The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How can time be a dimension?  (Read 735 times)

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
How can time be a dimension?
« on: 26/09/2016 12:17:10 »
I understand that time  will also measure processes that do not involve such movements  . The rate of decay of subatomic particles is an example. Nothing moves  and yet the process is regular and that is how we time the movements of other things.

All sub-atomic particles spin at the speed of light. How can something decay if it is not spinning? Impossible!
« Last Edit: 28/09/2016 12:45:45 by chiralSPO »

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #1 on: 26/09/2016 12:23:48 »
Quote from: Atkhenaken
The clock being a device which mimics the rotation of a planet.
The reference clock used for scientific purposes is an atomic clock, which does not involve rotation, and is not directly related to the rotation of a particular planet.

Spin and rotation is what the universe is all about. Nothing happens in the universe without either spin or rotation. So, to say that spin and rotation has nothing to do with it is nonsense. Just because you can't see something spinning doesn't mean that it isn't. All sub-atomic particles have sub-atomic dimensional spin which is frictionless.

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #2 on: 26/09/2016 13:42:28 »

All sub-atomic particles spin at the speed of light. How can something decay if it is not spinning? Impossible!

Have you a reference for that.? I have heard of the term "spin" when applied to sub atomic particles but I think it is said to be different from what we normally think of as "spin".

I am not sure it means these particles are in motion  but I cannot say as I have not studied this area.

They must be spinning. Otherwise how can they decay if they are not spinning? Its just a matter of logical certainty.

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #3 on: 26/09/2016 15:43:24 »

They must be spinning. Otherwise how can they decay if they are not spinning? Its just a matter of logical certainty.

I prefer to rely on interpretations based on observations rather than anyone's  conclusions based on "logical certainty".

You haven't provided me with any reference to particles "spinning at the speed of light" as I requested  . Did you make that up ,then?

Well, all physicists agree that sub-atomic particles exhibit the qualities of spin, but they can't 100% confirm its existence due to size scale problems. Thus, we only have logic left to tell us what must be happening. The universe has a secret supply of energy that is called dark energy or dark matter. It is my belief that spin energy is this secret supply of energy that the universe uses to run everything. Otherwise the universe would just be a big huge dead nothing place.

Well, you could say that I just made it up, after considering it for about 40 years or more! lol!

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #4 on: 27/09/2016 02:14:57 »
Geordief
Global moderators use unfair methods to prove that they are right. They block your post when you provide decisive evidence which would otherwise win the debate. Thus, this site is operating under dubious moral grounds which I suspect is heavily in favour of old fashioned and redundant ideas that should have been put to rest over 200 years ago. But, all philosophy websites have similar dictatorship rules and freedom of speech is not a commodity that is appreciated here.

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #5 on: 27/09/2016 03:25:22 »
Don't be subdued with complex and confusing diagrams. This is just a scam. Logic dictates that you can't add a fourth vector to a 3 dimensional world and call it space time. Time is not a length vector and never will be. So go join Carl Sargan and those other nut cases who believe in a fourth dimension and call themselves scientists? lol

This is the best comedy video I have ever seen. I always get a laugh when I watch it. Its hilarious!

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #6 on: 27/09/2016 03:49:46 »
Quote from: Atkhenaken
Don't be subdued with complex and confusing diagrams. This is just a scam. Logic dictates that you can't add a fourth vector to a 3 dimensional world and call it space time. Time is not a length vector and never will be. So go join Carl Sargan and those other nut cases who believe in a fourth dimension and call themselves scientists? lol
Don't pay any attention to Atkhenaken. He's arguing from a point of ignorance. He clearly doesn't know anything about this subject. This comment is proof of that.

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #7 on: 27/09/2016 04:04:53 »
Quote from: Atkhenaken
Don't be subdued with complex and confusing diagrams. This is just a scam. Logic dictates that you can't add a fourth vector to a 3 dimensional world and call it space time. Time is not a length vector and never will be. So go join Carl Sargan and those other nut cases who believe in a fourth dimension and call themselves scientists? lol
Don't pay any attention to Atkhenaken. He's arguing from a point of ignorance. He clearly doesn't know anything about this subject. This comment is proof of that.

Time is not a dimension. It is only an intellectual device and a measurement of spin rotations. Note - Dimension is term to describe distances while time is not distance related.
If you can construct a tesseract without using computer programming I will sign up to become a space/time believer tomorrow. Good luck! Happy building! lol!

chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1872
• Thanked: 143 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #8 on: 27/09/2016 05:05:47 »
Note - Dimension is term to describe distances while time is not distance related.

Distances are one type of dimension. But there are MANY types of dimension. Without getting super technical, I would say that a dimension is anything that you could put on one axis of a graph. Time certainly fits that criterion!

PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2760
• Thanked: 38 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #9 on: 27/09/2016 05:16:25 »
Quote from: Atkhenaken
Time is not a dimension. ...
Yet another ignorant comment. If did appear to be as arrogant as you have been then you could have simply asked me to explain it all and I would have. But no. Not you. Instead you think you know what its all about when in fact you've shown that you have it all wrong. But I don't explain math and/or physics to those who've come to conclusions like you have. Shame on you.

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #10 on: 27/09/2016 16:18:54 »
Quote from: Atkhenaken
Time is not a dimension. ...
Yet another ignorant comment. If did appear to be as arrogant as you have been then you could have simply asked me to explain it all and I would have. But no. Not you. Instead you think you know what its all about when in fact you've shown that you have it all wrong. But I don't explain math and/or physics to those who've come to conclusions like you have. Shame on you.

Time by itself has only a mathematical value and has no primary physical existence. It is just a thought process and doesn't exist as an entity in itself. Some scientists like to use the term "arrow of time". This is misleading. These scientists are trying to deceive us by using the word "arrow" in place of "vector". The reason they avoid using the word vector is because it has an association with distance. But, because they are sneaky space/time junkies, they need to use a disguised terminology to hide their deceptions. Don't be fooled! Note - People who give time a physical existence should be locked up in a lunatic asylum. lol!

I don't think that you are capable of explaining anything. That's the real reason that you are not explaining. lol! What a joke! lol!

chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1872
• Thanked: 143 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #11 on: 27/09/2016 17:21:53 »
Quote from: Atkhenaken
Time is not a dimension. ...
Yet another ignorant comment. If did appear to be as arrogant as you have been then you could have simply asked me to explain it all and I would have. But no. Not you. Instead you think you know what its all about when in fact you've shown that you have it all wrong. But I don't explain math and/or physics to those who've come to conclusions like you have. Shame on you.

Time by itself has only a mathematical value and has no primary physical existence. It is just a thought process and doesn't exist as an entity in itself. Some scientists like to use the term "arrow of time". This is misleading. These scientists are trying to deceive us by using the word "arrow" in place of "vector". The reason they avoid using the word vector is because it has an association with distance. But, because they are sneaky space/time junkies, they need to use a disguised terminology to hide their deceptions. Don't be fooled! Note - People who give time a physical existence should be locked up in a lunatic asylum. lol!

I don't think that you are capable of explaining anything. That's the real reason that you are not explaining. lol! What a joke! lol!

Please try to keep it civil.

And don't confuse your inability to understand something with someone else's inability to explain it. Vectors don't need to have anything to do with distance. A vector is just a list of numbers. That's all it is. They can be used to describe coordinates in space (x, y, z or r, theta, phi) or spacetime (x, y, z, t), or reciprocal space (1/x, 1/y, 1/z) or color (R,G,B or C, M, Y, K), or even more abstract ideas (I dare you to look up linear algebra or eigenvectors, read about them for a good 30 minutes, or watch a few of the Khanacademy vids, and then come back here and tell me vectors only relate to space). There is no reason a vector can't contain thousands (or trillions) of numbers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector
http://reference.iucr.org/dictionary/Reciprocal_space
http://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/colorspec.html?requestedDomain=www.mathworks.com
http://emweb.unl.edu/math/mathweb/vectors/vectors.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenvalues_and_eigenvectors

jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #12 on: 27/09/2016 18:07:13 »
Are spacetime junkies anything like trolling junkies? Atkhenaken appears to be an expert troll so it will be interesting to get his take on the subject. Atkhenaken?

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #13 on: 28/09/2016 01:52:07 »

Please try to keep it civil.

And don't confuse your inability to understand something with someone else's inability to explain it. Vectors don't need to have anything to do with distance. A vector is just a list of numbers. That's all it is. They can be used to describe coordinates in space (x, y, z or r, theta, phi) or spacetime (x, y, z, t), or reciprocal space (1/x, 1/y, 1/z) or color (R,G,B or C, M, Y, K), or even more abstract ideas (I dare you to look up linear algebra or eigenvectors, read about them for a good 30 minutes, or watch a few of the Khanacademy vids, and then come back here and tell me vectors only relate to space). There is no reason a vector can't contain thousands (or trillions) of numbers.

The point that I am trying to make is one of degree. The term 'vector' has more in common with distance than the word 'arrow' is far more vaguer and misleading. Thus, the deception.

In order to become famous, Einstein needed to create a whole new idea for physics. But, in order to create a whole new idea you must first kill off an old idea. Thus, Einstein chose aether theory as his primary target. But, unfortunately, aether theory was a very good idea which logically explains how the whole universe works. Thus, Einstein needed to create a new theory which could replace aether theory. Unfortunately, the new theory wasn't anywhere near as logical as the previous theory. Thus, he needed to turn time into a physical property in order to justify his concepts. Thus, he cleverly sneaked time into his relativity theory hoping that nobody would notice that time is now a physical property instead of just and intellectual concept.

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #14 on: 28/09/2016 01:54:22 »
Are spacetime junkies anything like trolling junkies? Atkhenaken appears to be an expert troll so it will be interesting to get his take on the subject. Atkhenaken?

The problem with any democracy is that who is going to guard the guards?

jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #15 on: 28/09/2016 02:03:25 »
Are spacetime junkies anything like trolling junkies? Atkhenaken appears to be an expert troll so it will be interesting to get his take on the subject. Atkhenaken?

The problem with any democracy is that who is going to guard the guards?

You complain about freedom of speech and democracy and yet you have been allowed to spout lots of drivel. Yet another proponent of a non existent Aether. If this were one of the other physics forums you would have been banned already. So count yourself lucky that you are a member of a more tolerant community. However there is a limit to the liberties that you can take. This is a part of the forum reserved for the discussion of mainstream physics. If you wish to discuss Aether there is a new theories section that you are welcome to use.

chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1872
• Thanked: 143 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #16 on: 28/09/2016 02:10:51 »
Thus, he cleverly sneaked time into his relativity theory hoping that nobody would notice that time is now a physical property instead of just and intellectual concept.

No, time was always physical. Are you saying that speeds and rates were merely intellectual concepts? If you take away time, then speed is only distance... Time has been an integral (no pun intended) part of Newtonian physics, and even the ancient Greeks and (ancienter) Babylonians had pretty a reasonable grasp of time.

As far as "the arrow of time" is concerned. I don't think it is really about time being part of a vector so much as that people realized that time only changes in one direction. Things only get older, never younger. The major reason that people started talking about "the arrow of time" was in relation to entropy. As far as Newtonian mechanics was concerned, everything was purely deterministic, and any physically possible process that happened could just as reasonably happen backwards. Event A causes event B, which causes event C, could just as easily be reverse C causes reverse B causes reverse A. During the 19th century people realized that the world really doesn't work this way, that there is, in fact, one order of events that is more meaningful than the opposite order--time only moves one way.

The easiest way to think about this is by imagining the fate of several ice sculptures on a sunny day. No matter what shape the sculpture has in the morning, it will be a puddle of water in the evening. The process of melting only makes sense one way. Sure, you can refreeze the puddle, but it won't put itself back together into a sculpture (and certainly not the one that it started as). If one looked at the reverse process, of a puddle freezing and growing into a beautiful statue, you would say that it was either impossible or magic (certainly not physics). That's all the "arrow" is about.

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #17 on: 28/09/2016 04:03:27 »

No, time was always physical. Are you saying that speeds and rates were merely intellectual concepts? If you take away time, then speed is only distance... Time has been an integral (no pun intended) part of Newtonian physics, and even the ancient Greeks and (ancienter) Babylonians had pretty a reasonable grasp of time.

As far as "the arrow of time" is concerned. I don't think it is really about time being part of a vector so much as that people realized that time only changes in one direction. Things only get older, never younger. The major reason that people started talking about "the arrow of time" was in relation to entropy. As far as Newtonian mechanics was concerned, everything was purely deterministic, and any physically possible process that happened could just as reasonably happen backwards. Event A causes event B, which causes event C, could just as easily be reverse C causes reverse B causes reverse A. During the 19th century people realized that the world really doesn't work this way, that there is, in fact, one order of events that is more meaningful than the opposite order--time only moves one way.

The easiest way to think about this is by imagining the fate of several ice sculptures on a sunny day. No matter what shape the sculpture has in the morning, it will be a puddle of water in the evening. The process of melting only makes sense one way. Sure, you can refreeze the puddle, but it won't put itself back together into a sculpture (and certainly not the one that it started as). If one looked at the reverse process, of a puddle freezing and growing into a beautiful statue, you would say that it was either impossible or magic (certainly not physics). That's all the "arrow" is about.

If time is a dimension, then in which direction is it pointing?

Thus, we can see the stupidity of time as a dimension!

The problem is that physics is now irrational nonsense due to the intervention of Einstein.

The universe is better understood when it contains left spin, right spin and no spin particles. (positive, negative and neutral) That's all you have to know about the universe. The rest is just commonsense and consequences. paper - scissors - rock

Always an imbalance and never stable.

How does one know if you are living under a dictatorship?

1. No freedom of speech - Check

2. Bias opinions of bureaucrats - Check

3. Unfair rules that favour the sycophants - Check

4. Inflexible rules which have no grey areas - Check

5. Only one way communication - (top down) - Check

6. No punishments or disincentives for administrators of unfair rules - Check
« Last Edit: 28/09/2016 04:49:04 by Atkhenaken »

jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #18 on: 28/09/2016 08:43:32 »

No, time was always physical. Are you saying that speeds and rates were merely intellectual concepts? If you take away time, then speed is only distance... Time has been an integral (no pun intended) part of Newtonian physics, and even the ancient Greeks and (ancienter) Babylonians had pretty a reasonable grasp of time.

As far as "the arrow of time" is concerned. I don't think it is really about time being part of a vector so much as that people realized that time only changes in one direction. Things only get older, never younger. The major reason that people started talking about "the arrow of time" was in relation to entropy. As far as Newtonian mechanics was concerned, everything was purely deterministic, and any physically possible process that happened could just as reasonably happen backwards. Event A causes event B, which causes event C, could just as easily be reverse C causes reverse B causes reverse A. During the 19th century people realized that the world really doesn't work this way, that there is, in fact, one order of events that is more meaningful than the opposite order--time only moves one way.

The easiest way to think about this is by imagining the fate of several ice sculptures on a sunny day. No matter what shape the sculpture has in the morning, it will be a puddle of water in the evening. The process of melting only makes sense one way. Sure, you can refreeze the puddle, but it won't put itself back together into a sculpture (and certainly not the one that it started as). If one looked at the reverse process, of a puddle freezing and growing into a beautiful statue, you would say that it was either impossible or magic (certainly not physics). That's all the "arrow" is about.

If time is a dimension, then in which direction is it pointing?

Thus, we can see the stupidity of time as a dimension!

The problem is that physics is now irrational nonsense due to the intervention of Einstein.

The universe is better understood when it contains left spin, right spin and no spin particles. (positive, negative and neutral) That's all you have to know about the universe. The rest is just commonsense and consequences. paper - scissors - rock

Always an imbalance and never stable.

How does one know if you are living under a dictatorship?

1. No freedom of speech - Check

2. Bias opinions of bureaucrats - Check

3. Unfair rules that favour the sycophants - Check

4. Inflexible rules which have no grey areas - Check

5. Only one way communication - (top down) - Check

6. No punishments or disincentives for administrators of unfair rules - Check

1. You have been free to post this nonsense.

2. Science is science.

3. The rules apply to everyone.

4. You have been free to post this nonsense.

5. You pose the point and I reply. That sounds like two way communication to me.

6. The rules are in place to prevent incorrect information being disseminated. And to protect you from those that would attack and insult you.

chiralSPO

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1872
• Thanked: 143 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #19 on: 28/09/2016 12:37:40 »

No, time was always physical. Are you saying that speeds and rates were merely intellectual concepts? If you take away time, then speed is only distance... Time has been an integral (no pun intended) part of Newtonian physics, and even the ancient Greeks and (ancienter) Babylonians had pretty a reasonable grasp of time.

As far as "the arrow of time" is concerned. I don't think it is really about time being part of a vector so much as that people realized that time only changes in one direction. Things only get older, never younger. The major reason that people started talking about "the arrow of time" was in relation to entropy. As far as Newtonian mechanics was concerned, everything was purely deterministic, and any physically possible process that happened could just as reasonably happen backwards. Event A causes event B, which causes event C, could just as easily be reverse C causes reverse B causes reverse A. During the 19th century people realized that the world really doesn't work this way, that there is, in fact, one order of events that is more meaningful than the opposite order--time only moves one way.

The easiest way to think about this is by imagining the fate of several ice sculptures on a sunny day. No matter what shape the sculpture has in the morning, it will be a puddle of water in the evening. The process of melting only makes sense one way. Sure, you can refreeze the puddle, but it won't put itself back together into a sculpture (and certainly not the one that it started as). If one looked at the reverse process, of a puddle freezing and growing into a beautiful statue, you would say that it was either impossible or magic (certainly not physics). That's all the "arrow" is about.

If time is a dimension, then in which direction is it pointing?

Into the future.

Thus, we can see the stupidity of time as a dimension!

The problem is that physics is now irrational nonsense due to the intervention of Einstein.

The universe is better understood when it contains left spin, right spin and no spin particles. (positive, negative and neutral) That's all you have to know about the universe. The rest is just commonsense and consequences. paper - scissors - rock

Always an imbalance and never stable.

Science and math are about getting and interpreting evidence, not just sitting at your computer calling things stupid.

How does one know if you are living under a dictatorship?

1. No freedom of speech - Check

2. Bias opinions of bureaucrats - Check

3. Unfair rules that favour the sycophants - Check

4. Inflexible rules which have no grey areas - Check

5. Only one way communication - (top down) - Check

6. No punishments or disincentives for administrators of unfair rules - Check

ummm... what does this have to do with anything? We are talking about how the universe works. We cannot vote on whether time is real or not--reality doesn't care what we think. I think JeffryH responded well to this list, but I will add: you are also free to not participate in this forum. No one is forcing you to come here to challenge your tiny worldview, but if you do participate to this *Science* forum, we will insist that you talk *Science*! Otherwise, please go away...

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #20 on: 29/09/2016 03:12:20 »

1. You have been free to post this nonsense.

You have to prove that it is nonsense, not just say that it is nonsense. I have proven that what you are saying is nonsense and you haven't replied to many questions. Thus, I have the upper hand.

Quote
2. Science is science.

Non-committal statement and bureaucratic as expected. Doesn't mean anything? Avoidance....... etc

Quote
3. The rules apply to everyone.

As George Orwell said "some people are more equal than other people" lol! (Communists)

Quote
4. You have been free to post this nonsense.

Your inherent bias has been included here. lol

Quote
5. You pose the point and I reply. That sounds like two way communication to me.

Not when you block a posting because it doesn't agree with your personal opinions. That's called censorship.

Quote
6. The rules are in place to prevent incorrect information being disseminated. And to protect you from those that would attack and insult you.

Sorry, the rules are in place to protect large corporations and institutions from being embarrassed and litigated against. Note - Governments don't like to be proven wrong. They will do anything imaginable to avoid this happening. I know, because I used to work for the government.

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
Re: How can time be a dimension?
« Reply #21 on: 29/09/2016 03:17:39 »
The proof is in the pudding. Space /time theory has borne no fruit. The theory has created a dead end to scientific investigation. CERN scientists are just going around in circles going nowhere. (excuse the pun, lol) If space/time was a valid theory, then all the forces of the universe should have been reconciled by now. But, no. No progress has been made. There is still no common denominator. Thus, my theory that spin is the common denominator which unites all the forces must be true.
« Last Edit: 29/09/2016 04:41:35 by Atkhenaken »

Bored chemist

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 8655
• Thanked: 42 times
Re: How can time be a dimension?
« Reply #22 on: 29/09/2016 17:18:01 »
The proof is in the pudding. Space /time theory has borne no fruit.
That's simply not true.
It relies on space-time.

I presume you have been too busy being wrong at the top of your voice to actually study any science.
That explains why you don't understand it and that, in turn, explains why you think it's wrong.

It doesn't matter much- science still works, even if you don't believe in it.

Atkhenaken

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 147
• Thanked: 3 times
How can time be a dimension?
« Reply #23 on: 30/09/2016 18:23:47 »
Quote from: Atkhenaken
The clock being a device which mimics the rotation of a planet.
The reference clock used for scientific purposes is an atomic clock, which does not involve rotation, and is not directly related to the rotation of a particular planet.

Note - one second as 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a Cesium 133 atom in a vacuum.

Note -  for something to vibrate it requires a rotation or spin action as the source. Nice try though!

Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1914
• Thanked: 123 times
Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #24 on: 30/09/2016 18:38:56 »

Note -  for something to vibrate it requires a rotation or spin action as the source. Nice try though!
Since when does a tuning fork rotate?
Or a pendulum rotate?
Or a weight on the end of a spring rotate?
Or the string of a musical instrument rotate?
Etc...........

Not even a nice try!

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Re: Is spacetime real?
« Reply #24 on: 30/09/2016 18:38:56 »