Michael F. D. Posted May 21, 2003 Posted May 21, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri Whut? What is a "Whut"?
greg1917 Posted May 22, 2003 Posted May 22, 2003 He means what the hell did you mean by 'the universe improves for absolute importance'. Are you referring to entropy? What is endless 'at' time?
MajinVegeta Posted May 22, 2003 Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward where did you ge that? we don't even know what shape this universe is yet, even assuming there are others. Radical Edward, what I said was all purely theoretical speculation.
Michael F. D. Posted May 22, 2003 Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 He means what the hell did you mean by 'the universe improves for absolute importance'. Are you referring to entropy? What is endless 'at' time? I was meaned the process of evolution. It is endless at time.
Radical Edward Posted May 22, 2003 Posted May 22, 2003 Originally posted by MajinVegeta Radical Edward, what I said was all purely theoretical speculation. you shouldn't have said it in the definite then.
Michael F. D. Posted June 30, 2003 Posted June 30, 2003 I claimed, in my first reply, that nor one of other dimensions can not exist in our one. Are you agree?
Clown Posted June 30, 2003 Posted June 30, 2003 Originally posted by Michael F. D. What is a "Whut"? Whut is a What.
aman Posted July 15, 2003 Posted July 15, 2003 If you consider dimensions you need to look at the infinities. Infinite length, width, depth, time, direction, size, phase, etc. Existance can be quantisized in packets we are able to experience or the true incredible largeness of all its aspects. We experience four with our senses, but realize more that we can't experience exist. We know that our solid hands are an illusion of energy in a stable matrix of atoms and molecules and fields. We realize in a flourescent lit room we are spending a great deal of time in absolute dark between strobes. Entropy is a law we experience in our slice at this moment but I am open to the idea that like lately with gravity and other laws we may find exceptions soon. Just for thought. Just aman
Guest facultas Posted July 17, 2003 Posted July 17, 2003 i belive time is a dimention in its self each moment of time has its own existance for eternity
Erador Posted August 24, 2003 Posted August 24, 2003 that doesnt really clear things up on 4d and all we see time in time, in changes if time is 4d, then we cannot see anything in time to see it would be to see gravity. could 4d possibly be a mirror lol laugh ppl
YT2095 Posted August 24, 2003 Posted August 24, 2003 2D and 1D are not visible to us at all. even if looking down upon the 2D object it must still cast light towards our eye in order to see, it cannot do this due to its nature. it can exist on paper (excuse the pun) however, and be perfectly understandable tho hard to comprehend IF we call Time the 4`th dimension then we can only call it #4 because of the order WE discovered it in. truly is would have to by default co-exist simultaniously with the 1`st dimension, as travel from point A to B would take TIME as I`ve stated before many times (that pun again!) it`s merely an arbitrary unit of measument used to signify change. nothing more, nothing less. are there more dimensions than the 3 we`re aware of? I don`t know I couldn`t even state if 2 or 1D exists in real terms. but I wouldn`t class TIME as the "fourth dimension" either
JaKiri Posted August 24, 2003 Posted August 24, 2003 Time is mathematically the fourth dimension (as I've said before, that's simply a label, it's A dimension) in general and special relaticity, general especially. Additional dimensions (as I've also said before) are speculated on in Superstring theory, and are curled up in what's called a Calibi Yau space, and not infinite, like our three spatials and time. I'm afraid you're just wrong, for the most part.
alt_f13 Posted August 25, 2003 Posted August 25, 2003 Would it be a prerequisite for things to be able to move freely among a dimension for it to actually be a dimension? Seems to me, disregarding everything I've read and believe, that there is some kind of trigger that should allow us to move back in time. The same way forces are needed to change velocity in our 3 dimensions, perhaps there is temporal momentum, and temporal acceleration. We are moving foreword because that's how we were pushed at the beginning of the universe. Hmm. When you move close to the speed of light, space-time is warped. Perhaps that is related to temporal momentum; it is linked to spatial momentum. At what speed is the universe expanding? Could that speed be limiting the speed at which we travel through time?
YT2095 Posted August 25, 2003 Posted August 25, 2003 Hmmm... that`s an interesting slant on things I`ve often wondered about absolute motion, and how it could be found. at what velocity and direction would you have to be traveling in relative to our starting point, to be absolutely stationary in a moving universe? and how would that effect time for you? I wonder what it would look like too, maybe like the Millenium Falcon when it hits hyper drive, and the stars thar were moving towards you as if expanding from a central point would be the place the big bang started, thats my guess anyway.
Dave Posted August 25, 2003 Posted August 25, 2003 As with a lot of stuff in science, we won't know until we do a lot more work and discover a lot more things about the universe. Superstring theory (at the moment) is our best bet on that.
alt_f13 Posted September 18, 2003 Posted September 18, 2003 Originally posted by YT2095 2D and 1D are not visible to us at all. AH, so we must have the 3RD dimension to experience the other two? Well, without a place in time, it is not impossible to see those three either. When you look at multiple coordinates on a piece of paper, you assume they are there at the same point of time, but unless you are told, you cannot be sure. I give you bombing coordinates. You bomb. But alas, the target has moved. You NEED the fourth reference frame. Even if time cannot be classified as a spacial dimension, although I believe it can, it is still required for one to describe the other dimensions correctly. Another temporal momentum note: although we are able to move in our three dimensions, we are still moving in the same gerneral direction in the universe. Not only can we not control that, we cannot even percieve it. I am suggesting the same is true for time. We CAN control how we move through time, but it is on such a small scale, it is impossible for us to percieve it. And on the same note, as we can percieve the incredible speeds by which we travel through time, the changes we produce are miniscule in proportion.
Sonar Posted September 19, 2003 Posted September 19, 2003 Well it all depends on interpretation. There arent really any dimensions. Just stimuli responses and interpretations by the brain. Think of a big timeline. All these different moments always exist. But you can only be in one at a time. It is sort of like a plane that everything else is contained. So in order to exist, you must be on this plane/dimension of time. You can therefore, theoretically, travel faster or slower on this plane. Like some objects are wider, denser, so on.... Maybe time has a direct relation with motion and speed. The faster you go, the faster you move on the 4th dimension. Like when you go near near-lightspeed, you would, once again theoretically, go normal to you, but you would come back in more time then you took. Think about it.
Muffin Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 MrL_JaKiri said in post #65 :Time is mathematically the fourth dimension Perhaps, but mathmatically, movement is impossible, so we know that math and reality are not always the same. I have a really hard time trying to imagine the fourth dimention as a navigatable plane. When we're passing through time, are we really "writing history"? Is it stuck in that state forever? Or maybe it doesn't matter which direction we are moving, and going back in time at the same speed we are now moving forward, would produce the same results. Perhaps it is only the speed at which we travel that counts. I also find it hard to imagine two things co-existing, yet not moving at the same speed through time. Try picturing a bunch of beads on a string. Imagine that we are one of those beads, and that the string is constantly moving through us. There are neighboring beads, or parellel universes, and moving through time would make us end up in one of those places. Maybe the string, or time, is moving at a constant speed. I guess this would contradict the whole, traveling at the speed of light, makes us move faster through time thing, so it's probably not true. But always a possibility. Wow, this subject is so mind boggling, I wonder if I've made any sence at all...lol
VendingMenace Posted November 22, 2003 Posted November 22, 2003 Perhaps, but mathmatically, movement is impossible Ok, i'll bite. How is movement mathmatically impossible?
Muffin Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 hehe, I knew u'd ask that. Ok, one time this one guy got a whole bunch of people in a room and started talking. He said that to move from point A to point B, you must first move halfway to point B, right? If not, you will never get there. So, then once your halfway, you must again, move half way, so you are now 3/4 the distance to point B. Again, move halfway, and again, and again.....but you could never read point B, because numbers can get sooo tiny. And the most you could get was allllmooost there. Well, to disprove that, one of the guys in the room walked up to the front, and then back out the door, disproving everything he'd just said.
VendingMenace Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 i thought you would be talking about zeno's paradox. I didn't feel like trying to come up with a short answer, so i took one from http://www.mathacademy.com/pr/prime/articles/zeno_tort/index.asp if you don't want to read it, here is the pertenent part Now the resolution to Zeno's Paradox is easy. Obviously, it will take me some fixed time to cross half the distance to the other side of the room, say 2 seconds. How long will it take to cross half the remaining distance? Half as long – only 1 second. Covering half of the remaining distance (an eighth of the total) will take only half a second. And so one. And once I have covered all the infinitely many sub-distances and added up all the time it took to traverse them? Only 4 seconds, and here I am, on the other side of the room after all. is this a satisfactory answer as to why movement is, after all, mathmatically possible? Or are there some other issues that i am missing?
Muffin Posted November 23, 2003 Posted November 23, 2003 It says it right in there. "And once I've covered all the infinitely small sub-distances..." Infinite means never ending, and if they never end how could you get there? Lets say we couldn't move, or we lived in a world without movement (yeah, it's zany but bear with me). Some scientist might proclaim movement impossible, never having seen it. My whole point is that sometimes math conflicts with reality.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now