Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of

Time, The First And Fundamental Dimension...

time first dimension

20 replies to this topic

#16 Tommy13

Tommy13

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 44 posts
• Joined:18 Oct 2012

Posted 11 November 2012 - 03:15 PM

Why trip on flipping physicist when everything he is saying has already been concluded through quantum string/m-theory. This is the same old problem from the begining of science, Lamark theory vs Darwins theory of evolution. Are you a mechanist or are you into vitalism? And imho, this can be influenced by how much love you receive as a child and as an adult how much love you have in your heart.

#17 me-wonders

me-wonders

Remote Viewer

• Banned
• 557 posts
• Joined:30 May 2011
• Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:39 PM

sepulchrave, on 03 November 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

I am jumping into this thread a bit late, but I have a few things to say.

I agree with everything you say, I just wanted to point out that while time may often be referred to as ``fourth'', time is usually the first component of the Minkowski metric (the value at row 1, column 1 in the matrix).

They are very intimately related, see my comments below...

Time is concrete. In Special Relativity (which seems to be correct, based on all our experiments) time is very intimately related to a spatial dimension.

The three spatial dimensions we are familiar with are all interchangeable through the physical process of ``changing your perspective'' (i.e. turning around maps the direction that used to be ``forward'' into the direction ``backward'', turns ``left'' into ``right'', etc.), and through the equivalent mathematical process called a trigonometric rotation.

In a very similar sense, space and time are interchangeable through the physical process of ``moving faster'', and through the equivalent mathematical process called a hyperbolic rotation. Note the equivalent language; if the speed of light were an imaginary number (ignoring, of course, whether or not that even makes sense) there would be no difference between space and time!

Time is ``different'' than space, and because of that (or mathematically, because of the differences between trigonometric and hyperbolic functions) we can never completely map space into time or vice-versa. But we can partially map one into the other. That is the fundamental origin of the ``length contraction'' and ``time dilation'' that occur a relativistic speeds.

There connection between ``thermodynamic time'' and the time in ``space-time'' is very interesting but not completely figured out yet.

There is definitely a difference between the time in ``space-time'', which is just an (arbitrary) coordinate, and the time in ``thermodynamic time'' which is more the expression of an object's age.  (And therefore closer to a spacetime interval than just a difference in time.)

I think ``yes'', but how would we tell? If everything in the Universe changed by the same amount, would you be able to see anything different?

If you could somehow find a vantage point outside the Universe maybe things would look different.

Here is a link that makes the idea of "space time" very real meaning.  I can get my head around this concept, without experiencing it, and I am having trouble understanding how to experience it.

http://www.sciencene...ns_east_to_west

As we can see from the link, left may become right when we turn a map,  but north does not become south.   Is our sense of time a true understanding of reality or dependent on our culture?  I think it is dependent on our culture.

I am so reminded of the debate set off by Plato's forms, and the idea that perfect form exist but is not manifest reality.   Math creates a reality that we do not experience, because it is not manifest reality.   It is abstract.   This brings us to question, what can we know without experience?   For example we can see old people and think we know something about aging, but we do not really know the experience until we have it.   We may think **** taste bad, but we don't know how bad until we eat it.   Other cultures have very different experiences of time, so how can we be sure our experience of time is the true experience of time, and exactly we are experiencing?

#18 me-wonders

me-wonders

Remote Viewer

• Banned
• 557 posts
• Joined:30 May 2011
• Gender:Not Selected

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:51 PM

http://en.wikipedia........w_of_time   This is an explanation of time having  one, linear direction, and there might be a problem with it, because planets are round, and if we travel round them, although our  direction does not change,  it does change relative to our starting point.

http://www.perkel.co.../relativity.htm This explains Einstien's relativity, and if we travel at the speed of light 200 light years away, and return the same day, everyone on earth will be 200 years older.  Hey, let me be clear about this, I don't understand this stuff at all.  But the problem with time having only one direction is coming back to earth, and finding the apes rule the planet.  That is time on earth moved forward, and you come back to the future., not to the time the day you left.

Edited by me-wonders, 12 November 2012 - 11:21 PM.

#19 WhyDontYouBeliEveMe

WhyDontYouBeliEveMe

Extraterrestrial Entity

• Member
• 444 posts
• Joined:21 Mar 2012
• Gender:Male

• When i'm right,no one remembers!
When i'm wrong no one forgets !

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:25 PM

this is so confusing ! o well time ll explain

#20 sepulchrave

sepulchrave

Psychic Spy

• Member
• 1,676 posts
• Joined:19 Apr 2009
• Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:15 PM

me-wonders, on 12 November 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

http://www.perkel.co.../relativity.htm This explains Einstien's relativity, and if we travel at the speed of light 200 light years away, and return the same day, everyone on earth will be 200 years older.  Hey, let me be clear about this, I don't understand this stuff at all.  But the problem with time having only one direction is coming back to earth, and finding the apes rule the planet.  That is time on earth moved forward, and you come back to the future., not to the time the day you left.
Just remember that the word ``time'' unfortunately is used to refer to two different (albeit related) things.

For space-time, ``time'' is used to refer to the dimension.
For objects, ``time'' is used to refer to the the time elapsed (in other words, the increase in age of that object, or thermodynamic time).

The two are related but not exactly the same. In space-time, the ``increase in age'' of an object is called that object's space-time interval.

If you are travelling at the speed of light, you can move forward in time (in the dimension sense) just as you move forward in space (again, in the dimension sense) - but your space-time interval doesn't change: you are not aging.

The ``amount'' of time and the ``amount'' of space that you travel through is in some sense arbitrary; it depends on how you define your coordinate system. (I.e. you could relabel your house as the ``North pole'' and label any other point on the globe as the ``South pole'' and build up a NSEW direction system. It might not make sense to anyone but you, but it would work.)

The space-time interval between any two points in the (space-time) coordinate system is ``real'', it does not depend on how you define your coordinate system.

#21 nothingman

nothingman

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 28 posts
• Joined:11 Nov 2013
• Gender:Male

Posted 11 November 2013 - 04:39 PM

There is another 'dimension' that must be considered -- the senses.
If every living being lost the sense of sight and touch there would be NO physical dimensions.
An object becomes dimensional through its relation with another object.
You touch the earth (by sitting or standing for instance), you feel its hardness because you exert a force on the earth and the earth exerts a force back on you.
If you don't feel the earth AND if NOTHING else feels it's force either then for all intents and purposes the force doesn't exist. If in addition nothing sees the earth (or sees you) then for all intents and purposes neither the earth or you exist -- nothing exists.

Edited by nothingman, 11 November 2013 - 04:40 PM.

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users