Understanding Dimensions

There as many dimensions as one cares to postulate...they are merely a construct to aid our understanding and explanation of the universe. They do not exist in a concrete sense any more than other coordinate systems...

There is no absolute x,y,z ....mind, time is a little more intransigent .

What system does a homing pigeon, or a cat pouncing on it's prey to describe it's environment?

Del

The coordinate system is independent of the environment. It is all a matter of how you chose to describe it (i.e., polar versus cartesian). However, they all describe a problem space.

For instance, describing a box in a room using polar coordinates is one way to map out a volume of space and the artifacts contained in that space. Switching to cartesian coordinates does not change the box nor the space that it sits in. No less does it change physical position, properties, or orientation.

Our cat knows the predicted outcome of its action based on repetitive trials (play and real world experiences) and maps that in a series of complex ways based on sensory inputs in its muscles, eyes, ears, smell, tactile nerves, and internal temporal clocks. All of this information is correlated in the brain of the cat to paint a scenario of events and their probable outcomes. It is a complex mishmash of brain patterns that make perfect sense to the cat, but are much too convoluted to explain here.

If it helps you at all, consider normal action you take, such as drinking a beverage. You are not cognizant of vectors, tangents, velocities, or coordinate systems. You can do it autonomously without involving your higher reasoning. When you were a new born it was impossible to accomplish this task because you had not yet developed the coordination or trained your brain via repetition to perform that act. The programming to do that was not yet burned into the synapses of your brain (unlike instinctive actions which are hardwired into the brain).

Regardless of how or what means you chose to describe the space and time around you nothing changes that space physically. It still occupies 3-dimensional space and events are choreographed in time. That is 4-D space-time.

Nice reply...I was just being a bad and argumentative kitty...and now I s'pose Santa won't come

Del

Oh, on the contrary, you have received a "Good Answer" mark for your excellent post. That goes right to the top of Santa's list. Just wait and see! ;-)

Besides, I always enjoy your insight.

Christmas has come. Was I right? ;-)

Now just hold on a moment if I may interject a humble thought.

The problem with these "extra" dimensions, i.e., 5 and up, are what have to do with our ability to perceive.

Almost every human (sorry Del) on the planet can easily conceive of width, length, and height (x, y and z), and many of us can, also easily, appreciate the dimension of time (4^th) as applied to the given Cartesian coordinates. However, the problem comes in after the 4^th dimension: Mathematically it may well be explained and, perhaps, even proven, BUT the entire world of thinking, rational people cannot conceive of such dimensions in the same instinctively understandable way as the dimensions we experience in our everyday lives.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. It's obvious that maths can provide insights far beyond what the majority of the population can readily understand. However, when you speak of "dimensions" there is a certain boundary there that somehow separates itself from physics and mathematics in the realm of personal understanding and comprehension.

I defy anyone to present a model that makes it easily conceivable by an average rational, reasonably intelligent person to conceive of a 5^th dimension in the same easily understandable way as the first 4.

In other words I can describe to my grandkids that the barn is 30 feet wide and 20 feet tall, and if you walk around to the side you will see that it's 40 feet long. They most likely will understand what I'm saying without difficulty. It's even reasonable that they may understand a description of the barn as I describe it and a description of it 10 minutes from now. So now we got x, y, z, and time covered, no problem.

In such simple "INSTINCTIVE" terms, tell my grandkids what the barn look like it the 5^th dimension.

John,

Or should I call you John?

I agree with your point. Specifically, our brains are neither wired for that form of thought, nor are we culturally brought up to think in that domain. The combination of genetics and environment constitute a form of a "filter" by which we measure our external world. We are adept to describe our environment in terms of 4-D Space-Time, but are unprepared to transcend beyond that.

The additional dimensions of quantum mechanics and string theory are bound in the world of sub-atomic physics. Thanks to Hollywood we are predisposed to think of extra-dimensions as some form of a parallel universe where Britney Spears' marriage to Jason Allen Alexander does not resolve into a divorce some 55 hours after the vows are taken. The latter is far easier to conceive for the general public than the microcosm of sub-atomic physics.

To grasp at even a fundamental level, the workings of 10, 11, or 26 dimensions really requires a working knowledge of quantum mechanics. I should clarify, for those readers in the domain of Hollywood, that quantum mechanics does not refer to Volkswagen trained technicians.

As far as John's grandchildren are concerned, I would not expect that they would have that level of understanding (unless John was a very senior citizen), so there is not much hope of distilling the concept into terms as readily understood as Euclidean geometry. In plain vernacular, it ain't gonna happen.

For over 50,000 years there has been a cultural linearity that believes in two forms of time, two parallel streams of activity, if this is true then why have we only the one dimension of time, what is to say that it is not the two streams of time that are real and our perceptions limited to what our cultural learned limiter has placed on us? The inclusion of non-Euclidean geometry now would ask what exactly is a parallel line? is it elliptic, Hyperbolic geometry or some off cast? Is the Euclidean geometry mote with in projective geometry or inclusive of the same rules to now include directions of a line on to infinity?Will we still make the postulate true if exceptions are found to the rules, and as some now suggest only the first four postulates are absolute geometry?

If we are limited to what we know we are doomed, if we explore what we think, then we will archive the imagined and even the unimagined. Religious limiters were attempted in the early centuries to exclude the dreams, to prevent the nonsecular thoughts from blossoming, that failed and we went into space and beyond.

joshua

Hi AH,

"John,

Or should I call you John?"

(did you mean should I call you, John?)

You can can me John, or you can call me John, or you can call me anytime- my number is 555-john.

More seriously though, you said "We are adept to describe our environment in terms of 4-D Space-Time, but are unprepared to transcend beyond that".

That's the crux of the problem my friend. All the mathematics of all the great thinkers may very well prove the existence of n+1 dimensions, and it may very well make perfect sense to "them" but, as you said "The combination of genetics and environment constitute a form of a "filter" by which we measure our external world".

Unless we can grasp, in some concrete fashion, what n or n+1 dimension is. or looks like, then we (the general public) are doomed to somewhat accept a Hollywood version, fictitious as it may be (at least we can visualize it on the big screen).

You said "Specifically, our brains are neither wired for that form of thought, nor are we culturally brought up to think in that domain".

Because of that we're just stuck with x, y, z and t I'm afraid.

Personally, I would LOVE to see someone produce a holographic image that could appear on a table top and demonstrate a visual x, y, z, t + 1 model.

-John (or J²)

"I would LOVE to see someone produce a holographic image that could appear on a table top and demonstrate a visual x, y, z, t + 1 model."

That would be any simple movie with the aid of 3-D glasses. ;-)

I like the J²!

For instance, describing a box in a room using polar coordinates is one way to map out a volume of space and the artifacts contained in that space. Switching to cartesian coordinates does not change the box nor the space that it sits in. No less does it change physical position, properties, or orientation

Yes it does. If I choose different systems to describe the e 'grid' the room restrains then I can change the orientation of the objects located within. Quite easily so.

As a matter of fact this happens right here on Earth all the time. It is observed in the various projections we use (cylindrical, conical, spherical) as well as by such features as the 'Prime Meridian' a point of reference that is not universally observed. By changing these elements we can change the location and orientation of 'the box'. You see it does in fact change the orientation unless you establish some point as fixed and unmoveable like the Poles. Something that space does not possess.

The Polar coordinate system is but a two dimensional coordinate system so any point on a plane may be determined by a distance or an angle, so the reference point can be any place in time or space as long as it is on that plane how you limit that plane is another matter.

The poles are not stable given that they have moved several times in the life of the planet and the magnetic poles are not at the northern nor southern most points of the sphere and have also been shown to have alternated their locations.

Space by it very nature is limitless in all directions so it is rather easy to establish a point in space that is unmoving and fixed, let us say the distance that light travels in one second, this is a fixed position measurable and so far consistent to what we can observe. Far more stable than the poles which fluctuate without any consistency and move locations it seems on a regular basis.

joshua

The Polar coordinate system is but a two dimensional coordinate system .

No it isn't, one just adds elevation as a second angle and it becomes a 3D system.

Think RADAR.....

Del

I understand what you are saying, but I think you are confusing what I meant.

Changing the coordinate system only changes the reference point and the means by which you describe the scenario or scene.

A good example would be to compare your present location and say your favorite movie theater. You can describe the two points on a map using WGS84 or ETRS89 (both are geodetic reference systems). Changing from one to the other does not change the displacement between the two points. You still drive the same route and the same distance and in the same directions as you did before. Only your reference system used to describe the points and their positions changes.

The various maps you cite are all just models, or more precisely, various projects of the globe. All of those map projections are distortions of the real object (the Earth), because there is no accurate way to model an ellipsoid on flat paper. Changing from one projection to the next does not alter the Earth, only our view of it.

In reality, nothing changes but our perspective. However, being able to look at things from different perspectives helps us understand complex circumstances better and some perspectives are better in some instances than others.

My point is this: It is our system that gives the properties. All that anythng is is a reference based on our stndard unit. Be that unit one to describe wieght, mass, direction, etc. It is what we all agreee upon.

This is what the original poster is talking about in reference to being difficult to ascertrain.

Imagine nothing. Absolute nothingness. Now put 2 objects in that nothing. A box and yourself. No room. No Earth. Nothing but these 2 items.

Time, direction, etc. are all relative to the observer.
Mr Schroedinger has something to say about this, I believe:

A) Thus, the task is, not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees.

B)I know not whence I came, nor whither I go, nor who I am.

[On quantum mechanics ]
C) I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.

I understand the 4 dimensions you speak of but there are easily more, they also describe dimensions not included in length, width, height or time.

- starting with the basic ability of materials to absorb and emit or reflect heat described in thermodynamics...(even cats like heat)

- man would not have been very successful without light

- gravity

- electricity in lightening bolts

- and more

- all of these physical dimensions that existed before man came along and developed units and arithmetic to quantify them, and then couldn't even agree (during my lifetime) on the units or the math system (English or Metric) to quantify the "new-fangled" dimensions.

Even the remotest tribe -without a PhD to guide them- can describe the world around them.

"Even the remotest tribe -without a PhD to guide them- can describe the world around them."

But! Can they describe anything other than x, y, z or t? I'm not so sure that your remote tribe could describe time as a "dimension".

"- starting with the basic ability of materials to absorb and emit or reflect heat described in thermodynamics...(even cats like heat)

- man would not have been very successful without light

- gravity

- electricity in lightening bolts

- and more"

Huh? Are you really calling these dimensions?

The remotest tribe - knows there was a day before, there is now and there may be a tomorrow, the basic definition of time. They also have unwritten histories told thru stories spanning time, a relative quantity. We created relative units, with corrections or fudge factors. There time base probably doesn't have fudge factors.

If you can call a relative space a dimension, then what happens in the space must also be a dimension?

But! Can they describe anything other than x, y, z or t? I'm not so sure that your remote tribe could describe time as a "dimension".

Yes John², they can describe many things outside of such. I think it is noteworthy that ancients demonstrate little interest in describing this aspect rather than the lesson as a social experience having a meaning which is not described by the 4 dimensions.

They are willing to accept an event as an event without having to know what physics says about how the event manifested itself (although I suspect the story telling techniques convey more truths than many modern science minded folk wish to embrace). From which dimensions we observers should apply our laws is of no interest.

This allows for a double edged sword;science is valid yet it is not perfect. Science is study of mans perceptions and quantified by man. And herein lies the cunnundrum. It is like a tumor in the mind that allows for greater understanding. If we remove the tumor we no longer have it's benefit, yet if we allow it to persist we destroy ourselves. Today we scoff at concepts that seem primitive, yet they persist. How often have we seen worship of any sort ridiculed while insisting on the worship of that grail of scientific method.

When science cannot support concepts outside the "proven" realm of understanding, countless scientists claim it absurd to allow such concepts to continue. They think that they are gods in confirming or rejecting what is real or not real. Their hypocrisy is blaring and poorly disguised showing a true nature of self righteous elitism. (please do not react too adversely to this statement; as it is meant to describe a minority,that is those who belong solely to the religion of science and nothing more)

Ancient story telling describes many events that are not supported by modern science. This is why the labels are attributed of superstition, lore, and legend. Thus establishing a grounds for disconnection rather than unity.

Forgive me where I drift in thought. I am not a good typist and am too lazy to transcribe from longhand.

cr3

Yup..the natives aren't as dumb as some of us would like to think...what about the Aborigine's dreamtime? Is that a dimension?

Del

And those pesky ancient Sumerians. Interestingly located at a point on the geosphere wher East meets West

wasn't it Vesna Vulović that survived the fall?

The artifacts you describe are not dimensions, but properties. Radiation is not a dimension.

A better definition is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

Exactly,

Quoting from the article cited, we get:

common usage, a dimension (Latin, "measured out") is a parameter or measurement used to describe some relevant characteristic of an object. The most commonly used dimensions are the parameters describing the size of an object: length, width, and height, but dimensions can also be other physical parameters such as the mass and electric charge of an object, or even, in a context where cost is relevant, an economic parameter such as its price.

If the mass, the electric charge, these are relative numbers, thus the vibratory frequency of an object could be a dimension.

I have to agree with that. However, the original post was not about the attributes of an object in that context.

I am in awe of the knowledge expressed.

As I get older I am becoming fascinated by:

The highway system routing cars, each car occupying a space for a time and then moving at 70mph so another car can be there,

Resembling the human blood system, where blood cells are routed.

This can also be applied to planets which have a path and time in a particular space and then must keep moving in an orbit.

The continuous motion which mathematicly we can describe as a sequence of points in position at a time for each object, with paths not intersecting or overlapping without catastrophe. It's all relative.

If additional dimensions are present they should have some type of field, we have gravity and maybe the other dimension indicators are masked by the strength of gravity, or the light of the sun, ... if so something should have materialized on the space shuttle or ISS where I expect gravity is very weak, and they could have the lack of atmospheric pressure, lack of the earths shielding atmosphere, ...

The Stephen Covey quote appeared: "Begin with the end in mind"

So what will we do with this knowledge of additional dimensions when they are found?

The conceptual representation of multidimensional space beyond the four to the six, eight and ten dimensionality on to infinity is a very hard construct to comprehend. These graphic representations help a bit but only a limited amount towards seeing beyond. There is a not to subtle beauty to it all, I can but imagine the complexity and beauty found in addressing the multidimensional universe

http://www.rahul.net/raithel/otfw/dimensions.html

http://focus.aps.org/story/v1/st7

http://www.bathsheba.com/crystal/calabiyau/

http://www.lactamme.polytechnique.fr/Mosaic/images/CAYA.61.0129.D/display.html

joshua

Before we look for (create) more dimensions I think we need
to correctly understand the dimensions we already have, time.

Time really intrigues me. I do try to give it regular thought
but any "shadowy" answers always seem just out of reach.

It's not that I want to prove anything, mathematically, for fame
or such; I would simply like to know; curiosity. To understand.

I have experienced "shortening" time (won't bore you here)
and probably the simplest form for everyone is found in sleep.
A "lost" time in dormancy, where only some "cease" to live, while
other "things" progress; travel in their own time; and, relatively.

Is time actually a distance between now and then?
Or is it something quite different? I would have liked to talk
with Einstein etc. upon time and his perception of it.
Time seems a very (too) "elastic" distance to me. Subjective,
objective, intangible, All our creation? Windmill of the mind?

I don't go along with the defeatist statement, "it isn't that we
do not comprehend it, but that we cannot comprehend it."
(i.e. no matter how hard we try, we will never understand it.)

Rather, I think if you tackle anything in the right way (kick it enough)
all (must) will be revealed. Just please, make it before I pass away!

Solving the puzzle, for me, is reward enough. (it's not a waste of time?)

jt.

Have a free web page on: www.mfnb.at

Read a great book recently that goes a long way towards explaining these theories and recent discoveries. "Warped Passages" by Dr. Lisa Randall. Can't recommend it enough! You can find it on Amazon.com or Barnesandnoble.com

There is another way to understand the Nature of our Universe, NOU. In this understanding is TTOE, Tools for finding TOE, Theory of Everything. Part of this understanding is there may be only 4 dimensions - and no more. To begin to realize TTOE, you may want to go to www.ColinCWare.wordpress.com and explore NOU with many others, the Nature of the Universe, NOU.

The Blog will give voice to those who want to share their thinking on how to describe the Tools of TOE, TTOE, in non-theoretical terms that scientists can readily accept. This is a very difficult task. Theoretical scientists and physicists have an extensive education in theories and have become searchers for yet another variation attempting to have agreement of their new description with the latest observations.

What they really want are "beautiful" equations and statements, in simple mathematics and text, that can "predict" the observations, as did for examples, James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic (EM) equations and Max Planck's quantum energy units, quanta. Any new equations and supporting descriptive statements must do the same. This is what must be done through NOU and the Tools of NOU, TNOU, and TOE using TTOE.

Good hunting, soaralone1

Never before in the history of mankind have so many aconyms said so little...

Del (with appologies to Winston Churchill)

Never before in the history of mankind have so many aconyms said so little...

You sure hit the nail on the head with that one.

Del Sure hit the TOE on the head with that one.

No offense intended, but I found the link fairly vacuous on the subject.

Actually, I would prefer white papers or publications on the subject in the proper scholarly magazine. A simple discussion forum is like sitting around the bar and discussing physics and the problems of the word. They can be very entertaining, but devoid of any real substance.

Wait! It has occurred to me that the substance of that web site may have slipped into an alternate dimension beyond the normal 4-D space-time that I was predisposed to see.

If that is the case I must humbly apologize for my oversight and my previous post of the vacuous nature of the link you provided.

On the flip side, if the crux of your web site's argument did in fact slip into an alternate dimension, then that would kind of blow your TOE argument that there are only four dimensions.

"A simple discussion forum is like sitting around the bar and discussing physics and the problems of the word."

This is very true!

Jonas

I have mentioned this thought before...but ponder it if you will

A point, 0 dimensions, is the intersection of two lines which are 1 dimensional.
A line, 1 dimension, is the intersection of two areas which are 2 dimensional.
An area, 2 dimensions, is the intersection of two volumes which are 3 dimensional.

Does it follow that:-
A solid, 3 dimensions is the intersection of two 4 dimensional objects?

Del
(I wrote a short Sci-Fi story based around this when I was a school kid )

Would not the lines have width and length as well as depth? Giving the intersection of the two lines at any given point a dimensional measurement as well? Seeking clarification on the matter. Thank you

joshua

It should need no clarification, it is correct as written.

A 'line' is just the shortest distance between 2 point (assuming Euclidian geometry on a human scale) A 'point' has no dimensions it is just a position, e.g a map reference is a point defined by the intersection of the Northing and Easting which are grid lines.

It is meant to provoke thaught...not be an 'answer' to the mysteries of the universe . Maybe the theoretical , e.g. 'Non physical' nature of the geometric concepts explains a lot....

You tell me!

Have fun

Del

Realizing that I am coming to the party very late...

What if each dimension is interchangable? We live in XYZT coordinates, but what if we could translate our to reality ABCT coordinates and while retaining the same time dimension exist in a different set of space dimensions?

Perhaps there is nothing really special about T either. Perhaps I could translate to a different reality that had XYZ and T1, or mix and match, perhaps there is a reality that has dimensions XYCT our X Y and T but something different from Z.

If this were the case, it might be possible to step out of our XYZT into say ABCT(1), and then translate back into our reality, either at a different coordinate point and the same time X1Y1Z1T or the same coordinate point and a different time XYZ T(n).

This would make faster than light travel, and time travel possible...

If you believe in God it also makes a transcendant God possible, God has simply mastered the art of coordinate transformation allowing him to access the beginning and the end, and all points in between...

(with proper credit to the imagination of Robert Heinlein).

Hi Steve,

"Perhaps there is nothing really special about T either."

I really think T is the key to a whole lot of "dimensional" problems and conundrums. As someone else said earlier, we are hardwired to live out our existence in an x, y, z, t reality. The problem with T is that we absolutely don't understand the reality of time. We understand the concept of before and after, past, present, future, etc. but time itself is (IMHO) the most baffling of all physical concepts.

With x, y, and z we can move outward from some point, or back toward it. With T we are stuck with outward movement only! It's truly a one-way arrow. There have been several earlier threads concerning time and its ramifications but no satisfying answers have been provided. For example, the only way to describe and define time is in terms of itself. One can argue over what happens at quantum levels in regard to time but when you try to nail it down you usually come back to square one as far as our "reality" goes.

Time is like a line that consists of a series of points, each having no substance just as a point on a line has no substance. The present moment is one, and only one, of those points but as surely as we attempt to describe this or that present moment, it's gone forever, never to be experienced again (except in our memories). But then, time is not a dimension we can get our hands on, such as with a meter stick, a micrometer, a tape measure, an altimeter, etc. Some will argue that it is measurable in terms of the vibrations on a cesium atom, but that's begging the issue; a particular point in a cesium atom's vibration is relative to some "past" point in its vibration scheme. It comes down to defining itself in terms of itself. Time remains just as elusive as that rascal the Scarlet Pimpernel.

Just a few humble thoughts on the topic.

Hola John²! Feliz Navidad!

This site has some great material in it. Throughout the article, names of prominent researchers and their published papers are linked in. The article appears in Wired and is from 2005 but I still enjoyed it greatly.

cr3

Interesting article Charles. It seems, from their research, that time is a dimension of our collective conscience. If you think about it from that perspective it sort of makes sense.

If all humanity were suddenly snuffed out, would time cease at that moment? It's an unanswerable question because there would be no one to say yes or no. However, if we assume that we're not alone, then perhaps "someone" could answer the question. That's reaching a bit I think.

The idea of past and future, it seems, resides only in the human mind; the ability to conceive of events external to the present. Memories are only stored archives on a "hard drive", so to speak. That is what makes up the past. Lower animals too, have some sort of archival storage, but no concept of future. As we know, humans are the only species that can conceive of "What if?".

It's a most perplexing topic, in my humble opinion. The present does not exist, for as soon as you try to define it, it has already become the past.

As I have said, time is truly weird because it has no definition other than in terms of itself. A most confounding entity.

I can't wait for some cat to come purrrring this way to enlighten us. Maybe even a nut cracker?

Cheers and good wishes,

J²

Not to overwhelm...but.

I have only read the first half of the following paper,as I find myself revisiting either long forgotten or yet unlearned topics.

This is a very informative piece from some great thinkers.....here

I think higher animals, Cats for instance, conceive of "What if?" That would seem a natural part of successful hunting.

If space has three dimensions like length ,width and height which we may call x,y,z axis , then why not take the time also in three dimentions like past, present and future.Will it not add up to give 6 dimensions.

We are able to alter our perception of distance coordinates quite easily. BY changing velocity, acceleration, even perspective, we alter our perception of coordinate space. This does not seem to be the case with time. However, perhaps we are missing the obvious.

Once an event occurs, it's gone forever, never to be experienced again (except in our memories). But if so, then time, in fact, persists. The 3D object has moved on, but in our minds, it remains where it was. What if we have failed, in our preoccupation with external observation of x,y,z to learn of the internal manipulation of t.

An earlier post touched on this. Sleep eliminates time. Meditation eliminates time. Time flies when your having fun. Memories preserve past time. We seem to be able to manipulate time and that time is dependent on an on frame of reference - just like x,y,z. objects! The difference is that x,y,z frame of reference is external while the t frame of reference in internal.

Perhaps we need to explore this inner manipulative ability more closely to better understand what time is.

You can manipulate anything in your imagination. Heck, imagine spilling my glass of water, if you will. However, my desk is dry and will remain dry as hard as you might imagine.

Your perception of time might change during sleep, meditation, or sitting with a pretty girl on an aircraft, but the clocks still tick at the same interval as they always do (General Relativity and Special Relativity aside). What seems like minutes to you might feel like hours to that girl on that same aircraft if she doesn't share your attraction.

As far as past, present, and future being different dimensions, I kind of see time as a series of snapshots in fractions of Plank time intervals and not individual different dimensions.

Another way to look at it is this way. In a three dimensional view, we may examine length. Length is simply one dimensional, like time. We do not stop and think of length as a series of individual dimensions with each dimension being a single point. Rather, length is one dimension by itself. The length of a line in that dimension is a quanta, just like a time duration is a quanta in the 4th dimension. Both a line and a time duration can have a start and end point along a continuum with any arbitrary reference point acting as coordinate zero.

"Sleep eliminates time. Meditation eliminates time."

If that were the case, we would not age while we were sleeping.

What a marketing concept Guest! The sleeping pill industry will go nuts when they here about this. You have inadvertently discovered Suzanne Sommers secret. It wasn't hormones after all, or even the "Thigh Master", she just sleeps a lot.

You probably aren't acquainted with old Rip Van Winkle are you? Does he look like time was eliminated for him?

The magic of time, what ever other properties it might have, it is man-made. Nothing in the Nature of the Universe (NOU) claims otherwise = it is human - human only - conceived.

If you dare - come join me at ColinCWare's Blog and help find what the properties of Time are.

soaralone1

I went to the link you suggested.

As your webmaster said "I needed to understand my fusion plasma concept."

Actually, I believe we all do.

I think we've all been there, done that, kind of discussion before.

It would be nice to see a working model (or even some glimpse of mathematics that support it).

Huh? Help me. Are you saying time is man-made? Or are you saying magic is man-made?

Force,power,energy ,speed,velocity,acceleration and everything we calculate in Physics depend on time. If time is man-made, then all the above should also be man made which is impossible.

That is one of those statements that is ripe for DesCartes, Planck, Kant et al.

cr3

They are all man made constructs to address the naming of those things unknown. By common acceptance they have become the definitions of what we call speed, velocity, space, time ect.

They are all terms applied to things that we were trying to understand. It was not all that long ago in our history that man was not capable of flight, let alone space travel it was common acceptable understanding that man would burn up at the speed of sound, that any vehicle reentering from space would implode, That man could never beat a four minute mile, all thoughts based on the common understandings of that time. That we have proven them wrong, even the speed of light has come under renewed scrutiny as maybe not being the fastest thing now know to mankind.

joshua

k.v.gopalakrishnan you are correct,

The question is what is Time? Every other physical property you mention and many more, are physically observed and measured and recorded for all users and all Time(?).

Time is man-made. That cannot be denied. So what are the properties of Time that allow all the physical matter to exist? The definition is one element in defining NOU, the Nature of the Universe. Please go to my Blog for the beginning of finding TTOE, the Tools for finding TOE, the Theory of Everything. TTOE will be the Tools that describe NOU, TNOU. Your contributions will be well received.

Hi soaralone1,

Take a look at this thread where we discussed time in some detail. There are also others on CR4.

-John

Hi John,

I finally got through the holidays to reply to your "this" of your "Take a look at this thread where we discussed time in some detail."

Time is the man-made element; rotation is a physical property and can be described certainly in a reference plane we and any others can be in at the time? (Here it is again.) we define rotation. The very ease with which we can place our reasoning selves in any time? of our choosing, is what makes it necessary to state the common time? we each need to be in to understand one another.

If the language is common, irrespective of time? -- eons ago through today? to any time? in the future -- however "rotation" is defined, remains unchanged (in the common language).

I have had a "Time" Category scheduled to add to the 44 or more categories being entered in my ColinCWare's TTOE Blog.

No no no no no.

Time is definitely Cat made.

I have sat watching a mouse hole for bloody ages... once the little bugger runs away that's it. There is a definite time domain related causality chain regarding positional relativity of mice .

Del

YES YES yes yes !!!!

The mouse is ill equipped to know that time may have properties allowing it to do some fantastic things. How about exploring the Blog on TTOE, the Tools for finding TOE, the Theory of Everything. Perhaps you can help the mouse.

I read a good portion of you website. I suggest you take a looooong hard look at Jorrie's blogs. This is good info for those who can follow. I'm not so sure about your TTOE.

I'd feel a lot more confident about finding solutions to the elusive TOE from the aforementioned links. No offense to you intended.

Agreed.

Agreed to the third power

joshua

And a quatros!

Looks like a ringing endorsement for Jorrie! Give it a good read and you will be rewarded with Jorrie's excellent job at bringing relativity down to Earth.

Very very true, Anonymous Hero.

I look forward to that reward. Jorrie would bring NOU and TTOE to quick truths. My real concern is for the same reasons published scholars do not follow up on the evidence I have offered them.

I have heard rumored they cannot afford the complexity of possible embarrassment. I truly understand that. I have offered a non-disclosure agreement that I will not make any statement, in writing, verbally or published that they have reviewed my work and find there are errors in my presentation.

As I write this I need an authoritative scholar to find that the mathematics are faulty. No physicist wants to evaluate the work. I continue to develop my Blog for anyone to see there is a common thread to the many categories. I would very much appreciate contributions rather than nay sayings.