0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

What scientific proof is there to demonstrate time is linear?

It depends whose clock you're using.

If you use a co-moving clock (one you carry with you), you'll find time by that clock is linear. If you use a clock that isn't moving with you (i.e. one you're moving relative to), you'll find that time by that clock will not be linear if your speed varies with respect to it.

As was said, you dont know if the universe pulses larger and smaller in milliseconds or years, because you cant see it or test it. Where was this stated?Quote from: RobcatIt surely all depends on the observer,I don't understand. What is the "it" that you were talking about in that sentence? and as quantum physics is know showing us, it is the attempt to view that changes everything.

It surely all depends on the observer,

It is the universe, you askedHowever, I am allowed to question , as is anyone.Space has three dimensions, yes , So I simply query if time has also three dimensions . We know it has past and future as a linear arrow of time, but I question mentally what would be the other 90 degree effects be.As I said, questioning is part of life. It's so easy to dismiss or say silly! Imagineering used to be the term...trains, lifts, used to imagine and question.

Well technically Rob , space has no dimensions, only matter has dimensions, XYZ are virtual vectors we use to help us navigate space and access space.

In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.

In saying that, ''time'' is not of material values and only exists for use of measuring, it is in a sense ''not real'', but at the same time real in the sense of ''time'' exists in matter.

Space has three dimensions, yes , So I simply query if time has also three dimensions .

That's incorrect. Space most definitely has dimensions. And spacetime has four dimensions. This is what you get when you keep refusing to start to read a good physics text and learn physics the correct way.

Quote from: RobcatSpace has three dimensions, yes , So I simply query if time has also three dimensions .No. Time has only one dimension. That means that I can say when an event occurred at a location in space by specifying the time of the event with one number, e.g. 3:00pm.

Time is not real Pete, it is not of substance, therefore time has no dimension.

Quote from: Thebox Well, first of all I didn't say whether it was or wasn't "real." What I said was that "Time denotes something real and that's what really counts." Second, something doesn't have to have substance to have dimension. The most common use of the term "dimension" is found in linear algebra where it refers to a property of vector spaces, i.e. the number of linearly independent basis vectors is said to be the dimension of the vector space.You can't correctly argue something by merely stating what you believe is true like you did here. In this case you substituted what you believe something is meant to be "real" as the definition of the term real. That's not a valid approach to arguing. A thing is not "real" based solely on whether or not it's made of matter.Look at the definition of "real" as a starting point at: ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINAt this point all I'm going to say is that it's a complete waste of my time to bother discussing what it means to be real or not so I'm stopping right here. And that means that if, more likely when, you post something that I disagree with I won't respond to it since that's the way endless arguments keep going and this is not worth my time.I could quite easily engage in a discussion with you Pete when you talk like this, (honest talk). ''the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.''Things that actually exist are things we can observe Pete, rather than unrealistically aiming for perfection and inventing things, ''Well, first of all I didn't say whether it was or wasn't "real." What I said was that "Time denotes something real and that's what really counts.''Time does not denote something that is real, time is an invention by ourselves to denote an increment of our very own existence, then it was used to denote spacial distances, speed and all that is science. The fundamentals of ''time'' is that equal to motion of the Sun, a distance travelled, science presently has time equal to a distance, based on the earths spin relative to the motion of the sun. Science has time synchronised to the Earth's spin, science has the whole Universe synchronised on the Earth's spin. I have never argued it does not work Pete, I know we need this, I know we need time or we would develop chaos. In all honestly Pete you know we can observe matter, we can observe ''empty space'' , but we do not observe ''time'' . we make the time that exists, if we removed time it would have no effect on the universe, the universe would continue to do its thing. I only ask you stop defending things that are virtual Pete in a sense of materialising them, time in a virtual sense yes, xyz in a virtual sense yes, this is science. Things need to be clearly defined, you did not write these definitions, I could write them better than that. There is two type of dimensions, one being the dimension of matter, (what we call a shape), the second being a virtual dimension of space. There is two types of time, one being that of decay of matter(real time), the second being a virtual time of space (that what we call space-time).

Well, first of all I didn't say whether it was or wasn't "real." What I said was that "Time denotes something real and that's what really counts." Second, something doesn't have to have substance to have dimension. The most common use of the term "dimension" is found in linear algebra where it refers to a property of vector spaces, i.e. the number of linearly independent basis vectors is said to be the dimension of the vector space.You can't correctly argue something by merely stating what you believe is true like you did here. In this case you substituted what you believe something is meant to be "real" as the definition of the term real. That's not a valid approach to arguing. A thing is not "real" based solely on whether or not it's made of matter.Look at the definition of "real" as a starting point at: ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINAt this point all I'm going to say is that it's a complete waste of my time to bother discussing what it means to be real or not so I'm stopping right here. And that means that if, more likely when, you post something that I disagree with I won't respond to it since that's the way endless arguments keep going and this is not worth my time.

No Pete you are incorrect and misusing XYZ , XYZ are virtual vectors/dimensions of space, dimensions of matter occupy dimensionless space, Einstein created XYZ to map space, virtual lines Pete, there is nothing real about virtual, you are suggesting space has body, cubes occupying all of space, you can say space has a distance, space has a volume, but the shape of space is not known, therefore space has no dimension, this is why Einstein created xyz.