Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fourth dimension=time?


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#18 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5702 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 01:02 PM

Do you mean: Will literally occur before? or Be observed to occur before? A very careful use of language has to be used in these kinds of descriptions, or else, I find, the understanding within the communication becomes uncertain. ...

Yes, of course. I've been touting the same careful approach to explicit semantic accuracy in other threads. Only I forgot to do it in my last post.

So, to answer your question: events will be observed to occur before or after other events.

Now there are "laboratory" circumstances for which we can say, some events will literally occur before or after other events. But this is ONLY because we have placed the events in such a way relative to our frame of reference, that their "literal" occurrence is congruent to their "observed" (by us) occurrence. But I'll let that go for now.

#19 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5702 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 01:04 PM

...You can both validate and de-validate time as a realistic element depending entirely upon the elements of reason that are being put forward for the understanding of a specific perspective....

Well, you're half right and half wrong on that one. :naughty: :) :shrug:

#20 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5702 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 01:10 PM

...You're kidding, right?
Dude, your English is phenomenal!
I had no idea that it wasn't your first language! :naughty:...

You're spot on there!
Boerseun's English is perfect, except for for one little penis.
He consistently seems to swap the two words "penis" and "point", and so where he asks us to consider a "point" in a coordinate system, I always laugh my *** off. :) :shrug:
I think we should penis him to a good English dictionary--that should straighten him out.

#21 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 07:00 PM

Penis, point, potato, potatoe ?

#22 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 07:09 PM

If you take it to be a dimension, I put it to you that time is the very first dimension, and not the fourth. If you lived in a one-dimensional world where only straight lines are possible, how would you even perceive it in the absence of time?


Possibly time exists independent of anything else?

#23 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 07:45 PM

Possibly time exists independent of anything else?


I think that is pretty much it.

We place it in the 4th dimension (1st dimension :D ) because it works with the math. Otherwise, it would be a ludicrous concept, imho.

#24 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 08:04 PM

Imagine you wake up inside a glass sphere.

You open your eyes and its black, everywhere, no lights no stars. A voice recording plays inside your sphere. A lady in a bit of a computer electronic voice begins and says:

"Welcome, Jonathan to your worst nightmare. You've been transported to a universe with nothing else in it. You are currently traveling 80% the speed of light, The time is now 6:30pm, Tuesday, august 15th. Your current course is forward. Your destination is the same as your starting location......but wait one minute Jonathan, maybe this is just a riddle..Maybe you are in our virtual reality program...it is up to you to find out where you really are and what is really happening, and if anything I have told you is even true. It could very well be possible that we are testing you, and that your only way out is to discover all the right answers. Good bye. Oh and Jonathan? Good Luck."

#25 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 08:13 PM

Imagine you wake up inside a glass sphere.

You open your eyes and its black, everywhere, no lights no stars. A voice recording plays inside your sphere. A lady in a bit of a computer electronic voice begins and says:

"Welcome, Jonathan to your worst nightmare. You've been transported to a universe with nothing else in it. You are currently traveling 80% the speed of light, The time is now 6:30pm, Tuesday, august 15th. Your current course is forward. Your destination is the same as your starting location......but wait one minute Jonathan, maybe this is just a riddle..Maybe you are in our virtual reality program...it is up to you to find out where you really are and what is really happening, and if anything I have told you is even true. It could very well be possible that we are testing you, and that your only way out is to discover all the right answers. Good bye. Oh and Jonathan? Good Luck."


Well, that would certainly suck! :D

I assume you're trying to make the point that time is fictitious?

#26 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 08:40 PM

Sometimes, I dont really know what I am doing..and that is the point! (like that story)

I find after studying and acquiring more knowlege and levels of understanding, it is a very insightful method to do a practice where I behave as though I know nothing, and examine things from the bottom up / the absolutely as basic as possible scenario, and find my way back towards my peak of understanding.

This type of review, I find, cleans out bugs in our understanding matrix network of sorts.

The post above is not intended to prove a point. It is a breaking down of concepts, and is intended as a practice for an individual to build on their foundations.

What a person gets out of such a practice, entirely depends on any kinks they have along the way, that get straightened out.

#27 Jayinater

Jayinater

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 08:50 PM

My view on time is that it is entirely derived from the movement of mass/energy through space. Time exists, much in the same way that ideas exist: ideas are not discrete entities of their own; they are from our neural connections in our brain. But they exist, nontheless.

#28 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 20 May 2009 - 08:50 PM

Sometimes, I dont really know what I am doing..and that is the point! (like that story)

I find after studying and acquiring more knowlege and levels of understanding, it is a very insightful method to do a practice where I behave as though I know nothing, and examine things from the bottom up / the absolutely as basic as possible scenario, and find my way back towards my peak of understanding.

This type of review, I find, cleans out bugs in our understanding matrix network of sorts.

The post above is not intended to prove a point. It is a breaking down of concepts, and is intended as a practice for an individual to build on their foundations.

What a person gets out of such a practice, entirely depends on any kinks they have along the way, that get straightened out.





This method if you will, was exactly the process I used in my cosmology thread.

I broke down cosmology to almost mind numbly stupid levels, and arrived at interesting conclusions. I did not intend to prove anything new, or explain anything that had not been explained. I simply shared this practice.

One of these conclusions which I thought was very interesting was where I arrived at a possible prediction quarks, which I equated as the most basic forms of interaction/reason.

Here is the total possible behaviors in a observation system. I noted that there appeared to be, as far as my knowledge goes,exactly the same number of quark combinations as there was possible different types of freedom interaction.

{frame A} = [frame B]

{ + => - } = [ - => 0 ] (deflection)
{ + => 0 } = [ 0 => + ] (deflection)
{ + => - } = [ - => - ] (bond)
{ + => 0 } = [ - => 0 ] (bond)
{ + => - } = [ 0 => - ] (false)

{ - => + } = [ + => 0 ] (deflection)
{ - => 0 } = [ 0 => - ] (deflection)
{ - => + } = [ + => + ] (bond)
{ - => 0 } = [ + => 0 ] (bond)
{ - => + } = [ 0 => + ] (false)

{ 0 => + } = [ + => 0 ] (deflection)
{ 0 => - } = [ - => 0 ] (deflection)
{ 0 => + } = [ + => + ] (bond)
{ 0 => - } = [ - => - ] (bond)
{ 0 => - } = [ 0 => 0 ] (false)
{ 0 => + } = [ 0 => 0 ] (false)


#29 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 05:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by arkain101 View Post
Imagine you wake up inside a glass sphere.

You open your eyes and its black, everywhere, no lights no stars. A voice recording plays inside your sphere. A lady in a bit of a computer electronic voice begins and says:

"Welcome, Jonathan to your worst nightmare. You've been transported to a universe with nothing else in it. You are currently traveling 80% the speed of light, The time is now 6:30pm, Tuesday, august 15th. Your current course is forward. Your destination is the same as your starting location......but wait one minute Jonathan, maybe this is just a riddle..Maybe you are in our virtual reality program...it is up to you to find out where you really are and what is really happening, and if anything I have told you is even true. It could very well be possible that we are testing you, and that your only way out is to discover all the right answers. Good bye. Oh and Jonathan? Good Luck."



Well, that would certainly suck! :)

I assume you're trying to make the point that time is fictitious?



The possibility occurred to me that maybe that whole scenario went right over your head and made absolutely no sense whatsoever. ;) :D

The points there were to realize, everything the female voice told you was a lie, or more specifically unprovable. There is simply no ability to scientifically formulate those peices of information.
Key parts purposely added were:
-location
-velocity
-time
-direction
-motion

All of which are entirely undeterminable! :) :read: :D

So I posed the question, is this reality put forward here a riddle? How can your build your way out of this hell hole, and find yourself back to earth? What peices of information to you need ? How many steps are there? And in which order must those steps go?

Hint. (to do the exercise as intended, use what the woman told you) then add an object in space, maybe earth.. OR do we add a clock!? first.. good luck.

#30 Pyrotex

Pyrotex

    Slaying Bad Memes

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5702 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 09:06 AM

I think the bottom line here is that Time is not a "dimension" in any sense that the spacial dimensions are. However, we humans have found it "convenient" to consider Time as a pseudo-dimension, using various assumptions and math tricks in order to get the units to come out right and the geometry to come out right. With our shiny new "Space-Time Coordinate Systems" we can accomplish some pretty fantastic Science, and have massively increased our understanding of the Universe and Reality.

But we must not forget that the "Space-Time Coordinate Systems" we have constructed, are indeed, constructs. They do not "exist" in the same way that atoms and photons exist.

From our constructs, we obtain a facility with calculating Time, measuring Time, interpreting the effects of Time on matter and energy, interpreting the effects of matter and energy on Time --- BUT...

These constructs do NOT tell us what TIME ITSELF IS.

Time is non-material, non-energy, non-positional and non-"thingish". We have no power to access it or control it. It has no constituent parts, no texture, no measureable "substance" of any kind. It has no boundaries so that we can identify Time against a background of Not-Time. It is an invisible ghost that is always everywhere and never still.

Okay, so what is Time? I dunno. :) For the time being, it is a concept, a fabrication of mental/semantic structures and mathematical models.

And yet, Time would STILL be one of the core, foundational "attributes" of our Universe and Reality itself, even if we did not exist. There is this "attribute" that EXISTS independently of us and our understanding.

And "Time" is the name that we give -- NOT to the "attribute" itself, but to our experience of it. "Time" is the name we give to our experience of having "memories" of events and things and images that no longer exist.
  • modest likes this

#31 arkain101

arkain101

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1931 posts

Posted 21 May 2009 - 06:41 PM

And "Time" is the name that we give -- NOT to the "attribute" itself, but to our experience of it. "Time" is the name we give to our experience of having "memories" of events and things and images that no longer exist.


Booyah!

I was just about to post my own short definition when I read this, and it nearly stole the words out of my head.

I was going to say. (Minus the background story)

Time is memory. Time becomes dimensional when we our awareness accesses and experiences that memory.

If I copy from my previous post in this topic Here

We can add to this progression of thought where:

Space and Time

becomes

Space-Time

that becomes

Space-memory-time

(material is to memory as memory is to persistent objects....and...time is to memory as memory is to the flowing of change for objects)

#32 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 22 May 2009 - 12:44 AM

All due respects, and keeping my ignorance in mind, I don't think "Time" and "Space" can so easily be dismissed.

If you're coasting through space in a straight line (apparent to you as a straight line) in a closed box with no view outside, you can't tell when you pass close to a star or a black hole and have your velocity, direction and even measurements change. Let's say you pass within a few meters of the event horizon of a nasty black hole, and the resultant gravitational slingshot accelerates you to within a few percentages of c. In your closed little fireproof box, you will not notice any change whatsoever. You might become very flat as your dimension in the direction of travel contracts, time might slow down for you (as can be measured when and if you ever return to have your infinitely accurate clock compared to your now-deceased-of-old-age twin's,) and inside your box a meter will still be a meter in any direction, your clock will tick off a perfect second, every second, and every conceivable experiment will return the exact same result as it would have on Earth. The ticking of your clock can be calibrated inside your little box with the vibration of cesium atoms inside your box, and it will remain perfectly accurate.

Yet, once you return to earth, your clock is out of whack. Way out of whack.

Now, this is Relativity 101, one of the very first ged├źnkeneksperimente proposed by those in support of relativity - so it should be old news to all you nerds out there. Sorry for the rehash, but the conclusion is extremely important:

Every experiment performed in your box returns proper results, the same it would have on Earth. Every conceivable measurement you take in your box remains stable. If your box measured inside 10m x 10m when you were static on Earth, it would also measure a perfect 10m x 10m just after the black hole accelerated you to 99%c. Yet, contraction takes place and time dilation takes place. This is proven. And the only explanation is that space and time, the two inseparable entities making up the matrix in which everything else can exist, gets warped, pulled, stretched and twisted for each and every observer, depending on their velocity through it. Which might be a bullshit argument, because velocity requires space and time, to begin with. A bit self-referential, you might say. But twist space, and time follows suit. Warp time, and space follows suit. And the only way in which to do the former, is by adding mass. And to do the latter, by adding velocity - but also another observer to be measured against.

Therefore:
Space cannot exist without time.
Time cannot exist without space.
Neither of the two can be said to exist if there is not at least some mass involved that can be said to be an observer, to exist in space, it's very measurements determinig the space in which it exist, and its motion through space determining the flow of time. This will require at least two particles - one to be in motion, and the second to be measured against.

And space itself will be infinite, because whether I'm a meter away from a brick or a billion light-years away, I can still measure that brick given the right equipment. There is a "measurement relationship" between me and the brick. But it requires at least me, as an observer, and one brick, the object against which I measure. If I was the only material entity in the universe, then space would stop at the surface of my skin. There is nothing else with which to measure the distance between us. So - one particle, finite universe the exact size of the particle. But add just one more particle, and you've got infinite space.

Yeah - loads of bull, but such is life.

#33 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 22 May 2009 - 10:35 AM

Yet, contraction takes place and time dilation takes place.

Well actually they aren't things that "take place" or "happen" at all. They are just the way we call the fact that the same reality has different descriptions for different coordinate choices. Actually, that should be: the way we call how the descriptions differ according to SR.

Which might be a bullshit argument, because velocity requires space and time, to begin with.

I won't strive to argue against your assessment of quality ;) but I would attribute it a slightly different justification. Travelling through spacetime doesn't warp, pull, stretch nor blow-dry spacetime at all.

It's more like we're looking at the same table but from different directions. However spacetime isn't isotropic, which is to say there's a qualitative difference by which a direction may be spacelike or timelike or null. The part of a Lorentz transorm due to relative velocity is called a pseudo-rotation (and quite often a boost for short), not intuitive like the spatial rotation yet mathematically akin. Not the place to go into all the details, plenty of lit around on the matter, but there is definitely something objective about how spacetime works; it would be untenable to regard them as totally separate concepts while making the mechanics tally up.

#34 LaurieAG

LaurieAG

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1553 posts

Posted 23 May 2009 - 03:00 AM

Hi Boerseun,

I never used to think that we'd ever come up against a brick wall with a sign saying "This is the end of the Universe' and I still don't.

The problem is that all of our observations are based on some variant of the speed of light in a vacuum. There is a fuzzy brick wall out there that probably has something like "This is the end of the observable relative to the speed of light Universe" written all over it though, lol.

While this brick wall may be fuzzy and indeterminable to us, at the center of our observable universe, an observer outside the fuzzy spherical brick wall would not see a brick wall at all because they would look at distance in a very different way than being a byproduct relative to the speed of light.

Science needs a new paradigm to break through this brick wall of its own construction.