Time is a scalar (parameter), NOT a vector (dimension)!

[Capiert]

If anybody
 can travel
 backward
 in time,
 please tell me how
 cause they DIDN’T tell me either
 & I want to know.

Time is a scalar (amount)
 in which the direction
 is determined ONLY by its amount.

Thus, time is NOT bidirectional
 like a dimension is.

Time ONLY goes forward.

We can ONLY measure time going forward;
 NOT in reverse.

Instead, time is a parameter
 (= something other than a dimension, thus)
 NOT a dimension.

Disclaimer:

Sometimes I have to say
 some of the simplest
 most obvious things
 (against ridiculous mainstream, NONSENSE opinions).

Edited September 26, 2023 by Capiert

[Bufofrog]

Time is not a vector but it is a dimension.

[Capiert]

20 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Time is not a vector but it is a dimension.

I see NO evidence of that.

Please explain.
..because..
You have heard (=read) my version.

E.g.
Dimensions (x,y,z)
 are all
 at 90°
 to each other.

(That (3 mixture) starts at x;
 & ENDS at z,
 the last (alphabetic) symbol
 (but chosen)
 on purpose, intentionally
 (to prevent further ones).)

Time is NOT
 at 90°
 to ANYTHING!

Time does NOT belong
 to the category "dimension".

It (=Time) follows
 NO previous example,
 thus it is unique,
 a category
of its own (nature).

I see NOTHING else
 to prove
 & convince me
 otherwise.

It (= That (time) nature (=behaviour))
 is very obvious
 (to (at least) me).

Disclaimer:

I DON'T care
 how badly
 Minikowski
 distorted
 the description
 of time
 in the past;
 it (=his distortion)
 is NOT fitting.

Time reversal
 is NOT possible.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Capiert

[Bufofrog]

15 minutes ago, Capiert said:

I see NO evidence of that.

It is not possible to locate an event without the dimension of time.  For instance if I want to have a meeting with you it is not possible without specifying a time, in other words it takes a minimum of 3 spatial dimension and 1 time dimension.

[Capiert]

5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

It is not possible to locate an event without the dimension of time.  For instance if I want to have a meeting with you it is not possible without specifying a time, in other words it takes a minimum of 3 spatial dimension and 1 time dimension.

What (is that suppose to mean)?
I did NOT say we can do without time.

Time is something else
 (an extra)
 which is necessary,
 but it does NOT belong
 to (category) dimension.

E.g.
I am alive,
 I live & breath (air)
 eat (food) & drink (water).
All those extras,
 but they are NOT me.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Time is something else
 (an extra)
 which is necessary,
 but it does NOT belong
 to (category) dimension.

You can't move through space without moving through time as well. Changing motion through space or time affects the other in predictable ways. Special Relativity works, and it wouldn't if time weren't a dimension.

[Capiert]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You can't move through space without moving through time as well.

But you can move thru time
 without moving thru space
 e.g. maintaining the same distances
 (so to speak).

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Changing motion through space or time affects the other in predictable ways. Special Relativity works, and it wouldn't if time weren't a dimension.

Special Relativity
 was retracted
 by Einstein
 as defect,
 but (it was) a means to an End=his General_Relativity.
Ch 22, 1920.

Meaning Special Relativity
 does NOT (always) work.

So I guess you lost that 1 arguement.

Meaning time can NOT be a dimension.

Sorry (for you).

[Bufofrog]

22 minutes ago, Capiert said:

What (is that suppose to mean)?
I did NOT say we can do without time.

It means time is a dimension.

23 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Time is something else
 (an extra)
 which is necessary,
 but it does NOT belong
 to (category) dimension.

You apparently decided for some reason to only recognize spatial dimensions as 'real' dimensions, that's fine for you, but don't expect others to jump on board with you. 

3 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Special Relativity
 was retracted
 by Einstein

That is not correct.  Special relativity is a special case (flat space time) of general relativity.

[Capiert]

2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You apparently decided for some reason to only recognize spatial dimensions as 'real' dimensions,

That's right!

I'm only interested
 in the real McCoy.

(E.g. Spare me the science fiction.
I DON'T need Sc_Fi
 (like they do).)

2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

that's fine for you,

Thank you.

2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

but don't expect others to jump on board with you. 

Pity (for them).

[Phi for All]

51 minutes ago, Capiert said:

But you can move thru time
 without moving thru space
 e.g. maintaining the same distances
 (so to speak).

This actually supports the concept of time as a dimension. When you decrease your motion through space, you increase your motion through time, and it works the other way too. And even with length contraction and time dilation, two observers can agree on what's happening within their different frames of reference. And it only works this way if time is a dimension you can't separate from space.

[joigus]

Time is a scalar under spatial rotations.

Time is not a scalar under changes of reference frame that involve a speed.

Also, things that change sign under certain transformations (spatial inversions) are scalars for everything else (every other transformation of coordinates).

Those are called pseudoscalars.

An example is the projection of an angular velocity on a fixed vector of space.

Another example is the wave funtion of a meson.

Etc.

Which one do you mean?

Also, a vector and a dimension are different things, as you've been told.

Etc.

Edited September 27, 2023 by joigus
added link

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

Meaning Special Relativity
 does NOT (always) work.

So I guess you lost that 1 arguement.

Meaning time can NOT be a dimension.

SR wasn't meant to ALWAYS work, it's a special case, as Bufofrog pointed out. Is this a situation where you misunderstood something and dismissed it out of hand? Your reasoning seems pretty shaky in this thread.

[studiot]

On 9/26/2023 at 4:27 PM, Capiert said:

If anybody
 can travel
 backward
 in time,
 please tell me how
 cause they DIDN’T tell me either
 & I want to know.

Time is a scalar (amount)
 in which the direction
 is determined ONLY by its amount.

Thus, time is NOT bidirectional
 like a dimension is.

Time ONLY goes forward.

We can ONLY measure time going forward;
 NOT in reverse.

Instead, time is a parameter
 (= something other than a dimension, thus)
 NOT a dimension.

Disclaimer:

Sometimes I have to say
 some of the simplest
 most obvious things
 (against ridiculous mainstream, NONSENSE opinions).

 

 

Quote

Time is a scalar (parameter), NOT a vector (dimension)!

 

 I am going to say +1 for this correct stetement.

Time is indeed not a vector, but then I don't know who said it was.

I further can't figure out what you speculation is or why this is in speculations at all.

 

The whole classification scheme of scalars, vectors, tensors, dyads, triads and so on is a bit fuzzy so it is important to know whether you are talking mathematics or physics as they are different.

 

Also a quantity can be a scalar in one situation andn a vector in another, which make matters even more complicated.

Equally there are situations where time may be considered a parameter, a scalar, a dimension or something else entirely.

 

So it is not a case of one or the other.

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by studiot