Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity introduces us to the concept of time as a dimension, very similar to our three spatial dimensions. (The clue to this was in Maxwell's Equations of electromagnetism, which could be written in exceptionally simple form once time was treated as the fourth member of the (x, y, z ) set.)
Just to be clear, YOU agree with this concept (emphasis on concept) that time is very similar to our three spatial dimensions?
"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'.
It sounds as though cavediver is saying that time is a linear measurement of space, ie; length, width and height. Cavediver said in his statement that time was similar to these measurements. That is why I asked if he thought that time is very similar to spatial dimensions.
V-bird on the other hand said that time and dimensions are just measurements, and both space and time are not things. V-bird did not allude to the idea that time and dimensions are similar concepts or things. That is what I was agreeing with.
There is no physical scientific evidence that time, space, or dimensions are anything more than man made measurements.
â€œThere is no physical scientific evidence that time, space, or dimensions are anything more than man made measurements.â€
Reply by Cavediver:
â€œNo, none at all, unless you consider the whole of the past 100 years of relativistic and quantum field physics. Anyway, it does seem that there have been some genuine questions regarding the role of dimensions, in amongst the bleating of the ignorant, so I will get around to addressing this topic.
As a hint to the readers, if anyone starts making proclamations that space and time aren't things and are just measurements, and that real things are energy, etc, etc, then you need to actually ask them what they mean by 'things', 'energy', 'measurement', 'dimensions', etc. The fact is that they are peddling words with zero understanding. And if anyone thinks that I am doing the same, then call me on it.â€
No, none at all, unless you consider the whole of the past 100 years of relativistic and quantum field physics.
It is all theory and there is no phenomena of space or time that has been observed or perceived. There is no scientific reference book that states space or time are physical things. If I were to state something were a real physical thing, and you seem to think different, then it would be up to me to provide evidence.
The burden of proof that space and time is on you. You are avoiding giving evidence by bringing up this stuff about what does real mean. You know the definition of real, but just to help you out I will tell you to look up the definitions of real, dimensions, things, etc. That is where you will find what I mean when I use those terms.
All the talk about space curving, bending, expanding, or doing all of that kind of stuff is all based on theory. It is all very well to have a lot of theories. Theories are great. As long as you do not have phenomena, you can have all the theories you want to. That is the rule in engineering, physics, and the other sciences. You get a theory and then you try to apply it, and if it doesnâ€™t apply to the physical universe you throw it out and get another one.
Unfortunately, the field of physics has been able to accumulate a terrific number of theories without running into any phenomena to prove or disprove them. Unless you have a phenomena to back up a theory, unless you can measure these phenomena, and measure them accurately, they still remain as a theory, something that is unproven.
If you believe that dimensions, space, time, are real things then tell me what they are made of, what form do they take? Solid? Liquid? Gas? Energy?
Look, if we experience matter then it is real for us, that is the basis for our reality. Knowledge itself is certainty. To obtain certainty one must be able to observe or perceive.
If a man can stand before a tree and by sight, touch or by other perception know that he is confronting a tree and be able to perceive its form and be quite sure he is confronting a tree, we have a knowledge or certainty of that tree. So tell me what is YOUR experience of space that tells you that space is a real physical thing? Do you have one?
Please donâ€™t play this game of semantics and just give documented scientific observation or measurement that this space thing is a physical thing. Tell me what this thing is that is said to curve, bend, is made of? The same goes for time.
We are to believe that there is a thing called the fabric of spacetime that exists as a real thing. If you believe this than tell what is this spacetime thing made of and in what medium does it exist?
The fact is that they are peddling words with zero understanding. And if anyone thinks that I am doing the same, then call me on it.â€
The words that I am using have definitions and can be understood. All you need to do is do some study.
I am calling you on it. I will keep it simple. What is your understanding of the term space, what does space mean to you?
I will bet that you do not give any scientific evidence that backs up your belief in the physical reality of space, and just try to discredit me, or say that I am ignorant or something, or tell me what Einstein said, all in an effort to avoid the fact that you have no proof.
That time can be dilated shows that it is more than just an idea, that it is, in fact, a "thing".
So what is time made of?
In time dilation how is this dilation being measured? If you say that this measurement is done with clocks, then you will need to show how time motivates a clock or how a clock measures this thing called time, which brings us back to what is the physical form of time. If you can not prove that time fits the standard definition of a thing, if you can not show that time is a substance, than what is a clock measuring?
This quote is from post #75 to Cavediver. Look at what I said, and look at what Cavediver said in reply on post #77. john6zx
I am calling you on it. I will keep it simple. What is your understanding of the term space, what does space mean to you? I will bet that you do not give any scientific evidence that backs up your belief in the physical reality of space, and just try to discredit me, or say that I am ignorant or something, or tell me what Einstein said, all in an effort to avoid the fact that you have no proof. Lets see if I am wrong.
I was not wrong. Cavediver did not give any evidence to back up his idea that space is a real physical thing.
CAVEDIVER, What is the problem? This is such a simple question. I just asked you to give your understanding of space, can you do that? If you think that space is a real physical thing than just tell me what space is made of.
Cavediver, you should provide some evidence that space is a real physical thing. Take a look at the forum rules.
4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Cavediver, I am sure that you are an intelligent person, so please provide evidence that space is a real physical thing. Just tell me what space is made of.
Let me tell you something, there are two ways man ORDINARILY accepts things, neither of them very good. One is to accept a statement because an authority says it is true and must be accepted, and the other is by preponderance of agreement amongst other people, as in the mindset of â€œI believe it to be true because so many other people believe it to be true.â€ There is a third way man accepts things and that is by first hand experience of things, this can be done by testing or applying data to the real world to see for yourself or just perceiving things in the real world.
So I will ask you Cavediver, This idea that you have that space is a physical something, how have you come to accept this as part of your certainty?
By the way of authority?
By the way of group agreement?
By the way of first hand experience, or knowledge relayed to you by someone who had first hand experience?
Unfortunately I do not think Cavediver will be able to describe how this space thing is a real physical thing. Just more of the same avoidance. Nobody has ever given a concise accurate physical description of what space is made of.