Time is NOT the 4th dimension...

Again, this does not disprove the use of time as a dimension. To measure something you must have units! As I have already stated they ARE ARBITRARY yes, but they are agreed upon by HUMANS as a way to MEASURE our world in a MEANINGFUL way so we can do science. The computer you are using is working so we must be doing something right.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So what's the difference between time and change in your opinions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Time is the dimension in which change happens.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why can't the 4th dimensions just be change?

 

It effectivly is, time and it's units are a way of explaining this.

 

So according to you if there's no change there's no time?
Things change at different rates. Are you claiming that time varies for everything?

 

How would seconds and minutes explain change in any meaningful way? Is a ruler really explained by the equidistant marks drawn on it?

 

Time at least for "us" is the perception of change. It can be also thought of as the measurement of change.

In a very real sense stateofmind has a valid point that time itself is not a dimension, rather it is the yard stick with which we measure change.

Just as the x, y and z axis are not the three dimensions of space, they only represent the three spacial dimensions, such that we can talk coherently about space. Most of the time coherently. So is time as we address it within physics is the scale from which we measure change.

I don't think any of this actually demands that time not be thought of as a dimension. Any more than it demands that we stop thinking of space in terms of x, y and z. It does serve to remind us that time is a dimension only where there is change to observe and measure.

BTW This discussion about time is one that has been going on for a very long time, no pun intended, and continues even among some very prominent names. It is not only controversial, in that no one has come up with a completely convincing argument, but for the simple reason that books by prominent names in physics on the subject of time, sell well. Even books on time by some not so prominent names sell well.

 

They don't Nobody is saying they do. They are simply the UNITS OF MEASUREMENT.

 

I'd say that's about right.

What things specifically change at different rates? Everything seems to continually change all at once.

 

Right... but 'believe' said they were explaining them... so I addressed it... did you see how I quoted him?

 

Ah, okay.
So in your house a lump of lead and a dead leaf will alter at exactly the same rate?
You'll be able tell what condition the leaf is in by checking the lump of lead?
Right.

 

I just did a google search. Apparently I didn't discover this first *sigh*

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Time-Was-Never-the-4th-Dimension-196801.shtml

 

They do in the way that it allows you to measure change over time. This may help you a bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

 

Breaking news from Slovinia.

I don't know the last two, but Amrit is one of the biggest internet wackos to ever post on a science site.

 

Dude, I'm not condescending to you, why are you condescending to me?

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. PROVE it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

One paper.
Okay, it's new.
Wait to see whether it's generally accepted and what (if any) refutations come out.

But (from their own abstract):

(Inner time being in the brain - but not claimed to be imaginary).
Sort of, er, not quite there, neh?
I.e. humans have time but nothing else does. :shrug:

 

Brilliant!!
Please go back to post #1, read that and then prove it.

Amrit Sorli:

http://www.vivendodaluz.com/EN/articles/prana_has_weight.html

Crank claim, crank site...

 

The entire world around you is a virtual reconstruction inside your brain and it is a few hundredths of a second time delayed. So how would time being in there be any different?