Time is NOT the 4th dimension...
- Thread starter stateofmind
- Start date
If it were self-evident it wouldn't need proving. There's one clue.
What do you mean by "meter"?
Hey AlexG! Please give your insight to this... the thread did get derailed but it's my own fault since I accidentally fell into Dywyd's troll game.
And Dywyd, my bad I thought it was the actual paper. The paper you presented was about electrodynamics... not the same one.
And Dywyd, my bad I thought it was the actual paper. The paper you presented was about electrodynamics... not the same one.
Ah, reassigning the blame. Is that because you can't support your own contentions?
In other words you couldn't be bothered to check.
Er, Electrodynamics OF MOVING BODIES: the foundation of his work on relativity.
Must you show your ignorance with every post?
It would be better to say.. "You really think change was timed (polysected) before movement and change in the universe existed??
I know "polysected" isn't a word but I couldn't find a word that means "to cut into equal parts". "Bisect" was the closest but it limits itself to 2 so "polysect" seemed like a good fit.
And your point is?... Cuz there was no X,Y,or Z before the Universe existed either.
Er, Electrodynamics OF MOVING BODIES: the foundation of his work on relativity.
Must you show your ignorance with every post?
Are you sure that's the article where he presents his argument for E=mc2? I looked through it and couldn't find it so I figured it was a different paper. Could you tell me where his argument for E=mc2 is in that paper? Thanks!
My point is... you can get rid of inches and still have length and width... and likewise you can get rid of time and still have change.
No.
Because timing something requires an observer (with a measuring device).
But that is NOT the same as stating time didn't exist.
And change/ movement can't happen without time.
You really are falling down on this, aren't you?
Er, go back and read your remarks that prompted me posting that link.
Which part of "it was the foundation of relativity" did you miss? There are a number of papers working up to it. It didn't appear out of thin air (as you seem to think).
Still getting it wrong. You're using the units of a dimension on one hand (inches) and the dimension itself on the other.
Inches: seconds, Etc. Width/ length: time.
Time exists only as much as centimeters exist!!
I'm still not following, if the same is true for both then how can you preclude time as a dimension?
Albert Einstein proposed mass–energy equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabilis papers entitled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?"
Still wrong. Time exists as much as length (or depth or width) exist.
Time is the dimension.
Centimetres are the units of a dimension.
So why don't you come up with the chain of proofs Einstein provided so I take your claim seriously. Can't wait to hear it!
This link is to the original paper, "DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND
UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
Ah! Alex already got it.
Why do persist in taking sidetracks (especially after "complaining" that I've "derailed" the thread) while still failing to support your own argument?
Have you bothered reading ANY of the links provided? Even your own?
You say that as if centimeters are inherently written into the 2nd dimension. They're not. They are an arbitrary cutting up of the second dimension that we standardized for our convenience.
We've done the same thing with the 4th dimension of change, only instead of centimeters we use time. Time is our general name for the polysecting of change and our standardized forms of it are seconds, minutes, hours etc.
That's what the word 'units' means.
Is English your native language? Seconds, minutes, hours, etc are units, exactly as the centimeter is the unit.
Wrong.
Yes.
Well, not "the second dimension", but you've got the gist.
False. Again. Time is the dimension. Hours, minutes, seconds are the units.