  # Frostedwinds

Members

19

0 Neutral

• Rank
Quark

## Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

1. I live in America and yes English is my first and only language. So with words like Area, Motion, or Movement what are the specifics requirements of their use. I’m only using these words as general references to what I mean. Thank you again for the help with this.
2. How about describing it as a direction and not a vector particularly. Direction through three dimensional space makes up x,y,z so let’s say directions through time makes up t1,t2,t3. They work in contrast to each other playing a part as equal parts space and equal parts time. Space = Time x,y,z = t1,t2,t3 direction through time we can state as a change in momentum from a point in time direction through time we can state as a change of perspective from a point in space now that would mean that we have to quantify space without time and time without space the place of intersection being the an area where a point in space and a point in time exist together now take as example the ability to preform motion as kinetic energy that energy is yet to choose a direction (a point in time) now take as example matter as being an object with mass and volume (making up an area of space) Matter with kinetic energy has yet to chose a direction but is an area in space that is at a point in time. a point in space has zero dimensions, so a point in time also would have zero dimension (or no direction) the intersection would be at that zero dimension as well then then matter that expends the kinetic energy moves into the first dimension of time (or moves in one direction through time) if there is only one direction through time then the system is unbalanced and x,y,z=t1 momentum measured as a direction through time would allow kinetic energy being a point in time to move in multiple direction such as: you have two apples on a table, before you decided to pick one up you the potential to pick all three up meaning there are two options of the direction for you to chose from the potential energy is a point in time and the two directions are t1, and t2 now let’s say you chose apple one or apple two, they are both motions of a t1 direction through a plane of t2 that would suggest that you can also rotate the plane of time (t2) perpendicular again and create and area of time (t3) that makes up all the possible directions your hand could have traveled including towards apple one or apple two that would create a balance system where x,y,z=t1,t2,t3 That would also state that space(x,y,z) is matter and that time(t1,t2,t3) is energy in all directions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence
3. You haven’t read any of the things I cited earlier have you. The contain all the information you would need. But regardless I’m going to state one last time. The question adheres not to whether or not you agree with how the system functions with three dimensions of time but instead what order the system functions with three dimensions of time. Please just leave the chat. What I was trying to gauge was what is the relation between the two parts graphing out space and time. How would you label them in an order that fits the function of a balanced system? Does it even matter what order they are in to create a balance and etc.
4. It is testable because it works in a system of mathematics. It’s not observable at the moment. Observable science is always changing. We use to think the earth was the center of the universe or that it was flat because we couldn’t observe otherwise. Also it was posted under a theoretical physics page not a applied physics page. A theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking. The process of contemplative and rational thinking often is associated with such processes like observational study, research. Theories may either be scientific or other than scientific (or scientific to less extent). Depending on the context, the results might, for example, include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several related meanings. In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for, or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions. Theories guide the enterprise of finding facts rather than of reaching goals, and are neutral concerning alternatives among values.:131 A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.:46 The word theory or "in theory" is more or less often used erroneously by people to explain something which they individually did not experience or tested before. In those instances, semantically, it is being replaced for another concept, a hypothesis. Instead of using the word hypothetically, it is exchanged for a phrase "in theory". In some instances the theory's credibility could be contested by calling it "just a theory" (implying that the idea has not even been tested). Hence, that word "theory" is very often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for doing, which is opposed to theory. A "classical example" of the distinction between "theoretical" and "practical" uses the discipline of medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[a] In reality, there is a long and a thorny process for an idea or hypothesis to become a theory. And even after it becomes one, it is constantly being tested for validity. Among notable and long discussed theories are Darwinism(or other related to Creation–evolution controversy), flat Earth and others. I’m suggesting both spatial and temporal vectors being define mathematically in a system as a dimension. To answer your question, no would you elaborate. Also thank you for having a genuine conversation with me.
5. It’s good to break tension with humor. An elevated mood makes for a better conversation. Discussions that are stiff can create a stress that impacts the quality of the exchange of information. Such as if time is bidirectional and not multidimensional then I could say “I’m gonna go meet you at the bar yesterday” if we had already done that, and I could say “I’m gonna have to meet you at the bar tomorrow” where we have a predetermined meet up because time doesn’t have a multitude of depth making it an absolute construct with a predetermined direction. What current theories are you referring to. Those theories that I quoted and functioning current theories. They can’t be tested in applied physics because we only observe one dimension of time in applied physics so we can quantitate mathematical expressions in the direction we are currently traveling through time. If I was only to move in one direction of space I wouldn’t be able to express a field of applied physics in two dimensional space but it doesn’t stop two dimensional space from existing or playing a role in a controlled system of effects. Also I have to mention again that question pertains to a system in which relevance to other theories is excluded because we are only working within that system that has already been defined by three dimensions of space and three dimensions of time.
6. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_time_dimensions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse Regardless of that information. The question pertained to a system where the statement of three dimensional time was already true.
7. You are right that the topic statement was a question. I was trying to discuss how dimension make up time and space in the confines of the system I first stated. As for how I define a dimension. It would be a vector of sorts that explains the function inside a system.
8. Thank you for the references. What I am proposing is a different theory than those at work but the discussion was to be focused around the question that if time has three dimensions that work the same as spaces three dimensions what order would they be seated in to form a balanced system. Lol that’s a good one man.
9. In the system at question it isn’t possible for time to be singular because motion through time wouldn’t function because a point in time is being referenced as a dimension so for motion to function you would need at least a line, and a point creating at least two dimensions of time. That is the topic statement not the discussion question. Still a good question as to what people are considering a dimension.
10. This is a forum on modern and theoretical physics. Not just applied physics. The question was pertaining to a system of relevance that the theory in question if functioning within a system where time is explained by three separate dimensions in the same way that space is. Also you have no evidence to prove to me that time is a stationary factor with only one singular dimension making it a line in a system where factors of motion through time are only forward and backwards. If your going to refute someone you should at least reference some form of material information or cite some reputable source of information. Like Ghideon did.
11. That’s only in applied physics because we only perceive one dimension of time. We are three dimension beings in space traveling through time in a direction. Time itself can’t be singularly dimensionally otherwise motion trough time would be impossible. You still didn’t answer the actual question I asked. I asked which system seems most likely to be the system functioning in our universe.
12. If space is defined as the first three dimension would you then define time as the next three dimensions also running perpendicular to each other in the same way as space does? If so would it create a system that works as: dimension zero (a point in space) dimension one (a line in space), dimension two (a plane in space), dimension three (an area in space), dimension four (a point in time), dimension five (a line in time), dimension six (a plane in time), dimension seven (an area in time), or a system that works as: dimension zero (a point in space) dimension one (a line in space), dimension two (a plane in space), dimension three(an area in space) dimension four (a line in time), dimension five (a plane in time), dimension six (an area in time), dimension seven (a point in time), or a system that works as: dimension zero (a point in space) dimension one (a line in space), dimension two (a plane in space), dimension three(an area in space), dimension four (an area in time), dimension five (a plane in time), dimension six (a line in time), dimension seven (a point in time)?
13. Beecee was talking about how a perfect vacuum would most likely be perfectly flat and display effects similar to an EH. I was questioning why he stated that. Your question would probably be better suited for Beecee.
14. If an area of perfect vacuum has no mass or energy, how does that affect the relativity of how many dimensions it posses. Also if it did change the amount of dimensions the area of perfect vacuum would have, wouldn’t it be more likely that it would lose all dimensions and become a singular point instead of infinitely flat. That would also be closer to the effects of EH displays no gravitational influence of its own. Considering a perfect vacuum an area of space without matter would suggest that while in practice it may be closer to and EH with less dimensional properties, but in an isolated system it would be able to be any space within the three dimension of space that matter and energy doesn’t exist. That’s what I was first assuming. That an area without matter being a density of 0 and an area with absolute matter being a density of ♾ then the interaction would be a state of equilibrium. Just like mass and energy in a system together such as e=mc^2 are in opposition but essential the same. They create a balanced system. So a perfect vacuum would be a state of negative pressure inside a system. Still considering it to be neutral while isolated outside of a system. Inside a system it would create a negative gravitational field. Absolute mass would then generate a state of positive pressure inside a system. Which brings to question if it also is neutral while isolated outside of a system. Inside of a system it creates a positive gravity field. So a perfect vacuum and absolute mass are resting in perfect opposition to each other.
15. If a perfect vacuum is an isolated system the effects of its interaction with mater isn’t possible because it no longer would stay a perfect vacuum. So a perfect vacuum, being unable to interact with matter without undergoing a state change to an imperfect vacuum, would by its self have no gravity inside of its system. It would be neutral space without any gravitational field or any ability to interact with gravity. If there is no negative state of mass and energy than a balanced system would display an area of absolute mass and energy to be the contrast to a perfect vacuum. What effects on a system would result from combining these two.
×