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

48 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
• 492 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
• 1,814 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
• 38 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.

### #22 buddy rob4

buddy rob4

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 60 posts
• Joined:19 Feb 2014

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:34 AM

nothingman, on 11 November 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

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.
Our senses are merely a by product to use at our own dispense to desipher how to react to many things.  It is a by-product of nature, without evolution and "TIME" or "Chemical change and any change" there would be no sense.  I think that is a false statement that you are telling us, however, forum starter soldier 4 death actually is onto something huge, saying time is the first dimension, saying if there is something, it has been changed before it was.

### #23 buddy rob4

buddy rob4

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 60 posts
• Joined:19 Feb 2014

Posted 20 February 2014 - 11:53 AM

sepulchrave, on 13 November 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

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.
Imagine the universe as a brain, sending signals in circles and also in a direction.  When our brain circles "I read your post 5 times" time ticks faster.  But once we our on a tradectory time ticks slower, I learn something knew, time goes into tiiiiick tiiiiick tiiiick, I watch a commercial I have seen countless time, time goes into tck tck tck.  Just like our universe it can be understood in the same fashion.  <<<<<<Literally in space travel you miss more information(energy) that has been presented causing your clock to slow down>>>>>>Being in orbit may very well meen that time is going faster<<<<<<

Edited by buddy rob4, 20 February 2014 - 12:00 PM.

### #24 The Id3al Experience

The Id3al Experience

Conspiracy Theorist

• Member
• 904 posts
• Joined:20 Sep 2010
• Gender:Male
• Location:New Zealand

• "Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe"

Posted 21 February 2014 - 12:57 AM

nothingman, on 11 November 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

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.

Only from a subjective point of view, There is still an objective realtiy. Sound waves do not disapear because I am Deaf. They still exist, said deaf person just can not perceive them.

Watch this space

### #25 taniwha

taniwha

Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

• Member
• 1,751 posts
• Joined:25 Sep 2012
• Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2014 - 10:54 PM

buddy rob4, on 20 February 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Our senses are merely a by product to use at our own dispense to desipher how to react to many things.  It is a by-product of nature, without evolution and "TIME" or "Chemical change and any change" there would be no sense.  I think that is a false statement that you are telling us, however, forum starter soldier 4 death actually is onto something huge, saying time is the first dimension, saying if there is something, it has been changed before it was.

If we could process the light that enters our eye at the speed of light then we would be able to move and react like Neo on the Matrix.  I think on the movie the eye is bypassed and a direct link from a computer is plugged directly into the brain.  For all I know technology could be advancing to make this a reality.

But the reality I am sure of shows that normal chemical processes such as adrenalin increases the heart rate and does help us process information faster so we are then able to percieve time slower in order that we might react quicker.  This instinct I think was developed because it is unnecessary to always walk around on edge or in a constant state of heightened awareness.  It would drain the bodies energy reserves and we would age quickly so only kicks in ideally during absolute times of survival.

Other methods of slowing time perception include mind altering drugs, meditation and exercise.

All this means is that we are limited by the natural speed of chemical and biological change within our bodies.  As for the speed of light outside of our bodies it remains constant.

### #26 nothingman

nothingman

Alien Embryo

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

Posted 23 February 2014 - 01:15 AM

The Id3al Experience, on 21 February 2014 - 12:57 AM, said:

Only from a subjective point of view, There is still an objective realtiy. Sound waves do not disapear because I am Deaf. They still exist, said deaf person just can not perceive them.

I was very specific as to the full, absolute loss of senses. Of course you are right that something exists if something exists to sense it. But your example has nothing to do with my statement.

### #27 taniwha

taniwha

Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

• Member
• 1,751 posts
• Joined:25 Sep 2012
• Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2014 - 01:23 AM

nothingman, on 11 November 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

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.
Is sight even required to sense a physical dimension?

Edited by taniwha, 23 February 2014 - 01:24 AM.

### #28 nothingman

nothingman

Alien Embryo

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

Posted 23 February 2014 - 01:55 AM

taniwha, on 23 February 2014 - 01:23 AM, said:

Is sight even required to sense a physical dimension?

One sense is required, any one. If all beings lost all senses the physical world would effectively cease existing. The beings could still exist, in pure consciousness.

### #29 taniwha

taniwha

Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

• Member
• 1,751 posts
• Joined:25 Sep 2012
• Gender:Male

Posted 23 February 2014 - 02:17 AM

nothingman, on 23 February 2014 - 01:55 AM, said:

One sense is required, any one. If all beings lost all senses the physical world would effectively cease existing. The beings could still exist, in pure consciousness.

Are you talking about life and death?

### #30 nothingman

nothingman

Alien Embryo

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

Posted 23 February 2014 - 02:58 AM

taniwha, on 23 February 2014 - 02:17 AM, said:

Are you talking about life and death?

I'm taking about life. Time and dimension are aspects of life. I posited that they rely on the senses. It's really an age old principle: essence (consciousness) precedes existence. It's foolishness to flip that around. The core of all being is consciousness. With the physical world came the senses. Only with the senses can physical beings conceive of time and dimension.

#### 1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users