1. Time is a sequence of (x, y, z) coordinates?

2.

3. What?
No.

4. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
What?
No.
I'm sorry, but defend the truth of your statement with proof.

5. Time is a single dimension - ergo three coordinates are not needed.

6. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Time is a single dimension - ergo three coordinates are not needed.
Be so kind as to point out a mistake in my thinking.

"We do not live in 4-dimensional space because such are the rules of geometry, but according to the rules of geometry, three-dimensional space is one of the facets of four-dimensional space, and therefore, according to the rules of geometry, we must live in four-dimensional space, and if we go deeper, then four-dimensional space must be a face five-dimensional space, and five-dimensional space should be a facet of six-dimensional space, which means that you and I should live in six-dimensional space and perceive as five-dimensional and four-dimensional objects, and not projections of four-dimensional objects in three-dimensional space, but for some reason we do not perceive them, which means is it that we live only in three-dimensional space and there is no four-dimensional or five-dimensional space, or six-dimensional and higher in terms of space?"

7. I understand that physics does not lend itself to exclusively logical structures**.It is more a case of fitting potential models to existing or future observations.While there could in principle be any number of spatial and temporal dimensions these have only been observed as 3 spatial and 1 temporal so far.

The relativity model uses these but I understand some models attempt higher numbers without as far as I know explaining any phenomena not already covered by General Relativity.

** by which I mean that nature does not behave in a way that we may reason using logic that it should.

It is what it is ,as we find it.

8. Originally Posted by Anffaeledig
Be so kind as to point out a mistake in my thinking.
Which part of "Time is a single dimension - ergo three coordinates are not needed" did you not understand?

"We do not live in 4-dimensional space because such are the rules of geometry, but according to the rules of geometry, three-dimensional space is one of the facets of four-dimensional space, and therefore, according to the rules of geometry, we must live in four-dimensional space, and if we go deeper, then four-dimensional space must be a face five-dimensional space, and five-dimensional space should be a facet of six-dimensional space, which means that you and I should live in six-dimensional space and perceive as five-dimensional and four-dimensional objects, and not projections of four-dimensional objects in three-dimensional space, but for some reason we do not perceive them, which means is it that we live only in three-dimensional space and there is no four-dimensional or five-dimensional space, or six-dimensional and higher in terms of space?"
Nope. (And if that's a quote - as indicated - then you should provide the source).

9. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Anffaeledig
Be so kind as to point out a mistake in my thinking.
Which part of "Time is a single dimension - ergo three coordinates are not needed" did you not understand?

"We do not live in 4-dimensional space because such are the rules of geometry, but according to the rules of geometry, three-dimensional space is one of the facets of four-dimensional space, and therefore, according to the rules of geometry, we must live in four-dimensional space, and if we go deeper, then four-dimensional space must be a face five-dimensional space, and five-dimensional space should be a facet of six-dimensional space, which means that you and I should live in six-dimensional space and perceive as five-dimensional and four-dimensional objects, and not projections of four-dimensional objects in three-dimensional space, but for some reason we do not perceive them, which means is it that we live only in three-dimensional space and there is no four-dimensional or five-dimensional space, or six-dimensional and higher in terms of space?"
Nope. (And if that's a quote - as indicated - then you should provide the source).
I do not understand, since time, based on your words, is a one-dimensional dimension, then it can be visualized as a straight line in space, right?

No, this is not a quote, but my thoughts.

10. Originally Posted by Anffaeledig
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Anffaeledig
Be so kind as to point out a mistake in my thinking.
Which part of "Time is a single dimension - ergo three coordinates are not needed" did you not understand?

"We do not live in 4-dimensional space because such are the rules of geometry, but according to the rules of geometry, three-dimensional space is one of the facets of four-dimensional space, and therefore, according to the rules of geometry, we must live in four-dimensional space, and if we go deeper, then four-dimensional space must be a face five-dimensional space, and five-dimensional space should be a facet of six-dimensional space, which means that you and I should live in six-dimensional space and perceive as five-dimensional and four-dimensional objects, and not projections of four-dimensional objects in three-dimensional space, but for some reason we do not perceive them, which means is it that we live only in three-dimensional space and there is no four-dimensional or five-dimensional space, or six-dimensional and higher in terms of space?"
Nope. (And if that's a quote - as indicated - then you should provide the source).
I do not understand, since time, based on your words, is a one-dimensional dimension, then it can be visualized as a straight line in space, right?

No, this is not a quote, but my thoughts.
No, wrong. If time could be represented a series of points, or as a line in space, then it would not be independent of spatial coordinates and could not be a coordinate in its own right. Being an independent 4th coordinate means it can't be dependent on spatial coordinates.

11. @exchemist

"No, wrong. If time could be represented a series of points, or as a line in space, then it would not be independent of spatial coordinates and could not be a coordinate in its own right. Being an independent 4th coordinate means it can't be dependent on spatial coordinates."

Don't they talk about the time and spatial dimensions (right terminology?) flipping when conditions like singularities occur?

Time could become space and space become time?

Pretty sure I have heard that at least as a theoretical possibility.

(Did you watch the Sky at Night Question Time tonight from Chelmsford on BBC4?-good fun)

12. Originally Posted by exchemist
Originally Posted by Anffaeledig
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Anffaeledig
Be so kind as to point out a mistake in my thinking.
Which part of "Time is a single dimension - ergo three coordinates are not needed" did you not understand?

"We do not live in 4-dimensional space because such are the rules of geometry, but according to the rules of geometry, three-dimensional space is one of the facets of four-dimensional space, and therefore, according to the rules of geometry, we must live in four-dimensional space, and if we go deeper, then four-dimensional space must be a face five-dimensional space, and five-dimensional space should be a facet of six-dimensional space, which means that you and I should live in six-dimensional space and perceive as five-dimensional and four-dimensional objects, and not projections of four-dimensional objects in three-dimensional space, but for some reason we do not perceive them, which means is it that we live only in three-dimensional space and there is no four-dimensional or five-dimensional space, or six-dimensional and higher in terms of space?"
Nope. (And if that's a quote - as indicated - then you should provide the source).
I do not understand, since time, based on your words, is a one-dimensional dimension, then it can be visualized as a straight line in space, right?

No, this is not a quote, but my thoughts.
No, wrong. If time could be represented a series of points, or as a line in space, then it would not be independent of spatial coordinates and could not be a coordinate in its own right. Being an independent 4th coordinate means it can't be dependent on spatial coordinates.
So I mean, too, that if time can be visualized as a straight line, then this straight line would be a three-dimensional object.

But then what do we measure by time, the number of events?

13. Originally Posted by Anffaeledig
So I mean, too, that if time can be visualized as a straight line, then this straight line would be a three-dimensional object.
A straight line is one dimensional.

14. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Anffaeledig
So I mean, too, that if time can be visualized as a straight line, then this straight line would be a three-dimensional object.
A straight line is one dimensional.
Well, my mother died and I have a wild desire to go back in time and visit her, the question is what prevents me from doing this?

15. Originally Posted by Anffaeledig
Well, my mother died and I have a wild desire to go back in time and visit her, the question is what prevents me from doing this?
Any reason to think it might be in any way possible in the first place ? The wish is father to the deed? Anything is possible? Has this or anything similar ever happened before outside fiction literature?

16. Originally Posted by geordief
Originally Posted by Anffaeledig
Well, my mother died and I have a wild desire to go back in time and visit her, the question is what prevents me from doing this?
Any reason to think it might be in any way possible in the first place ? The wish is father to the deed? Anything is possible? Has this or anything similar ever happened before outside fiction literature?
Is there any reason to think that this is impossible? a trip to the event in which my mother is alive, by that time I, as a certain system, will be noticeably different from myself in the past (so to speak).

17. Originally Posted by Anffaeledig

Is there any reason to think that this is impossible? a trip to the event in which my mother is alive, by that time I, as a certain system, will be noticeably different from myself in the past (so to speak).
Everything screams it is impossible.Unless there is the faintest evidence or observation that something remotely similar has occurred then it is clearly just a talking point.
As they say ,extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations(edit:should be "require extraordinary evidence" ,I think)

18. Originally Posted by geordief
Originally Posted by Anffaeledig

Is there any reason to think that this is impossible? a trip to the event in which my mother is alive, by that time I, as a certain system, will be noticeably different from myself in the past (so to speak).
Everything screams it is impossible.Unless there is the faintest evidence or observation that something remotely similar has occurred then it is clearly just a talking point.
As they say ,extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations(edit:should be "require extraordinary evidence" ,I think)

Hypothetically, what should the proof look like? I think it is impossible to prove it to a third party, but you can only prove it to yourself, sending yourself to the event in which you need it.

19. Originally Posted by Anffaeledig
Originally Posted by geordief
Originally Posted by Anffaeledig

Is there any reason to think that this is impossible? a trip to the event in which my mother is alive, by that time I, as a certain system, will be noticeably different from myself in the past (so to speak).
Everything screams it is impossible.Unless there is the faintest evidence or observation that something remotely similar has occurred then it is clearly just a talking point.
As they say ,extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations(edit:should be "require extraordinary evidence" ,I think)

Hypothetically, what should the proof look like? I think it is impossible to prove it to a third party, but you can only prove it to yourself, sending yourself to the event in which you need it.
Prove it to yourself? I think you may have had the last word.

20. Originally Posted by geordief
Originally Posted by Anffaeledig
Originally Posted by geordief
Originally Posted by Anffaeledig

Is there any reason to think that this is impossible? a trip to the event in which my mother is alive, by that time I, as a certain system, will be noticeably different from myself in the past (so to speak).
Everything screams it is impossible.Unless there is the faintest evidence or observation that something remotely similar has occurred then it is clearly just a talking point.
As they say ,extraordinary claims require extraordinary explanations(edit:should be "require extraordinary evidence" ,I think)

Hypothetically, what should the proof look like? I think it is impossible to prove it to a third party, but you can only prove it to yourself, sending yourself to the event in which you need it.
Prove it to yourself? I think you may have had the last word.
I mean that when traveling to the event that I need, let's say in an event that is approximately equal to an event that has already happened, approximately because in the event I will go to, I myself will be in this event a distinctive feature of this event relative to the one that happened, proof that I am from the future, I do not know what can serve, what do you think can serve?

21. To my mind the scenario (at least on the macro level) is so bizarre as to not merit any consideration.

The quantum level might well be a very different scenario but that is not what you are apparently talking about.

 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