Time is the 4th dimension

[james bond]

If you calculate relativistic effects along with their equivalent Lorenz transformations, you get a curious result. The return to Newtonian physics, but only from a single point of view.

As you approach the speed of light (an absolute speed limit to particles with a rest mass) you also experience time slowing down. That decrease in the rate time passes changes your perception to make it look like you're going faster than you actually are.

So when you travel .707 times the speed of light. From your reference frame it looks like you're traveling the speed of light.

So if you used the stars as distance markers, you would travel 6 trillion miles in a year. But of course, your year would actually be slowed, and the actual passage of time would be 1.4 years.

So you would think Newton was driving, until you arrived and Einstein would tell the true story.

Even if we could travel near the c, we would not affect time that much. We could travel into the future as time would be slower on Earth when we returned, but we would not have gone that far into the future. One would have to travel near c for some time to make say a ten-year difference from their space age vs. Earth age.

Also, we could not travel back into the past as we could never travel fast enough to catch up with past light waves. In theory. I'm not sure what happens to past matter. Maybe traveling back in time is an illusion as there is no past matter but only past light.

 

[Wuwei]

All of Newtons equations work in two dimensions, as well as three.

If you are referring to planets largely orbiting in a 2-d plane, the space is still 3-D.
If you are really talking about "flat land" then gravitational attraction by a field would not be an inverse square law.
.

 

[Wuwei]

You are wacko. Atheism isn't science, but that's what the atheist scientists and evolutionary thinkers ASSUME with their science. There can be no creation. However, KCA, logic, and creation science show otherwise. For example, we know the chicken came before the egg. That was proven. Evolution has no cosmological argument. They do not know what caused the big bang. They lie about singularity.

Of course, you continually digress. You're the one who follows me around because I've shown radiometric dating is erroneous in this thread. Its founder was wacko. The 18.7 and 4.5 billions years are ridiculous and a fairy tale. It wasn't that long ago that the atheists wouldn't believe the universe wasn't eternal. Only the CMB proved them wrong and they were forced to admit as much. Now, they claim radiometric dating is accurate. No such thing. Neither side can show how old the Earth is. Each side uses their own form of dating.

Of course atheism is not science. Lots of Christians believe in evolution. Even Pope Francis says it does not contradict the idea of creation and God was not “a magician with a magic wand.”

You have been following me since post #32. You are the one trolling this and many other science threads trying to digress it toward religion. As I said, if you continue trolling me and spouting your ignorant posts in this thread I will challenge your "science" and creationism.

You still need to think about this:
The Scientific Method:

Start with the facts, and see what conclusions can be drawn from them.​

The Creationist Method.

Start with the conclusion, and see what facts are consistent with it. Ignore all facts that aren't.​

The creationist methodology is not science.

.

 

[james bond]

Of course atheism is not science. Lots of Christians believe in evolution. Even Pope Francis says it does not contradict the idea of creation and God was not “a magician with a magic wand.”

You have been following me since post #32. You are the one trolling this and many other science threads trying to digress it toward religion. As I said, if you continue trolling me and spouting your ignorant posts in this thread I will challenge your "science" and creationism.

You still need to think about this:
The Scientific Method:

Start with the facts, and see what conclusions can be drawn from them.​

The Creationist Method.

Start with the conclusion, and see what facts are consistent with it. Ignore all facts that aren't.​

The creationist methodology is not science.

.

There are some Christians who have been fooled into evolutionary thinking, but I think most believe in creation science.

To the contrary, I had to get you back on topic and you still can't discuss the topic and don't know what the topic means. You don't know much about creation science and have been fooled by evolutionary thinking and their lies. Anything that you do here requires space and time. That's because you are matter. We need four dimensions created by the creator. Do you understand how we can travel into the future with special relativity? Even then, it isn't a great amount of time into the future due to our not being able to travel at light speeds. Do you understand why we can't travel back in time due to the speed of light? You don't. It's no wonder you follow me around and can't accept creation science nor understand it.

You just lied stating the creationist methodology is not science. To me, the creation science method is described on top and the evolutionist method on the bottom. Many of the greatest scientists in history were creation scientists. It's no wonder you're the one upset about creation science and are the one following me around.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What is the outside dimension?

All Is Lava

It is the universe that created our universe. The Big Bang was a volcanic eruption, a reverse Black Hole. The Singularity was an impossible concentration; the physicists' undeserved reputations overpower independent thinking.

 

[percysunshine]

We’re so used to the world being in 3 dimensions that we forget that the 4th exist and it’s called time

Yeah, but it is a one way street..

Kind of sucks.

 

[Wuwei]

There are some Christians who have been fooled into evolutionary thinking, but I think most believe in creation science.

To the contrary, I had to get you back on topic and you still can't discuss the topic and don't know what the topic means. You don't know much about creation science and have been fooled by evolutionary thinking and their lies. Anything that you do here requires space and time. That's because you are matter. We need four dimensions created by the creator. Do you understand how we can travel into the future with special relativity? Even then, it isn't a great amount of time into the future due to our not being able to travel at light speeds. Do you understand why we can't travel back in time due to the speed of light? You don't. It's no wonder you follow me around and can't accept creation science nor understand it.

You just lied stating the creationist methodology is not science. To me, the creation science method is described on top and the evolutionist method on the bottom. Many of the greatest scientists in history were creation scientists. It's no wonder you're the one upset about creation science and are the one following me around.

So you think the pope has been fooled. You keep following me around going off topic and trolling and proselytizing your anti-science on a science forum.

I already explained why creationism isn't science. You have been fooled by only going to creation sites.

.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So you think the pope has been fooled. You keep following me around going off topic and trolling and proselytizing your anti-science on a science forum.

I already explained why creationism isn't science. You have been fooled by only going to creation sites.

.

The Fall of Man Happens When Nature Is Believed to Be Supernatural

You miss the point of the Bible, which is that Man is the second most important being. The proportion is: Man— 6.000 years; Everything else— 5 days. Anti-Christians also push their own point: Man is an insignificant and short-term piece of dust compared to the size of the Universe and the eons it's been around.

 

[Wuwei]

The Fall of Man Happens When Nature Is Believed to Be Supernatural

You miss the point of the Bible, which is that Man is the second most important being. The proportion is: Man— 6.000 years; Everything else— 5 days. Anti-Christians also push their own point: Man is an insignificant and short-term piece of dust compared to the size of the Universe and the eons it's been around.

I think of man as an amazing most important being with the intelligence and curiosity and ability to discover much about how the universe works from the big bang down to the elementary particles.

We don't know anything deeper than that. You can abstractly define a "first cause" but there is no reason to call it a being and it does nothing to further enhance our knowledge.

I think it does an injustice to refer to beloved people as dust, but that's what Christians priests often do at a burial ceremonies.
.

 

[Feeding Crows]

If time is a human construct (¿how do we create time?) then this has nothing to do with "want". We sense time as real and we could do nothing in this world here without time. What kind of science is it to be able to sense and to measure a phenomenon and to say it is not real what we measure?

When my good old friend Albert Einstein said "time is an illusion" he said it on 2 reasons: The first was a condolence card to the wife of another physicist who had died - and in the other cases he spoke about the direction of time in macro-cosmic structures. The formulas work the same way direction past and direction future. And other people found out that determination not means always to be able to calculate a valid result.

The Fourth Dimension would be a warpature of the Third Dimension. Bending 3D space into something we can't understand. Bending space/time into doughnut shapes everywhere matter exists. To view our 3 dimensions from a 4 dimension perspective, is something mind-bending, it would be just infinite doughnuts everywhere. Time is not the 4th dimension. it's a measurement of those dimensions.

 

[Feeding Crows]

And then keep it going. Space keeps folding onto itself, creating more dimensions, more infinite donuts, more dimensions more donuts! It just keeps going until the point where we get to quantum physics and the really crazy stuff. And it very likely still keeps going from there!

 

[zaangalewa]

The Fourth Dimension would be a warpature of the Third Dimension.

A what? ... A war pasture? ...

Bending 3D space into something we can't understand.

Why? If we take a piece of paper then we are easily able to bend it in the third dimension. The same could happen with a room in a 4th dimension. And we would notice nothing about - as a 2 dimensional entity on a piece of paper would also notice nothing about. All directions and angles keep what they are inside the piece of paper as well as inside of the room.

The 4th dimension of the theory of relativity is something else. It's a Minkowski space - the trick of a magical mathematician. He just simple multiplied the dimensions "time" with the lightspeed and this is the 4th dimension of the spacetime.

Bending space/time into doughnut shapes everywhere matter exists.

Mass. And I never heard the spacetime (=a 4 dimensional space) become a torus or hypertorus.

To view our 3 dimensions from a 4 dimension perspective, is something mind-bending,

The problem is the 4th dimension. Mathematically this is easy - but it's unimaginable and very abstract.

it would be just infinite doughnuts everywhere. Time is not the 4th dimension. it's a measurement of those dimensions.

It's a wonderful nice idea - with an high beauty - but I don't see any reality in such a thought. A mass just simple expands the spacetime (=the Minkowski space). The spacetime gets a dent. So the distances there are longer.

 

[Feeding Crows]

Why? If we take a piece of paper then we are easily able to bend it in the third dimension. The same could happen with a room in a 4th dimension. And we would notice nothing about - as a 2 dimensional entity on a piece of paper would also notice nothing about. All directions and angles keep what they are inside the piece of paper as well as inside of the room.

Fold the paper again, and you get an idea of the 4th dimension. Keep folding, and maybe you'll understand.

I won't be nice again. Jus saying.

 

[james bond]

I think of man as an amazing most important being with the intelligence and curiosity and ability to discover much about how the universe works from the big bang down to the elementary particles.

Just remember that when you think of former President Donald J. Trump. Instead, we get ignorants like Joe Biden as pretzel.

You still need to think about this:
The Scientific Method:
Start with the facts, and see what conclusions can be drawn from them.

The Creationist Method.
Start with the conclusion, and see what facts are consistent with it. Ignore all facts that aren't.
The creationist methodology is not science.

The facts are creationist Sir Francis Bacon came up with the scientific method. Thus you are wrong about the creationist method. We go by the what the Bible says and science backs up the Bible even though it isn't a science book. We believe and use the scientific method.

Second, you do not understand what facts are. Facts are what EVERYONE can use -- atheists, creationists and agnostics.

Thus, your argument isn't even logical.

We start with with faith in God and the Bible as part of creation science. Why don't you admit that the Atheist Method does the same thing of "Start with the conclusion and see what facts are consistent with it. Your side ASSUMES there are no god/gods and that's it. Even I recognize there are two faiths and arguments involved and call it creation science vs atheist science. It sounds like you can't accept someone else's science pov due to mass ignorance.

 

[james bond]

Fold the paper again, and you get an idea of the 4th dimension. Keep folding, and maybe you'll understand.

I won't be nice again. Jus saying.

Your analogy isn't scientific. We can't fold the paper again past the 4th dimension.

In this universe, we can't fold the paper past the 4th dimension. Then, we are talking about a spiritual world apart from the universe and its four dimensions. I think the atheist scientists only believe in four dimension.s

 

[zaangalewa]

Fold the paper again, and you get an idea of the 4th dimension.

What did you not understand from this what I said? It is very concrete what I said about the so called "4th dimension" of the so called "spacetime" (Minkowksi space). 1s * 299,792,458 m/s = 299,792,458 m. So easy is it to transform time into space (and back into time: 299,792,458 m / 299,792,458 m/s = 1 s). In a 3 dimensional space you calculate with three values (x1, x2, x3). In a 4 dimensional space with 4 values (x1, x2, x3, x4). Not a big problem.

Keep folding, and maybe you'll understand.

I don't have any idea where your torus should exist within a 4 dimensional space and what this could mean: Which observation (or experiment) is basing on this idea?

I won't be nice again. Jus saying.

US-Americans will always be a secret to me. What's wrong with you culture? Why think so many people in your world a gun in the hands has something to do with truth? Are your schools so bad?

 

[zaangalewa]

What is the outside dimension? ...

That's exactly what's so difficult to understand - although it is on the other side totally simple. There is no outside. The univere - the space on its own - expands from all points into all directions. Whereever you you will travel you will see this. So all points are always only in the middle - and nowhere is an outside.

 

[zaangalewa]

Even if we could travel near the c, we would not affect time that much. We could travel into the future as time would be slower on Earth when we returned, but we would not have gone that far into the future. One would have to travel near c for some time to make say a ten-year difference from their space age vs. Earth age.

Also, we could not travel back into the past as we could never travel fast enough to catch up with past light waves. In theory. I'm not sure what happens to past matter. Maybe traveling back in time is an illusion as there is no past matter but only past light.

A good question. What is really there now where was "yesterday" yesterday. A picture of our film? Nothing? Another universe? We calculate and see what yesterday had been - but what means this really? The Dalai Lama compared our life once with a "ride on a razor blade" between past and future. This "razor blade" is practically the moment now and every particle which reaches us in this moment from all different times of the past. This all is able to have an influence on us now. And what we do now will have an influence in the future - which is where now?

 

[james bond]

A good question. What is really there now where was "yesterday" yesterday. A picture of our film? Nothing? Another universe? We calculate and see what yesterday had been - but what means this really? The Dalai Lama compared our life once with a "ride on a razor blade" between past and future. This "razor blade" is practically the moment now and every particle which reaches us in this moment from all different times of the past. This all is able to have an influence on us now. And what we do now will have an influence in the future - which is where now?

I think light is matter, so past light would be matter, too. If we could go faster than light, then theoretically we should be able to travel into the past. Likely, gravity would prevent us from going much faster. I think our rockets are built to go around a planet to pick up speed like a sling shot. Also, collisions with other heavenly bodies would be another problem.

 

[zaangalewa]

I think light is matter, so past light would be matter, too.

Light has no mass. But since a very short time it is proved that 2 colliding photons with a high energy are producing an electron and a positron.

If we could go faster than light, then theoretically we should be able to travel into the past.

But we don't know what this means. The key is in the Lorenz factor.

You can see that alpha (1-v2/c2) is a half circle for v>0. And we miss the other half circle for v<0 - for a negative speed.

Likely, gravity would prevent us from going much faster.

Except perhaps we will find something like a negative gravity. But what will we see? An old known land or a new unknown land?

I think our rockets are built to go around a planet to pick up speed like a sling shot. Also, collisions with other heavenly bodies would be another problem.

Oh no. That's not a big problem. As far as I heard the Chinese are planing a multi generation spaceship in gigantic dimensions. Unfortunatelly your biosphere experiments never were continued. But if we create a kind of artificial mini-planet in a ship - with a complete biosphere - why not to try it? The La Gallega - named from Columbus "La Santa Maria" - was also only a nutshell. Within a very short time a multi-generation ship - which creates civilisations which are able to build multi-generation ships on their own - could spread life all over our galaxy.