1. AN INTERPRETATION OF THE FOURTH DIMENSION
.
Let us start out with single units of measurement such as 1^1 which is a straight line of one unit length, 1^2 which is a measurement of area or one square unit and 1^3 which is a measurement of volume or one cube. When we come to 1^4 then, we cannot comprehend what type of space that would pertain to.
Time is presently looked upon as the fourth dimension but it is a measure of motion, not space.
Now if we think in measurements of two units, such as 2^1 , 2^2 , 2^3 and 2^4 , then it provides us with a little more insight into the meaning of the fourth dimension. 2^1 is a line two units long, 2^2 is a square of four units, 2^3 is a cube of eight units. When we come to 2^4 , that gives us 16 units of what? If we adhere to cubic units (space), we can maintain some symmetry of our building pattern by dividing the 16 cubic unit cube into two eight unit cubes to keep the pattern going. What, does this signify? What we are doing here then is dividing which is analogous to the biological world of cell division. We have moved into the living or biological realm. Any additional dimensions such as 2^5 and etc would then simply signify further division and multiplication representing cell growth.
2^4 can also be interpreted in a slightly different manner. The additional 8 unit cube can be divided into 8 individual units and placed at the corners of the first 8 unit cube. This would be symmetrical and balanced. What does this signify? Its significance is analogous to a plant or plant growth. The top cubes acting as branches and the bottom cubes acting as the roots. 2^5 and etc would again represent additional growth or extension of the branches and roots by placing them as additional cubes at each corner at the ends of the other 8 unit cube. Here again we represent symmetry and 2^4 could represent the biological realm of plants by symbolizing plant life and growth.
If we move into 3 unit dimensions such as 3^1 , 3^2 , 3^3 and 3^4 , we lose our symmetrical or uniform pattern. 3^1 is a 3 unit line, 3^2 is a 9 unit square and 3^3 is a 27 unit cube. 3^4 could then represent 3 - 27 unit cubes. Do cells divide into 3 units?
And the plant form? If we divide the other cubes into individual units and put them at the corners of the first 27 unit cube, which has only 8 corners, we have lost our symmetry by having some extra units left over creating an imbalance.

The two unit symmetry mentioned previously seems to be reflective in other aspects of nature as well. Examples are:
In matter, the electron and proton are the only basic particles of matter that are stable and can exist in isolation. However, in isolation, they would rapidly disperse and constitute nothing of value.
Electro-magnetic force is also dual in character. It has the electric and magnetic components and it is the only force we have a thorough understanding of.
Mathematics has its duality with positive and negative numbers and although the negative numbers are incomprehensible, they do play a small roll in some formulas of mathematics.
Life as we know it also has its duality being composed of animal and plant forms and they both complement each other.
We have the physical and spiritual worlds which is another example of duality. The spiritual world could be analogous to the negative numbers because of their difficulty for comprehension.
Then there is the reproduction of life. This also is a two unit world since it requires a male and a female to carry on the process. Either one alone can not carry on this function although the females can reproduce themselves in very rare situations.
There are probably several other examples that may exist

2.

3. Your post constitutes a text book case of 'wooly thinking'. May I recommend the discipline of self criticism. Properly employed it will produce two benefits:
a) You will gain a greater understanding of nature.
b) You will post less nonsense.

The downside is that you may become irrascible, sarcastic and trite. On balance the price is worth paying.

4. Ophi
You will notice that this post deals with space ONLY. It does not change space to another form of measurement like time does to a measure of 'motion'.

What it does here though is to transform space from a physical to a living form. Granted, this is a change but it is still a measurement of space.

You will also notice that I said this post is "something to think about". That is why I posted here in the 'philosophy' segment.

Nature seems to be primarily composed of TWO cimponents as I have finished the article to exist as an everlasting entity.

Mike NS

.

5. Is there a possibility that a person who hallucinates can probably be seeing another dimension? I hope I'm not being silly.

6. I don't think any question is stupid... I really wouldn't say that, but maybe... Who knows... I mean, isn't hallucinating is a result of some serious chemical changes in our metabolism and the reaction of our brain to these differences?

But your question popped another question in my mind. What about people that are stuck to other realities than the real happenings? I do believe in other dimensions, and possibilities of happenings that could happen at once! So, what if we focus too much on the other possibilities than what we observe in our dimension?

7. During math class a few days ago I realized something cool.
Check it out (this might be obvious for some).

f''(x) is the rate of rate of change (acceleration)
f'(x) is rate of change (speed)
f(x) is just a line
Here is were it gets interesting
∫f(x)dx is area
∫(∫f(x)dx)dx is volume
∫(∫(∫f(x)dx)dx)dx I postulate is the fourth dimension

I haven't had time, but by figuring out ∫(∫(∫f(x)dx)dx)dx and graphing it, or just studying it, one can understand a lot about the fourth dimension, and possibly the fifth too.

I might be wrong.

8. it is imposible to think of a 4th dimension because we cannot imagine a new direction in which to move, because to us it is nonexistant.

9. or because its too small to move along.

10. Originally Posted by wallaby
or because its too small to move along.
how can a dimesion be "small?" we can go up/down, right/left, and back/forward infinitely, why would any other dimension be finite?

11. not finite but smaller than an atom.

12. Update: three integrals of something represents an expanding volume. So in essence, a 4 dimensional plane has the x y and z axis and an invisible 't' (for time) axis. I suppose everything falls into place, because of the theories that the universe is expanding and that this expansion is what causes time. Or actually time is what causes this expansion. I guess we are kind of in the fourth dimension... or maybe we can say the fourth dimension is out of this universe. Anyhow, the fourth dimension can be proven to be time using some complicated calculus. Well, that's what my math teacher has lead me to believe anyhow.

13. I thought time was the 4th dimension?? Am I wrong??

14. Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
I thought time was the 4th dimension?? Am I wrong??
depends on how many spatial dimensions you wish to talk about.

15. We could talk about supersymmetric string theory, which in order to work, requires either 10, 11 or 26 spacetime dimensions.

16. Originally Posted by Mike NS
What it does here though is to transform space from a physical to a living form. Granted, this is a change but it is still a measurement of space.
I don't understand... a living form?

Maybe you ment change or movement of the 3 physical dimensions... which can be interpreted as the time variable.

17. I think it can be 2 things.

1) Simply this

| /
| /
|/
______

imagine this as 3 dimensional

the obvious next line should be somewhere in there like this

| /
| /
|/
______
\
\
\

don't know what that means, but that would be the most logical next line

2) Time... look at the cube and see that it already does pass 4 dimensions. Only when you look at it for a second (fraction of a second) it doesn't pass the 4th dimension.

18. Originally Posted by wallaby
Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
I thought time was the 4th dimension?? Am I wrong??
depends on how many spatial dimensions you wish to talk about.
Is Tetraspace a spatial dimension, I just saw mention of it on another forum?

19. Originally Posted by chamilton333
how can a dimesion be "small?" we can go up/down, right/left, and back/forward infinitely
Who is this we? You, for one, certainly cannot do anything or go anywhere infinitely except in your imagination.

20. According to Einstien the fourth dimension was TIME.

21. that doesn't mean you can't abstractly use some maths to make more spaciall dimensions right?

22. Originally Posted by wallaby
that doesn't mean you can't abstractly use some maths to make more spaciall dimensions right?
Correct, as long as you remember that math cannot "make" spatial dimensions. Using mathematics, it is possible to postulate any number of spatial dimensions. Such postulation might even be useful in some contexts. Look at how useful is the artificial construct of 3 dimensions of space known as Euclidean geometry.

According to Einstien the fourth dimension was TIME.
Einstein doesn't have to be right. The fourth dimension could be time, it cold be spatial, or its none of the above and more uncomprehensible than usual. Also, I think that the fourth dimension has to be spatial because we can move in time and we can look back in time, so we can sorta perceive it. On the look back in time, I mean make a mirror in space and look through it, you see yourself just back in time

24. All time is past, The future does not exist. we are in the so called present which is the latest bit of the past so is time a dimension or a sense :wink: :wink: :wink:

25. Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
All time is past, The future does not exist. we are in the so called present which is the latest bit of the past so is time a dimension or a sense :wink: :wink: :wink:
Or an illusion? I think that time is an illusion because energy, or photons don't have time, and time is subjective, so I think time is an illusion

26. Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
All time is past, The future does not exist. we are in the so called present which is the latest bit of the past so is time a dimension or a sense :?
This sounds like an existential argument to me. Under what definition of time do you consider that all time is past? Do you not believe, and operate from your belief, that tomorrow you will meet someone or do some activity? Do you never plan for the future, even if for later in the evening? If so, then you must think in terms of the future in time. What might you mean by all time is past? Also, if we are in the present, as you say, then is this not part of the non-past? I think that the question is not whether or not time is a dimension, but just how many dimensions of time are there.

27. it depends on your frame of reference doesn't it?

the moment i die all time for me will be in the past, not that i'll be able to care. however for others they are still moving through time even if i am not, so how much time is in the past is dependant on the event and frame of reference to which we make our observation.

28. Originally Posted by wallaby
it depends on your frame of reference doesn't it?

the moment i die all time for me will be in the past, not that i'll be able to care. however for others they are still moving through time even if i am not, so how much time is in the past is dependant on the event and frame of reference to which we make our observation.
Once you die, there will no longer be a you for there to be time that can be considered to be in the future or the past. However, the space-time that makes up your body will still have both a future and a past.

29. Hermes.

Q [This sounds like an existential argument to me. Under what definition of time do you consider that all time is past?]
How many are there ??

Q [Do you not believe, and operate from your belief, that tomorrow you will meet someone or do some activity? Do you never plan for the future, even if for later in the evening? If so, then you must think in terms of the future in time.]
Yes, we all plan our lives in the hope that to morrow will arrive, but it is only a concept, and indeed may not arrive at all! Past, present and the future are concepts that we use to fix? or register events

Q [What might you mean by all time is past?]
To my thinking (I would be interested to hear your thoughts) The future is just that Faith, Hope, Probability but is yet to happen thus Time = past to present. Future = Probability, I realise that this is a can of worms.

Q [Also, if we are in the present,]
Surly thatâ€™s where we are livening our lives

Q [ then is this not part of the non-past? ]
I do not understand what you are getting at with (none past)

Q [I think that the question is not whether or not time is a dimension, but just how many dimensions of time are there.]

Finally if time is a dimension, and I do not disagree, I just do not know, how many definitions are you aware of, please donâ€™t be too technical I am just a simple seeker of knowledge

30. Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
Q [Do you not believe, and operate from your belief, that tomorrow you will meet someone or do some activity? Do you never plan for the future, even if for later in the evening? If so, then you must think in terms of the future in time.]
Yes, we all plan our lives in the hope that to morrow will arrive, but it is only a concept, and indeed may not arrive at all! Past, present and the future are concepts that we use to fix? or register events
If you even have the abiity to anticipate that something might happen in the future, then you must, I consider, accept that there will be a future. The future will be a future in time, will it not? Therefore, there will be time in the future. Even more, there is also the present. The present is not the past.

Q [What might you mean by all time is past?]
To my thinking (I would be interested to hear your thoughts) The future is just that Faith, Hope, Probability but is yet to happen thus Time = past to present. Future = Probability, I realise that this is a can of worms.
Probability of what? That there will be a future? Do you consider it possible that there will ever cease to be a future? Do you think it possible that there will not still be a present in the future? Where do you think that the present will come from, if not from the future?

Q [Also, if we are in the present,]
Surly thatâ€™s where we are livening our lives
Yes, but this is not the past, is it, which you said that everything must be.

Q [I think that the question is not whether or not time is a dimension, but just how many dimensions of time are there.]

Finally if time is a dimension, and I do not disagree, I just do not know, how many definitions are you aware of, please donâ€™t be too technical I am just a simple seeker of knowledge
This is, of course, the million dollar question. My personal belief is that we live not in a world of space or time, but in a world of space-time. Each dimension of whch we are aware is therefore not a dimension of space or time, but a dimension of space-time. The division of dimensions into dimensions of space and dimensions of time is not an optimal method of division of our world of space-time.

31. Q If you even have the abiity to anticipate that something might happen in the future, then you must, I consider, accept that there will be a future.

might happen, does not equate to, there will be

Q Probability of what? That there will be a future? Yes
Do you consider it possible that there will ever cease to be a future? Yes
Do you think it possible that there will not still be a present in the future? Yes
Where do you think that the present will come from, if not from the future?
How can the present come from the future and be in the future? [are you saying that the future exists now]

Q Yes, but this is not the past, is it, which you said that everything must be.
[correct, conceded, but as soon as it exists it becomes the past.

32. If you even have the abiity to anticipate that something might happen in the future, then you must, I consider, accept that there will be a future. The future will be a future in time, will it not? Therefore, there will be time in the future. Even more, there is also the present. The present is not the past.
Yes, but this is not the past, is it, which you said that everything must be.
Here we are assuming that time even exists. He might mean, by the way that we may die and not see tommorow. Actually the present is the past, the immediate future is the present, then the past. The past jus keeps getting farther away. Also, since you don't process anything instantly, than you are always living in the passt. For example, when you responded, you had to wait and think about what he said before answering, in other words, looking into the past

Probability of what? That there will be a future? Do you consider it possible that there will ever cease to be a future? Do you think it possible that there will not still be a present in the future? Where do you think that the present will come from, if not from the future?
Apparently he did open a can of worms. But, he is not saying that their is a probability that the future will exist. I believe what he meant was that what will happen in the future will not definetely be one thing, there is a probability of something happening.

This is, of course, the million dollar question. My personal belief is that we live not in a world of space or time, but in a world of space-time. Each dimension of whch we are aware is therefore not a dimension of space or time, but a dimension of space-time. The division of dimensions into dimensions of space and dimensions of time is not an optimal method of division of our world of space-time.
You are again assuming time exists, and is not an illusion. Time is subjective. I think that we all live in a dimension of space, not in a dimension of space-time. Time is relative, as I said before. We live in a dimension of space, and then we perceive time as a part of the addition of the dimension, however, it's just a perception. To photons, time doesn't exist.

33. Originally Posted by Hermes
Once you die, there will no longer be a you for there to be time that can be considered to be in the future or the past. However, the space-time that makes up your body will still have both a future and a past.
to an observer outside of me there is still spacetime making up the decomposing bag of meat that is my dead body. this was a bad example though because your right, i would no longer exist.

so i'll be more general.
if different spacetime events occur at fixed points reletive to the observer then so too is the limit of what can be percieved or observed by that observer. when one observer reaches the limit of what they can observe in time they are either at the begining or the end of time FOR THEM.
others may, and commonly will, disagree on this limit.

for me the universe began on december 11 1990 and i can't percieve any event before then. therefore it is the limit of what i can observe in a past direction.

as for all time being in the past well while you can contemplate the future this is just imagination, hasn't happened and may or may not ever happen. whether remembering the past is any different from imagining the future i'll leave for someone else to decide, because i can't.

34. Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
Q If you even have the abiity to anticipate that something might happen in the future, then you must, I consider, accept that there will be a future.

might happen, does not equate to, there will be
Sure it does. When you wrote this, did you not consider the possibility of a reply from me in the future? Now, can you recognize that you have that reply? So, you were able to ponder the future, and the future came to pass. Whether or not you ever do it again, although of course you do it all the time, will you not concede that there must exist a future of the universe for you to be able to ponder it? The future need not be fixed and pre-determined in order for it to exist.

Where do you think that the present will come from, if not from the future?
How can the present come from the future and be in the future? [are you saying that the future exists now]
It is the fuiture that evolves into the present. There exists a future now, but it is still in the future, until it evolves into the present, from which it will evolve into the past.

35. Originally Posted by weirdesky
You are again assuming time exists, and is not an illusion. Time is subjective. I think that we all live in a dimension of space, not in a dimension of space-time. Time is relative, as I said before. We live in a dimension of space, and then we perceive time as a part of the addition of the dimension, however, it's just a perception. To photons, time doesn't exist.
I consider that time exists, whether or not there are also illusions about time. Time is subjective, that is true, in the sense that time is fundamentally not objective. People attempt to enforce objectivity on time, such as by creating units of time based on cyclic phenomena such as the cycle of the year. I disagree that time is just a perception. Can you identify one thing in the entire universe, as we know the universe today, where it is possible to be aware of that thing, or where it is even theoretically possible that such a thing might exist, outside of the context of time? To photons, time may not exist, but there is nothing else in the universe for which this may be claimed. Even photons cannot exist outside of the context of time, as they must exist within the context of the rest of the universe, which requires that time exist.

36. Originally Posted by wallaby
i'll be more general.
if different spacetime events occur at fixed points reletive to the observer then so too is the limit of what can be percieved or observed by that observer. when one observer reaches the limit of what they can observe in time they are either at the begining or the end of time FOR THEM.
others may, and commonly will, disagree on this limit.
I do not understand all, or perhaps much, of what you are trying to say here. I do not understand the concept of a "fixed point" in space-time.

for me the universe began on december 11 1990 and i can't percieve any event before then. therefore it is the limit of what i can observe in a past direction.
I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. Anyway, just to ask, have you ever looked out into the night sky? If so, then undoubtedly you have perceived points of light that began their journey toward you long before 1990. Also, if you observe a photograph taken before then, would that not count at all as perception?

as for all time being in the past well while you can contemplate the future this is just imagination, hasn't happened and may or may not ever happen. whether remembering the past is any different from imagining the future i'll leave for someone else to decide, because i can't.
Whether or not you can determine the future, how can you state the you are not sure if there ever was a time when you pondered the future and then at a later point in time, the future, contemplated it again? The question is whether or not a future exists, not its nature. If you do not think that the universe will most likely disappear from existence now, then you must consider that the universe will be here in the future. In such case, you must consider that there is such a concept as the future.

37. Sorry Hermes but in my language possibility does not equate to certainty and if the future evolves into the present then it must be in reverse, you say there is a future now, so, does it have events in it

38. Since nothing can be created or destroyed, just changed, then time is an illusion to explain the world around us.

39. Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
Sorry Hermes but in my language possibility does not equate to certainty
Are you suggesting that you walk around with no expectation, ever, that there will be a future?

and if the future evolves into the present then it must be in reverse,
Where do you think the present comes from, if not from that which had been the future?

you say there is a future now, so, does it have events in it
How do you define the word events? Everythiing that exists in the present or in the past also had to have had existence in the future.

Perhaps the question boils down to what time is. Perhaps you have a very different understanding of time than me, if you discount that there is a future.

40. Originally Posted by Hermes
I do not understand all, or perhaps much, of what you are trying to say here. I do not understand the concept of a "fixed point" in space-time.
an event occuring in spacetime as measured by an observer.
the spacetime values of these events is reletive to the observer.

Originally Posted by Hermes
I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. Anyway, just to ask, have you ever looked out into the night sky? If so, then undoubtedly you have perceived points of light that began their journey toward you long before 1990. Also, if you observe a photograph taken before then, would that not count at all as perception?
reletive to me they exist in that position in my time. i could use reletivity concepts to think in a different way, but thats not direct observation.

Originally Posted by Hermes
Whether or not you can determine the future, how can you state the you are not sure if there ever was a time when you pondered the future and then at a later point in time, the future, contemplated it again? The question is whether or not a future exists, not its nature. If you do not think that the universe will most likely disappear from existence now, then you must consider that the universe will be here in the future. In such case, you must consider that there is such a concept as the future.
but i couldn't contemplate the future again until that later point existed.
i can't contemplate wednessday on sunday until sunday. my contemplating it tonight is different cause of different co-ordinates and different conditions, i'm tired right nw for example. i maybe tired tomorrow, but i won't know there is a tomorrow until it arrives.

41. Originally Posted by wallaby
an event occuring in spacetime as measured by an observer.
the spacetime values of these events is reletive to the observer.
OK, I accept this as a working definition.

reletive to me they exist in that position in my time. i could use reletivity concepts to think in a different way, but thats not direct observation.
Why? If you look at your friend in front of you, you are looking into the past, as it took time for the light from that person to reach you. When you see that person, he has already moved beyond that time. The difference is only a matter of degree, I think.

but i couldn't contemplate the future again until that later point existed.
i can't contemplate wednessday on sunday until sunday. my contemplating it tonight is different cause of different co-ordinates and different conditions, i'm tired right nw for example. i maybe tired tomorrow, but i won't know there is a tomorrow until it arrives.
I don't understand how this could affect whether or not a future exists. In fact, all of your talk seems to point to the requirement that a future exists.

42. Die Fledermaus wrote:
Sorry Hermes but in my language possibility does not equate to certainty

Are you suggesting that you walk around with no expectation, ever, that there will be a future?
Expectation does not mean certainty

Quote:
and if the future evolves into the present then it must be in reverse,

Where do you think the present comes from, if not from that which had been the future?
Had been the future??? You are using a past tense to describe the future.

Quote:
you say there is a future now, so, does it have events in it

How do you define the word events? Everything that exists in the present or in the past also had to have had existence in the future.
Had to have an existence in the future???? Again the past tense.
So my car broke down yesterday, now, and tomorrow??

Perhaps the question boils down to what time is. Perhaps you have a very different understanding of time[future] than me, if you discount that there is a future.
OK so what is the future, Please

43. Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
Had been the future??? You are using a past tense to describe the future.
No. I am using the past tense to describe that which in the past had been in the future, but which now is no longer in the future, but which has evolved into the present or past.

Perhaps the question boils down to what time is. Perhaps you have a very different understanding of time[future] than me, if you discount that there is a future.
OK so what is the future, Please
I suggested that we have different understandings of time. You now ask me for an objective definition for that which I claimed is clearly subjective here. I cannot tell you what time is in a manner that you must accept. Perhaps you want to know what I consider the future to be. The current conception of time is in the form of a ray. A ray is a geometric figure that has a point that constitues the beginning, with all other points progressing in a single direction away from that point. The reason that time is in the form of a ray is that time can only move into the future, and not into the past. The point in time that constitutes the present is an ever-shifting point on this ray, with the direction of shift always the same, away from the origin, into the future. The future is the set of points on the ray of time that have not yet occupied the point of the present. All points that have occupied the point of the present, but which do not do so now, are considered to be in the past.

44. Originally Posted by Hermes
Why? If you look at your friend in front of you, you are looking into the past, as it took time for the light from that person to reach you. When you see that person, he has already moved beyond that time. The difference is only a matter of degree, I think.
the difference is in how you look at the situation.
if you rely on pure observation then to your frame of reference they are not in the past but the present, to you.
if one knows of reletivity concepts and uses them, then by they can indirectly observe an object, i think thats what i should call it.
if i look at a blank spot of the night sky with my telescope and i know that there is a star there, who's light has not reached me yet, then i'm indirectly observing the star.
depends on what concepts i make my observations.

Originally Posted by Hermes
I don't understand how this could affect whether or not a future exists. In fact, all of your talk seems to point to the requirement that a future exists.
not nessisarily. i'm assuming it exists, and what is assumed to be true and what is proved to be true are often very different occurances.
if you assume a future exists: well theres no proof i can think of that would indicate such a phenomenon as occuring, or about to occur.
if you assume it doesn't exist: then outcomes are irrelevant if they have not happened yet, or perhaps its just simple probibility.

45. Originally Posted by wallaby
Originally Posted by Hermes
I don't understand how this could affect whether or not a future exists. In fact, all of your talk seems to point to the requirement that a future exists.
not nessisarily. i'm assuming it exists, and what is assumed to be true and what is proved to be true are often very different occurances.
if you assume a future exists: well theres no proof i can think of that would indicate such a phenomenon as occuring, or about to occur.
if you assume it doesn't exist: then outcomes are irrelevant if they have not happened yet, or perhaps its just simple probibility.
I recognize that this is only an assumption on your part. If we use this context, then we are wasting our time limiting our context to the future, aren't we? If you prefer to use as our context the notion that we are assuming that the future exists, and cannot know it, then you cannot know that a past exists either, can you? You also cannot know that you exist, or I, can you? Everything that you have ever believed to be true was based on assumptions that you cannot be sure are true, and therefore you cannot know anything. I do not mind such thinking, but I do not think it fair to limit it to the argument about the existence of the future while letting the existence of the past be assumed to exist based on a different standard of evidence.

Just to let you know, you are mistaken when you talk about what "is proved to be true". Nothing can ever be proven to be true except within the bounds of your assumptions about what exists and what else is assumd to be true.

46. Hermes.
The concept of time as a one directional ray is understood so:

Quote. The reason that time is in the form of a ray is that time can only move into the future,

Are you saying that the time ray is moving into something that is separate to time [the future]? Or that it is moving forward towards a concept that we call the future? Or perhaps that the front of the ray is the future and the present is just a bit behind??

47. Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
Are you saying that the time ray is moving into something that is separate to time [the future]?
We understand time as a ray of points. The future is our name for some of the points.

Have you ever heard that time flies like an arrow? This is another analogy for the ray that we use to symbolize time. The point at which the arrow is now is the present. The set of points where the arrow has been and left constitute the past. The set of points where the arrow has not been but will be constitute the future.

48. Originally Posted by Hermes
Just to let you know, you are mistaken when you talk about what "is proved to be true". Nothing can ever be proven to be true except within the bounds of your assumptions about what exists and what else is assumd to be true.
quite right

Originally Posted by Hermes
I recognize that this is only an assumption on your part. If we use this context, then we are wasting our time limiting our context to the future, aren't we? If you prefer to use as our context the notion that we are assuming that the future exists, and cannot know it, then you cannot know that a past exists either, can you? You also cannot know that you exist, or I, can you? Everything that you have ever believed to be true was based on assumptions that you cannot be sure are true, and therefore you cannot know anything. I do not mind such thinking, but I do not think it fair to limit it to the argument about the existence of the future while letting the existence of the past be assumed to exist based on a different standard of evidence.
depends on personal views of reality i guess.
if nothing exists then reality is another assumption and exists within the bounds of our assumption. future even more so because it is unmeasured, unrecorded, unpredictable, subject to change. (it hasn't happened reletive to my point on the timeline, which may end......NOW for all i know)
the past could never have happened, the present may not exist. i guess we can't ever know.

it seems to remain reletive to the observer does it not?

49. [quote="wallaby"]if nothing exists then reality is another assumption and exists within the bounds of our assumption. [/quoteEven if reality exists, which normal people assume does, its nature is still based on assumptions made by the mind.

future even more so because it is unmeasured, unrecorded, unpredictable, subject to change.
I don't consider this to be particularly relevant. However, I can see that there is a difference, and you seem to place more significant emphasis on this difference than I do.

it seems to remain reletive to the observer does it not?
If you are asking is I think that reality is subjective, I agree that there is much about each individual's understanding of reality that is subjective.

50. So my statement was correct?? Ie

Die Fledermaus wrote:
Are you saying that the time ray is moving into something that is separate to time [the future]?

You mean the tip of the arrow is the present and is moving into the future

51. Originally Posted by Hermes
Even if reality exists, which normal people assume does, its nature is still based on assumptions made by the mind.
so were in agreement then.

Originally Posted by Hermes
I don't consider this to be particularly relevant. However, I can see that there is a difference, and you seem to place more significant emphasis on this difference than I do.
the relevance is they are different, which you can see. past has been and the future does not yet exist, reletive to present observation by an observer. remaining subjective.

52. Originally Posted by wallaby
the relevance is they are different,
How is that relevant to this topic, exactly? Bears and dogs are very different, yet in the context of a discussion about space they both are part of it. The past and the future are very different, yet in the context of time, they are both part of it. If they were not different, they would not go by different names. I do not understand the relevance that you consider so important.

53. Hermes, I am still puzzled with your description of the Time ray or Arrow, I can equate it to my view of the time line but where exactly on the ray do you say the present is located? My view as you know would put the present right at the front, are you saying that the present is part way along the ray and moving forward towards the future which exists and is on the time ray? Or is the present at the front of the ray and moving into a future that exists but is separate and not yet part of the time ray

54. Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
Hermes, I am still puzzled with your description of the Time ray or Arrow, I can equate it to my view of the time line but where exactly on the ray do you say the present is located?
We recognize time in the form of a ray, for which the arrow is a typical and common analogy. In this analogy, perhaps it is better not to consider that the arrow itself is time, but rather the path that the arrow follows. The arrow is currently here (wherever that is), at the point of the present. The path of the arrow since it began its flight constitute the points in its past. An arrow in flight is such that it will continue to fly to points in the future. The subset of all points in the lifetime of the arrow's flight that the arrow has yet to reach constitute its future.

My view as you know would put the present right at the front, are you saying that the present is part way along the ray and moving forward towards the future which exists and is on the time ray?
I claim that a future exists, and that it is perceived on the ray of time, yes.

Or is the present at the front of the ray and moving into a future that exists but is separate and not yet part of the time ray
Another way to look at it is that the arrow moves in one direction, into the future. Over time, progressively more of the future points of the arrow move into the present.

Time is perceived in the form of a ray, as the arrow of time moves in only one direction, into the future, and not into the past. As well, only the future evolves into the present, the past does not. The future represents the set of points that have not yet been reached, as they have not yet, but will, evolved into the present. The past represents the set of points that once were in the future but that have already evolved into the present and from there have evolved into the past.

55. Originally Posted by Hermes
How is that relevant to this topic, exactly? Bears and dogs are very different, yet in the context of a discussion about space they both are part of it. The past and the future are very different, yet in the context of time, they are both part of it. If they were not different, they would not go by different names. I do not understand the relevance that you consider so important.
a coin has two faces, in a discussion on coins they are both part of it. yet one face of the coin is different from the other face or the same face of another coin, hence its relevant to the nature of the coin.

past and future are different faces of the same coin and in a disscusion on it then yes they are both part of it. this discussion being on the nature of time makes the diffrentiation between past and future very much relevant.

56. Originally Posted by wallaby
past and future are different faces of the same coin and in a disscusion on it then yes they are both part of it.
I see that you agree with me on this.

this discussion being on the nature of time makes the diffrentiation between past and future very much relevant.
I think that this discussion is about the first point above. If you want to discuss the nature of their difference, that is another interesting topic.

57. [quote="Hermes"][quote="Die Fledermaus"]

[quote] My view as you know would put the present right at the front, are you saying that the present is part way along the ray and moving forward towards the future which exists and is on the time ray?

[/quote Hermes]I claim that a future exists, and that it is perceived on the ray of time, yes.

So Hermes,
If you accept the BB theory, then that was the beginning of time, and we are [together with the expanding universe] in the present, now you say the present is on the time ray but not at the front, so time must be accelerating at a greater rate than the universe [otherwise the present would be at the front]. Now as I understand it the universe is expanding and creating space and therefore time as well as it expands, therefore the future [if in front of the present as you suggest] would be expanding into that which does not exist.

58. I like to tell you my idea about the 4th our 5th dimension..

Consciousness, the border of the universe..
Since the mind and life institute is trying to explain more about science and spiritualism I would like to tell you my idea about consciousness. The thing is that men is looking in the wrong direction with A. Einsteins relativity theory. Not light itself is moving, we are moving true time and space with the speed of light. Light is only an energy leaving his source as a trail.

At the speed of light there is no time. So nothing can move.
From the point of view from a person each distance is a possibility into the future. While we travel true time we are able to see all options what the light is showing us.

To prove my idea I wrote the following text...

I can prove that the relativity theory of Einstein is wrong. The good point is that I can make this understandable for many people in a very simple way. The issue I try to prove with my idea is that our own consciousness is the absolute border of the universe. To prove this I have to prove that the speed of light is not 300.000km/sec but actually zero. I know that this sounds completely strange but read on and I will try to explain you in a short way how I think to prove this.

The first thing to know is that there is no time at light speed. How can something move if there is no time to move? Looking to the twin paradox a traveler true space leaves the earth and comes back and is only 1 second older. The person on Earth is than for example 2 years older.

If the traveler true space only became one second older, he never could make a longer trip than 300.000km. He had only 1sec to travel! The person on earth was traveling in the same "period" at least 30km/sec, because that is the speed of earth around the sun. Well, 2 years x 30km/sec is a lot more than 300.000km.

Off course I have to explain you a lot more than this, I just hope that I can open some eyes of the scientists working with this theory. If the theory is relative, you also should put it upside down. If light moves with 300.000km/sec one way, we are moving with the same speed the other way. Notice that we measure seconds, not the photon. You need time to move.

I would like to tell you a lot more about the way it is possible that we can "see" things if light is not moving, also this is not to difficult to understand. From the point of view from the individual all other positions are possibility's in the future. The person travels true time ( to tomorrow and so on..) while light leaves a trail into the past from the point of view where it comes from.

I hope that you understand my idea what I would like to show to the people. The idea of a multiversum is so a lot closer to mankind ( everyone is the middle of his own universe) ans consciousness is the border of the universe. We can chose our own future.

59. Originally Posted by Die Fledermaus
So Hermes,
If you accept the BB theory, then that was the beginning of time,
I disagree. The Big Bang is not about the beginning of time at all. It is about the beginning of space-time. It is neutral on the origin of time, and there is no evidence that time did not exist before then.

and we are [together with the expanding universe] in the present, now you say the present is on the time ray but not at the front,
The ray is an analogy, not an exact model. In other words, a ray is the way that people tend to envision time, as a concept that travels in one direction. When you use the statement about a ray, I think that you are thinking of the analogy of the arrow. In this case, the arrow itself is the present, and its path contains the past and the future. Back to the ray analogy, where exactly is the front of a ray?

so time must be accelerating at a greater rate than the universe [otherwise the present would be at the front]. Now as I understand it the universe is expanding and creating space and therefore time as well as it expands, therefore the future [if in front of the present as you suggest] would be expanding into that which does not exist.
I don't really understand this. Do you think that you will have a future? If so, then your future will materialize into the present. Don't you ever plan what you will do tomorrow? If so, you must expect and count on your future. So, I do not understand how you can doubt that the future will exist, unless you never makes plans for it. For example, why get a job if you don' believe that you can count on ever going to work, since that is in the future, unless you believe that there is a future.

If this did not respond to your question directly, then perhaps I did not quite undersand your question.

60. Hermes - how do you distinguish time and space-time. In relativity time no longer exists as a seperate entity and it is constructed for the big-bang model from the tempreture of the cosmic background radiation usually. Big Bang theory states that there is a beginning to time.

61. Hermes, I am only using the analogies that you made,

You are not addressing the points that I raise, only repeating what you have previously said, the only way I can answer is by repeating myself and this is obviously pointless and gets us nowhere, so let us respectively agree to disagree.

62. Originally Posted by river_rat
Hermes - how do you distinguish time and space-time. In relativity time no longer exists as a seperate entity and it is constructed for the big-bang model from the tempreture of the cosmic background radiation usually. Big Bang theory states that there is a beginning to time.
What is the beginning of time? Are you suggesting that there are scientists who claim that there definitely was nothing before the Big Bang? Do scientists think that it is essentially proven that there was no time that ever existed before the big bang? I do not think so. Space-time is what created in the Big Bang. Time, independent of space, could well have existed before the Big Bang. If we live in a cyclic universe, for example, then time must continue. There is no proof that this is not the case. Science does not have comvincing evidence about the universe prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the unification of space with time, as space-time. Before that, time could well have existed, and the universe could well have existed. Space could well have existed, in a form distinct from time. Now, post Big Bang, there is no space that exists outside of the context of time, and to discuss space outside of the context of time is to give up accuracy for simplicity. Post Big Bang, it is sub-optimal to discuss space as though it is meaningful outside of the context of time, and vice versa. Science does not consider pre Big Bang. This is not evidence that it did not exist.

63. then if we live in a universe than 'begun' with a big bang singularity then the first intervals of time emerges from an infinity. i think.

64. Originally Posted by wallaby
then if we live in a universe than 'begun' with a big bang singularity then the first intervals of time emerges from an infinity. i think.
Interesting. I agree that before the big bang the notion of an interval would not so meaningful. If time is infinite, as it well might be, then space-time emerged from this infinity.

65. Originally Posted by Hermes
What is the beginning of time? Are you suggesting that there are scientists who claim that there definitely was nothing before the Big Bang? Do scientists think that it is essentially proven that there was no time that ever existed before the big bang? I do not think so. Space-time is what created in the Big Bang. Time, independent of space, could well have existed before the Big Bang. If we live in a cyclic universe, for example, then time must continue. There is no proof that this is not the case. Science does not have comvincing evidence about the universe prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the unification of space with time, as space-time. Before that, time could well have existed, and the universe could well have existed. Space could well have existed, in a form distinct from time. Now, post Big Bang, there is no space that exists outside of the context of time, and to discuss space outside of the context of time is to give up accuracy for simplicity. Post Big Bang, it is sub-optimal to discuss space as though it is meaningful outside of the context of time, and vice versa. Science does not consider pre Big Bang. This is not evidence that it did not exist.
Well as the space-time manifold we exist on only existed "after" the big-bang then yes, science does believe that there is a beginning to time. There is no time independant of space - thats the entire point of relativity, newton's universal clock ticking away does not exist. There is no universe before the big bang, there is not even a big bang as the point t=0 is not pasrt of the spacetime manifold. The entire statement "before the big bang" is meaningless.

66. Not meaning to be pretentious but I think there may be some confusion from one or two as to what Einstein meant by the forth dimension(time). When Einstein talked of the forth dimension(time) he used it more as a reference for an event to occur i.e. there will be at meeting at suchandsuch degnorth suchandsuch degeast altitude 0 at 5:45. A particle in space can move through the 3 spatial dimensions and time, but according to Einstein time only moves forward(at variable speeds of course) but even accounting for Simultaneity it only moves forward. The people who interpret Einsteins 4thD as a dimension akin to the first 3 are misinterpreting space-time or what 4 dimensions meant to Einstein. Of course Einstein isn't the be all and end all and you are welcome to philosophize on what the 4th could be to you but it may be easier if you dont confuse Einsteins meaning.

67. Imaplanck - thats true for special relativity, in general relativity the entire issue is murkier. The point though is that time in general relativity is not god given but constructed via equivalence classes of observers in the universe (ie you and i are in the same time epoch because we measure the same cosmic background radiation temp. for example). Its similar to how tempreture is constructed as as such is always postive, there is no time T=0 as there is no tempreture 0K and negative quantities in both make no sense.

68. Originally Posted by river_rat
Imaplanck - thats true for special relativity, in general relativity the entire issue is murkier. The point though is that time in general relativity is not god given but constructed via equivalence classes of observers in the universe (ie you and i are in the same time epoch because we measure the same cosmic background radiation temp. for example). Its similar to how tempreture is constructed as as such is always postive, there is no time T=0 as there is no tempreture 0K and negative quantities in both make no sense.
Yes but that's what I said, yes? I said 'TIME CAN ONLY MOVE FORWARD'? Or am I misunderstanding what you just said and you're indeed saying that's incorrect?

69. Well nothing in general relativity itself prevents time loops - so locally you could technically get time to travel backwards using some exotic negative energy densities : so time doesnt have to flow forward in GR, at least in what we would normally call forward.

70. Originally Posted by river_rat
Well as the space-time manifold we exist on only existed "after" the big-bang then yes, science does believe that there is a beginning to time. There is no time independant of space - thats the entire point of relativity,
I disagree completely. The point of relativity deals with the post big bang world. It does not rule out a cyclic universe, for example, in which case your points would not be accurate or relevant. Relativity deals with space-time, not with time independent of space. It canont rule that out prior to the big bang, as relativity is not relavent outside of space-time.

newton's universal clock ticking away does not exist.
True, but only because clocks only have meaning in the context of space-time.

There is no universe before the big bang, there is not even a big bang as the point t=0 is not pasrt of the spacetime manifold. The entire statement "before the big bang" is meaningless.
It is if you limit your concept of the universe to post big bang, and then define, as you seem to be doing, that there can be nothing outside of your limited definition.

71. Originally Posted by river_rat
Well nothing in general relativity itself prevents time loops - so locally you could technically get time to travel backwards using some exotic negative energy densities : so time doesnt have to flow forward in GR, at least in what we would normally call forward.
It's a hypothesis, but to me it would still mean time is moving forward although looping? Yeah OK you could define that as time running backwards I guess. It's not a part of Einsteins General relativity papers though. To my knowledge he never proposed time running backwards in relativity or even looping.

72. double post

73. Einstein never actually solved his field equations - to my knowledge he did not think you could find a closed form solution to such a nonlinear set of equations. Mathematics was not einsteins strong point. Karl Schwarzschild found the first closed form solution if i remember my GR history correctly. Anyway, a few solutions to the equations that seem quite reasonable locally have these so called time loops (or more properly closed time-like curves) which allow time travel - for example the Kerr vaccum or the godel solution.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement