Re: can you imagine 10 dimensions? see if you can follow...my head exploded after 5
Yeah. I was just trying to understand his argument. I wasnt agreeing or disagreeing with it but just trying to put it into different terms. The concept of time actually having a velocity is still a bit murky to me. I can get the argument but it still doesnt make sense to me if you know what I mean.
This keeps on coming up, What speed would this be "speed of light + 1". How the hell does time have/generate a velocity? last time i check it was not mechanical or shared any electromagnetic properties...the only two things to my knowledge that can generate some sort of "velocity" What am i missing here?
Yep. I have the same question.
And this is exctly what I was talking about when I said:
But what does "the speed" of a dimension mean? this is my issue with muddling definitions which invariably muddle and conflate completely different concepts. my main issue with mathematics, actually mathematical physics, transforming non-physical models into physical structures. To me that's no different from, say, transubstantiation in Catholicism.
Math deals with dynamic concepts and only
models the
dynamics of physical objects or systems. Science deals with physical objects. Science often uses math to help
understand the dynamics of these objects and systems.
If you think i'm lying, then here's an example to illustrate this.
An object is on a table. What is it?
Science: it's a steel bar.
Math: it's πr^2h.
Cool. That's a formula for a cylinder that could be made of anything, but what is it? The
physical material, steel, is composed of iron and some carbon. What's the mathematically description of carbon and iron? Anyone? Schroedinger equation accounting for all the electrons in the system? well, that's an equation that describes dynamics.
OK, back to the "speed of dimension" issue.
In science, dimensions specify shape (structure and orientation). The 3 spatial dimensions are length, width and height. To be scientific, they must always be used consistently. I've already said this in this thread by the way:
here and
here.
The mathematicians that come up with these multi-D's have described D in terms of coordinates. Here's one of the standard definitions: "the least number of independent coordinates required to specify uniquely the location of an object in a space."
If it's 3 coordinates, it's 3D space--the one we experience. If it's 4 coordinates, it's 4D space. But what's the 4th coordinate? Time. And this is where the issues begin. They use time to specify an additional uniqueness or like Tical says, "exactness keeper". This. Is. Wrong.
See, when u start muddling terms and their uses, confusion and issues are bound to arise later. Like the confusion we're having right now with "speed" as a property of a dimension. The speed of a thing is the displacement of that thing over a duration we calibrate using time. So where's the thing? What's being displaced? The dimension? Which one? The spatial ones or the time one? Time is being displaced over a duration of time? ...
And this is why it's not a trivial issue to use these terms loosely.
Dimensions and coordinates are conceptually static. It's vectors that are dynamic. And that's why I asked SelfScience the question about the 4-vector by the way.
Another issue is mutual orthogonality (forming right angles w.r.t each other). 3 is the limit we can experience in real life. That's why the 4th dimension or whatever is in placed in an "imaginary space" and they use complex numbers, like SelfScience alluded too. So you've taken two separate concepts; one that describes real physical static and one that's imaginary, and merged them into one concept and expect it to describe real static things. But it can't and it doesn't. It models dynamic systems of things. And even then the issues are still there.
I got no beef with math models. Just to put physical things in imaginary spaces. Religion already has the patent on that.
Further my understand of Time, was solely as a "Reference keeper" or "exactness keeper" as i called it. Because space is always moving, "Time" is the only reference that independent.
Example: your on earth, thats orbiting the sun, thats rotating around the galaxy, thats rotating around god knows what, constantly! Thus to say my car is located at so and so, is not correct because that location in reference to things outside itself is always changing. Now with "time" as a reference all "space-motion" can be pin-pointed to an exact-coordinated system(my car is located at so and so at THIS TIME)...either-way for some reason sean69, didn't agree with it, i'm waiting for him to point out why.
Explained it above. And also elsewhere in this thread,
here.
Time is an effect. Motion is the cause. The motion of space causes time. Or rather, our non-physical experience or cognitive perception of time. How our brains do it? I don't know. But i bet there are folks out there studying this (as neuroSCIENCE). So u have it backwards. And u actually alluded to this when u said above:
"Because space is always moving ...". Let me explain.
Your argument is that the regular 3 spatial coordinates are insufficient to "exactly" specify the unique state of an object (they only specify location) plus the object is referenced against things "outside itself" that are always changing (aka, moving). So time gives a uniqueness. Ok. Fair enough. You say ur car is at so and so location at say, 4:30PM. How do u know it's 4;30PM? Because a clock tells u.
Question: How does the clock tell u?
