# Time is NOT the 4th dimension...

Your assertion in that last sentence troubles me, mate. Because all I can make out about the BB hypothesis is that whatever happened, it was space and MOTION/CHANGE of states/position that 'happened'. Period. Any 'timing' overlay came in with US when we used such motion/change across/in space to compare different states of same in various events we observe using certain 'standard rate' referents based on said motions/change across/in space ONLY. As Maxilla keeps reminding us.

Also please see my post to Grumpy above for further info as to where I am coming from with these necessarily brief (not much time lately!) observations. Thanks.

That was all I wanted to observe, paddo. I'll get back to 'read-only' mode now. Cheers guys!

maxilla keeps reminding you that , you start the measurement(of time) after the event occurred,
when it should be measured at the starting point or before.
simple.

and this is exactly why maxilla kept on insisting to avoid this question(below),
"" and again since this was conveniently side stepped,

so how do you explain time stops or slows down at high rates of motion ,
and moves faster at low rates of motion ? ""

and avoid it with the continuous contradictions.

maxilla keeps reminding you that , you start the measurement after the event occurred,
when it should be measured at the starting point or before.

and this is what exactly shows why maxilla is wrong, and why maxilla kept on insisting to avoid it with the continuous contradictions.

Yet again you misinterpret and misstate what I've said: To correct you, and clarify my position for others:

I've said time and a change of position (motion) are coincident. However when looking at causality time does not cause a change of position, energy does, and time is not the venue, space is. I've stated time is the framework that describes that function of energy (energy's change of position in space), analogous to mass being the framework that describes a quantity of energy. In other words my view is that energy and its states are fundamental phenomena with time and mass being a framework for describing some energy states or functions.

FYI: "they are coincident (time and motion)" http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?137207-Time-ala-Einstein&p=3135049&viewfull=1#post3135049

P.S. Again you demonstrate you are merely interested in posting innuendo and trivial insults, and do not have a capacity to argue anything scientifically, or at least in a civil manner.

maxilla keeps reminding you that , you start the measurement(of time) after the event occurred,
when it should be measured at the starting point or before.
simple.

and this is exactly why maxilla kept on insisting to avoid this question(below),
"" and again since this was conveniently side stepped,

so how do you explain time stops or slows down at high rates of motion ,
and moves faster at low rates of motion ? ""

and avoid it with the continuous contradictions.

Hi krash661.

The contradiction, krash661, is in what you just said to Maxilla.

If you tried to understand Maxilla correctly (instead of keeping misunderstanding what Maxilla is telling you because of your reading bias?) is not contradicting anything in reality observations. I already also pointed out that even to measure lightspeed-over-space (to model 'spacetime' abstractly) requires OTHER motions/changes across/in space itself so as to give a 'standard' motion-over-space unit/rate to apply in all other observations of motion in/across space. You keep missing that fundamentality of motion and space ONLY, and keep trying to bring in time as if it is somehow a cause/component of something. It is not. It is merely an observational TOOL/convenience to model things in a graph/geometry abstraction called 'space-time' in the current model.

As for that 'time dilation' etc aspect, please read carefully my post/questions to Grumpy in my earlier post. You might also try to answer whether you also now imply by your contradictory comments that there exists an 'absolute universal maximum rate of time' before any 'dilation' is 'observed' because of motion across space ONLY?

In other words, read/understand fairly/properly and then think again, krash661, and don't just keep repeating your own contradictory mantra. Good luck and see/read you all round!

Yet again you misinterpret and misstate what I've said: To correct you, and clarify my position for others:

I've said time and a change of position (motion) are coincident. However when looking at causality time does not cause a change of position, energy does, and time is not the venue, space is. I've stated time is the framework that describes that function of energy (energy's change of position in space), analogous to mass being the framework that describes a quantity of energy. In other words my view is that energy and its states are fundamental phenomena with time and mass being a framework for describing some energy states or functions.

FYI: "they are coincident (time and motion)" http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?137207-Time-ala-Einstein&p=3135049&viewfull=1#post3135049

P.S. Again you demonstrate you are merely interested in posting innuendo and trivial insults, and do not have a capacity to argue anything scientifically, or at least in a civil manner.

were is the insults ?
i stated scientific arguments,
the problem with them is they correct your " idea "/"opinion"
typical.

Hi krash661.

The contradiction is in what you just said.

Maxilla, if you tried to understand him correctly (instead of keeping misunderstanding because of your reading bias?) is not contradicting anything in reality observations. I already also pointed out that even to measure lightspeed-over-space (to model 'spacetime' abstractly) requires OTHER motions/changes across/in space itself so as to give a 'standard' motion-over-space unit/rate to apply in all other observations of motion in/across space. You keep missing that fundamentality of motion and space ONLY, and keep trying to bring in time as if it is somehow a cause/component of something. It is not. It is merely an observational TOOL/convenience to model things in a graph/geometry abstraction called 'space-time' in the current model.

As for that 'time dilation' etc aspect, please read carefully my post/questions to Grumpy in my earlier post. You might also try to answer whether you also now imply by your contradictory comments that there exists an 'absolute universal maximum rate of time' before any 'dilation' is 'observed' because of motion across space ONLY?

In other words, read/understand fairly/properly and then think again, krash661, and don't just keep repeating your own contradictory mantra. Good luck and see/read you all round!

whats funny is,
you claim to agree with grumpy when he clearly stated this question of yours with a clear answer,before you even asked it, hilarious.
and now you just made it obvious you do not understand what grumpy is telling you.
so please understand what is being stated or at lease pay attention to what you are reading.

In other words, think again, krash661, before just repeating your own contradictory mantra.

Hi krash661.
Maxilla, if you tried to understand him correctly (instead of keeping misunderstanding because of your reading bias?) is not contradicting anything in reality observations.

I know we have a similar view, did you mean to imply I am not understanding krash661 correcctly? If so, I will reread what we've written more carefully. I know you are being sincere and are likely more objective than either of us in evaluating our conversation.

I know we have a similar view, did you mean to imply I am not understanding krash661 correcctly? If so, I will reread what we've written more carefully. I know you are being sincere and are likely more objective than either of us in evaluating our conversation.

No mate! The reverse. Krash661 is obviously (purposely trolling?) misunderstanding/misconstruing you. I have edited my post so that should be clear now. Your relevant observations couldn't be more clear and correct and consistent with the observed reality. Cheers and see/read you round, Maxilla. Kudos.

I know we have a similar view, did you mean to imply I am not understanding krash661 correcctly? If so, I will reread what we've written more carefully. I know you are being sincere and are likely more objective than either of us in evaluating our conversation.

exactly,
you do not understand, this is a great example of you not understanding,

Undefined clearly stated it was me who doesn't understand you.
again it was clear,
and now you just proved you have a hard time understanding what is being said.

No mate! The reverse. Krash661 is obviously (purposely trolling?) misunderstanding/misconstruing you. I have edited my post so that should be clear now. Your relevant observations couldn't be more clear and correct and consistent with the observed reality. Cheers and see/read you round, Maxilla. Kudos.

no not trolling at all.
i'm simply correcting with scientific , empirically, accurately established facts,
which max is basically claiming they are not.
and it's very easy to understand max science he's claiming the same thing that has been claimed for decades by individuals who do not understand what they have read,
believe it or not, it's typical.

and again,

this is exactly why majority of actual scientist do not come to these science sites.

why,
this is in the pseudoscience section.

no not trolling at all.
i'm simply correcting with scientific , empirically, accurately established facts,
which max is basically claiming they are not.
and it's very easy to understand max science he's claiming the same thing that has been claimed for decades by individuals who do not understand what they have read,
believe it or not, it's typical.

and again,

So far you just mouth off textbook phrases without you understanding all the contexts/subtleties involved. Sorry, but that is your posting record speaking, not me.

As for that rpenner post you referenced, he says nothing more than the usual facile view but you fail to see the import: The second in any frame is DIFFERENT for another frame. That is, not all seconds are equal in duration when different states and rates are involved when compared to a third 'standard' from which two different variations of states are involved.

Again, please read my last post to Grumpy. You will have to THINK for yourself then before you post.

You are easily impressed by facile 'non-explanations' of anything really. That is what makes your posts not a dialogue but a cheerleading litany of mainstream and others who present such facile 'explanations' but do not go to the questions NOW under discussion between you and Maxilla.

Answer his points with your own reasoning ON the points raised, and have regard to the subtle observations/issues/questions actually involved in context, instead of just mouthing/referencing any old facile 'non-explanations' and try to pass that off as 'correcting' him.

Good luck and good thinking, krash661, everyone!

ahh, i see what's going on here,
i'm talking to a bunch of cranks/crackpots,
now i get it.

again,
this is exactly why majority of actual scientist do not come to these science sites.

why,
this is in the pseudoscience section.

Last edited:
The more this question is bein analyzed and explained, the closer it seems to come to my simple assertion of: time comes into existence as a result of an event or series of events.

a) before the BB there was no space because there were no spatial dimensions.
b) before the BB therte was no time because there were no spatial dimensions.

Although Potentially these conditions may become reality, they are abstract latencies until these properties are explicated in reality (become measurable) by an event or a series of events, such as the BB.

a) after the BB there was space because Inflation (physical expansion) "created' spatial dimensions.
b) after the BB there was time because Inflation ( duration of expansion) "created" temporal dimensions.

The "becoming explicated in reality', requires time and determines "when" things which do become explicate in reality, measurable time is created simultaneously.

The term "Time" has no value, it is not an active causality, it is a latency which may become expressed as result of the measurable durations of a series of events in reality. Every event creates an instant in space and time (a reference point consisting of 3 spatial and 1 temporal coordinates).

We may say "Time causes decay", but IMO that is a false equation. It is not time that is causal to the decay of a muon. The physical properties of a muon are not able to prevent the rapid decay of the muon. Thus it is the decay which created the measurable time, not the time used to measure or observe it's decay. The muon ceased to exist in reality as a muon. So did its spacetime coordinate, the very next instant in time, because the Now had passed.

I understand the concept of spacetime coordinates, because along with the spatial dimensions come associated temporal dimensions. Each single point in space time is a point in space and time. But that does not make it measurable except as compared to the BB, and yes the universe is 13.6 years "old" and is getting older as we speak.
But how old the universe may become is unknown. Thus trying to identify spacetime coordinates in the future is a meaningless exercise. The future has not yet become and we can only measure that which has become (and maybe gone). The dimension of Time is a result of reality unfolding itself in all directions (but always forward in Time), thereby creating an infinite number of timelines associated with the coordinate of a single point (anywhen) and its relative position to every other single point in spacetime. The point of the observer.

I believe there are three fundamental definitions of "time line"
a) universal timeline (created at and measured from the BB)
b) bundled timelines (evolving groups of individual time lines. (galaxies, etc)
c) individual time lines (the time line of a single object relative to its immediate surroundings.)

IMO the proof that Time is not a causal force (a dimension), lies in its very lack of consistency. Time is always gauged against the properties and actions of physical things.
Althought we have "breakfast time" and "lunch time" and "dinner time", they are different everywhere in the world. Time is a result of the relative actions of physical things, which always happen in the Now (the point of observation).

IMHO, Time (apart from space) is a metaphysical potential (it is created when you need it for any action or measurement)
The "sequential evolution" of physical space uses the metaphysical ability of time to become available, for that expression in reality, at a specific coordinate of spacetime.

"Space keeps things apart and Time keeps things from happening all at once". Space is the evolutionary (chronological) process of becoming real as physical things, Time is the inevitable measurable result of this chronology.,

Last edited:
ahh, i see what's going on here,
i'm talking to a bunch of cranks/crackpots,
now i get it.

i actually have a degree it's called a PhD.
i actually do science work.
but not on a tier two level i work on tier one level,
but you will not even understand what that means.

again,
this is exactly why majority of actual scientist do not come to these science sites.

why,
this is in the pseudoscience section.

As a layman I would not presume to propose anything controversial on the Science forum. But I am eager to learn and understand the principles on which certain theories are founded. I would not be able to understand the simplest scientific symbols, let alone the maths.

But rest assured that a "person of knowledge" has my highest respect and I pay close attention about his/her words. Thanks for your particip[ation and input.

For me this is the proper forum to explore my own thoughts and intuitions, without being dismissed out of hand.

Maxila

However even you agree the empirical evidence of times existence can only be found in the observations of energy (in any form); therefore although you say time exists in its absence, without empirical evidence that statement is tantamount to faith.

Hardly faith. Every observation of time has certain characteristics, IE that the MORE energy you have in a specific area, the SLOWER time passes. Agreed? So why would you assume that at low levels of energy(when observations tell you time should be least affected)time would suddenly disappear? The logical assumption, based on observation, is that time passes fastest when it is least effected by energy, because that's what observations tell us all the way down to the point you can't measure it any more. That's not a matter of faith, that is expecting that trends continue to that null point. What mechanism do you propose to affect one of the dimensions of spacetime to the point that it disappears? Motion? It only dilates time, making it pass slower. Mass, ditto. Energy? Same. So it is deduced that time passes fastest where it is affected least, and that is in the absence of events. And our ability or inability to measure it is irrelevant. The observations we do have indicate that that deduction is the most likely one, absent positive evidence otherwise.

we can only show it to exist when we can define a space (room to change position) and energy that could change position within it

Yes, we can only measure time using the energy in the area, true. But when the energy drops to nothing it just leaves time passing at it's greatest possible rate, unhindered by any dilation. That is exactly what every observation we CAN make tells us to expect. That we can no longer measure it is not a reason to think it ceases to pass, it does that at lightspeed and at the Event Horizon, both of which are all the way on the other side of that scale of energy. All the points on that graph of energy/time's rate point toward my conclusion, not yours.

Undefined

Did you mean to imply an ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL MAXIMUM 'TIME RATE' or some such, mate? It sounds like it.

Actually, there is no such thing as empty space, even the hardest vacuum has constant activity on the quantum scale. There is no privileged frame where anyone could say they were motionless, except to themselves.So the maximum rate is never reached(and like lightspeed, close doesn't count), it is largely theoretical and all of it is relative. But every other measurement of time's rate done in space with more mass/energy in it will be slower than that done in deepest, darkest hard vacuum. All the way down to the minimum level of energy possible, thus the highest POSSIBLE rate. An Absolute Universal Maximum "Time Rate" could only exist in a completely empty Universe, but you couldn't possibly measure time at all there.

I also hark back to an earlier (correct) observation of yours regarding the "lightyears" convention as a measure of astronomical scale 'space distance', and I make the observation that the only way that 'space' related to 'time' in any way (ie, your reference to the 'spacetime' convention/model) is that WE apply an overlay of MOTION of light and observe the 'measure' of a certain distance with reference to ANOTHER motion standard time 'unit' (ie, light YEAR, light SECOND etc) in order to give a value to that distance in those terms. The space distance is what it is. The measurement standards are already established. And we use light MOTION across that space as a convenient 'vehicle/device' for creating 'astronomical space distance measurement conventions. At no stage have we 'equated' or directly connected' any 'time' with that space. We merely compared that light motion with a pre-existing time standard motion (second/year etc) and called that distance traversed in said elapsed time unit standard a LIGHTSECOND/LIGHTYEAR etc.

It's called a light cone. It is a two dimensional chart of a four dimensional truth. Nothing in this Universe can be seen, reached or experienced at a faster than light speed. Whatever units we use to describe that speed are for our convenience, but the velocity itself is built into existence. We see the entire Universe at various distances in past time, not where the things we see now reside, not what their current attributes are. And in a very real way that is our reality because we will have to deal with them as the light arrives, not as they now exist. The things you see 13 billion lys away probably don't exist in the same form today and is likely more like 40 lys away due to 13 billion years of expansion AFTER the light we currently see left. You are seeing everything as they were in the past, how can that NOT involve time? Time is also a distance in spacetime, we see everything further and further back in time the farther out we look.

And, as to being built in, the LHC provides evidence every day that time, space and lightspeed are tied together at the basic level. When a proton is accelerated to lightspeed, it's energy is a very precisely known value. It takes a city's worth of electrical power to accelerate just a few heavy ions to 90+ percent of lightspeed. Do that with two streams going in opposite directions and the collisions occur at just less than lightspeed(thus illustrating the lightspeed limit and Relativity. .99 lightspeed meeting .99 lightspeed coming from the opposite direction still gives you closing rates between them at less than lightspeed). Those collisions knock loose whole families of exotic particles, but to study them they must make it to and through the detector(about 20 feet in diameter). The problem is these particles are very, very shortlived(femto-seconds). Normally, at non-relativistic speeds, these particles can hardly move at all before they decay, they couldn't make it from one side of a molecule to the other. Simply speeding up the particles gets you to a few inches. But factor in the time dilation at near lightspeed and they go tens of feet. That's because time and lightspeed(any speed of anything with mass, actually, but at "normal" speeds the effects are minimal, it gets extreme near lightspeed)are tied together in an inverse relationship, fastest in one is slowest in the other. Lightspeed and space are also tied together, a round proton is a flat disk at near lightspeed, it's dimension of spacetime is shrunk in the direction of travel. It's not just an appearance, it's actual spacetime dimension is shrunk, it would still see itself as being as round as ever.

http://phys.org/news/2011-12-physicists-ultrahigh-energy-proton-black-disk.html

Grumpy

question,

a) If something reaches a state of zero energy can it remain in existence? If it ceases to exist in reality can it still be associated with time?

b) If something exceeds maximum state of energy ("c") can it come into existence at all? If it cannot exist in reality can it still be associated with time?

Maxila

Every observation of time has certain characteristics, IE that the MORE energy you have in a specific area, the SLOWER time passes. Agreed?

I agree absolutely.

So why would you assume that at low levels of energy (when observations tell you time should be least affected) time would suddenly disappear

I was trying to keep the conversation within the framework, if time was or was not a description (a way to define) the change of position of energy and its magnitude (relative to a distance), or is it a phenomenon in its own right.

As long as there is any energy in any form present I would agree we can refer to time changing, after all that is the crux of my perspective (time describes the change of position of energy). For now lets avoid a side discussion of if empty space is truly void of energy (for reference I believe it contains energy). When I answered you by saying, time is not present in empty space I was answering in the context of true nothingness, no energy in any form present, observable or unobservable, because you didn’t define any energy as being present. If you want to define a region of empty space being void of any energy of any kind than I would say time does not exist there and you could not prove otherwise; on the other hand if you define that space as having energy that we cannot observe or detect than I would agree time must be used to describe the relationship of that energy to space even though we cannot observe it directly (i.e. dark matter or dark energy).

Yes, we can only measure time using the energy in the area, true. But when the energy drops to nothing it just leaves time passing at its greatest possible rate

In reference to what? Time is a relative term and has no meaning unless it is in reference to something tangible. This is the part of an argument I referenced as having to be based on faith.

All the points on that graph of energy/time's rate point toward my conclusion, not yours.

They also point to singularities. I can mathematically graph taking quarters out of my pocket to the negative; however we both know once I have zero quarters in my pocket the graph of negative quarters represents a physical impossibility. Because a graph works for what can be verified, doesn’t mean it is correct when in extrapolated beyond that point. That is not a strong argument.

i would not be surprised if 40 years from now(possibly within),dark energy is thought to be time itself.

Last edited:
krash661 said:
i would not be surprised if 40 years from now(possibly within),dark energy is thought to be time itself.
Wouldn't that mean a form of energy not defined using units of . . . time?

this is exactly why majority of actual scientist do not come to these science sites.