north

I'm looking for an explanation of what four dimentional space-time means in terms of understanding the nature of time. Admittedly, I cannot really conceive of what a four dimenional structure would look like. I've heard all the analogies of imagining a two dimensional space with time as the third dimension, so I'm not looking for anything like that.

Calling time a fourth dimension and weaving a "fabric" of space-time seems to give time some spatial qualities that I'm having trouble reconciling. If all points in a 1 dimensional line are present within a 2 dimensional plane, all ponts on a 2 dimensional plane are present within a 3 dimensional cube, all points in a 3 dimensional cube are present at a given moment in 4 dimensional time, is it that all moments are present along a hypothetical 5th dimension?

Forgive me for asking against dimensionary reduction in the explanation while using it to ask my question, but it's the best way I can think to ask it. Imagine the whole universe from the moment of the big bang to the ultimate end of the universe are put into an elevator. At the bottom floor is the big bang, and at the tip floor is the end of the univese. Imagine this building is astronomically tall. Each minute between the big bang and the end of the universe is represented by one floor on this building, and at each floor the contents of the elevator represent the universe at those moments. As the elevator (space) travels up the elevator shaft (time) it changes accordingly. Does relativity mean that all these floors exist? The elevator moves as it does, and I am in no way trying to suggest the possibility of time travel because it's not like a normal person can drive a normal elevator in a normal building. I just don't understand what the fabric of time means.

time has no " real fabric "

the concept of the fabric of time is a mathematical concept , " fabric" is a mathematical expression only , it has no physical reality at all

inotherwords by applying time only into the dynamics between two objects makes no difference upon the dynamics between the two objects

NO

beacuse there is no difference between what Nature comes up with or an intelligent would , is there ?

mistakes

If space has no substance...how is our planet floatling like it is?

because of the matter IN space

so what would be a more natural way of compensating for my lack of stomach acid ? other than what I'm doing

As enzymes are all proteins, it is not likely that much of the enzymes are escaping from your digestive system and getting into your circulatory system. Most proteins are denatured by the very low pH in the stomach, and digested into small peptides and amino acids in the intestine. Unless your enzymes are formulated in vegetable oil, there is probably not much to worry about. In fact, I would wonder if it is possible that they have any effect at all.

 

What enzymes are you taking?

Organika , full spectrum plant enzymes ( vegetarian capsules )

bar code # 620365024123

Hi. First of all let me say that I've only had a few out-of-the-ordinary experiences in my life. I posted one about awake and still dreaming. Since I'm here, I may as well post this one too.

 

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far,...wait wrong story. Actually, when I was 16 years old on a sunny day in June, I saw an object in the sky.

 

I was standing near the edge of the road while my brother was on the porch talking to friends. I was near a tree and was staring at a jet make trails in the sky. Then something to my left caught my attention. A large blue sphere was flying along horizontally and heading toward the center of town. It made no noise and disappeared from view as it went over the trees the next block over.

 

I won't give all details unless someone asks. I estimate it was traveling 20 to 25 miles an hour. Low to the ground, maybe about 100 feet high, and headed toward Dayton, Ohio. Size is hard to estimate, but I remember thinking it was probably about the size of a Volkswagen Beetle.

 

I called to my brother and pointed and he too saw it for a few seconds. I have seen natural phenomena like meteor showers, a water spout, helicopters in formation, military jets with afterburner blazing, but never again anything like this again. This is no joke. Has anyone really seen flying objects close up like this? If anyone can explain what this was, I'd like to hear it. Thanks.

no I havn't seen a UFO

but I thought I should add this thought ;

why do UFO's crash land on Earth ?

you would think that any advanced being would be able to compensate for the enviroment their in ?

but they do

why ?

The Earth magnetic field is not all that strong, it's quite weak and easy for the solar wind to disrupt

 

yet the magnetosphere of the Earth keeps us alive

 

 

but the energy contained in the solar wind is not "extreme"

 

meaning ?

 

as i said the Apollo astronauts spent several days out side the earths magnetic field and were not harmed.

 

they were protected by the capsule and/or by their suits

why is it that people cant accept that there are people who find the same sex attractive? iv seen this more so in men than women, and i have no idea why, especialy when if a guy is gay, doesnt that mean more of a chance for a strait guy to get a girl? any one have any ideas on the matter?

I find that from my experience that ;

that a person is either gay or lesbian from genetics and/or from the enviroment in which they were brought up

which involves physical and emotional abuse

There is no lead in our atmosphere. It's just that having a giant cloud of oxygen and nitrogen around you acts a bit like having lead -- the atmospheric gas absorbs or reflects the radiation like lead would. It just takes quite a few miles of air to equal a few inches of lead in effectiveness.

and do think that this " miles " of air can actually protect us from the onslaught of the plasmic solar energy produced by the sun ?

think upon this;

a solar ejection by a sun spot interferes with EM ( electromagnetic instruments ) with the Earths magnetosphere in place

so what would free solar plasmic energy do with NO magnetoshere in place ?

havic

They do attract and when they come together they annihilate each other in a flash of gamma rays and other particles. I kilo of anti-matter and one kilo of matter if brought together would cause nearly a 50 megaton explosion.

 

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

this does not make sense

why would particles that are just opposite in polarity annialate each other ?

Actually I doubt even that would happen if was for one second,

 

neither do I

 

you could be exposed to the vacuum of space out side the earths magnetic field during a extreme plasma ejection for one second with no bad effects, the vacuum would the worst of it.

 

the suns plasma ejection is continuous and perpetual in that one second

 

the energy absorbed by the Earth would be fantastic

 

 

 

 

It's not like the suns plasma wind is a blow torch and we are protected by a thick atmosphere that is the equivalent of several inches of lead at least.

 

we are protected by several inches of lead ?

 

where is the equivalent of lead in our atmosphere , and what is this " equivalence composed of ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The worst that could happen if the field was down long term would atmosphere erosion, eventually after many millions of year it would get critical, but no there would be no instant or extreme effects.

you surely do not understand the Earths magnetosphere

is not anti-matter really about " opposites "

if that is true wouldn't opposites attract ?

rather than destroy one-another ?

Then the answer is as post #8 said, nothing would happen other than compasses and birds losing their way!

so the magentoshpere of the Earth disapears for even second and all that happens is that birds get confused ?

North, see post #8 dude there would not be an effect, even if it shut down for a long period of time it would be like living at the poles at worst.

its not about post # 8 , dude:rolleyes:

what my post is about , is the OP of this thread

What would happen if the magnetic field of Earth was shut down for a second???

 

As I understand it, the magnetic field protects us from most of solar radiation. So, would this radiation have time enought to hit Earth in full force, if Earth's magnetic field did turn off for just a second?

And if it did, how much damage would the solar radiation do to living beings and electronic equipments??? Would it burn everything??? Would it be the end of the world for us humans???

you would have , of course , one full second , of the full force of solar radiation , plasmic radiation from the sun

think of it....

The reason for this question is the upcoming swap of the magnetic poles. I'm rather worried that during the incident, the magnetic field might go off for a while. Is this probable??

yes

or at the very least , dis-ordered

Mind you, if this were probable, I suppose the science community would not tell it to the man on the street, so as not to cause mass panic...

perhaps

but the man on the street will see whats happening

So life and reproduction is all about passing on our genes to the next generation, right?

 

YES

 

But we're not passing on OUR genes, we're passing on our grandparent's genes, and our great-grandparent's, etc.

 

as well as our genes

 

hence , oh , your child looks like you or thinks like you

 

After several dozen generations, are there any of "our own" genes left that are getting passed on?

 

maybe

 

Would our ancestors of 65 million years ago appreciate that "their" genes are still being passed on by us... assuming we're still small, vole-like creatures?

 

they would

 

since we have become larger , smarter and less a victum of the larger

 

In another 65 million years, how many of our genes will be "in the pool", and if the answer is a big fat zero, well, what does that say about the importance of reproduction?

 

survival

I have trouble with acid reflux ( which is not about , to much stomach acid , as it is about to little )

so I have , for the last , 2-3 months been taking plant enzymes

they seem to work , along with probiotics

my question is ;

do they break down , plack , or any build up along arterial walls as well ?

does bent space use energy?

yes

if so, where does it get it?

from the matter in space

i dont see how it could condense something to singularity without using a vast amount of it. well, i do, but im curios.

hmmm..

could you use bent space to make energy?

no

since space has NO fabric associated with it

Originally Posted by north

[north]

and the force applied to the object , has nothing to do with time does it ?

forces, like motion, require time to act (or show a displacement) that is not what you have been saying.

exactly

you seem to be saying that time requires motion (and now force) to proceed.

exactly

what you seem to lack is any evidence or any way to test your idea.

why ?

post # 102

[north] Originally Posted by north

well your saying that motion requires time

hence the conclusion is that , the inducing of time into any object will produce motion

and therefore the motion of any object is based on the amount of time introduced

how do you arrive at this conclusion ?

why wouldn't I

the passage of time does not create motion without some force being applied to the object.

exactly

and the force applied to the object , has nothing to do with time does it ?

Merged post follows:

Originally Posted by north

what of the caesium atomic clocks

 

' atoms in the lower energy state are directed into a cavity "

What of them? As I said, moving the atoms happens because that's the easiest way of doing it, but it is not the basis of the measurement. If you could accomplish the free precession and interrogation all in the same place, you would. But that's not technologically feasible — if you did it that way, you'd get a crappy clock, but it would still be a clock. So you move the atoms to a more appropriate region. Motion isn't the reason the clock works, it's just incidental, and makes the clock work better.

vibration , movement

Fountain clocks are better than beam clocks, because the atoms are allowed to have less motion.

right

so atomic clocks are based on " fountains " now ?

Originally Posted by north

define "open ended pipe"

 

...

 

An open ended pipe, means to me that the ice will travel along the length of the pipe, and does so because there is no blockage along the length of the pipe

Except there is more expanding ice in the way causing some presure against the walls of the pipe but not as much as in a pipe with closed ends (I guess like most real world pipes).

of course

Don't ask me to define something then emediatly go on to define yourself.

it just occured to me that .... upon further thought ....

Originally Posted by north

thats not what proposed

 

I proposed is that , if I simply add time to the bicycle , would the bicycle speed up ?

you have to define what you mean by "add time to the bicycle" before the question makes sense.

well your saying that motion requires time

hence the conclusion is that , the inducing of time into any object will produce motion

and therefore the motion of any object is based on the amount of time introduced

Originally Posted by north

 

so if I have a bicycle and a 500hp Mustang and asked them both to cover 1000ft and that by adding time and time alone to the bicycle should make up for the bicycle's lack of power to keep up with Mustangs acceleration ?

 

is this what your saying ?

if time was passing faster for the guy on the bicycle, he could beat anything but light(if time was going fast enough for him and slow for the other).

thats not what proposed

I proposed is that , if I simply add time to the bicycle , would the bicycle speed up ?

Address the points made in the post. Just hitting the quote button which is the easiest thing to do is what has done here, it should be possible to follow enough to post your retort.

 

I'd also like to point out that swansont works on atomic clocks, this is his area of expertise, what he says is not just opinion or comments from someone who's read about it.

so my science dictionary is wrong then ?

it is obvious motion requires time.

if motion requires time

that would imply that simply inducing time to any circumstance would either speed up or slow down anything

so if I have a bicycle and a 500hp Mustang and asked them both to cover 1000ft and that by adding time and time alone to the bicycle should make up for the bicycle's lack of power to keep up with Mustangs acceleration ?

is this what your saying ?