TheAndrewSAMA

I totally agree with you, and what you are saying is well explained by Rob Bryanton in his book and YouTube channel. Search for 10thdim on YouTube.

Good question. If I found an object in two different time coordinates, I could say it's moving, but it's not necessarily true. We can experience time instant by instant, so we cannot say if what's in front of us is resting or moving ( in time ). For example: how could I tell if the frame I see in a movie is another frame whit the same content or the exact same frame I seen the moment before? Why saying that objects move through time implies that time acts as a force, while saying that objects move throught space doesn't imply that space acts like a force? ( If it doesn't ) Speaking about the frames in a movie, in case the frame is the exact same frame, its clock hands should be fixed. Instead, if it's another frame, its clock hands should sign another time. Because, I suppose, an object cannot be in two different space-time places ( in the same way two electrons whit the same spin cannot be in the same orbital, I would say ), and for this reason there must be a "configuration difference" or "state difference" between the two clocks and frames.

An object that changes only one ( time ) of the four coordinates that describe its position in a 4D space is not moving?

If you mean an object in complete rest, it can be decribed as a point in a 4 dimensional space. An object that is resting only from our point of view of time travelers instead, could be described as a line in a 4 dimesional space.

I'm not sure about that. If time is a spatial dimension, one could go in 2 directions or stay still. We are going forward, but it doesn't mean it's impossible to do something else. For instance, if we are going forward because of some strange conservation of momentum law that acts in 4 dimensions, we could impact on something able to send us backward. An object that is not moving would exist only in a combination of coordinates in space/time and from our point of view it would appear and disappear instantly. What we see as a still object is not really still. Indeed, it is moving in time but not in space.

Thank you for the replyes! I tried to find something on google about what i thought, but I failed. "Four-velocity" seems to be what i was looking for! I'll sleep better tonight. And what about an object that doesn't travel in time but only in space? It's "Three-velocity" would be higher than c? Would it be infinite? Or simply the concept of velocity without the spatial dimension of time has no sense?

Hi, I was thinking about time being the 4th spatial dimension, thanks to a book I'm reading these days. Nothing special, till I tried to imagine this in the smallest possible scale. So, I drawn the classic space/time graph and marked two points on each axes: y and y+Planck lengh on the space axis x and x+Planck time on the time axis Now, looking at how the smallest 4 dimensional particle could be rapresentend in this graph, I figured out that it should have these attributes: lenght, width and height equal to the Planck lenght lenght in the 4th dimension ( or "duration" ) equal to the Planck time But, being time just another spatial dimension, i thought this: what if somehow the Planck time is equal to the Planck lenght? In other words, if the smallest 3D particle is like a cube, the smallest 4D particle should be an hypercube. And if the cube has equal lenght, width and height, an hypercube should have equal lenght, width, height and duration. Or not? Furthermore, I wrote an equaltion about this. Here it is. Be clement, I'm really not good at math, and if this equation is completely wrong just ignore it. If it cointains some errors that if corrected could lead to something new for all of us, then feel free to do so. Beside all this, I feel somehow that a turtle runs as fast as a rabbit after all. The only thing that changes is that the rabbit is running more through space than through time. I feel also that for this reason, in someway, the speed of light is not only the max speed possible, but also the minimum. But I'm a bit confused about this. I hope you can help me to clarify. So, what you guys think about all this reasoning? Is it valid? Is it meaningless? I hope I have not waster your time ( space ) As you'll probably notice, my english is not so good. Sorry for that.