# Thread: Questions that you are bound not to be capable of answering

1. 1.How should time move if it is a dimension?
2.How should time move if it is the change of an object during each step of time?
3.How should it be possible that 2 objects are at the same time position if 2 objects cannot be at the same position?
4. Why does ligh not dissapear (in space), seemingly time is slowed down to 0 for light?
5. if you move an object though force on its x axis, it won't move on its y axis; then howcome, if one would to reverse time, would the x,y,y axis of space change?
6. Why is timedilation possible without dissapearing objects?

7.Why, if you are unable to answer these questions, is it impossible for Einsteins theory to be pausable?

I hold the correct answer to all questions. If you are able to give me only 1 correct answer I'll owe you a million bucks.

2.

3. Yea ok, i'll take a pot shot at your questions. Although your right, no one is gonna be able to answer them... if they can't understand what your trying to say!

1. Linearly forward ?
3. (x_1,y_1)=(1,2) ; (x_2,y_2)=(1,3) ; x_1=x_2 , yet object 1 is not at the same position as object 2.
7. Do you have a more effective theory to explain real life phenomena ?

4. Originally Posted by miomaz

I hold the correct answer to all questions. If you are able to give me only 1 correct answer I'll owe you a million bucks.

You pay in roubles?

5. Originally Posted by miomaz
I'll owe you a million bucks.
What the hell good is an IOU?

6. Time is a FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT, not actually movement itself. Time is subject ONLY to the Zeroth Law of physics, not the Dynamical Laws.

Understand that time IS a spacial property, just as are LWH (LWH being properties of the Dynamical Laws).

Time is thus the line of symmerty of LWH combined.

Cosmoligically, is the dynamic line of supersymmetry of infinite universal parallax of all matter in motion.

Thus, at every instant, the vast mosaique of particles in the universe we call spacetime, can be described in terms of its length, width, height, and line of symmetry - time.

Time is a LINE OF SYMMERTY. The perspective from which LWH are viewed to be symetric to one another at the same instant from the point of an observer. That why math is completely BASED ON SYMMETRY. Time IS the EQUAL sign.

The reason that the timeline is so dynamic, however, is because it is in constant curvature. In fact, it is in a state if super curvature throught the universe. The degrees of this curveature (infentesimal arclengths) are instances. To follow this curvature beyond a quantum level would require additional spacial dimensions....the twist, fold, etc all the way to 11-dimensional super gravity. Only here, can two instances occur at the 'same' time.

When you're referring to the DURATION of something, you are referring to INSTANCES of time. In other words, duration occupies segments of the time line. Instances (duration of change) of the universal line of symmetry (time line) are what are identified by ?t. ?ts then proceed according to the law of temproal order: The motion of any particle with respect to a given reference frame can be represented as an orbit in position space.

The best way we have to measure segments of this universal line of supersymmetry (duration of change) is w/ atomic clocks. The instant is calculated using ?s = c?t, where c is a positive numerical constant and ?s is the arclength of the clockâs orbit between the two instants. Our measure of time is thus related to the measure of distance in position space and the law of
simultaneity: At every instant, each particle has a unique position.

Just to reiterate, Time IS the equal sign.

This is why all eqn's in mathematics equate to Zero.
Time is a property of only the Zeroth Law. Otherwise everything in the universe would be equal to.....?nothing!

That doesnt make any sense at all, does it? The truth about zero is that it is the only constant. Zero IS sequentially infinite, and the time line (math's equal sign) sits perfectally balanced on this notion. Zero is TRULY +/-infinity.

Time, thus, is by no means movement; it is the fourth spacial dimension, in constant expansion from and ALWAYS symmetric from and to Zero respectively. This is why it is such a paradox.

WHEREs MY MILLION BUCKS?

7. Originally Posted by miomaz
1.How should time move if it is a dimension?
2.How should time move if it is the change of an object during each step of time?
3.How should it be possible that 2 objects are at the same time position if 2 objects cannot be at the same position?
4. Why does ligh not dissapear (in space), seemingly time is slowed down to 0 for light?
5. if you move an object though force on its x axis, it won't move on its y axis; then howcome, if one would to reverse time, would the x,y,y axis of space change?
6. Why is timedilation possible without dissapearing objects?

7.Why, if you are unable to answer these questions, is it impossible for Einsteins theory to be pausable?

I hold the correct answer to all questions. If you are able to give me only 1 correct answer I'll owe you a million bucks.

A dimension isn;t necessarily "spatial", as it seems you are assuming (namely, that a dimension is spatial).

On our human level, currently, we are all living in, as one, 8 or so billion dimensions, each of us occupying our own dimension, our own reference, our own "centre of the universe" coordinate. Well may we agree that a certain object may be perceived at the same place in a space-time grid, but time as a dimension itself can be fractionated up into a VAST number, limitless, categories of sub-levels, without changing the spatial feature of that object under reference-question.

On that assessment the remainder of the statements you made can be answered.

(If you could please forward the money to me via PM instructions.....only kidding: a person being in debt to someone..........that's not real, is it).

8. @Twilight
1. Linearly forward ?
3. (x_1,y_1)=(1,2) ; (x_2,y_2)=(1,3) ; x_1=x_2 , yet object 1 is not at the same position as object 2.
the two positions are not the same: the x axis has the same value but the definition of a position comprises all 3 dimensions (excluding time). But your idea was correct. I won't say more, it is the easyest of the questions.
7. Do you have a more effective theory to explain real life phenomena ?
No, Einsteins theory is correct, if you are able to answer my questions, only then Einsteins theory can be pausable.

No.

@Rye Rye
the Time dimension is the dimension, and the movement of time is what humans/living beeings expierence. They are 2 different things.
Still the term Time does not seperate the two, and therefore causes these discussions.
Another thing is that you have not answered one question I asked but explained what (to your view) time is.

@streamSystems.
It is fully irrelevant if other dimensions, other than the 3 spatial dimensions and time, because I am only reffering to them.

On our human level, currently, we are all living in, as one, 8 or so billion dimensions, each of us occupying our own dimension, our own reference, our own "centre of the universe" coordinate. Well may we agree that a certain object may be perceived at the same place in a space-time grid, but time as a dimension itself can be fractionated up into a VAST number, limitless, categories of sub-levels, without changing the spatial feature of that object under reference-question.
Firstly, this is wrong. Secondly, this is a theory. Thirdly this Philosopical. and lastly it does not answer a single question.

NEXT

 Oh, all questions can be answered without additional theorys, only the standard (einstein ect.)

9. 7) Eistein's Theory is plausible because it answers more questions than any other theory currently. The fact that it doesn't answer every question is why theoretical physicists still have a job and why they're investigating things like string theory.

3) Two objects can't be at the same space-time coordinates in a given frame of reference, because they would have collided before then.

For a partial answer to most of your questions time is not a spatial dimension. It's a temporal dimension. When you measure space-time distances, you do so with the formula sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2). Note the minus sign. It makes a big difference. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this measurement is not dependent on which frame of reference it's made in.

10. @miomaz

im sorry you did not corretly interpret what in clearly explaned to you. I clearly defined time as a the dimention through which the movement of objects having LWH occurs. This is in relation to m-theory. If you wanted to understand how it is that time is a dimension but still moves, then understand that it is not time that moves. Particles move, however it seems that you do not fully comprehend the nature of motion itself.

Time is a LINE. A freedom of movement. It is a way in which to move, not movement itself. Again, this line is in dynamic curvature throughout the universe, as it's line of symmetry is relative to universal parallax, or, the movement of all bodies. The only reason ppl perceive that time moves is because the line of symmetry constantly changes as objects in the universe are in constant motion.

If you question this, then reexamine the Temporal Order Law and how instances affect the time line. This will explain why time seems to slow down when we accelerate. You will see that it is not time that moves, but matter through it in arclengths.

I've answered questions 1 and 2.

With respect to question 3, if u understood special relativity at all you would know that two object at two different spaces have DIFFERENT observations of time, not the same, sorry.

I don t understand question 4. I don't think anyone else does either. Please clairify.

Q5: If yo move an object ONLY on the x axis, then it is 2-dimensional movement, duh.

And with respect to your last question, learn about M-theory and Temporal order and you'll see that my argument is sound.

I have provided you with evidence to show this. Where is your evidence to support your argument?

Again....wheres my million bucks. Pay up or proove your rebuttle.

11. @ MagiMaster
7) Einsteinâs Theory is plausible because it answers more questions than any other theory currently.
People in the 15th century thought that there where witches and wizards, because it was the most likely thing to their knowledge.
I agree with you though Einsteinâs theory is not only plausible but very likely.
the fact that it doesn't answer every question is why theoretical physicists still have a job and why they're investigating things like string theory.
then its time to unemploy some theoretical physicists.

3) Two objects can't be at the same space-time coordinates in a given frame of reference, because they would have collided before then.
AHHH! So you agree with me. You answered a question, I owe you. But even though, this should sound extremely disturbing to you:
if a coffee cup is at position 1 on the time axis, and its content is at position 2, where will the content and the coffee cup be in the 3 spatial dimensions (x,y,z axis)? I'm so happy someone has figured something out so we can move on to the real obligation of this thread, thank you MagiMaster.

@Rye Rye

im sorry you did not corretly interpret what in clearly explaned to you.
I just had to put this in quotes, it is a beautiful way to say "you are stupid". But never mind, I don't take this personally.
I assure you that I have, read and understood about all these theories, which you can explain to a certain degree with some neat examples (must say, I like the part where you say: "Time is a LINE", sounds like a rap song)
If you wanted to understand how it is that time is a dimension but still moves, then understand that it is not time that moves. Particles move, however it seems that you do not fully comprehend the nature of motion itself.
I asked that time is a dimension and still moves, this does not mean I do not know the answer.

The only reason ppl perceive that time moves is because the line of symmetry constantly changes as objects in the universe are in constant motion.
Time is a LINE.
I clearly defined time as a the dimention through which the movement of objects having LWH occurs
Bravo to Rye Rye, you have done it! You see, that time is neither a dimension, line nor change, but rather all of these things. Someone decided to name these 3 things time, which causes allot of misunderstanding, and you, yourself, have demonstrated that.

With respect to question 3, if u understood special relativity at all you would know that two object at two different spaces have DIFFERENT observations of time, not the same, sorry.
observations, views, chicken bucks or what ever, it is the position that I asked for, nothing else.
What do you mean by observations?

question number four: "Why does light not disappear (in space), seemingly time is slowed down to 0 for light?"
Back to the coffee cup example: the coffee cup is on position 1 on the time axis and the content is on position 2, where will both be in the (3) spatial dimensions? The spatial position stays the same. It is unimportant where the coffee cup/content is in time, it is the speed relative to each other moving though time.

Q5: If yo move an object ONLY on the x axis, then it is 2-dimensional movement, duh.
....2d movement in 3d space, duh. How does that answer the question?

And with respect to your last question, learn about M-theory and Temporal order and you'll see that my argument is sound.
Your argument is sound? But again you fail to answer the question.

12. Originally Posted by miomaz
the fact that it doesn't answer every question is why theoretical physicists still have a job and why they're investigating things like string theory.
then its time to unemploy some theoretical physicists.
Well, not quite. The point is to find answers to the questions left unanswered.

3) Two objects can't be at the same space-time coordinates in a given frame of reference, because they would have collided before then.
AHHH! So you agree with me. You answered a question, I owe you. But even though, this should sound extremely disturbing to you:
if a coffee cup is at position 1 on the time axis, and its content is at position 2, where will the content and the coffee cup be in the 3 spatial dimensions (x,y,z axis)? I'm so happy someone has figured something out so we can move on to the real obligation of this thread, thank you MagiMaster.
I'm not sure I follow. If you only consider the space-time coordinates of the center of the objects, then they can coincide; however, you can't really tell if certain objects collide or not just by looking at their centers. In reality, it's the position of the atoms that matter. So even though a cup and its contents appear to be at the same place at the same time, they're actually not. I may be misunderstanding you though, so this might not answer your question.

Edit: Sorry, I just noticed the last half of my post got a bit mangled.

13. Originally Posted by Rye Rye
Time is a FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT, not actually movement itself. Time is subject ONLY to the Zeroth Law of physics, not the Dynamical Laws.

Understand that time IS a spacial property, just as are LWH (LWH being properties of the Dynamical Laws).

Time is thus the line of symmerty of LWH combined.

Cosmoligically, is the dynamic line of supersymmetry of infinite universal parallax of all matter in motion.

Thus, at every instant, the vast mosaique of particles in the universe we call spacetime, can be described in terms of its length, width, height, and line of symmetry - time.

Time is a LINE OF SYMMERTY. The perspective from which LWH are viewed to be symetric to one another at the same instant from the point of an observer. That why math is completely BASED ON SYMMETRY. Time IS the EQUAL sign.

The reason that the timeline is so dynamic, however, is because it is in constant curvature. In fact, it is in a state if super curvature throught the universe. The degrees of this curveature (infentesimal arclengths) are instances. To follow this curvature beyond a quantum level would require additional spacial dimensions....the twist, fold, etc all the way to 11-dimensional super gravity. Only here, can two instances occur at the 'same' time.

When you're referring to the DURATION of something, you are referring to INSTANCES of time. In other words, duration occupies segments of the time line. Instances (duration of change) of the universal line of symmetry (time line) are what are identified by ?t. ?ts then proceed according to the law of temproal order: The motion of any particle with respect to a given reference frame can be represented as an orbit in position space.

The best way we have to measure segments of this universal line of supersymmetry (duration of change) is w/ atomic clocks. The instant is calculated using ?s = c?t, where c is a positive numerical constant and ?s is the arclength of the clockâs orbit between the two instants. Our measure of time is thus related to the measure of distance in position space and the law of
simultaneity: At every instant, each particle has a unique position.

Just to reiterate, Time IS the equal sign.

This is why all eqn's in mathematics equate to Zero.
Time is a property of only the Zeroth Law. Otherwise everything in the universe would be equal to.....?nothing!

That doesnt make any sense at all, does it? The truth about zero is that it is the only constant. Zero IS sequentially infinite, and the time line (math's equal sign) sits perfectally balanced on this notion. Zero is TRULY +/-infinity.

Time, thus, is by no means movement; it is the fourth spacial dimension, in constant expansion from and ALWAYS symmetric from and to Zero respectively. This is why it is such a paradox.

WHEREs MY MILLION BUCKS?

14. @ Deathridesahorse:
precisely

@ MagiMaster:

Originally Posted by miomaz
the fact that it doesn't answer every question is why theoretical physicists still have a job and why they're investigating things like string theory.
then its time to unemploy some theoretical physicists.
Well, not quite. The point is to find answers to the questions left unanswered.

3) Two objects can't be at the same space-time coordinates in a given frame of reference, because they would have collided before then.
AHHH! So you agree with me. You answered a question, I owe you. But even though, this should sound extremely disturbing to you:
if a coffee cup is at position 1 on the time axis, and its content is at position 2, where will the content and the coffee cup be in the 3 spatial dimensions (x,y,z axis)? I'm so happy someone has figured something out so we can move on to the real obligation of this thread, thank you MagiMaster.
I'm not sure I follow. If you only consider the space-time coordinates of the center of the objects, then they can coincide; however, you can't really tell if certain objects collide or not just by looking at their centers. In reality, it's the position of the atoms that matter. So even though a cup and its contents appear to be at the same place at the same time, they're actually not. I may be misunderstanding you though, so this might not answer your question.
When my Professor explained the curvature of space with a blanket and some apples, I doubt that this example was very precise, its purpose was to give us a picture of what we would be learning the next few lessions.

Think again.
(I did it with atoms this time)
A: coffee-cup (atom)
B: contence (atom)

---------------Object - Time ---- X ---- Y ---- Z ----
---------------A---------1---------?-------?-----?-----
---------------B---------2---------?-------?-----?-----

Tip: Seemingly an object can't have the same time coordinates, will the laws of physics still take place for 2 objects, will the collide when they touch surfaces?

15. It's slightly confusing to talk about the time coordinate of an object, since the object was somewhere at all time coordinates. Because of this, I'm not sure I understand your last question. Anyway, to see how the cup and the coffee exist together, you need to pick a point that's actually part of the cup when looking at its coordinates.

16. How can it be that an Object has passed all of the time coordiantes if we still experience time? For an object to have reached all coordinates, time must find an end.

the time coordinate is independant of the other dimensions, it does not grow relatively, exactly like the other 3 spatial dimensions. (if I add to the x axis +1, I will not also move +1 on the y axis (or z axis or in time).
If you are thinking of time dilation which can be caused though speed, thats something else.

17. I can't really put together anything coherent right now, but this may be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line

18. No, it has nothing to do with theWorld line, since its functionallity is not influenced by how many space dimensions exist, nor do the objects in my examples have to do with multi dimensional space-time.
I'm talking about plain 1d. ( if there are more time dimensions does not influence the objects)

I guess nobody can answer the questions (so many views of this topic, so little posts). If no one is capable of answering, Ill answer them on the 6th of January.

19. This is an interesting riddle you pose, miomaz. I'm going to take my try at answering and see if our theories are similar or dissimilar.

Our minds only traverse time in one direction and at one speed. (Or rather, they only occupy time in one direction) Who knows whether a technology may someday be developed that changes this?

To understand a 4 dimensional universe, you have to reason that motion is an illusion created by our in ability to look at it from any perspective other than the one we're seeing. In the 4 dimensional sense, nothing ever moves. Everything is stationary.

Basically, our mind is slowly moving through a stationary universe, but we're the only thing really moving.

Imagine moving 2 dimensionally from top to bottom through the inside of a tapered column on a building. What you'd see is a circle getting larger and larger. Now, imagine it were a more complex shape, like a drill bit design. You'd see a mass moving in circles, kind of. As long as you only ever move at one speed, it looks like "up" and "down" are a time dimension.

So:

Originally Posted by miomaz
1.How should time move if it is a dimension?
It shouldn't.
2.How should time move if it is the change of an object during each step of time?
It shouldn't.

3.How should it be possible that 2 objects are at the same time position if 2 objects cannot be at the same position?
In the 3d sense, they can occupy the same position at different times. In the 4d sense, they cannot ever be in the same position.

4. Why does ligh not dissapear (in space), seemingly time is slowed down to 0 for light?
I don't think anything ever fully reaches true C.

If your mass approaches infinity as you approach the speed of light, then an object can easily get right up next to that threshold, without reaching it, but never really reach it. So, light is just traveling at very nearly C, so close that the difference between it's speed and C is nearly infinitely small.

5. if you move an object though force on its x axis, it won't move on its y axis; then howcome, if one would to reverse time, would the x,y,y axis of space change?
This requires some explanation. Why do you think this is true? It seems to me that, if time were reversed, the object would go back along the x axis again.

6. Why is timedilation possible without dissapearing objects?
It never stands perfectly still.

7.Why, if you are unable to answer these questions, is it impossible for Einsteins theory to be pausable?
Is his theory supposed to answer all these questions?

I hold the correct answer to all questions. If you are able to give me only 1 correct answer I'll owe you a million bucks.
You must have a really good answer. I'll be curious to hear it.

20. Nice. But, since its getting allitle risky for me ( I don't want to owe someone 1 million on this forum), Ill answer the questions now.

1.How should time move if it is a dimension?
It shouldn't.

x(x+1)=0

the solution set to this equasion is: x1=0 and x2=-1
You see that it has 2 answers. If you would anser the solution set with only 1 of the answer, the equasion could be correctly answered, but its solution set would be incorrect, which I'm sure you know about.
The answer to question 1. is like one of these equasions where x has more than 1 possible answer.
The term time is ambiguous. It has two meanings, it is both a dimension and a human-experience of them moving though time.
( you can also explain the question with arrays, if I ask for the value of the array time you cannot distinguish between time[0] and time[1])
So the correct answer to the question would not be:
Time doesn't move, because it is a dimension (=it shouldn't) or
Time does move because we experience it.
But it is more both. Time is both. Time is a term that is used for these totally different things, a dimension and human experience (in the time dimension).

I must say the question was treacherous, but it saved me a million.

2.How should time move if it is the change of an object during each step of time?
It shouldn't.
Question 2. is exactly like question 1 just the other way around. ( see that you see the difference between the two time kinds, time dimension and movement)

3.How should it be possible that 2 objects are at the same time position if 2 objects cannot be at the same position?

In the 3d sense, they can occupy the same position at different times. In the 4d sense, they cannot ever be in the same position.
You are correct. Ill accept that you mean the 3d as the spatial dimensions and time as the 4th.

4. Why does ligh not dissapear (in space), seemingly time is slowed down to 0 for light?
I don't think anything ever fully reaches true C.

If your mass approaches infinity as you approach the speed of light, then an object can easily get right up next to that threshold, without reaching it, but never really reach it. So, light is just traveling at very nearly C, so close that the difference between it's speed and C is nearly infinitely small.
I suspected that if one ansers the 3'rd question right one would be able to answer the 4'th. Remember: what you think does not prove.
The answer is very simple. If you change the time, it won't change the spatial dimensions. If you change the x axis you don't move on the y and z axis or time axis.
And how should we know that if we move on the time dimension it does not inflict itself on the x,y,z axis? because we are constantly moving though time, therefore if I were to go back in 'time', why would it make a difference to going 'fowards' in time? (You could mention time dilation, but that is something different) Precisely, there is no difference!

5. if you move an object though force on its x axis, it won't move on its y axis; then howcome, if one would to reverse time, would the x,y,z axis of space change?
I ment z. But I think you recognized my mistake.

This requires some explanation. Why do you think this is true? It seems to me that, if time were reversed, the object would go back along the x axis again.
As I have explained in question 4, the time dimension is a dimension (as the name already says) and is to be handled like a dimension. The only difference between the time dimension and the 3 spatial dimensions is that all matter (simply everything non-dimension) moves at a constant rate though the time dimension (eventhough you can change the rate of moving though time by causing time dilation, which slowes you/object down in time. )

6. Why is timedilation possible without dissapearing objects?
It never stands perfectly still.
This answer is also a assumption, and it does not answer the question. If I where to move from you, at the speed of nearly light, there would be a grat timedilation, meaning that we would be at 2 different points in time.
(since I have been slowed down in time, and you continued your normal rate though time). This is Einsteins problem, the two people, have reached two different time positions, though the time dilation.
If time were reversed, the object would go back along the x axis again.
this is exactly what would happen when I would travel at nearly lightspeed away from you (causing the time dilation).
I would travel back on my x,y,z axis.

7.Why, if you are unable to answer these questions, is it impossible for Einsteins theory to be pausable?
Is his theory supposed to answer all these questions?
No, Einsteins theory does not work if you can't explain these phenomenons without his theory. logically. For example: Lets say Im the first man to make a functional airplane on paper.
If I'm unable to explain why an airplain should fly, seemingly mending gravity, in theory my airplane could not take off.

 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