# Time Is The Third Dimension.

32 replies to this topic

### #18 quickquestion

quickquestion

• Members
• 55 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 11:57 AM

Hi,

Clearly you can. Here's the math:

h = 3
W = 2
v = 8
t = -(infinite)

h-t = 0. For t is able to take the opposite form of h since it has an infinite set. However, when you do same with values considering all of them, you get the math:

h+v+w-t = 0, solve the equation. As t takes the opposite of w making it -2.

h + v + 2 - 2 = 0.
Leading the equation to be h + v = 0. Making h = -v and thus changing the value of h.

Without t, nothing changes.

You just used T to post and think about the equation.

### #19 Darky

Darky

• Members
• 83 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 11:58 AM

Without t, nothing changes.
You just used T to post and think about the equation.

Hi,

Yes, correct. However, the use of t is completely nothing.

### #20 Farming guy

Farming guy

Explaining

• Members
• 986 posts

Posted 22 April 2017 - 05:32 PM

We percieve 2 dimensional visual sensations.

We can only see cubes in 3d because they are in motion in time and our consciousness is in present and past.

Space is the fourth dimension.

Space refers to hypothetical data points, later verified by moving forwards or backwards in time.

Cubes: are a theory, the theory of cubes lets us know that a cube is a 3d object.

Some cubes violate this theory.

If we see a picture of a cube, this is a false cube and not a 3d cube. Thus the theory of cube is not a gaurantee.

The theory of cube is an inherent perception we get with our DNA.

Okay, I admit I overlooked that you were talking about only "visual sensations",, and now I think I may have an idea about what you are saying.  It is our minds interpretation of visual input that gives us the sensation of three spatial dimensions. Along those lines of thought, all sensory input into our brains must be interpreted by our minds, and there is always the possibility of error in that interpretation.  Perhaps that is why some people have more difficulty than others in functioning.

Edited by Farming guy, 22 April 2017 - 05:33 PM.

### #21 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

412.63 ppm

• Members
• 1241 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 02:50 AM

The only time i inhabit 3 dimensions is with Kinesthetic touch. In all other purposes, Time is needed for their to be a third spatial dimension. Thus, the third spatial dimension is the fourth dimension, time is the third.

Who gives a flying brick about the ordering of the labeling of the dimensions?  You inhabit at least three spatial dimensions because you displace volume.  If you like, you can claim that time is the first dimension.  It doesn't matter.  The fact remains that, assuming you are human, you are an entity that inhabits at least three spatial dimensions.  This claim can easily be tested.

Your claim that time is necessary for a third spatial dimension is likewise false.  I need not consider time when I consider an object that has length, width, and height.  I honestly do not understand your claims at all, as they seem to me to be easily shown to be false.  I am not familiar with "kinesthetic touch", but whatever this is, if it leads you to conclude that three spatial dimensions require time, then it is also demonstrably false.

### #22 Farming guy

Farming guy

Explaining

• Members
• 986 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 12:08 PM

No...you can't "change" h without Time. You need Time to change anything.

Sound is a 2d circular panning sensation.

The only true 3d sensation is Kinesthetic touch which is largely impractical for use in philosophic or scientific discussion.

No a hologram is 2d. We need time to understand it as a 3d object. Thus time is the third dimension. It is needed for there to be 3 spatial dimensions. Kinesthetic touch is the only exception to this rule.

The only time i inhabit 3 dimensions is with Kinesthetic touch. In all other purposes, Time is needed for their to be a third spatial dimension. Thus, the third spatial dimension is the fourth dimension, time is the third.

If i see a cube, and a picture of a cube mixed in to match the background, I must use time to verify if my theory of cube, whether or not the cube is a true cube.

Also, as scientists we should investigate spiritual mystics. Otherwise we may be ignorant of deeper truths. Spiritual mystics often go on with incoherent babble, but it is so incoherent we cannot truly even be sure what it is they are talking about. We should investigate them further, in order to actually be sure what it is we are trying to disprove about them. Similarly, we should ingest whatever substances they ingest, to truly say if they are charlatans and also to describe what manner of charlatans they are. Or, to prove they are not charlatans, and are onto something.

If you were to say "perceive" 3 dimensions then I might agree.  It is the perception that is an action which requires time.  Otherwise, not only the Earth, but the entire universe would be flat!  Certainly, you are not making that claim, are you?

• JMJones0424 likes this

### #23 quickquestion

quickquestion

• Members
• 55 posts

Posted 24 April 2017 - 12:11 PM

Your claim that time is necessary for a third spatial dimension is likewise false.  I need not consider time when I consider an object that has length, width, and height.  I honestly do not understand your claims at all, as they seem to me to be easily shown to be false.  I am not familiar with "kinesthetic touch", but whatever this is, if it leads you to conclude that three spatial dimensions require time, then it is also demonstrably false.

You need time to even consider the facts of volume. Time is thus, the essential third dimension.

If you were to say "perceive" 3 dimensions then I might agree.  It is the perception that is an action which requires time.  Otherwise, not only the Earth, but the entire universe would be flat!  Certainly, you are not making that claim, are you?

The universe is not 2d, because there are four dimensions. x,y,time, and z.

### #24 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

412.63 ppm

• Members
• 1241 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 12:24 AM

You need time to even consider the facts of volume. Time is thus, the essential third dimension.

Why?  And what do you mean by "the essential third dimension?"

Surely you realize that a box contains the same volume regardless of how you label each side to be length, width, and height.  Are you proposing that the ordering of dimensions is significant?

### #25 webplodder

webplodder

Curious

• Members
• 6 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 03:57 AM

We only need the concept of time because things don't happen all at once.

How do we really know whether there's situations where time has no real meaning?

We live in a spacetime' universe but it doesn't follow this is the one and only kind of universe there is.

It appears to us there is, but how do we really know? For example, we are used to living with gravity but perhaps there are regions of space where gravity has no, or at least negligible effect. Whether this would permit the existence of life in any form is dubious, so maybe nobody would know about it anyway.

What about time inside of a black hole? Does time have any meaning in that situation? If so, how would time behave? Just because we could not survive the unimaginable forces inside a black hole doesn't mean time and space would cease to exist, even if in a very different form.

When somebody dies, they (to the best of my knowledge) cease to be involved with time, from a subjective point of view. So from this, can we define time as function of consciousness?

But even if we can, there has to be something that interacts with our perceptions that results in what we call 'time.'

Is time really there when unobserved? This seems impossible to test because there has to be an observer in the first place to do the experiment which actually invalidates it.

What about a rock and time? Does a rock need time to continue to be a rock? A rock is not self-aware (I don't think) so how would a rock know anyway?

When did time come into existence? The usual answer is to say time effectively began with the birth of the universe, however, there's a problem here.

Where was time before the universe began? Even if we could answer this question we could go back further and even further to infinity and still not arrive at a satisfactory answer. So this question seems to become meaningless.

Maybe time is not a single entity but there are different 'kinds' of time that evolve and what we see as 'our time' is simply one of many manifestations of it.

Maybe the real truth is that time is 'in the eye of the beholder.'

Edited by webplodder, 27 April 2017 - 04:03 AM.

### #26 webplodder

webplodder

Curious

• Members
• 6 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 05:14 AM

Why?  And what do you mean by "the essential third dimension?"

Surely you realize that a box contains the same volume regardless of how you label each side to be length, width, and height.  Are you proposing that the ordering of dimensions is significant?

Yes, but both you and the box must exist in the same time frame.

### #27 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

412.63 ppm

• Members
• 1241 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:40 PM

Yes, but both you and the box must exist in the same time frame.

Why?  I do not understand why time must be considered when referencing volume.  If we rely on relativistic measurements then frame of reference is clearly a factor in what measurement we make for length, width, and height, by why is time a necessity for the existence of the third spatial dimension?  And if it is, why isn't it necessary for the second, or the first?  I can't help thinking that the premise of this thread is entirely crap.

Edited by JMJones0424, 27 April 2017 - 09:41 PM.

### #28 webplodder

webplodder

Curious

• Members
• 6 posts

Posted 27 April 2017 - 11:31 PM

Why?  I do not understand why time must be considered when referencing volume.  If we rely on relativistic measurements then frame of reference is clearly a factor in what measurement we make for length, width, and height, by why is time a necessity for the existence of the third spatial dimension?  And if it is, why isn't it necessary for the second, or the first?  I can't help thinking that the premise of this thread is entirely crap.

Actuality, I agree.

I did not fully take in the initial premise because I was in a hurry to post a reply but now I've seen the opening post I can't agree that time is the third dimension. Time is the fourth dimension.

But volume is a function of length, width and height so necessarily must share the same time frame.

All these are continuous and so need time to be so.

Edited by webplodder, 28 April 2017 - 12:07 AM.

### #29 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

412.63 ppm

• Members
• 1241 posts

Posted 28 April 2017 - 11:24 PM

I am glad that you agree, but I still would like to know why you assert that time must be the fourth dimension?  It still appears to me that the convention of assigning sequential dimensions is arbitrary.  You have claimed that time must be the fourth dimension, but all mathematics describing the world we inhabit works just as well if we take time to be the first dimension.  My point is that the order of labeling is irrelevant.

### #30 webplodder

webplodder

Curious

• Members
• 6 posts

Posted 29 April 2017 - 12:05 AM

I am glad that you agree, but I still would like to know why you assert that time must be the fourth dimension?  It still appears to me that the convention of assigning sequential dimensions is arbitrary.  You have claimed that time must be the fourth dimension, but all mathematics describing the world we inhabit works just as well if we take time to be the first dimension.  My point is that the order of labeling is irrelevant.

Well, it's just a convention I suppose. It's only natural to consider the physical world first, but then existing within time. Didn't Einstein bring in the idea of time being the fourth dimension in his great work?

You can do it your way no doubt, but you would be out of step with the way everyone else does it. It's just a matter of agreement.

Whatever way you look at it, as long as it works, it does not really matter.

Edited by webplodder, 29 April 2017 - 12:07 AM.

### #31 JMJones0424

JMJones0424

412.63 ppm

• Members
• 1241 posts

Posted 29 April 2017 - 12:27 AM

No. The OP maintains that order matters.  If it is the case that "Whatever way you look at it, as long as it works, it does not really matter." then the OP is clearly false.  Yes, I agree that Einstein incorporated time as a fourth dimension.  The OP claims that the order of the identification of these dimensions is for some reason notable.  I maintain that this is not the case.  The order of the description of dimensions is arbitrary.

### #32 webplodder

webplodder

Curious

• Members
• 6 posts

Posted 29 April 2017 - 01:31 AM

No. The OP maintains that order matters.  If it is the case that "Whatever way you look at it, as long as it works, it does not really matter." then the OP is clearly false.  Yes, I agree that Einstein incorporated time as a fourth dimension.  The OP claims that the order of the identification of these dimensions is for some reason notable.  I maintain that this is not the case.  The order of the description of dimensions is arbitrary.

The OP states: "We perceive 2 dimensional visual sensations."

This seems contrary to common sense, as we perceive the 3D world through our visual sensations. This is is because we are predators and predators need 3D visual perceptions in order to hunt prey.

So it seems the poster's whole premise is based on a fallacy.

The order seems immaterial here, unless the OP was trying to express something we have not grasped.

Edited by webplodder, 29 April 2017 - 02:27 AM.

• JMJones0424 likes this

### #33 malform11

malform11

• Members
• 49 posts

Posted 06 May 2017 - 10:42 PM

There are well thought and presented responses, but the thread keeps coming back to bad status quo science. .

How hard is it to understand three spatial dimensions? In some applications, time is not a consideration, such as geometry. Throughout  the universe, the four dimensions exist together whether matter is present or not.

You guys really make a mess of these threads. I should not take you so seriously ...

the universe is infinite

it exists only at a moving point in time

that point is infinitely small

dividing an infinite universe into infinitely small moments of existence, is tantamount to dividing infinity by infinity.

the result = one reality.

Edited by malform11, 06 May 2017 - 10:59 PM.