time

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

billcu1

Guest
Has science really proved that time is the 4th dimension? What does philosophy and theology teach about time?
 
Einstein showed that space and time were fundamentally connected; so yes, science has proved time as the fourth dimension.

I think if you asked 8 philosophers what time was, you would get 8 different answers. I like to think of time as a measure of change (or sometimes the measure of the lack of change).
 
I don’t think time is a dimension. A dimension is measurable by a ruler. Its spatial. Time is measured by a clock. I use the same receptor for the dimensions. I don’t have a receptor for time. Relationship does not make it the same thing anymore than temperature and pressure are the same thing.
 
Darryl_B said:
I don’t think time is a dimension. A** dimension is measurable by a ruler. Its spatial.** Time is measured by a clock. I use the same receptor for the dimensions. I don’t have a receptor for time. Relationship does not make it the same thing anymore than temperature and pressure are the same thing.
Click to expand...
False: Einstein’s relativity shows us that dimensions is not “measurable by a ruler.” Relativity shows that the distance between two objects is ds[sup]2[/sup] = c[sup]2[/sup]dt[sup]2[/sup]-dx[sup]2[/sup]-dy[sup]2[/sup]-dz[sup]2[/sup], not ds[sup]2[/sup] = dx[sup]2[/sup]+dy[sup]2[/sup]+dz[sup]2[/sup] as you are supposing.

Note that this is not some relationship between two things, it is a fundamental connection.
 
When I was at University Einsteins theories were presented as just that theories. People would say “Well if the theory of Einstein is correct …” Has that changed has it?

You should start a class law suit against UPS and Fedex. Maybe you’ve been over-charged. Although it actually seriously looks like you have been undercharged so you might want to settle out of court.

How do I measure dx?
 
well, i don’t understand relativity. if you predicted that radioactive atoms would decay faster if there were more of them together or they would decay more slowly if they were travelling at speed then i think there might be something to understand. i’m just not sure that measuring their speed through space changes their decay rates.
 
Paddy_Walker said:
well, i don’t understand relativity. if you predicted that radioactive atoms would decay faster if there were more of them together or they would decay more slowly if they were travelling at speed then i think there might be something to understand. i’m just not sure that measuring their speed through space changes their decay rates.
Click to expand...
Relativity belongs in the schools of professors sitting on a comfortable chair smoking a pipe and saying what if … it has become a thin line between science and science-fiction.
 
Darryl_B said:
GPS works on the basis that satellites in orbit are constantly in the same equal distance of orbit, unfortunately two bodies in orbit are going to eventually collide. It does not rely on “relativity” at all.
Click to expand...
Did you read the linked document? Read the linked document!!!
 
Paddy_Walker said:
well, i don’t understand relativity. if you predicted that radioactive atoms would decay faster if there were more of them together or they would decay more slowly if they were travelling at speed then i think there might be something to understand. i’m just not sure that measuring their speed through space changes their decay rates.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that interesting? The fact is that and atom traveling at a speed x will show a different mass than the same atom travelling at a speed 2x, the latter showing more mass.
Also the decay rates will change. This is not a theory as it has been demostrated with repetitive experiments and observation.

web.mit.edu/8.13/www/JLExperiments/JLExp14.pdf

👍
 
Darryl_B said:
When I was at University Einsteins theories were presented as just that theories. People would say “Well if the theory of Einstein is correct …” Has that changed has it?
Click to expand...
Yes, Einstein’s theory of relativity has been thoroughly tested and given correct results. GR is probably the second most tested modern theory in physics (second to the big bang theory).
Darryl_B said:
You should start a class law suit against UPS and Fedex. Maybe you’ve been over-charged. Although it actually seriously looks like you have been undercharged so you might want to settle out of court.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean…
Darryl_B said:
How do I measure dx?
Click to expand...
With a meterstick. How do you measure ds?
 
Darryl_B said:
Have you read the argument against?
Click to expand...
Arguments against GR? All the ones that I have seen are based on a complete misunderstanding of Lorentz and Galilean transformations, so they are false accusations.
 
Darryl_B said:
Relativity belongs in the schools of professors sitting on a comfortable chair smoking a pipe and saying what if … it has become a thin line between science and science-fiction.
Click to expand...
It’s not science fiction, but it is a very theoretical, empirical model that in practical circumstances is applicable to the technical study of physics. It is convenient when we are doing calculations to treat space and time as the same thing - to have space-time. That doesn’t mean that they are the same thing.
 
polytropos said:
It’s not science fiction, but it is a very theoretical, empirical model that in practical circumstances is applicable to the technical study of physics. It is convenient when we are doing calculations to treat space and time as the same thing - to have space-time. That doesn’t mean that they are the same thing.
Click to expand...
aha!.. but to the lay man the interest is … what are they … actually. if they are used as a convenience, and they work, but they make no reasonable sense, what are they really?
 
polytropos said:
It’s not science fiction, but it is a very theoretical, empirical model that in practical circumstances is applicable to the technical study of physics. It is convenient when we are doing calculations to treat space and time as the same thing - to have space-time. That doesn’t mean that they are the same thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are the same thing. We live in a four-dimensional manifold (technically speaking, we live on the surface of a 3-sphere), the manifold is real and connects at a fundamental level space and time.
 
Alberti_Devoveo said:
Yes, they are the same thing. We live in a four-dimensional manifold (technically speaking, we live on the surface of a 3-sphere), the manifold is real and connects at a fundamental level space and time.
Click to expand...
They are the same thing in the mathematical system of specialized physics, which models reality. That is not the same as ontological equivalence. From our observation point (ie. in terms of the philosophical basis upon which we have constructed modern physics), time and space are distinct. To say we live in a four-dimensional manifold is to draw a mathematical analogy from our common experience to your system of reason. It’s like sketching a tesseract.
 
Alberti_Devoveo said:
Yes, they are the same thing. We live in a four-dimensional manifold (technically speaking, we live on the surface of a 3-sphere), the manifold is real and connects at a fundamental level space and time.
Click to expand...
I always thought angels exist in the 4th dimension. Thomas the angelic doctor says that they move at the speed of thought. That bypasses the 3rd dimension doesn’t it? Since if they wanted to be on the other side of the planet they could just think of being there.
 
polytropos said:
They are the same thing in the mathematical system of specialized physics, which models reality. That is not the same as ontological equivalence. From our observation point (ie. in terms of the philosophical basis upon which we have constructed modern physics), time and space are distinct. To say we live in a four-dimensional manifold is to draw a mathematical analogy from our common experience to your system of reason. It’s like sketching a tesseract.
Click to expand...
I disagree, the mathematical terms describe reality as we perceive it (this is precisely what physics does: describes reality using mathematics as a tool). Just as I cannot go into the past or the future, I cannot leave the surface of the 3-sphere. I can move around all I want (on earth or in the galaxy or in the universe), just like I can on the surface of the 3-sphere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top