By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions
This is a brief revisit to the discussion of "Time" elsewhere on PlanetSwans, with the addition of "matter" and the other "dimensions" both those defined in the scientific lexicon, and those not.
Two requests, please. 1) If you are quoting or paraphrasing anyone else in an article or elsewhere, please provide a citation [as I have, or have not]. 2) If you do not understand what someone has written, please do not comment on it except as a question. Listen, learn, and understand first.
I shall put aside a definition of "time" for now, except to say that it is generally classified as a "dimension" or "the fourth dimension."
The so-called "three dimensions" pertain to matter and are usually describe as length, width, and depth [sometimes other words are substituted, but the three I use will suffice). Other rarely-discussed attributes which may very easily be [or should be] classified as "dimensions" are volume, mass, and weight, again not considered here, except incidentally.
Matter as we know it at present, and here on earth, consists of solids, liquids, and gases, although there is enough latitude for seeming combinations of those three. I will stick with those three.
The most important first point is that none of those forms of matter have dimensions that are steady or permanent. Dimensions can, and regularly are, changed by changes in temperature or pressure. Chemical changes can also change dimensions, but I put those aside.
If you heat matter, it will expand. Solids can expand and remain solid, or expand to become liquid. They can also return to solid form. Liquids can move both to solid form and to gaseous form, and can move between them. Gases can be liquefied and sometimes frozen into a solid. Solids tend to expand by a lesser percentage than the others, and gases by a greater percentage.
The three "dimensions," then, are transitory and may be calculated and stated only in relation to a specimen's state at the time of measurement, although this is usually not stated.
Although the three dimensions of solids can be observed, are relatively fixed [as above], and can be calculated directly from the specimen matter itself, on the other hand liquids and gases cannot. The latter two assume dimensions calculable only from the container which holds them -- for a liquid, the bottle or the earth through which it flows, or sits motionless, for example, or by volume or weight.
The dimensions of a gas can be measured only from a suitable container which holds it, and then only if the gas it "pure," or not combined with another gas. [Gas is usually weighed or stated as volume, but those "dimensions" are not part of this discussion.] Once a gas escapes its container, it diffuses into the atmosphere [of any kind, not just "air"] and can no longer be measured for "dimensions."
As one may deduce, then, although the three dimensions of matter can remain constant under the right conditions, they are in fact impermanent and always subject to change.
On the molecular, atomic, or sub-atomic levels, the dimensions can be more stable, probably due to the almost infinitesimally small size. Further discussion would muddy the points, except to say that such "tampering" can lead to major catastrophic events, but similar in kind to such "tampering" with full-sized elements, especially gases.
Time enters the discussion because we can observe changes in matter, as well as apparent movement through space [micro-movement or macro], that appear to happen in sequence. It is that apparent movement in sequence that leads us to quantify it as "time" and call "time" a dimension.
A curious comparison can be made with "motion pictures." A sequence of still photographs ["frames"] on semi-transparent film are moved through a machine ["projector"] which stops each frame very briefly to have a light shine through it and "project" its image onto a screen. The effect on the screen is that the characters are moving in and through time, whereas they are not.
Something similar in concept happens with television and videotape, where, instead of full-sized frames being projected by light onto a screen, the images are stored electronically in horizontal strips which are divided into tiny segments. The "projector" then projects the "contents" of each tiny segment, strip by strip, onto the inside of a screen, at a rate of approximately 30 full screens every second [depending on the rules of different countries]. The characters are not moving. Nor are the pips of light. But the effect is that the characters are moving.
Time, then, is not matter. If it is a "dimension," it is so as a kind of measurement of changes or movement of matter in space, but is neither space itself nor a part of space, any more than length and width are matter itself or a part of matter.
Whereas we can say with considerable confidence that all matter has been somehow created in or by Nature by whatever name, we may also say with the same confidence that Time is a construct of mankind to explain the unexplainable by appearing to measuring it.
[The following is opinion: We don't know how or why things change or move in space, and, to be candid, don't even know how to find out, but we have given the events names and hope they are a suitable substitute for their reality.]
If we give something a name, we agree to consider it real. Perhaps, because of the nature of Mankind, we have to.
A friend of mine who is very into quantum mechanics also states that we have to consider consciousness as another dimension. Without it we cannot consider anything else.
0
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 23:35 - Jul 22 with 1298 views
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 22:04 - Jul 22 by Nogginthenog
A friend of mine who is very into quantum mechanics also states that we have to consider consciousness as another dimension. Without it we cannot consider anything else.
Is she a knowledgeable-physicist or a hijack-quack?
0
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 00:08 - Jul 23 with 1281 views
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 00:05 - Jul 23 by Thursday
Is she a knowledgeable-physicist or a hijack-quack?
Oh joy! Another thread started by Davillin where no other views are accepted but his own!
And we're Swaaaaanseeeea Ciiiityyyy! Swaaaansseeeaaa Ciiiityyy F C!
We're not necessarily the greatest team in football, the world has ever seen (but we're possibly the most honest and resilient).
- On behalf of The Campaign For Realistic Crowd Chanting
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 00:12 - Jul 23 by Thursday
What are you talking about? I don't care what any OP's views are. I'm interested to see what the angle is from Ntn's friend.
[Post edited 23 Jul 2014 0:13]
Have you read the other threads where Davillin has gauged in "discussion"? Anyway, I've given my views already, based on actual education, research and current career.
And we're Swaaaaanseeeea Ciiiityyyy! Swaaaansseeeaaa Ciiiityyy F C!
We're not necessarily the greatest team in football, the world has ever seen (but we're possibly the most honest and resilient).
- On behalf of The Campaign For Realistic Crowd Chanting
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 00:21 - Jul 23 by JackoBoostardo
Have you read the other threads where Davillin has gauged in "discussion"? Anyway, I've given my views already, based on actual education, research and current career.
I haven't read a single view from you on this thread.
1
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 05:06 - Jul 23 with 1243 views
I saw on tv recently someone using an airship to measure and weigh a cloud. Just saying. If consciousness is a dimension, what about your subconscious?
If something has length, width and height, it has to have mass or volume? Yes?
And JB, Davillin has his own opinions which he defends. You don't have to agree but I find he welcomes disagreement because it stimulates debate. He can be a bit stubborn, but can't we all? We all want to think we are right!
Time can be observed and measured even warped by heavy objects , just look at the stars and you see the dimension of time right there ! ...it's not in your mind.
0
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 10:18 - Jul 23 with 1202 views
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 10:03 - Jul 23 by jacw
Time can be observed and measured even warped by heavy objects , just look at the stars and you see the dimension of time right there ! ...it's not in your mind.
Unless you go Descartian! I think therefore I am. Ergo, some people on here clearly don't exist because.......!!
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 05:06 - Jul 23 by Catullus
I saw on tv recently someone using an airship to measure and weigh a cloud. Just saying. If consciousness is a dimension, what about your subconscious?
If something has length, width and height, it has to have mass or volume? Yes?
And JB, Davillin has his own opinions which he defends. You don't have to agree but I find he welcomes disagreement because it stimulates debate. He can be a bit stubborn, but can't we all? We all want to think we are right!
"If something has length, width and height, it has to have mass or volume? Yes? "
Yes, as that's the mathematical formula for calculating volume [of an object with square angles and straight lines (inartfully put, but you understand) and not one with round sides like a sphere or cone, etc.] The formula for determining mass is different and it's complicated and I forgot it. It is related to volume.
However my point was that volume is not considered one of the "three dimensions," which I suggest might be appropriate. Perhaps it is intended that we do the calculation first before considering it a "dimension."
[p,s. Thanks for your kind defense, but in this case it's just pearls before swine, or "caviar to the general." ]
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 10:03 - Jul 23 by jacw
Time can be observed and measured even warped by heavy objects , just look at the stars and you see the dimension of time right there ! ...it's not in your mind.
Too many misconceptions in that one small post, so I shall be as brief as I can.
You do NOT "see" or "observe" time.
Perhaps, if you believe the theoretical physicists, you see the behaviour of light moving through the distant vastness of space. Not the same.
In the scenario you describe, it is not time that is warped, but light.
Time isn't measured. Time is a form of measurement.
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 00:12 - Jul 23 by Thursday
What are you talking about? I don't care what any OP's views are. I'm interested to see what the angle is from Ntn's friend.
[Post edited 23 Jul 2014 0:13]
He always says that to consider scientific and physical theories takes a conscious mind, the mind itself is an enigma that we know little about, but you need the mind to make deliberations so it should always be part of the equation.
The mind itself may have the capacity to travel forward in time and predict a future event, e.g. the prediction that one day man would land on the moon or put satellites into orbit. Is that not a form of time travel. It also has the capacity to recall past events, could that be classed as time travel. I don't know obviously, but it is an interesting point.
0
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 15:26 - Jul 23 with 1132 views
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 14:24 - Jul 23 by Davillin
Too many misconceptions in that one small post, so I shall be as brief as I can.
You do NOT "see" or "observe" time.
Perhaps, if you believe the theoretical physicists, you see the behaviour of light moving through the distant vastness of space. Not the same.
In the scenario you describe, it is not time that is warped, but light.
Time isn't measured. Time is a form of measurement.
Phew! Done.
If you could travel fast enough you certainly would be able to observe time and the passing of it at a different pace to your own personal space over the distance you travel. Time travels faster at the top of Big Ben than on the pavement below due to the spin of the planet , but it is observable and measurable and has nothing to do with light.
0
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 17:02 - Jul 23 with 1093 views
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 15:07 - Jul 23 by Nogginthenog
He always says that to consider scientific and physical theories takes a conscious mind, the mind itself is an enigma that we know little about, but you need the mind to make deliberations so it should always be part of the equation.
The mind itself may have the capacity to travel forward in time and predict a future event, e.g. the prediction that one day man would land on the moon or put satellites into orbit. Is that not a form of time travel. It also has the capacity to recall past events, could that be classed as time travel. I don't know obviously, but it is an interesting point.
Thank you. That was an interesting view. Interesting that it came from a physicist who actually knows what quantum mechanics is and hasn't taken the term for mysticism.
It does read more of philosophy than science, though. I'd agree that the mind is capable of prediction, and this is a part of evolved consciousness, but I struggle to make the leap that this is time travel of any kind. If it were, they wouldn't be predictions. Same with memory recollection.
But, it is an interesting point. Obviously, though, as with 99% of the posters here, quantum mechanics ain't my thing. You do have to be careful, though, not to misuse terms. Like the holographic principle. I don't really have a grasp of that, but I do know that it has nothing to do with the mind being in a simulation, but that the universe could exist in only two dimension (thus begins and ends my understanding). It's not Star Trek, though.
[Post edited 23 Jul 2014 17:04]
0
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 17:20 - Jul 23 with 1078 views
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 14:15 - Jul 23 by Davillin
"If something has length, width and height, it has to have mass or volume? Yes? "
Yes, as that's the mathematical formula for calculating volume [of an object with square angles and straight lines (inartfully put, but you understand) and not one with round sides like a sphere or cone, etc.] The formula for determining mass is different and it's complicated and I forgot it. It is related to volume.
However my point was that volume is not considered one of the "three dimensions," which I suggest might be appropriate. Perhaps it is intended that we do the calculation first before considering it a "dimension."
[p,s. Thanks for your kind defense, but in this case it's just pearls before swine, or "caviar to the general." ]
[Post edited 23 Jul 2014 14:28]
Wrong, Something can have volume and no mass.
This is the type of subatomic particle they are looking for at CERN. Don't know if they've found it yet. Look up subatomic particles for more info.
The name of the particle is the graviton, a kinda holy grail for physicists.
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 14:24 - Jul 23 by Davillin
Too many misconceptions in that one small post, so I shall be as brief as I can.
You do NOT "see" or "observe" time.
Perhaps, if you believe the theoretical physicists, you see the behaviour of light moving through the distant vastness of space. Not the same.
In the scenario you describe, it is not time that is warped, but light.
Time isn't measured. Time is a form of measurement.
Phew! Done.
Just for you Dav ....." In the theory of relativity , which agrees with a large number of experiments , time and space are inextricably tangled up . One cannot curve space without involving time as well. Thus time has a shape. By curving space and time , general relativity changes them from being a passive background against which events take place to being active, dynamic participants in what happens " . .... Time should have a minimum and maximum value , the beginning at the Big Bang and the end at whatever happens when the universe is expanded to its limits , hence time is measurable . The quote is from ' the universe in a nutshell ' by Stephen Hawkin.
0
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 18:20 - Jul 23 with 1053 views
listened to an interesting podcast the other day (infinite monkey cage i think it was) where physicist were discussing whether Time is smooth or granular. As previously stated, time is linked with space (space-time) where it is influenced by the effects of gravity. More gravity, slower time is relative to somewhere where there is less gravity, but the passing of time will feel the same in both places. The boys down at cern are trying to find the particle or sub atomic force that links mass with time. Through this research, questions are being asked if there is a minimum measurement of time, in that like quarks or whatever it is that makes up he smallest ingredient for a proton, time may have a smallest increment where it can't get any smaller, making it granular.
Further more, these dudes say there is no such thing as a universal now. As in, your now and my now and someone else's now is different.
0
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 18:29 - Jul 23 with 1028 views
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 18:20 - Jul 23 by Batterseajack
listened to an interesting podcast the other day (infinite monkey cage i think it was) where physicist were discussing whether Time is smooth or granular. As previously stated, time is linked with space (space-time) where it is influenced by the effects of gravity. More gravity, slower time is relative to somewhere where there is less gravity, but the passing of time will feel the same in both places. The boys down at cern are trying to find the particle or sub atomic force that links mass with time. Through this research, questions are being asked if there is a minimum measurement of time, in that like quarks or whatever it is that makes up he smallest ingredient for a proton, time may have a smallest increment where it can't get any smaller, making it granular.
Further more, these dudes say there is no such thing as a universal now. As in, your now and my now and someone else's now is different.
I watched a video the other night about the smallest increment of time that we know about and they were saying it is probably the Planck time which is equal to the Planck length divided by the speed of light squared (I think?) which is the amount of time from the moment of the Big Bang to to the moment where all modern physics starts from that we just don't know about.
If man evolved from monkeys why do we still have monkeys?
0
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 18:43 - Jul 23 with 1028 views
I've avoided replying to some of the mock science on here, but I can't resist this one.
Boldly you proclaimed, "Wrong. Something can have volume and no mass." And to prove it, you refer to one [count'em, one] "type of subatomic particle they are looking for . . . that doesn't exist. Great!
And your premise is also silly because to have no mass would mean being nothing [no matter], and therefor no volume. To oversimplify, your concept is like having a glass of water with no water in it.
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 17:31 - Jul 23 by jacw
Just for you Dav ....." In the theory of relativity , which agrees with a large number of experiments , time and space are inextricably tangled up . One cannot curve space without involving time as well. Thus time has a shape. By curving space and time , general relativity changes them from being a passive background against which events take place to being active, dynamic participants in what happens " . .... Time should have a minimum and maximum value , the beginning at the Big Bang and the end at whatever happens when the universe is expanded to its limits , hence time is measurable . The quote is from ' the universe in a nutshell ' by Stephen Hawkin.
Now tell me that you understand what you posted there.
Do you know what it means to "curve space"? How does space curve? Suppose space doesn't curve? Or does curve only in the imagination -- the prime source of the power -- of a theoretical physicist? Or suppose that curving space is just an optical illusion based on light curving. Because light can curve, you know.
Do you not understand that time is not itself "measurable," but that it is the means of measuring?
If you determine with a tape measure that a board is five feet long, did you measure the length of the board or did you measure the feet? Or did you measure the tape measure? Think about that. It's not nearly as complex as your post.
If you use a clock to determine that a bird sat on a fence for five minutes, did you measure how long the bird sat on a fence, or did you measure the minutes? Or did you measure the clock? Think about that.
Time Revisited with a Brief Examination of Dimensions on 18:20 - Jul 23 by Batterseajack
listened to an interesting podcast the other day (infinite monkey cage i think it was) where physicist were discussing whether Time is smooth or granular. As previously stated, time is linked with space (space-time) where it is influenced by the effects of gravity. More gravity, slower time is relative to somewhere where there is less gravity, but the passing of time will feel the same in both places. The boys down at cern are trying to find the particle or sub atomic force that links mass with time. Through this research, questions are being asked if there is a minimum measurement of time, in that like quarks or whatever it is that makes up he smallest ingredient for a proton, time may have a smallest increment where it can't get any smaller, making it granular.
Further more, these dudes say there is no such thing as a universal now. As in, your now and my now and someone else's now is different.
When they were finished, did they make bubbles with their fingers in their mouths, too?
And make odd grunting sounds?
Of course time "can't get any smaller." It isn't something with three dimensions, weight, mass, or volume. Now think about that very carefully, please, before replying. Thanks.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
