/sci/ - Science & Math

It's not another dimension, but a measurement we use on one of the 3 spatial dimensions.

Just like seconds is a measurement we use on the temporal dimension.

enjoy the rest of your trolling summerfag

Sometimes Europe seems like it's in a different dimension, yes.

Motion in one direction is one dimensional. Time is four dimensional. There are probably other measurements in other universes but we leave astronomers to answer those. Because who really gives a fuck?

>>1375135
>implying meters aren't a dimension

A meter is a measurement of length.

The first dimension consists only of length.

Meters are the first dimension... or something...

How come you guys can't understand there is no such thing as a third dimesnion.

It's a measurement same as width and length.

Depth measures distance.

You don't think that a right angle is another dimesnion, do you?

>>1375147
If distance measures the second dimension, what measures the 3rd and 1st?

Is the 5th dimension gravity?

>>1375163
Points, and length and width. Next question?

>>1375158

I thought you were being stupid.

Then I realise you trolling.

Well played.

I don't think you guys understand me.

Time is a measurement, while lenght width and depth are measurements too, they are applied to things that exist.

Time is used just to measure the first 3 dimensions.

>>1375187
And time is a string. Congratulations OP! You've discovered String Theory!

>>1375133
ｗWw.ANoｌＯLｔalK.ＳE_rEＰｌＡｃＥ_Ｌoｌ WIth n
ubtiojdhle yxde cf i iyyxhg m jrvnzhva

>>1375187

And time doesn't exist?

>>1375209
Exactly! It's just a measurement!

Ｗｗw.aNｏlｏLｔＡlＫ.sｅ ＲEｐＬacｅ LOl_ｗITh_N
yfwx rg b w wzmllc nfp hhgr ipz

>>1375131
ＷｗＷ.ＡNｏｌOlTAＬｋ.ＳＥ RｅＰＬａＣE_ＬOＬ_wＩTH_N
zcy wmqwv gxsp h at j ix v w rd e bfm b

>>1375214

Except it does exist.
Seconds/minutes/hours are a measurement of time.

Time doesn't exist in any sense. its just the applicable linear perception of growth.

If time doesn't exist explain the relativity of simultaneity.

>>1375236
*sigh*
You don't understand me at all.
That seconds, minutes, hours ARE time.

We use time telling devices to measure things moving.

>>1375268
So you are saying that if we leave an atomic clock in a fixed point in space (somehow) not affected by gravity or any other force, completely unmoving, it wouldn't run.

Disregard that, I suck cocks.

>>1375268
but that "movement" is just the object at a different point in the 4th dimension, right?

On the off chance you're not a troll:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

>Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions.

>In relativistic contexts, however, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of intense gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.

I once heard a physicist describe our movement through space-time thus: the sum of our movement through space and movement through time equals the speed of light. Therefore the faster we move through space the slower we move through time and vice versa.

Wｗw.AＮｏＬoｌＴaLＫ.ｓe ＲeｐｌＡCｅ ｌOＬ wiTｈ_N
nj ixqpl nu mm cbi goolssrahz kzobya zxog ohl fh fixo

guys, don't think of it like a movie, with frames per second.
You can't have infenitly small lapses of time. There is no point to return back to with time machines.

It's all hapening now.
The atoms that were on earth 100 years ago are still here, the same.

We use time just to measure the collective movement of everything reletive to something else.

Think of it measuring in meters to see where things move, but you measure in EVERY direction at the same time.

>>1375316
So you're saying if we measure something in meters, the distance from one point to another, by the time we finish measuring, the initial point no longer exists?

>>1375302
The faster we move the slower everything reacts. Time measures how fast things react/move.

So if things react slower when you're traveling faster ofcourse it will affect the measurement device and it won't seem as it's slowing down.

Yet to an outside observer everything is moving normaly.

The things inside the space/time bubble won't notice anything because they can't.

>>1375316
Sorry, you're wrong. Relativity, time dilation, frame of reference, Lorentz transform, etc.

>>1375316
>You can't have infenitly [sic] small lapses of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

>It's all hapening [sic] now.
Does the past still exist? Some physicists (like Stephen Hawking, IIRC) believe that the past and the future already exist and we just see a cross section of time that we view as the present with the arrow of time giving the illusion of time moving forward.

>>1375326
No, that's if you're looking at the other version of time.

Time just measures how long it takes for something to go from point A to point B, or how many ticks of a clock it takes for something to happen.

>>1375353
Explain time dilation.

>>1375350
That's just going to cause the thread to swere off into probability.

>>1375192

>>1375363
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkCWywO93b8

Here, someone who knows what they are talking about.

space/time is a myth

>>1375371
I understand both sides of viewing time.

I just don't think it should be called a dimension.

>>1375376
You're a myth

>>1375371
did he get botox? he has a permanent smile.

>>1375384
That's gonna bruise

>>1375386
He is a "rockstar physicist", you would have a permanent smile too if you had his job/title.

>>1375132
ｗWw.aｎOLolｔAＬｋ.Sｅ_ReＰLACE lｏL_wIth N
r rxrnxgy naso wq jpmnhrv cyctm og wg

>>1375382
If you want to locate something, for example if you're going to meet somebody, you need to know where they are going to be, but you also need to know when they are going to be there.

Maybe he tried to say that TIME is something that human invented as it is, i mean we work with 24 HOURS because it's how this planet rotates.

If we were on another planet TIME maybe would have been measured differently

Time doesnt exist, length doesnt exist, width doesnt exist, depth doesnt exist, and so fourth. The only thing that does exist is what your brain perceives to exist. Therefore, I see length so it exist, I see width, I see depth, but you cant see time.... So, saying that time doesnt exist is just like saying that there is no such thing as temperature or wind, and so fourth. You cant physically see those but there are devices to measure them... ... ... ... I dont know how to articulate myself...

>>1375405
We're not using the 4th dimension to know when they're going to be there.

We're using the little jiggling quartz in our watch.

here's my understanding of it:

time is positive space. but space can't be negative, so time is space.

>>1375409
To pick up his 'frames per second' analogy...

he is saying that instead of time being an infinite assortment of frames in a line, there exists only 1, constantly changing, frame, and the frames that would come before and after it do not exist.

WWW.ａnoLＯＬtaｌK.SE RｅpLAcＥ_Lｏl WiTh_ｎ
axnfk hktzr wogppcbwjhswclhvgifxqom

>>1375417
If time isn't a physical property then how do you explain phenomena such as time dilation?

>>1375417
That's like saying we're not using 3 dimensions to locate someone, we're using a map.

>>1375135
Learn2Entropy faggot

>>1375422
That's it anon.

>>1375443
I already gave my opinion on this.

Everything in the space time bubble is affected by dilation, everything reacts more slowly, even the instrument used to measure time. Because everything is reacting more slowly there is no way to notice.

An observer will also see things moving normaly and acting normaly because they are.

Time just tells the difference between these two.

It's a measurement, if you're going to ask me questions look at it from my view.

>>1375476
You haven't articulated or defined your view adequately and it diverges from mainstream science, where time is accepted as being the 4th dimension.

>>1375353

Noticed this.
>if you're looking at the other version of time

Two versions of time?

>>1375446
We're using distance to locate someone, and time to know when they're going to be there.

We know how to tell time because of the 3rd dimension, it is only applied in the 3rd dimension, therefore it's only a measurement of the 3rd dimension.

There is no reason why it should be called the 4th dimenion, rather just an extended measurement of the 3rd.

It's half measuring in length, width and depth seperately and half in measuring all 3 at the same time.

>>1375497
FPS, senario where you can go back and forth trough time and time as a measurement of only one frame, and in this frame everything is happening.

>>1375501
I don't think even you know what you're talking about.

>>1375501
I believe you just went full retard.

<div class="math">x = (t:=x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)</div>
All of a sudden: Time as a dimension! Problem solved.

>>1375508
>>1375509
Bah you're right, scrwed this one up.

But had you going!

Stay tuned to my later thread of "Is nothing faster than light, or is nothingness faster than light."

Troll you later /sci/.


Also, I think it barely deserves to be called a 4th dimension, I don't think time travel is possible, and I do think time is just a measurement.

>>1375501
Also, you're a century late. Time can be produced out of space and vice versa, just like rotations in a plane mix up x and y coordinates, Lorentz transformations (or general diffeomorphisms) can mix t and x (and so on).

>>1375525
I'm sceptical that we should be taking a physical interpretation of the nature of time out of Lorenz transformations and so on in this way.

Think I'll post this thread in /r9k/, won't even need to post anything afterwards.

Tey're idiots that will argue over anything that will make them look smart.

how can you beleive in time if its just a theory (a geuss?)

>>1375563
... so ... we should interpret them, umm, esoterically?

>>1375582
Recognise them as useful tools for performing transformations and nothing more.

>>1375598
They're transformations that leave the norm invariant, and that's the very definition of a rotation. All you can do here is complain about the Minkowski norm not being a norm in the mathematical sense, as it's not positive definite.

>>>/r9k/10003290

He dared to go ask the faggots of /r9k/

>>1375131

ｗＷw.aNＯloｌTＡｌk.ＳＥ reＰＬａCｅ loＬ_ＷIＴｈ n
qnz nybnrdumhma jt adcbxivbl rvh pzqtabko xloqwmhcvip

>>1375598
...Why? That time and space dimensions can be transformed into one another isn't just a subjective impression, it's the single geometric realization of the mathn. Sounds like you're just peeved it isn't compatible with your intuitive schema or whatever.

obvious fag is a fag. trying to start a flame war you are and a fail it is. gtfo newfag before we hack your shit

>>1375631
Herp, after their waggon and magnets on tracks thread the other day I couldn't refuse.

>>1375580
time is not just a theory, it's an experience.

>>1375663

continue the thread and you will get banned & hacked

stfu jew

>>1375622
>>1375634
I'm out of my depth when you start talking about the definition of a rotation. However, I posit that we have no reason to expect maths to be able to perfectly describe the universe. It's just a tool, to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, we should not expect these tools to grant us any wisdom that we can't test. We can test the consequences of Lorentz transformations and that is why we accept them for that purpose. We can't test whether their interpretation of space time is correct, so we'd be unreasonable to accept it.

The /r9k/ is full of self glorified faggots.

>>1375674

you are hacked faggot, enjoy the free pr0n flood

>>1375669
suck my dick. in time.

let's continue the thread guys

>>1375681
GTFO in < 5 minutes ad I WILL SPARE YOU, OTHERWISE FACE MY WRATH

>>1375674

>I'm out of my depth when you start talking about the definition of a rotation
>definition of rotation

HAHA
OH WOW

>>1375686
make me, it's too bad time doesn't exist. what will happen, will happen.

>>1375686

OP is a fag, and you fags are even bigger fags for talking, GTFO NAO

>>1375674
Sure we can test the Lorentz transformation. It's the symmetry group of Maxwell's equations, i.e. they don't change their form.
So, check how E and B transform (by moving a charged particle and measuring its E-/B-fields from different inertial systems), see that Lorentz works. That's as far as you can get in science.

>>1375692
Oh, you're right, I'm not out of my depth. I misread the previous post. :)

>>1375699
Why you angry that peopel are having a serious discussion and not trolling eachother?

OP might have intended this to be a troll, but no one is being trolled.

Hypothetically speaking, if I had a large volume of space (perhaps a cube, say) which, inside, time travels in the opposite direction... what would the cube look like if you peered into it?

The universe is still a singularity, your human brain is causing you to trip balls, however, which makes it seem like there are separate objects.

This thread is full of fuck.

>>1375704

>>1375702

I've only just started learning SR and that was one of the first things I learnt.

Wasn't that the whole point of SR? Maxwell's equations weren't invariant under Galilean transform, so, through some reasoning, Lorentz was used instead?

Basic definition of a rotation: Rotations are linear operators on vector spaces that leave the norm invariant. For example, if you turn a ruler around, its length is still the same.
Lorentz transformations are just the same thing, but they don't act on the 3-dimensional space with only 3 spatial dimensions, but on spacetime, which has the famous 4th time dimension. You can now define a "length" of vecors in this 4th dimension, and see that the LT doesn't change that length, no matter around which axis you rotate. Thus, LT are rotations in Minkowski space (i.e. flat spacetime).

>>1375702
You missed my point. You can indeed test their effectiveness for transformations. You can't test their effectiveness as descriptors of the nature of spacetime. Hell, we have no reason to expect the nature of spacetime to be comprehensible in any sense.

>>1375709
Time does not travel in a direction herpa derpa.

>>1375674
There is no alternative geometric "interpretation"; these are the equations of curved space. It's a very simple thing, at heart. There's no need to be afraid of it or think it's awkward. This is the most parsimonious explanation that can be obtained from our theories and the data.

>>1375719

go stick your dick in jello faggot, GTFO NAO BEFORE I HACK YOU

Guy is right. TIme isn't a dimension.

>>1375715
Sorry for wasting your time, but see:
>>1375703

>>1375730

CONGRATS YOU ARE ALL FAGS IN THIS THREAD

>>1375717
That's as far as you can get in science, so if you're talking about science, LT *are* the transformations. If you want to talk about world instead of its manifestation, that's a epistemological topic.

>>1375713
LT weren't invented for special relativity, they were there before, but led to the aether. What Einstein did in his electrodynamics of moving bodies was re-interpreting already existing physics, nothing more.

>>1375717
This is sophistry and solipsism. Our idea the universe has been around billions of years, instead of poofing into existence five minutes ago with our memories intact, is untestable, though its consequences are. So we shouldn't believe it?

FAGGOTS ARE FAGGOTS WHO POST IN THIS THREAD

GTFO AND DONT BE A JEW

OR ELSE I WILL SHOVE A SHOE

IN YOUR ASS AND SHOVE IT HIGHER

UNTIL YOU FEEL AS IF YOUR A TYRE

GTFO NEWFAGS

NAO!!!!1111!!!!

GAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAYGAY FAG IS GAY

>>1375748
I'm not being solipsistic. We have reason to believe that the Universe is expanding from a single point. We have no reason I know of to take more from the Lorentz transformations than transformations.

YOU STUPID ARROGANT FUCK>>1375135
Time is A dimension, a minute is a measurement, time is a dimension.
A meter is a measurement, Width is a dimension, end of story, if you don't understand that get off sci.

>>1375767
>>1375761
>>1375754
>>1375733
>>1375718
>>1375710
>>1375699

This isn't your board, and threads are everyone's property. If you don't like what we're talking about then move along, rather than illustrate your massive butthurt.

>>1375717

Internet science debate battle weapon no.1:

Get out of your depth and then contort the question into an unanswerable epistemological meta science question.

>>1375776
Yes, you are being solipsistic. What's to stop me from calling these 'reasons to believe' in the big bang your 'interpretation,' just as you call the consequences of invariance to LTs 'interpretation' instead of reasons? These transformations blend the dimensions of space and time, similar to how a rotation blends the x-, y-, and z-coordinates into each other. That these transformations are 'useful' is proof that the geometric consequences of it are true descriptors.

If A => B and A is proves true, then B. That's basic logic.

>>1375802
I wouldn't have brought it up if I didn't find it pertinent to the discussion. My point is not a red herring.

>>1375776
If you're starting with Big Bangs, you don't need to worry about LT anymore, as the symmetry group is now the group of diffeomorphisms, that is roughly "any transformation".

>>1375780
>>1375780

GET OFF MAH BOARD

>>1375819
Well, if you were to dismiss my reasons for belief in the big bang by asserting that it is simply unknowable, then THAT would be solipsistic. What I'm talking about, on the other hand, comes down to levels of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang. There is none I know of for using LTs to describe the nature of spacetime.

However, I'm considering that we should consider time a dimension, since the definition of a dimension is, like a LT, just another useful tool for scientists. (Rather than an innate truth about reality.)

>>1375851
No. /sci/ reserves the right to turn any troll thread into a legitimate discussion, at any time, without limitations.

>>1375859
Everything in physics is just a useful tool, and LT are in no way special so that one could say they are less "real" than any other physical equation. (Have fun showing me an electric field.)

i will 404 this thread b4 you fags can finish discussion, and then i will spit in your general direction!`11111111!!!!!

>>1375859
Double standards galore. And you outright admit you don't understand LTs relation to the geometry of spacetime, so I don't think you're worth it, honestly.

>>1375884
There's no double standard in deciding which of two statements is more strongly supported by evidence. What are you talking about?