I fail to understand how your argument (snip)

 

It's not my argument. It's a representation of Johnny5's argument.

Oh, that's just terrible!

 

Sorry, couldn't avoid it!

I fail to understand how your argument supports the idea that time might be counted as the fourth dimension of space, as opposed to being a different sort of dimension, a dimension of time.

 

I think I see where the confusion resides. Tracing back over old footsteps yields:

 

Johnny5: Time is not a spatial dimension. At most three mutally perpendicular infinite straight lines can meet at a point, not four.

 

Tom Mattson: That's only the case if you stipulate that you are working in R³ to begin with. So this argument against more than 3 spatial dimensions is circular, I'm afraid.

 

When I said “That’s only the case if…” I was of course referring to the second of Johnny’s statements, not the first. Naturally, I deny that time is a spatial dimension. But it is most certainly not for the reason that was cited.

How about this one:

 

If I were situated someplace' date=' a rotation through 2 pi radians brings me looking where I was looking before. I think this basically proves space is three dimensional, since it would be true in any plane which I start the rotation in.[/quote']This proves only what it assumes. Furthermore, if it proves anything, it proves that we live in a 2 dimensional world, which we have already disregarded as possible.

It's not my argument. It's a representation of Johnny5's argument.

OK. Sorry about that.

I think I see where the confusion resides. Tracing back over old footsteps yields:

Although you may well be right that this is the source of the confusion, I thought, and still think I guess, otherwise. I think that his statement that space is not 4 dimensional was in response to my post #9, which was in response to post #2, where it was suggested that space is 4 dimensional, and perhaps that time is a dimension of space.

I think you are being far to specific. the axioms of physics are much simpler, and have nothing to do with the actual observations themselves (ie. nothing to do with the theory we find). They are things like:

 

Any physical motion or interaction in the universe can be explained by a finite number of fundamental laws.

All experiments are repeatable.

etc.

 

The things which you are stating as axioms should come out of the above by applying the knowledge from the experiments themselves.