Hans Blaster
Hood was a loser.
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,465
- 16,219
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
My mind/brain is totally dependent on my body.
What does this have to do with the thread topic, anyway?
The pioneers in this thread have done well in keeping on track for some 4 or 5 pages .. that might be some kind of a record(?)Some people would rather stay off topic and discuss nonsense.
What is the one dimension?I don't understand the relevance of your point there?
The thread is about time. There are 3+1 dimensions for spacetime included in our universe models.
Different topic .. for a different thread.
My mind/brain is totally dependent on my body.
What does this have to do with the thread topic, anyway?
And some are plain sarcastic about anythingSome people would rather stay off topic and discuss nonsense.
If you mean the '1' in' 3+1' dimensions assigned to understanding the universe model, then its 'time'.What is the one dimension?
That's not one dimension, it is two points of reference thus two dimension.If you mean the '1' in' 3+1' dimensions assigned to understanding the universe model, then its 'time'.
Eg: it appears in SR's Minkowski diagrams as the vertical axis.
Two points don't make two dimensions anymore than 50 points make 50 dimensions.That's not one dimension, it is two points of reference thus two dimension.
And the dimension of time as applied to the universe, falls into a different category of 'dimension'.Two points don't make two dimensions anymore than 50 points make 50 dimensions.
A single point by itself is a 0-dimensional space. Two points can fall on a line with a single dimension, in a plane with two dimensions, in a volume of three dimensions or a higher dimensional space.
Wrong interpretation of 'dimension'. I'm using the term to denote a whole different and more specific category of 'dimension':That's not one dimension, it is two points of reference thus two dimension.
Not the best of quotes, but sufficient to distinguish the concept of time, as a dimension for the concept of spacetime. Concepts originate from our minds .. and are not some kind of 'thing', supposedly existing independently from our minds. There are lots of other ways to apply the concept of 'dimension' (see that same Wiki introductory paragraph for other examples).Wiki said:In classical mechanics, space and time are different categories and refer to absolute space and time. That conception of the world is a four-dimensional space but not the one that was found necessary to describe electromagnetism.
Do you just make up stuff as you go?Two points don't make two dimensions anymore than 50 points make 50 dimensions.
A single point by itself is a 0-dimensional space. Two points can fall on a line with a single dimension, in a plane with two dimensions, in a volume of three dimensions or a higher dimensional space.
Ok sorry for the mishap, I was referencing the 2D moving animation in the post.Wrong interpretation of 'dimension'. I'm using the term to denote a whole different and more specific category of 'dimension':
Dimension:
Not the best of quotes, but sufficient to distinguish the concept of time, as a dimension for the concept of spacetime. Concepts originate from our minds .. and are not some kind of 'thing', supposedly existing independently from our minds. There are lots of other ways to apply the concept of 'dimension' (see that same Wiki introductory paragraph for other examples).
No, but you seemed to be. Without tracing the full set of quotes backward, the immediate post to which you were responding referred to a 3+1 foliation of spacetime and to Minkowski space. Neither of which describe anything two dimensional. Period.Do you just make up stuff as you go?
It was in reference to a dail moving in the post I quoted from point a to b.
I even told you what I was referring to yet you can't comprehend and stuck on Minkowski. It's obvious when you get focused on something there's no breaking it until your ready or realize or stuck in limbo.No, but you seemed to be. Without tracing the full set of quotes backward, the immediate post to which you were responding referred to a 3+1 foliation of spacetime and to Minkowski space. Neither of which describe anything two dimensional. Period.
Yet another attempted diversion? @Hans Blaster has made signicant contributions to this thread.I even told you what I was referring to yet you can't comprehend and stuck on Minkowski. It's obvious when you get focused on something there's no breaking it until your ready or realize or stuck in limbo.
So what contributions are you looking for?. Like it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach earth or something of the OP?, though the second post said to ignore the rambling confused OP.Yet another attempted diversion? @Hans Blaster has made signicant contributions to this thread.
Can you make one?
Yes there's quite a few rambling confusionisms ..So what contributions are you looking for?. Like it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach earth or something of the OP?, though the second post said to ignore the rambling confused OP.
Interesting analogy, and it's pretty spot on though vision has the ability to see forward or backward in the current expansion of space. Of course a telescope is needed.This will be a thread strictly about discussing "time", and what we know about it, and maybe also what we don't know about it, or might not know about it as well, etc.
But let's try to keep it on the topic of time, ok.
A certain CF poster posted this here (below), and so I'm going to try and respond to it, or will be using it here to start this off, ok.
Mathematically Speaking?
I did not state that all events happened simultaneously. *** I noted that the apparent timing of events depends on the reference frames of the two events. This refutes the claim that time is just the passage of a series of events. As I also noted, discussion of time is really above my pay...www.christianforums.com
I've been aware for a while now of how this works on the larger scales, so I'll discuss it first, ok.
For the record I did state that light, or the speed of light has little to nothing to do with time, etc, and I'm going to try and explain that one here in a minute, etc.
On the larger scales, the universe is the same age, and is therefore set at the same time, equally everywhere, etc. This is evidenced by when we look at places in the universe very, very far away, we're seeing them just as old as they are in the past, as it is light years away from us, and it would be vice-versa from that position observing us very, very far away from where they are at, etc, or they would also be seeing us as many years in the past, as they were the number of light years they were away from us, etc, and this is because either way, or from each reference point, that is the time it takes the light to reach there, but that is not the real or actual picture of how it is now, or how it would be if we were able to travel to it very, very, very quickly, etc. We'd have to account for billions of years of stellar change, if we could travel nigh instantly to something billions of light years away very, very quickly, etc.
But I never thought of applying this to much, much smaller scales, etc. This CF poster pointed out to me very correctly that light travels about 1 foot in a nanosecond of time, etc, and he is very, very correct about that, but didn't agree with me when I said light itself, or the speed of light itself, has nothing to actually do with time, etc. And also in my opinion, he's only halfway correct about events at different places not being able to be simultaneous, or not being able to be happening simultaneously, or at the same quote/unquote "time", etc, and I will try to explain that one here in a minute also, etc.
Two events happening 1 foot apart from one another, etc. Now when one is looking at the other, it takes the light 1 nanosecond to travel to his frame of reference, or reference point, or his eyes, etc. Now you could say they didn't or don't happen at the same time, but what's really happening is that from one of them's reference point, etc, the light took 1 nanosecond of time to get to each the other's reference point, so they are seeing each others events 1 nanosecond in the past, or one nanosecond old, etc, but as far as the "now" goes, they both happened at the same time, or simultaneously if they were truly the same age and/or old, or really did happen at the same "time" once they (those simultaneous events) had passed into "the past" simultaneously, etc. The pictures that we are getting are just older from each one another's reference point or frame, etc.
It is possible for two separate events in different reference frames to happen at the same "time" (and/or simultaneously) if they both happen in the "now" simultaneously, but no observer would be able to observe that unless they were in each others reference frames/points simultaneously, or could be one thing existing at those two places at once simultaneously, etc.
"Now" is how everything is actually at the same age everywhere equally, etc. But you'd have to be the same thing in two places at once to observe that directly. Honestly, it makes much, much more sense on the much larger scales, but it also applies to everything on a much much smaller scale also, like two persons, places, or things being one foot apart, but seeing each other as being one nanosecond old, due to the time it takes the light to reach them in each others reference frames, but that really has nothing to do with the actual time at all, the time it takes the light to reach each others reference frames, etc.
There are two other things that can actually affect how slow time passes for a person, place, or thing, etc. One is speed or motion through spacetime, etc, if it is fast enough for whatever happens to be moving or traveling this quickly through space, time will slow down or go slower for that thing, etc. The other is strong gravitational pulls, etc, if you are close enough to a strong enough one, this will also slow down the flow of time for that thing, etc. Obviously all gravitational pulls, and all speed of motion affects this slightly always, but it's barely measurable until it gets past a certain point in gravitational pull or speed, etc, and then it can start it's increase towards affecting the slowing down of the flow of time for that thing after that increasingly exponentially, etc, to where, like with speed, at the speed of light, anything having any mass, is said to maybe stop the flow of time for that person, place, or thing completely, etc. But everything else in the universe that was not with you in these situations or states, nothing changes for them unless they were with you in these situations or states. Time, and the flow of time, for them, etc, is still the same as it has always been for them always since you left them, or before your own situation ot state changed, etc.
Another thing which might be a third thing that I was researching, was acceleration alone possibly affecting time, or time dilation, but there are varying answers to this, and until I do more research I do not know if acceleration all alone, or all by itself, can affect time, or time dilation, some say it only can indirectly, by changing one of the two other factors just mentioned, but there are also some who disagree, etc, so I haven't been able to get any for sure answers about this possible third factor yet completely.
Anyway, this thread is for "all talk about time", etc, but I would please ask if we could please limit it to just that only please, etc.
I know many of you will probably disagree with a lot of what I just said, and that's more than ok, etc, and that's way, way ok, etc, because most of this is just to get "the talk about time" going, ok.
It came up so much in my other thread, that I had to make this one for it, as it was way, way off-topic in my other thread.
So let's hear everyone's ideas, and let's let "the talk about time" begin, ok.
Take Care/God Bless.
However far the west and east coast are separated by the speed of light, is how far in the past you would see them, only it's not the past for either one, or each one is not in the past either one, but is just how long the images, or light, takes to reach each other's respective positions, but each one is actually in the or their respective "now" always, and nothing ever changes that, or can change that always, etc.Interesting analogy, and it's pretty spot on though vision has the ability to see forward or backward in the current expansion of space. Of course a telescope is needed.
Technically if someone was standing on the east coast .u.s. and could look through a telescope to see the west coast it would be 4 hours in the future yet from the first stand point it's 4 hours in the past at the same time. Celestial objects closer to the edge of the expanse aka farther out than the milky way is in a space time not yet reached though possible to see it from its past point in the expanse in time. At the same time is counting down like the sun's age or Andromeda and the Milky way colliding. That may throw perspective time for a loop.
No one knows rather the expanse will continue or stop. If it stops then time will get extremely finite, nothing may not even rotate or move anymore to gauge time spent. A mechanical clock would become pretty useless If nothing in the universe is whizzing about like bees.
Yes I agree and distance is the reason everything is in their own time bubble. On earth is one time bubble, away from earth is the galactic time bubble which resides in the expanding universe bubble. Time is just a perspective of movements. Though without it there is no time but lifeless suspension.However far the west and east coast are separated by the speed of light, is how far in the past you would see them, only it's not the past for either one, or each one is not in the past either one, but is just how long the images, or light, takes to reach each other's respective positions, but each one is actually in the or their respective "now" always, and nothing ever changes that, or can change that always, etc.
Take Care/God Bless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?