# Thread: time, just what the hell is it?

1. I'm always confused when people call time a dimension, it doesn't seen to have anything in common with the other dimensions. time kinda just seems like an abstraction people came up with to keep track of events.

but i figure there's smarter minds than me on here. so anyone wanna explain this to me?

2.

3. I've read posts on several internet forums that stated time, as we see it, is merely our way of observing higher dimensions. We can not see the higher dimensions directly but we see the changes that occur as a result of it with time.

Picture this. A two dimensional creature is standing on a 3 dimensional world. It can only see in that three dimensional world through one plane. As objects pass through that plane the creature can only see those objects in two dimensions. Say an apple passed through it's plane of existence. From the perspective of the two dimensional creature that apple would begin off narrow, it would grow outward as it neared the center of the apple, it would then suddenly contract to the stem then wink completely out of existence.

Basically what we see as time may be static objects moving through a higher dimension.

Other people merely describe time as that which clocks measure.

4. Originally Posted by medlakeguy
I'm always confused when people call time a dimension, it doesn't seen to have anything in common with the other dimensions.
Since nothing observable is timeless (nor "spaceless") I rate time a major league dimension.
Originally Posted by medlakeguy
just seems like an abstraction people came up with to keep track of events.
You could say the same of other dimensions.

5. Originally Posted by BumFluff
I've read posts on several internet forums that stated time, as we see it, is merely our way of observing higher dimensions. We can not see the higher dimensions directly but we see the changes that occur as a result of it with time.

Picture this. A two dimensional creature is standing on a 3 dimensional world. It can only see in that three dimensional world through one plane. As objects pass through that plane the creature can only see those objects in two dimensions. Say an apple passed through it's plane of existence. From the perspective of the two dimensional creature that apple would begin off narrow, it would grow outward as it neared the center of the apple, it would then suddenly contract to the stem then wink completely out of existence.

Basically what we see as time may be static objects moving through a higher dimension.

Other people merely describe time as that which clocks measure.
interesting... but wouldn't we then see a lot of weird things growing bigger and then smaller and then disappearing? that's what i'd expect anyways...

6. Time is said to be the fourth dimension

7. Originally Posted by Pong
Originally Posted by medlakeguy
I'm always confused when people call time a dimension, it doesn't seen to have anything in common with the other dimensions.
Since nothing observable is timeless (nor "spaceless") I rate time a major league dimension.
Originally Posted by medlakeguy
just seems like an abstraction people came up with to keep track of events.
You could say the same of other dimensions.
Dimension has a very solid very long lasting definition. It means something that can be measured, in length, breadth or thickness.

Time is infinite in length, so that would actually rule it out as being a dimension.

We create time dimensions, by calling a year 365 and quarter days. It is based on how often the planet earth turns and the time it takes the earth to orbit around the sun.

Space can be dimensioned. However right now it is infinite so it also could not be a dimension.

Calling things a dimension wrongly is designed to create a confusion. That is not what science is about. This is bad science to the max.

When the guy on the Twighlight Zone says "Another dimension of space and time". He might be talking about a measurement of a building for rent, and its floor space. Or a half hour.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

what did i say billy?

9. I think that physicists have also created their own definition of the word "time" that is different from that of what the general public understands.

This of course is a tremendous linguistic problem that needs to solved by physicists creating a unique word that cannot be confused with something else.

10. Originally Posted by medlakeguy
what did i say billy?
I would have to go out and fabricate some BS. I don't have any. And if I do, I will get it straightened out, without an argument. I will highlight my error and come back and apologize.

I am an, amateur scientist.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

11. Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
I think that physicists have also created their own definition of the word "time" that is different from that of what the general public understands.

This of course is a tremendous linguistic problem that needs to solved by physicists creating a unique word that cannot be confused with something else.
what would you say physicists are talking about then?

12. Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by medlakeguy
what did i say billy?
I would have to go out and fabricate some BS. I don't have any. And if I do, I will get it straightened out, without an argument. I will highlight my error and come back and apologize.

I am an, amateur scientist.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
The way you act you seem a rejected scienst whom is spiteful of other scientists because they are more intelligent than yourself.

13. I tried to ask you guys that very question a few months ago, yet no responses....

From what I can surmise, physicists call time a dimension only because it appears as one when you place it on an X,Y,Z graph. They place it on a graph like that in order to combine actual time with entities like displacement and energy. By doing this you are making it much easier to view how the different entities interact with each other. Really though, they should call it the "time plane", or "time axis" instead. This goes on to other things like Einstein's use of the word in "space time".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

"By combining space and time into a single manifold, physicists have significantly simplified a large amount of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels."

So time is not really a dimension like we normally think of a dimension in life or in physics, but rather like the type we observe in geometry. But, in quantum physics there are theories that literally treat time like those dimensions used in normal life and in physics. I do not understand these theories very well.

14. Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
From what I can surmise, physicists call time a dimension only because it appears as one when you place it on an X,Y,Z graph.
i think their a little smarter than that but who knows, you might be right.

You could say the same of other dimensions.
well yes and no, i can actually travel along x, y and z. we can pinpoint where x y and z are with a lot of accuracy. and the standard dimensions can still be pinpointed five minutes from now, whereas events in time are completely different from second to second...

there's differences

15. Originally Posted by medlakeguy
Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
I think that physicists have also created their own definition of the word "time" that is different from that of what the general public understands.

This of course is a tremendous linguistic problem that needs to solved by physicists creating a unique word that cannot be confused with something else.
what would you say physicists are talking about then?

The original "Physics" definition of dimension was, The product of mass, length, time, etc, raised to the appropriate power, in a derived physical quantity.

The dimension, like squared or cubed. There was no multi particle rocket science needed.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

16. Originally Posted by Edmund
Originally Posted by William McCormick
Originally Posted by medlakeguy
what did i say billy?
I would have to go out and fabricate some BS. I don't have any. And if I do, I will get it straightened out, without an argument. I will highlight my error and come back and apologize.

I am an, amateur scientist.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
The way you act you seem a rejected scienst whom is spiteful of other scientists because they are more intelligent than yourself.
The funny thing is that you are not a real scientist until you are not rejected. I am probably to old to become one now. But I love science and truth. And I have friends all over earth. That love to hear that there is something else other then, boson, meson quark nonsense.

So I will probably die a very successful amateur scientist. I already have all the things you are claiming to want yet from your science. I am just trying to wake you up.

The problem I have there is no place to play, and too few to play with.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

17. Originally Posted by medlakeguy
Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
From what I can surmise, physicists call time a dimension only because it appears as one when you place it on an X,Y,Z graph.
i think their a little smarter than that but who knows, you might be right.

You are good, cut me right out of the loop.

I would not bet on Neutron scientists, being any sharper then a marble.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

18. everybody, please tell billy why you hate him.

19. Originally Posted by medlakeguy
You could say the same of other dimensions.
well yes and no, i can actually travel along x, y and z. we can pinpoint where x y and z are with a lot of accuracy. and the standard dimensions can still be pinpointed five minutes from now, whereas events in time are completely different from second to second...

there's differences
Pinpoint accuracy: split something. Now you can say the original thing ceased to be at the exact time the individual parts became. This is more accurate than saying something is located at x, y, z because it was five minutes ago.

I think your three spacial coordinates are ganging up on one dimensional time, making time look superfluous, or cheap because it lacks the depth of space.

20. i don't know, space and time are just so much... different

lets just compare y to time then, if something is located on y at any point, its modifiable, you can visit that point, leave it, and come back. if something happened a second ago, you can never visit that second again.

maybe that's just because we're moving through time. if that's true, in a 4d universe wouldn't we be seeing a lot of hypershapes floating around? and coulden't we change our motion through time?

21. Originally Posted by medlakeguy
I'm always confused when people call time a dimension, it doesn't seen to have anything in common with the other dimensions. time kinda just seems like an abstraction people came up with to keep track of events.

but i figure there's smarter minds than me on here. so anyone wanna explain this to me?

You can simply treat time as an physical quantity like length , mass , temperature and so on . Time is created accompanied by other physical units and quantities along with evolution process of the universe . It represents continuity an spedific physical process endures , like mol represents amount of matter . It does not has exclusive position among all other physical units and quantities .
Time unit of second just happen to represent one dimensional time , and mimus two dimensional time represents informaton unit . Time also has multidimensional nature , like those of space : one dimensional space represents length , 2 dimensional space area , 3 dimensional space volume .
Only these multidimensional time embed themselvies among certain physical quantities . such as , in space time configuration (STC) for some physical units ,
STC(N) = |G| m^4 s^-4 (Newton) ; STC(kg) = |G| m^3 s^-2 (kilogram) ;
STC(J) = |G| m^5 s^-4 (Joule) ; STC(w) = |G| m^5 s^-5 (Watt) ;
STC(A)= √|G| m^3 s^-3 (Ampere) ; STC(C)= √|G| m^3 s^-3 (Cloumb) ;
STC(Wb)= √|G| m^2 s^-1 (weber) ; STC(T) =√|G| s^-1 (Tesla) .
here |G| =6.67259e-11 (modulus of gravitational constant)

In this way , multidimensional space and time combined forming various physical units .

From investigation to all physical units we have observed , we have found that 5 dimensional space and 5 dimensional time are composed of all kinds of physical units , that is , the universe is consists of 10 dimensional space time , since the universe is composed of nothing but various physical quantities (physical units ) .

Quantitatively saying , the universe is operating under an physical process , so called G bubble burst , and each G bubble process creates time structure of s , and exact time quantity of 1.3512124957728855…e-43 s , during same process , other space time structure of physical units and physical quantities are also created , such as
Mass unit : kg =|G|m^3s^-2 , and mass quantity of 0,5454545454545454...e-7 kg
Length unit : m , and length quantity of 0.4050833153880067.…e-34 m ........

Up to know , total numbers of 7.75778067879957--...e+60 G bubble have been burst in the universe , and created all kinds of physical quantities accordingly , such as ;
Time quantities in total : (7.75778067879957--...e+60) (time gauge)
Length quantities in total 7.75778067879957--...e+60) (length gauge)
Mass quantities in total : (7.75778067879957--...e+60) (mass gauge)
............. ,
and can be calculated out by an formula so called General physical property equation of the unvierse . with perfect match up to observations.

One thing you should pay attention is that G bubble physical process creates time unit (s) itself and time quantity , instead of this process is stipulated , measured by time .

Remark : every physical unit has its G gauge whose value is constantly equal to 1 .

To see more detailed , please refer to following papers at :

http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c1.htm

http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c2.htm

http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c8.htm

http://www.universefedback.com/popularized_e/c10.htm

22. Originally Posted by medlakeguy
lets just compare y to time then, if something is located on y at any point, its modifiable, you can visit that point, leave it, and come back.
No you can't! You can't stand in the same river twice.

"You" are always changing - I mean that in the crudest non-spiritual sense. "Something is located..." only works if you stop time. Because "things" are dynamic, "located" is slippery. We pretend that things and their locations are persistent, by omitting the time dimension, and omitting detail.
Originally Posted by medlakeguy
maybe that's just because we're moving through time.
Yes, and timing through space. Same thing. Dimensions cross.
Originally Posted by medlakeguy
in a 4d universe wouldn't we be seeing a lot of hypershapes floating around? and coulden't we change our motion through time?
Hypershapes... If we see them we find them unremarkable. We have trouble grasping things in all their dimensions. Well, I do.

Change our motion through time... well, we can speed our motion through time or slow it, if we change what "we" are (change our spacial identity). It balances. Subjective time changes for things combined (increase scale) and for things broken off. So do one or the other.

23. If we never take time, we never really have time 8)

 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