Time dimension doesnt exist

[motherengine]

i am not sure i follow your use of the word 'free' but i will contest that admiting my distrust for perception gives me little credence to speak of the perceptive abilities of others.

 

my philosophy is grounded on the desire to question and provoke and so i will not defend a statement made in this manner. how could i prove to you that your mind is limited by perception and that it cannot know anything but that it exists? though i can i question the idea that any mind can know more than this. its not a greater truth out there that prevents me from trusting the accuracy of the scientific method but my own sense of inner doubt. i am afraid you will find in me a wealth of contradiction.

 

first man: does god exist?

 

second man: he does now.

[Tormod]

i am not sure i follow your use of the word 'free' but i will contest that admiting my distrust for perception gives me little credence to speak of the perceptive abilities of others.

 

I do not question your credibility. I only ask that you do not post your views as facts when they are opinions.

 

Your first post in this topic ended with this line:

 

one must take an impossible step back before judging such things (there is a fundamental flaw in the measuring stick using itself to measure that which seems to exist around it.

 

I asked for a qualification for this statement, which you have not yet provided. Thus it is not a fact-based statement but a philosophical question. You claim that there is a fundamental flaw - based on your own gut feeling - but this is a science forum and as such we need to know where this flaw lies, why it exists, and how we can test it.

 

It seems nobody else wants to discuss this with us so I assume it's safe to end this (sadly off-topic) discussion. If you're interested in pursuing this with me, maybe we should start a new topic on the value of philosophical assessments in scienticfic progress?

[paultrr]

The Universe and everything in it moves. We measure that movement as expansion. But, the universe also expands with time and in time. One of the key concepts of a dimension is that it is a measuring rod. For example a 1D object would only be able to be measured by length where a 3D object is measured in width, height, and length. Our measurments and observations of the Universe involve time. As we look out into space we see the universe as it existed in the past. The futher out we look the more into the past we see. But, the universe was also smaller in the past with everything a lot closer together. So, over time the universe has altered in its other dimensions. Thus, our own observations show us the Universe also changes along at least a 4th axis of motion which we call time. The way we work all this out by math requires that we treat time as its own dimension.

 

Now, one could aks the question of "What is Time?" One of the starting points on answering such is to go to what actually is it we measure time from a physical sence by? Its movement and the rate of movement that we measure such by. For the universe, and this is irrespective of the argument of weither C has altered with time, everything tends to boil down to units of C itself or the speed of light. We scientists tend to work in what we could term a universal time measurment system different somewhat from say clock time or the time zone you find yourself in. Its the speed of light in a vacuum that matters to us. This is how we measure that extra dimensional value or rate.

 

An interesting sideline here is that under quantum theory with particle waves one has a phase of the particle wave. If one could shift that phase ahead in essence one could alter time for that particle. If one could shift it backwards one could shift time backwards for that particle wave. In essence that particle wave could be moved across its time dimension and yet, because this particle wave has altered its time its position would have moved also either forwards or backwards along its path according to the shift one imposed. The only aspect here imposed was a shift of time. Yet, that shift of time effects where that particle wave is at while leaving its other 3 dimensional "shapes" the same. So here one has an example of time utilized in the standard way we utilize other dimensions with a physical effect being brought about.

 

Now the above example given is based upon known physics. The reason I said if one could shift the phase has to do with what would be involved in doing such. Theoretically, if a wave of one certain phase, amplitude, etc is mixed with an equal and different phase wave one can alter the phase of such(see constructive and distructive waves). But, trying to do so at a quantum scale is way beyond anything we can do at present for a lot of reasons. But, the theory of such is actually sound even if beyond our ability. However, the idea does demonstrate how time does work out to be a real dimension from a physical point of view.

 

Time is a dimension. Yes, our measurment of time is rather dependent upon the observer. But, the fact that time can be altered and it brings about physical changes the same as altering say length is why we always treat it as a real dimensional quality.

[paultrr]

I might add that even Newton rather treated time as a sort of pseudo-dimensional quality. Granted with Newton he had something known as an absolute time frame. But, the way Newtonian ideas worked out time rather had all the qualities of a real dimension. Basically, to figure nature out in any way that actually makes any honest scientifically testable predictions that can be measured one has to treat time in its proper perspective.

[Drakon1323]

there is an argument that in exploring, however inevitable to our predicament, humans do far more damage to themselves and their environment. though religion is looked on with distain by many inthe scientific community specifically for the amount of suffering associated with it, science has caused more suffering than religion by far (to say that it was not the intention of scientists to cause the events at hiroshima and nagasaki is missing the point that likewise the influence of religion has not directly caused any suffering though its interpretation by violent people has)...

 

At the risk of taking this thread radically off topic, (which any whisper of religion does so very well), i must comment on 1 of ur statements.

I must say that as much as i fanaticly agree with the destructive tendencies of our species toward everything including nature, this statement is actually the opposite of what i see as truth.

Assuming that religion is a set of beleifs, influencing or even dictating the nature of the believer, then science and/or technology has caused NO harm. It is the beliefs of the individual which causes a person to use science in a destructive manner.

'The events at hiroshima and nagasaki' were a result of WWII, which was a world war started by the beliefs of a group who thought that ariens were superior to everyone else. This would be in-fact a part of their religion, their beliefs. (religion doesnt necessarily mean god or its equivalent)

[pgrmdave]

Assuming that religion is a set of beleifs, influencing or even dictating the nature of the believer, then science and/or technology has caused NO harm.

So, your argument is that no gun has ever killed, only the person holding it, is that right? How can you remove the tool from the action. If there were no guns, it wouldn't be possible to shoot somebody. If there were no bombs, we couldn't have dropped any, this fact cannot be ignored. While I don't think that science and technology are inherently bad or good, and that it is up to people to use them right, I will agree that while more people have died for and from belief systems, technology has allowed them to do it with startling efficiancy.

[paultrr]

Guns as an instrument used for the purpose of killing kill. Guns can also be used to say target practice. In that case, as long as proper safety measure are followed nothing more than paper gets hurt. Here guns are used, but, no killing is involved. If you consider defence of one's property or say another as valid then guns in this case are being used in a proper fashion. Most people who make these statements tend to forget that we've had weaphons capable of killing long before guns were developed. Man does the killing and makes the choice to kill irrespective of what science develops. The developments in themselves have no morality tied to them. The morality is something we apply to them.

[pgrmdave]

My point was simply that the means of killing have become more efficient because of technology. If we still only had sticks and stones, there would be killing, but nothing on the scale of modern, technological killing.

[pgrmdave]

And guns were developed to kill, or to injure, or in some other way hurt people, or animals, although I believe the the first guns were used in war. Target practice is practice for targetting, to teach people how to be even more efficient.

[Drakon1323]

yes, people have gotten FAR more efficient at killing, but in no way has the technology caused someone to kill, just given them more choices for accomplishing so.

[Drakon1323]

if we were still running around with sticks, there would not be significant difference in the number of people that were trying to kill.

[Drakon1323]

and in the interest of topic, it would just take them a little more time to accomplish so. which would change the dimensions of the acts of killing ;)

[motherengine]

in saying that guns have not caused murder is true. the avalibilty of guns may have given rise to violent ideas though. as religion has been misinterpreted to advocate murder, slavery, torture and brutal conquest it does not cause these things to happen any more than a gun causes someone to kill. literally one could say (as in the film 'collateral') people don't kill people, bullets kill them. but i believe violence is dependent on the individual. nothing outside an individual has the power in and of itself to cause an individual to kill. maybe a philosophy or a religion or the alluring power of a weapon can rouse a killer into action but these things do not create killers. the individuals in the united states government who are responsible for attacks on hiroshima and nagusaki probably did not decide to cause a atomic holocaust because of the technology but instead because it became avalible to them options were weighed and action was taken. the desire for action would have been the same without the help of the bomb. if this is not the case the argument would shift to how impressionable people are [the tabula rasa theory] and whether any group of individuals is capable of decerning what is or is not capable of 'causing' violence and filter accordingly. not a pretty picture though.

 

on a side note: i would be interested if anyone has information of a religion that directly encourages murder. i am doubtful. oh and this is way off topic so i will cease and desist.

[motherengine]

sorry about the confusion concerning my question (it did beg questioning) but i try to avoid having to type a bunch of clarifications like 'its just my opinion' and 'i believe this to be the case'. alot of unnecessary extra typing if you ask me. ;)