View Full Version : time

01-19-2002, 10:08 PM
Time is a thing...it might not be a tangible thing...and our interpretation of time is completely relative....but time IS a thing...

therefore...could there be multiple instances of time?

and if there are multiple instances of time, does that consitute going into the past and/or future?

01-19-2002, 11:44 PM
it might not be a tangible thing.

If it's not tangible, then it must be abstract.

be multiple instances of time?

If it's abstract, some functions need to be overwridden in order to instantiate time. However, after it has been implemented, it can be instantiated as long as many times as memory allows.

01-20-2002, 12:58 AM
Perhaps you should read "A Brief History Of Time" by Stephen Hawking.

01-20-2002, 01:01 AM
Time is a dimension. Can there be two x axes in one existence?

01-20-2002, 01:05 AM
Has it ever been proven time is actually the 4th dimension? How? (please don't tell me to read Hawking...)

01-20-2002, 01:07 AM
conceptially it holds the same characteristics as a physical dimension...

01-20-2002, 01:08 AM
> the same characteristics as a physical dimension...

Which are?

01-20-2002, 01:11 AM
volume and mass (is that correct da? my physics are pretty damn rusty).

01-20-2002, 01:14 AM
they are both scalars... let me think about it for a while i'll get back to you if i can.

01-20-2002, 01:15 AM
Mass? How is that an inherent characteristic of a dimension? I guess I don't understand how anything but the 3rd dimension has mass... To have mass, you'd need volume, wouldn't you?

Also, how can volume be part of any dimension but the 3rd?

01-20-2002, 09:49 AM
>>Time is a dimension. Can there be two x axes in one existence?

yes a negative and a positive

01-20-2002, 10:49 AM
>yes a negative and a positive

those would still be on the same axis.

if you were to ask if you could have two vectors in one dimension, then the answer would be yes... otherwise no...

01-20-2002, 11:41 AM
This needs to be said:
Get a life.

01-20-2002, 01:58 PM
lol! Thank you Brian. I love it when someone else says what i'm thinking so i dont have to. :D

01-20-2002, 02:24 PM
Hmm...The thing is that even though time is generally thought of as a dimension, it has many qualities that are unlike any other dimension. As of today, there have been no known ways to travel back in time, but you can go back on any other dimension by going the opposite way...So, if it is a dimension, it is a very DIFFERENT dimension, due to the laws of physics.

01-20-2002, 02:30 PM
>>This needs to be said:
Get a life.<<

Well said.

01-20-2002, 02:46 PM
I heard time was another type of dimension other than a spacial dimension....what is it?

01-20-2002, 03:20 PM
Yes it is. The dimension of time is totally one way, at this point. To go back in time would be against the current laws of physics. What would happen if you knew your own future? It's not the same as knowing what is in front of you or to your sides, or above you. So yes, it is a different kind of dimension.

01-20-2002, 03:37 PM
time is relative

it exists if you think it does, same as this post....

<end of profound mode)

01-20-2002, 04:20 PM
LoL, so if I don't think it exists, it doesn't exist? Your post is always there, no matter what I think, am I right?

01-20-2002, 08:45 PM
string theory proposes that you can harness stars as machines to travel through time....but the needed energy is like a billion times more than we currently produce.(ok i dont remember but it was prob a billion billion times or something:))

E i F x 65
01-20-2002, 09:35 PM
time is a dimension as any other

01-20-2002, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by E i F x 65
time is a dimension as any other

Time is not as any other dimension. As of this moment, time only goes one way, while other dimensions can go 2 ways. (forwards or backwards, up or down, left or right)

The dimension of time is an interesting paradox.

01-20-2002, 11:11 PM
but see how can one go in a negative direction? the only way i can go in a negative direction is if i set some point to be the origin... the direction below and/or to the left of the origin is considered negative only because one says it so...

01-21-2002, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by Govtcheez
Has it ever been proven time is actually the 4th dimension? How? (please don't tell me to read Hawking...)

Well I don't know about any 4th Dimensions, but I'll try and shrink down the crux of Hawking's theories on time (although this is really very bare bones so don't get picky with me if you are an expert on this stuff).

Hawking says (A Brief History Of Time, p 8) that "the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe". I gather this implies that time is relative to the creation of the universe. He futher goes on to state that in an unchanging universe, a beginning in time is something that would have to be imposed from something "outside" the universe, which means that there wouldn't need to be a physical necessity for a beginning. However, the universe is expanding, so it isn't unchanging, and must have a had a starting point for this to be possible.

Time would pretty much then rely on a "beginning" and an "end" to the universe. I don't think therefore time is its own separate dimension.

01-21-2002, 01:18 AM
None of the dimensions can be reversed. You can not have negative length (except prahaps with antimatter). You can trace them back to the 0 point just as you can with time (history).

Objects exist as dimensions and energy which may change over time. So an object has not only its current paramaters but those that are modified by time. A plant, for example, grows over time.

I was taught that time is the measure distance between points of mass in space. It is also relative to speed (difference only measureable to us at speeds close to that of light).