Fourth dimension=time?

[arkain101]

And "Time" is the name that we give -- NOT to the "attribute" itself, but to our experience of it. "Time" is the name we give to our experience of having "memories" of events and things and images that no longer exist.

Booyah!

I was just about to post my own short definition when I read this, and it nearly stole the words out of my head.

I was going to say. (Minus the background story)

Time is memory. Time becomes dimensional when we our awareness accesses and experiences that memory.

If I copy from my previous post in this topic Here

We can add to this progression of thought where:

Space and Time

becomes

Space-Time

that becomes

Space-memory-time

(material is to memory as memory is to persistent objects....and...time is to memory as memory is to the flowing of change for objects)

[Boerseun]

All due respects, and keeping my ignorance in mind, I don't think "Time" and "Space" can so easily be dismissed.

If you're coasting through space in a straight line (apparent to you as a straight line) in a closed box with no view outside, you can't tell when you pass close to a star or a black hole and have your velocity, direction and even measurements change. Let's say you pass within a few meters of the event horizon of a nasty black hole, and the resultant gravitational slingshot accelerates you to within a few percentages of c. In your closed little fireproof box, you will not notice any change whatsoever. You might become very flat as your dimension in the direction of travel contracts, time might slow down for you (as can be measured when and if you ever return to have your infinitely accurate clock compared to your now-deceased-of-old-age twin's,) and inside your box a meter will still be a meter in any direction, your clock will tick off a perfect second, every second, and every conceivable experiment will return the exact same result as it would have on Earth. The ticking of your clock can be calibrated inside your little box with the vibration of cesium atoms inside your box, and it will remain perfectly accurate.

Yet, once you return to earth, your clock is out of whack. Way out of whack.

Now, this is Relativity 101, one of the very first gedënkeneksperimente proposed by those in support of relativity - so it should be old news to all you nerds out there. Sorry for the rehash, but the conclusion is extremely important:

Every experiment performed in your box returns proper results, the same it would have on Earth. Every conceivable measurement you take in your box remains stable. If your box measured inside 10m x 10m when you were static on Earth, it would also measure a perfect 10m x 10m just after the black hole accelerated you to 99%c. Yet, contraction takes place and time dilation takes place. This is proven. And the only explanation is that space and time, the two inseparable entities making up the matrix in which everything else can exist, gets warped, pulled, stretched and twisted for each and every observer, depending on their velocity through it. Which might be a bullshit argument, because velocity requires space and time, to begin with. A bit self-referential, you might say. But twist space, and time follows suit. Warp time, and space follows suit. And the only way in which to do the former, is by adding mass. And to do the latter, by adding velocity - but also another observer to be measured against.

Therefore:
Space cannot exist without time.
Time cannot exist without space.
Neither of the two can be said to exist if there is not at least some mass involved that can be said to be an observer, to exist in space, it's very measurements determinig the space in which it exist, and its motion through space determining the flow of time. This will require at least two particles - one to be in motion, and the second to be measured against.

And space itself will be infinite, because whether I'm a meter away from a brick or a billion light-years away, I can still measure that brick given the right equipment. There is a "measurement relationship" between me and the brick. But it requires at least me, as an observer, and one brick, the object against which I measure. If I was the only material entity in the universe, then space would stop at the surface of my skin. There is nothing else with which to measure the distance between us. So - one particle, finite universe the exact size of the particle. But add just one more particle, and you've got infinite space.

Yeah - loads of bull, but such is life.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Yet, contraction takes place and time dilation takes place.

Well actually they aren't things that "take place" or "happen" at all. They are just the way we call the fact that the same reality has different descriptions for different coordinate choices. Actually, that should be: the way we call how the descriptions differ according to SR.

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Which might be a bullshit argument, because velocity requires space and time, to begin with.

I won't strive to argue against your assessment of quality but I would attribute it a slightly different justification. Travelling through spacetime doesn't warp, pull, stretch nor blow-dry spacetime at all.

It's more like we're looking at the same table but from different directions. However spacetime isn't isotropic, which is to say there's a qualitative difference by which a direction may be spacelike or timelike or null. The part of a Lorentz transorm due to relative velocity is called a pseudo-rotation (and quite often a boost for short), not intuitive like the spatial rotation yet mathematically akin. Not the place to go into all the details, plenty of lit around on the matter, but there is definitely something objective about how spacetime works; it would be untenable to regard them as totally separate concepts while making the mechanics tally up.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Boerseun,

I never used to think that we'd ever come up against a brick wall with a sign saying "This is the end of the Universe' and I still don't.

The problem is that all of our observations are based on some variant of the speed of light in a vacuum. There is a fuzzy brick wall out there that probably has something like "This is the end of the observable relative to the speed of light Universe" written all over it though, lol.

While this brick wall may be fuzzy and indeterminable to us, at the center of our observable universe, an observer outside the fuzzy spherical brick wall would not see a brick wall at all because they would look at distance in a very different way than being a byproduct relative to the speed of light.

Science needs a new paradigm to break through this brick wall of its own construction.

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

Science needs a new paradigm to break through this brick wall of its own construction.

No cosmologist believes in the existence of such a brick wall.

[arkain101]

Yes I agree here with Qfwfq.

For example, just take a read of the text on this wiki here

Schrödinger equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The depth science has gone even as far as 100 years ago, is still way way beyond the common level of education in the population.

I found this read particularly interesting because of the history it covered, and how these moments were when so many views and theories had reached the peak of their potential and this work, really seemed to play a part in paving new road to go ahead and make more progess on.

I think if we take a few moments to jump into something we may have NO CLUE about, we may get a sense of how complex science really is. I think we would acquire a much different perspective of what we know and what we believe science is.

There is so much essence missing from the stuff we see and hear on tv, that is dumbed down so much that all it communicates is familiar ideas and puzzles, and just barely gets beyond the entertainment level.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Q, all,

No cosmologist believes in the existence of such a brick wall.

Philosophers deal with things that can't be measured and Scientists deal with things that can be measured.

And cosmologists think that this brick wall is 13.7 billion LY away too.

Can a cosmologist tell me what these 2 images have in common?

One is a Riemann Sphere the other one is a screen capture of an optical feedback loop with 1 mirror.

With respect, cosmologists should pull their imaginary fingers out of their imaginary backsides and really start thinking because the second image is comprised of the outside being pulled into the inside by the amount of spin in the loop.

Any cosmologist worth their salt should read the ancient greek play by Aristophanes called 'the clouds' to see what belief in the 'vortex god' meant for the Academy 2400 years ago or so.

Aristophanes could never really finish his play to get the right solution to prevent the Academy from being burned because the ancient greeks didn't have any real concept of rape.

Lets hope we get the right solution this time.

[arkain101]

Edited


Let's say we agree for sake of argument-

This is argument is to express what is being discussed in this topic. That is, the most basic expression of Dimension, both space and time.

-that any single elemental (position, thing, item, entity, location) is expressed as and that it can be only defined by other , so that it is fully expressed as . Where n represents a value. Showing values of existence are unknown and potential.

The word Existence is, any meaning (produced in relationship), which is expressed as ,-where n represents which individual is being dealt with in the relationship, and e is the value of the meaning of that specific individual(part)- that is thought of as, under examination for the sake of expressing the meaning that a relationship of meaning can produce. Such that.

The system being analyzed is:




And the system being produced is






Okay. So I am not very advanced with the use of mathematics. However, in words, what I am essentially trying to express is that the ontological universe is only a potential value, that has the potential to be defined by a potential value


So if we are to define a potential we must produce at least a pair relationship (minimum of two. The observer, and observed)

Lets say we begin to create a fundamental expression of meaning. Because I've claimed nothing has specific value in the ontological respect, that even when we insert the use of dimension, we produce a value for

Therefore, this claims that direction of motion of an observer is , potential, and not defined. When it is defined, at its most minimal expression it only requires two frames, and the direction only requires one space dimension. That is, we ALWAYS start with a source frame which must be thought of as observer. It initially is .

Observer can be thought of as traveling in dimension direction , while object . Under this investigation the universe has been defined as 1 dimension spacially, changing it from its natural state, by the action of the observer.

So lets visualize an observer, in an undefined white universe, observing an object move. Each object can be considered, the one in motion, or the one at rest, they still contain potential, because choice exists, and the relationship is uncertain, a true form can not be determined.

If we do not include, a time dimension, then, we can express this relationship as though motion has ceased. As such everything resorts back to , because they can no longer be considered to have a relationship. They are one entity. Although space may exist between them, the meaning here is that, the object is part of the observer, and vice versa.

So we must produce a time dimension, which we can call, storage. That is, while it is true that and can be considered separate entities in motion relative to each other, it is also true, valid, at the same time, that they are the same object . In the storage, there is a collection of states . The time dimension is then not spacial, in the way how we think of spacial, in the distance, it is a storage volume, of a different form of space, spacial of memory.

And all of this produces meaning, or in other words, existence. It transforms potential into potential meaning, and has more than one valid truth.




We could say e is a velocity, or a direction, or an energy.

However, each object, observer and source, is valid to accept those values.

We can determine two or more types of meaning.

1)

2)

And then calculate a meaning. This meaning has a task.







That is, the prior relationship of potential, forms elemental meaning, that is potential meaning and the secondary meaning is relationship of meaning, that produces, certain meaning, which equates, work done.

That is, the observer defines what the meaning is. Such as, if object A is pushed 10meters by a moving object B, the job is done, work is done. The job was not to stop object B, so object B stops, and is excluded, it does not continue as a part of the work.

This unites the relationship and is said to produce the familiar space-time coordinate system, where both objects are considered inside the same dimensional system, for work meaning.



Maybe someone can help me express this correctly, if you follow what I am saying.

[LaurieAG]

Note: post really by Qfwfq, user accidentally changed.

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

And cosmologists think that this brick wall is 13.7 billion LY away too.

In old Irish folklore, if you can reach right where a rainbow meets the ground, you will find a pot of gold because every leprechaun has one and he keeps it there.

Why?

Leprechauns are smart, aren't they?

[LaurieAG]

Hi Q, Arkain101,

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

In old Irish folklore, if you can reach right where a rainbow meets the ground, you will find a pot of gold because every leprechaun has one and he keeps it there.

Why?

Leprechauns are smart, aren't they?

Anybody can Wiki the size of our universe and get a finite distance.

Achilles and the Tortise is a similar form of paradox that is used to calculate backwards from a point, such as seconds from a BB, the size of our universe is based on n(infinity)-1 = a finite number (not quite). While this may be a good model for atomic theory it really isn't any good for universal proportions i.e. what is our planet, what is our sun related to on the atomic scale considering their density and distance from each other.

The Leprechauns are smart because they plot back from the pot of gold at the finish and don't follow silly paradoxical optical illusions. lol .

Arkain101, if your model can represent both the observer and source as having fixed locations as their initial start points then these can be used as points to anchor calculations based on their direction and velocity to plot their relative locations with regards to a time dimension.

The real test of such a model would be to be able to formulate a method for plotting a missing source. A massive grid type computer could process the raw data to identify suitable candidates that, as the observer in this problem is considered stationary at the point of observation, could come from any direction. This raw data would come from a series of zooming scan observations (360 degree, no spin), with objects that don't already exist in a reference DB becoming initial candidates (another grid could do this task). A 3 zoom loop should be able to determine suitable candidates for the missing pot of gold in a reasonable repeating time span.

If youre pot of gold is being masked by another object you will have problems identifying its location.

BTW, the easiest way is to catch a Leprachaun and get them to identify where their pot of gold is hidden. Some scientists are working on this as we speak.

BTW, thanks for the edit Q.

I'm on mobile broadband and due to recent weather conditions, we received half of our annual rainfall in 1 day, it keeps on changing my IP. The bloody exchange thinks that I'm moving when it is really the moisture between us that is moving. Hmmm.