"If time is a dimension, should we be able to move through it like we can space?
Maybe cavediver can clarify, as I'm looking to understand in a practical sense what TIME being a dimension means.The explainations I've seen here would be no different than relating "time" to the speed of sound."
We do move through time but the movement is processional, time is a dimension that is a consequence of motion motion of anykind follows from the previous 'snapshot' moment of stasis.
Space is an adjective, it describes, it is not a noun for something that has substance, space is simply the gaps between things and the same applies to time, that is what a dimension is, you cannot manipulate dimensions, because dimensions are defined co-ordinates and that applies to time as well.
All four dimensions are merely measurements, they measurements in increments we have standardised so as to make sense of the Cosmos we are part of.
But both space and time are not in themselves 'things'.
The speed of sound is simply a threshold given to us by air density and velocity, the latter is made 'sense' of by the use of 2 of the 4 dimensions 760[miles] per [hour] another way to say this is Mach 1, to the sound or the threshold the units we choose to define the event are our own and have no bearing on the base physical properties of the air in which the event happens.
I am not sure that my answer will be sufficiently satisfactory to you but an event is something completely different to a dimension, we need dimensions to describe an event to one another but that is all that dimensions can be used for, they are a conceptual tool.
We cannot truly manipulate any of the dimensions except by changing the increments or their names, 1 inch is 2.54cms.
I don't want this thread bogged down, it has the makings of a good one. IF there is to be any discussion regarding the differing viewpoints on existence of space and time then it would be best served in my opinion in another thread, although it has been discussed before I think.
CD sees space and time as having 'existence' in and of itself, I see space and time to be only the names for things like energy and mass and their interaction, we are not that far apart, and certainly not far enough apart for this thread to de-rail!
CD can talk about space and time and I will see it my way and he his, I will avoid posting at all costs unless I can show where the differing viewpoints bifurcate beyond the limit of stretch, if the mods think it necessary I will happily just post a link to a separate 'alternative viewpoint' to the CD thread.
I would like this thread to proceed without hindrance.
Onifire, both are attributes of energy, so yes, they are something that can be said to exist, they are part of the behaviour of energy.
I suppose it ultimately comes to this fundamental question,:- If you travel along with a quantum of energy, where is time?
The answer is that it is not there.
It is not there because time is not an attribute of energy and because time is not an attribute of energy, it can have no physical properties to manipulate.
This means that time cannot truly effect energy and energy cannot truly effect time.
Time ultimately is nothing more or less than an idea for us to use to make measurements, it's a great idea, but it is only an idea.
Being unable or reluctant to distinguish between an idea and a 'thing' is perhaps the division that marks me out most clearly from CD.
"Spacetime" is the measurement in relativity, the measurements are relative to the state of the observer making the measurement.
This does not objectify space or time and turn either into an object.
They are useful ideas of measurement, but remain only ideas.
If we fail in distinguishing between 'idea' and 'thing' we can never develop a true insight into the cosmos,we relate to ideas all the time, but treat them as things, but this does not make them objects of reality.
Your definition is fine, but is not fundemental, energy is simply motion or movement at any level macro or micro. The only definition of anything is real is that it is in some way in motion [has energy].
Time is not dilated, what causes the 'effect' of time dilation is the energy working in different reference frames to the one you are in, the 'time' with the slower clock does not dilate at all.
What we call time dilation is simply the difference of separate energy states and it is that separation that causes the apparent dilation.
Einstein never thought time was a 'thing', his formulae do not show time as an object he shows it in every formula as a metre or measure, he uses it as shorthand for a given energy effect.
Bohr the same!
In fact there isn't a formula anywhere on this planet that encapsulates time as a thing in a singular manner.
Err, the first of those agree with me in the very first sentence and the second agrees around the point they mention 'reference frame'.
Just made up? I left convenientional Physics 15 years ago and have worked on my theories ever since!!!
I want to read what CD has to say on how the Universe is here, I want to discover if or by how much he differs from my own view on the subject title and will refrain from comment unless explicitly asked to do so.
If you feel the need, open a separate thread to knock me down.
If I may though, one correction... I do and always have accepted that to understand the cosmos it is essential that we consider 4 dimensions. I just see them as measurements of energy and its forces not items of solidity/fluidity.
I'll shut up now and let the thread take its course for the most part without me.
This entire thing may be a matter of perception and you may both be closer than you think.
There is no physical entity that can be pin-pointed as being the material of 'time', you both agree on that at least... yes?
You both agree that time is a consequence of events happening one after the other and we de-mark and name this procession of events as time... yes?
You both agree that there is no equation that defines time in its component form, you know like E=mc^2 ---> Rt=?????... yes?
Now perhaps one of you does not agree with this last assertion, if so then produce the equation.
You both agree that 'space' is the name we give to both the 'apparent' emptiness between objects that have mass and the area displaced by that mass... yes?
You both agree that for [say] gravity to act on light and curve/bend it there is no need for something called 'space' to do anything to assist or resist one acting on the other...yes?
In fact you should both agree that if 'space' had any substance it would have to be accounted for in the equation that explains the bending of light 'by' space.
Now perhaps one of you does not agree with this last assertion, if so then produce the equation, highlight for all to see the element of the equation that 'accounts' for interaction of 'space' within it.
Peace and harmony is only found by finding common ground, polarized opinions or declamations serve no good purpose.
Edited by V-Bird, : Late, tired, syntax shot, fingers crumbling, mind fatigued... it was all there and it needed work.
I have only problem with accepting the Field concept and perhaps you could help me with it.
If I have grasped what is said and written of fields they are extent throughout the cosmos perhaps diminishing to zero or near zero in places and the interaction of various of these fields with one another provides in places mass.