measurement of movement.

You measure in the temporal dimension. The dimension is not a measurement in itself.

The time dimension (temporal dimension) is general. You can use it to express all kinds of things:

-the period of time needed to move an object from A to B
-the distance an object moves per certain time interval (velocity)
-the time it takes for a chameleon to change colour from black to green.
-the interval in which a subset of the total Universe shows no change whatsoever.
-etcetc

[Nicolas]

cause, or the essence of, is because the existence of the object. and the existence of the object is based on length(and/or height) breadth and depth.

otherwise, without the object, what can cause...... well cause?

An object needs to exists in order for anything to happen to it. Agreed (unless "creation" and "destruction" are also considered things happening to an object, in which case things become tricky). What does that say about the temporal dimension?