Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Aethelwulf

  1. Yes. Time is very much the fourth dimension of spacetime. I explained all of this above.


    Spacetime is also known as Minkowski space. But this is a different use of the term "space" than the typical physical meaning. Its a mathematical space. Mathematical spaces don't neccesarily represent space as in the "spatial" kind of space. Minkowski space is a good example of that. Its not the "spatial" kind of space but a mathematical space. And its quite true that time is a dimension in that mathematical space. But you shouldn't be confusing the two kinds of meanings of the term space and it seems likeits what you're doing.



    Not really. One can use an imaginary coordinate but this is exceptionally rare thing to do. Almost nobody uses that concept anymore.


    I said it was a type of spatial dimension, unto which you have tried to argue its not, but now you seem to be agreeing that it is the fourth dimension of space. Contradictory much?


    And of course it's mathematical. It's an abstraction which defined both space and time as part of the same metric. What time is in that metric is defined under imaginary space and space itself is defined as an imaginary time. The link I showed you, explained all this. It also explained time was the 1st degree of freedom and as I explained to you before, if by ''change'' you means something which happens within the degree of freedom known as time, then I would agree. However, this does not mean change and time are synonymous, because that is patently wrong.

  2. I know what you believe. Now I want to know why you believe it. What do you think it means to say that time is a dimension in space, i.e. a spatial dimension?


    I actually don't even believe time exists. What I know is that time makes up the forth dimension of the metric; ie. it is a type of spatial dimension.


    In relativity, time is called ''imaginary space'' and space is called ''imaginary time''.



  3. We don't need evidence of your God as of now, Aethelwulf. What was needed was a clear falsifiable definition of your God followed by a prediction and the method used to falsify it and you failed to provide one. If your God is not falsifiable then it belongs to metaphysics, it is not science. It either belongs to the philosophy forum or the religion forum.


    I gave you conditions in which this kind of God can exist in. Like, we know that the uncertainty principle is not violated in any way, so on the supposition that if there was a God, they must be ignorant of certain things in this universe.


    Thus far this thread has been a religious discussion.


    No it hasn't. Just because it fails to provide the concrete evidence a religious subject would be often called on for, does not make my subject aa religion. I certainly don't see my view of God as a Religion. Very philosophical however, but not quite a religion.

  4. I don't know if it's been mentioned yet but some of us, myself included, usually try to negate negative rep that seems to be given out undeservedly. If I see a post that gets a negative rep that I don't believe should have I will positive it even if I don't think it was particularly a good post, but just because I don't think it was so bad as to deserve negative rep. If well used the rep system can be self correcting.


    I very rarely negatively rep anyone, but I have tried to negate negative reps like you have.

  5. I disagree. A point in Minkowski space is denoted as follows X = (time, space). This is an element in spacetime. It is not an element in space. Its only mathematically that the temporal variable is in some ways treated like the spatial variables. But in no way can it be called a spatial dimension.


    Please eleborate on why you believe that time is a spatial variable. Thanks.

    Of course it is a type of spatial dimension, I've told you more than once now, physicists call it the imaginary leg of the space triangle. Why do you think time makes up the fourth dimension of space?

  6. ted to you that my comment in the PM was in absolutely no way in reference to you. I am confused as to why you took such offence to it and while this is off topic, I seriously object to you publically making such a blatantly false accusation. If you wish to discuss it more, please PM me or report the message, but either case I ask you as a member to stop dragging it into the forums.


    He didn't mention your name, as far as I was aware?

  7. Space refers to where things are. A time parameter doesn't tell you anything about where something is. That's why its not a spatial dimension. Be careful not to confuse "space" in the mathematical space from "space" in the physical sense. People have a tendancy to confuse these two usages


    All I can suggest to you is actually investigate this for yourself. Try searching for the Minkowski spacetime triangle because nothing I have told you is false.


    Time and space are dimensions of the same manifold - this is as profound as saying that time is another space dimension - a special kind of one called an imaginary space dimension.


    Genuinely curious - what makes you say that?


    We just don't believe this is the case any more. One reason comes from relativity, if it is flowing, what is it flowing relative to? I will find you a paper which would shed some light on this perhaps.








    I disagree. Time is not a spatial dimension. Its a dimension in spacetime. Spacetime is a space in the mathematical sense of the term but time is not a spatial dimension.



    This would be so much easier if people just agreed with everything I said. :lol:


    You keep saying that but I consider that to be a straw argument since time is about change in the entire universe. It doesn't just refer to whether a particular system is static or not. Even for a static system one can place a clock near the system and it would tick thus measureing the passage of time. That's like saying that an electric field is the force that would be exerted per unit charge if a charged were placed in the field. But with the charge gone we still consider the field to be present. Same with time. Just because a clock isn't in the room its still said that time passes in the room because if one places a clock in the room it would tick thus noting the passage of time.


    Of course time is a spatial dimension, this is why in relativity it was given a special name, called the imaginary space dimension. The idea was to treat it as a space dimension which was 90 degree's off of the real space legs on the spacetime triangle.




    You keep saying that but I consider that to be a straw argument since time is about change in the entire universe. It doesn't just refer to whether a particular system is static or not.


    Time is indeed about changes in the universe - whether one can describe that as an entire change for the universe in a global sense is heavily under debate, as I showed you. But if time is change, it better be able to refer whether a particular system is static or not simply because time is local in every sense of the word.

  9. Hm, alright, well for the benefit of continuing discussion I'll move this to religion. This is a thread about God, so I don't see how it couldn't belong there. In future, please be more mindful of where you place threads.


    I said I have no interest in discussing religion. This isn't about ''religion''. So if any takes this to discuss ''religion'' I will simply not participate.


    I said I have no interest in discussing religion. This isn't about ''religion''. So if any takes this to discuss ''religion'' I will simply not participate.


    I guess this depends on your definition of religion. When I think of religion, I think of doctrine, Bible talk ect. Of course, our views will differ from person to person. I just don't want this becoming a discussion on Christ, Yehovah or anything canonically related.

  10. True, but that doesn't mean that time doesn't pertain to changes, You can only speak of a stationary state when you have a clock to compare it to.


    A.P. French speaks about time in his text Newtonian Mechanics[/i]. On page 61-62 he writes




    Of course that depends on how the term physical is defined. Different people have different ideas of what it means to be physical. When I use the term it means that its something that is directly related to something in nature that has an existance. In this case the chaning of the universe as a whole. If i was talking about velocity then that's a mathematical construct which cannot be measured directly but can only be calculated from other measurements such as the change in positioin of an object when compared to a clock. I think of velocity asbeintg physical. Energy pertains to a sum of terms for which the sum is constant of motion. Only the individual portions can be measured. E.g. we can't measure kinetic energy directly. What we can do is to measure its velocity and then calculate it from that an the body's mass. Or you cn let it do work on a system and then measure the variables which define the system. E.g. let the body hit a paddel which is emersed in water and let it stir it. The water will then heat up and you can measure that with observing the level of mrcury in a thermometer which is submerged in the water. Same with potential energy. It can't be measured directly. You can only measure the body's position in a field and then calculate its energy from that and the formula for potential energy. Then its the mathematical sum that is constant and I think of that as a physical quantity.



    That doesn't mean that time doesn't pass around the universe. It just means that you have to be careful when you assign a number to it.



    The problem with Newtonian Mechanics views on time, is that there is no such thing as a flux (aka passage) to time. Time does not flow, as was once believed in the Newtonian train of thought.


    If by what you are saying ''does not mean that time does not pertain to changes'' is really meant to mean ''we can't have a change without some kind of freedom in time'' I'd agree with it in the sense that time is often treated as a degree of freedom, just another space dimension. But setting time directly equal with change is problematic because obviously a system does not need to change while time trucks on.

  11. When a quantum system is stationary it means that when you compare it to the ticking of a clock nothing changes in the system. That doesn't mean that time dosn't apply to the system.


    Of course it doesn't, but I didn't say time didn't apply to the system. I am giving you a perfect example of how a quantum system does not change even when time does. That's the point, the two are certainly not equal.


    On another note, systems which are measurable are physical. Time is not physical, it's not even an observable; the kind of things we can measure by observation.


    Time does not refer to a particular system but to the universe as a whole.


    That would be a global time and that doesn't exist in GR. Global time vanishes when you quantize the EFE equations.

  12. I disagree. The very essense of time is directly related to change or "happenings".


    A friend of mine wrote an article on this topic. See http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/time.htm. I agree with everything in that page.


    If there were a universe in which nothing happened and nothing changed then time would have no meaning.


    I can give you a perfect example of time not equaling change.


    Make momentary observations on a system ready to up its energy in the form of radiation, then you will effectively freeze the quantum evolution of that system (the zeno effect). Does time stop because your system no longer changes?


    Time does not mean change at all... time can truck on without there needing to be any change in your system.

  13. !

    Moderator Note

    AethelWolf, I'm giving you two options here:


    1. I move this thread to Religion and you focus the conversation on that aspect.

    2. It stays here and I close it for violation of the rules outlined in my previous note (the one about needing evidence).



    Hmmm... well, I have no intention talking about religion, but then on the other hand, I knew from the outset that I could not be able to provide hard evidence for God. So... I'll leave it in your capable hands to decide the fate of this thread.

  14. You're right. I should instead set the flowers at the grave of our pleasantly demeanored friends mother.


    What warning given by the mods here, did you not listen to, not to talk about my late mother? Better yet, how many warnings will it take before some kind of action on you is taken?


    I don't understand why you keep talking about my mother... leave her out of things. I have hardly been personal towards you so have the same respect please.

  15. You do understand, don't you, that its not that the galaxy is moving through space, its just that there is space being created inbetween gallaxies and that yields an effective increasing distance at a rate which makes the distance between some gallaxies appear faster than the speed of light?


    that as well, if that is what he means??? Who knows...

  16. The obvious conclusion is that both the corpusculer and wave models are inadequate by themselves and that the true nature is something with some of the characteristics of both plus perhaps properties we have yet to uncover.


    Why is this so hard to swallow?


    Well said indeed.

  17. Quote: Why is it not enough?




    In order to get the 13.1 light year distant, the galaxy should travel almost at the speed of light.


    This is unlogical.


    Therefore, in order to get to this distant, the time should be much longer than the time from the Big Bang.



    Well, take into consideration, that momentum transfer is evaluated very early on in the universe, are you saying it is impossible for at least some galaxies to arrange stable galaxies when debris are moving at the same relativistic pace?


    Take into consideration the inflationary phase. Some parts of the galaxy are still moving at relativistic speeds... (according to Hawking)... and thus he explains these are galaxies, so there is nothing stopping matter forming galaxies relative to us.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.