Ok, so.... the 1st dimension is just a line. The 2nd dimension is length and height. They 3rd dimension is length, height and width. So..what is the fourth???

Well, to make it a dimension, you need to have the previous dimensions in it. So, it can't be time. It cant be time because time is constant and is doesnt have any of the other previous dimensions.

I think it is movement. It just makes sense- length, height, width and motion.

I also think we are missing a dimension between 1-2. I think it is angle. Like- degrees and stuff. It makes sense. But, then again, we need 2 lines to make an angle and so it cant be before 2D or after 2D.

I think that the mathematicians and scientists can figure that out...lol

Here is my conclusion:


<<<1d->
A line ( Length)

<<<2d->
Length and Angle

<<<3d->
Length, angle and height

<<<4d->
Length, angle, height and width (depth)

<<<5d->
Length, angle, height, width and motion

Time is not a constant, it is a human creation, time is non existant as far as the universe is concerned. Time is simply the measurement of actions in succession.

how could anything be done is there is no time? Time may have been discovered by us (not created), but it has been around since the beginning of time ( when there was no time, there was nothing) Time is something, just not a dimension...or could it be the very first? before 1D??? And non existant as far as the universe is concerned, the universe and planets and orbits create time... they tell us what time it is. Time is constant, just it's appereance changes.

I think Max is correct on this. Time and motion are two ways of expressing the same thing. Motion is change of position with time.

Yes, and time connects a chain of events, with some occurrence relationship (but not necessarily orderly or in one direction; they could occur in different dimensions, for example).

The dawn of time is the dawn of when man first percieved time. The universe does not create time, nor does it tell time, instead we view the universe and create time based off of the universe. When there was no time, there was no person percieving time, but the universe still existed. When there were no changes in the universe, then prehaps there was no universe as we know it.

Time is a way of making people understand changes in the universe more easily.

Dianah, time exists in the minds of men, it is a human creation. Time is the way we percieve changes.

Changes in the universe are reactions, time is simply the measure of those actions and reactions.

Reactions are actions based on previous actions.


No way of proving if it does or doesnt.

^^ indeed

Time according to man is measure by distance as far as I can tell correct (distance traveled around the sun). In mans vision of time, it seems like the faster one travels, the slower time would move as time is relative to the earths position. Just because man has created this artificial concept of time around the sun does not mean that time does not exist. I think most of us would agree that WWI would give way to WWII would give way to Vietnam, all of which occured in some chain of events. We organized this sequence based around years, but it seems to me that in order for a sequence of events to occur causaly, time must exist.

maybe... time is the very first dimension. Since it is the thing that keeps the world and universe together. Without time, welll, without time, there would be nothing because time is the structure of all humanity.

What kind of 'Time'?

A similar way of thinking hypothesized that for electromagnetic waves to propagate through space, some medium must exist. This hypothetical medium was called "ether" back in the 19th century. It has since been determined not to exist.

Similarly, a sequence of events can exist without some supporting temporal medium. The hypothetical temoral medium is called "time." Time is merely a human mental construction for convenience of temporal conceptualization, and is not really a "dimension" as length, width, and height are.

As an aside, the three familiar dimensions of 3D space might not exist either, but that's a topic for another thread.

Time is a sequence of events, time is how we measure change. WWI and WWII are events, time is our way of representing those events. There is no thing in the material universe called time, there are changes which we may view as time, thus time only exists in our minds. Slower time is impossible because what do you refrence to it?

What I mean by this is if everything went extremly fast or extremly slow, then everything would appear to be going at normal pace. In order for time to slow down you need something outside the influence of the slowed time. You would need a refrence in another universe at the very least.

Time is the occurance of one change relative to another. Example, you boil water and during that the clock moves by "5 minutes". What this really means is that 259 ticks of the "seconds" hand had occured before the water had boiled.

Time is simple the measure of if one change occurs before the other, thats all it is.

I suppose time could have the appearance of slowing down if you were to move extremly fast, it would simply be that your actions would occur before many many regular actions in the universe. Also for time to speed up, your actions would need to move at a slower pace than the universes, many many actions would occur for every single action you made.

Technically people have already slowed 'time' by cryogenically freezing themselves, their bodies deteriorate at a much slower rate than the average persons. When they become unfrozen determines the amount they have slowed time, for example if you were frozen for twenty years, then twenty years of actions would have slowed down.

Actually, thinking about this, you have either stopped time or drastically slowed it down.

We can determine the level of slowness by taking your actions and the universes actions, then dividing a/b should give the actions relative to regular actions.

Now if we take the amount of actions a regular person makes and the amount that the slowed person makes we can deduce the % that time has been slowed down.

Actions can be anything, including your body becoming older, so you dont nessecarily need to be moving to have actions.

If time has stopped then the actions should be either Universe actions = 0 and your actions > 0 or Universe actions > 0 and your actions = 0

Relativistic slowing of time (called "time dilation") as predicted by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STR) has been confirmed by observation. People traveling in a space ship going near the speed of light relative to Earth will experience time going "normally" for them but faster on Earth, while we experience time normally and see them as going slower in time. The STR treats time as a dimension mathematically, but that is merely a computational convenience.

Yeah I know, re-check my post, I did tons of editing.

.... time dilation usually connotes moments of eureka, or moments of consciouness expansion.... seeing/experiencing higher - dimensional reality in its highly simplified states. It's like the 1st general to climb the nearest hill on the battlefield and to see the now 3-dimensional battlefield in a more simplified and advantageous state, away from the chaos and confusion of being submerged in the midst of the 2-dimensional battlefield.

When time slows down. we are able to acquire and process more information. We notice an increase in the occurane of quantum physical events.

In terms of time as a creation of the mind, your absolutly correct Trip.

Thats why time appears to move more slowly when we are bored and faster when we are having fun.


Can you elaborate on this?

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

I tried formulate an order for the beginning of everything, and for a while I had time as the fourth dimension. But after thinking a little longer and harder it is probably the first dimension, although its more likely to be a symptom of a dimension, not a dimension itself.

My reasoning is fairly simple, without a succession of events, nothing would exist. Therefore whatever time actually is, it was required before reactions took place and anything could form. So my likely position for time is first or second. It may be second because when everything was a singularity, a succession of events was required before a "line" was possible.

If you take the special theory of relativity to its extreme, you have to consider that time is running at normal speed within subatomic structures and galaxies - not what our extremely fast or slow realities are. Therefore huge processes may be going on, possibly even the birth of lifeforms and their subsequent extinction - all we'd see is noise and energy because it'd all be happening near and possibly in excess of the speed of light.

The 4th demension is all about energy and trying to equal the energy that surrounds you. Even though energy and vibration are the same the 5th demension is all about the vibrations that you feel, and you are able to manifest anything you desire.
There is allot of people in this 5th right now.
Anna:)

Oh really? sounds like 3d disguised as five.

To which category of dimensions do you refer, if any?

With all of this theorizing lets just say that there is one dimension--lets try to make this dimension indesputable...I will do my best at giving this a shot. I will call this one and only dimension existance. If all of life is an illusion, then we cannot even claim our 3 dimensions to exist. I suppose the "existance" dimension can be verified with the fact that I percieve SOMETHING regardless of whether or not it is flase, the perception exists and thus SOMETHING exists--the first and only verifiable dimension*

Nice approach Flex, alas nothing is verifiable, one dimension being viewed as the dimension of perception is the same as having a perception about ten dimensions. Dimensions are about HOW we percieve things, not if we percieve them. A dimension in theory is simply a level of perception that exists or could exist that we are in or are not in. Dimensions soley refer to and exist in perception. A dimension made of perception doesnt make much sense.

Your making good progress on the way you approach ideas though, keep it up. Perception, unfortunatly, like anything is also a thing of the human mind, we created this concept of perception, just like we created the concept of dimensions and perspective.

When thinking of dimensions try this.

Perception = Dimension = Perspective

If we perceive perception and it is created, then when we percieve ten dimensions they are also created, thus both are equal in the ability to be verified. So that is the major problem in your theory Flex.

Also, watch out for selective logic, if you apply a rule to one thing it must invariably apply to others in the same situation - not doing so leads you down a philosophical nightmare.

Well I disagree with removing the three space dimensions. We began thinking of dimensions when we began to paint 2D images on the rock face in paleolithic times, and then expanded it with geometric calculations. Later, Einstein worked with a single spacetime dimension in his calculations and that works too. But if there is only a singular spacetime reality, then length, breadth and width are all properties of that singular dimension.

All of these ideas are correct from a perceptual and mathematical point of view, but it doesn't mean they are the reality. However I still don't feel we should abandon them too quickly. Think about computer graphics. Computers are unable to display/approximate matter without 3 points in space. First dimension gives us a point, second a line, but its not until the third point is added that we get a surface that is capable of being displayed, or realised.

We created computers from the understanding brought about by our early ideas of the world, and it seems to work extremely well because it is a mathematical model. Does this new form of art and visualisation not shed some light onto our reality, or do people see it as a simple toy we've been developing for our art?

About 7 or so months ago I did come up with a theory about how a forth dimension could exist.

You have 3d which is existant, now if you were to add a forth point to that equation, one going from one 3d to another, you would have a 4th dimension. Allow me to explain.

Lets say we have point a, b and c. They make up our universe, now what about if you wanted to view a diffent 3 dimensional space while remaining in the same point in space? Well you would use a telescope or something to view somewhere else. But lets say you wanted to view the same point in space but see something diffrent, without changing anything.

Well you would have a forth dimension that would be similar to a parallel universe, allowing one to step into one reality, move from point a to point b, then exit back out of the other universe and arrive at point b in the original universe.

That would be a forth dimension, allowing multiple 'things' to exist in the same space, without affecting each other.

Okay il try to simplifiy this concept with a story. A man was walking down a bright white hallway, in front of him was a door, he opened the door and saw a beautiful forest. When he walked through the door and looked back, there was no walls, no hallway, just a great big tree in the middle of the forest. This puzzled him at first, so he kept on walking through this forest until he saw a small pond. He dove into the pond and when he re-emeged he found himself in a bathtub. He step out of the bathtub, a bit stunned and walked out the bathroom door, low and behold he was back in the hallway.

I am not sure if I have explained it well enough, anyways tell me your thoughts on this.

As a coder I always thought the way multidimension arrays are implemented is similar to that concept.
arr(0) - 1 dimension (list)
arr(0,0) - 2 dimensions (grid)
arr(0,0,0) - 3 dimensions (cube)
arr(0,0,0,0) - 4 dimensions (lost now )

There are no contradictions with theorizing time as a 4th dimension. I will discuss your thinking that you provided in your original post after some initial thoughts of my own.

(By the way, one cannot speak of time being "the fourth dimension," because this depends on the order in which one labels the dimensions, and it is also impossible to distinguish "the" 3 axes of 3 other dimensions because the conceptualization can be constructed differently; and physical bodies would just relate differently in the mathematics)

Of course, the notion of 'dimensions' is highly subjective. One can make formalizations within mathematics, but because there exists a one-to-one correspondence (read up on set theory, countability, and Georg Cantor) between R^n (which can be thought of as n-dimensional [Euclidean] space) and R (the set of real numbers, which can be thought of as a line/continuum/or 1-dimensional space), all we can conclude with reasonable certainty is about our perception and its insight into the nature of relation between objects within reality.

Basically, in a formal mathematical tone, I mean to say that the notion of dimensions is entirely subjective, not objective, because it is possible to theorize and explain away all that we have observed within terms of any number of dimensions.

But, in physics, time may be thought of as a fourth dimension which can explain observed mathematical data about our physical world in a more approachable and intuitive way. This makes it easier to understand what we have observed in physics, which makes it easier to theorize, which means we will be able to set up more original experiments, which means physics as a science will progress faster.



The first dimension would be a line. That is correct.

The second dimension is not length AND height. Length is still the first dimension, but the newcomer concept of height is the second dimension.

The third dimension would not be length, height, and width, but rather just the new notion of width.

In more abstract mathematical terms, these dimensions are referred to as the x-axis, the y-axis, and the z-axis. This is a simple and naive approach to structuring space, and is called Euclidean 3-space. (Or, in a set-theoretic tone, you could say R^3, which is a coproduct of spaces...., I won't get into that here.)

The idea of an angle is really just an assignment of a property to 3 points. mABC is the angle of the vertex that is formed by the union of the line segment AB and the line segment BC. This is geometry. But, it can also be traced back to measure theory because angles, in radians, can be described by arc length and the unit circle. All of this can be traced back to what is called the "Foundations of Mathematics." (A highly rigorous formalization of your commonsense ideas.) So really it isn't another dimension, it is a property of points, elements, or subsets within an n-dimensional space, like the idea of distance, area, or volume.

What you mean by a dimension consisting of the dimensions before it is actually that (n+1)dimensional space consists of all of the dimensions of n-dimensional space but extended or continued further along an (n+1)th dimension. Since you misunderstand the difference between an individual dimension and a space composed of many, you think that time cannot be a dimension. It can be.

I have constructed a little portrayal of dimensions which I think you might be able to comprehend. Think of a square along the xy plane. Now imagine a cube in xyz space. You notice that the cube is really just an infinite number of squares aligned next to each other along the z axis. So - we can think of the cube as a continuation of an infinite number of squares along another axis, which may be thought of as an individual object itself. Likewise, you can think of all of physical reality in out '3-dimensional' world at an infinite number of different times, string them into a continuation, and think of it as one large object.

That, my friend, is space-time. Hyperbolic geometry will be a story for another time, though.

(PS - at your apparent level with respect to modern mathematicians, you have no reason to be blabbing about such trivial things )