Summations Only

Again, this is what we're doing:

quote:

---

There are 3 spatial dimensions in our universe because that's how many dimensions are required in order to locate a physical object in our universe.

​

If you can describe the location of a thing at x, y, z that is completely independant of time... that is, the object is always there regardless of the time... I will concede that time is not a dimension of our universe.

---

Your first attempt is "God." Are you saying God's location x, y, z co-ordinates are "everywhere" and that he has a physical body similar to mine?
Okay, then.
God exists "now," apparently, where you can see Him.
God does not exist "2 seconds ago" in my office, where I cannot see Him. And yes, I did look.
We can continue with this if you'd like... but it may be best to use a physical object we both actually agree exists in the first place. Otherwise, it's fairly easy for me to simply tell you that God doesn't exist anywhere, anytime... and this will be enough to falsify the suggestion as I'm sure you cannot prove God exists in physical form at any specific co-ordinates... or else you would be more popular with the American media (to say the least).
Conclusion: Time is a dimension.Your second attempt is an unspecified "well known form" existing at some specific longitude, latitude and elevation co-ordinates. I didn't see where... but okay.
Time it exists at those co-ordinates: The specific year that ICANT specified (I'll take your word for it).
Time it does not exist at those co-ordinates: The time of 10 years before the planet existed. There is no elevation, therefore your specific co-ordinates don't even exist. Therefore, the object can't be there because the location cannot even be identified.
Conclusion: Time is a dimension.Your third attempt is your house. I agree that your house exists "now" and "recently." Those are the implied time values when you speak colloquially in this way. Perhaps even a few hundred years old (depending on when it was built).
Time your house existed: "now" or "recently"
Time your house did not exist: 1000 years ago, say the year of 1012. Your house was not built yet, so it did not exist at that location. Therefore, yes, I am saying that you cannot give me the co-ordinates of your house without the dimension of time (and I'm showing it to you, as well).
Conclusion: Time is a dimension.Keep trying, though.
All you have to do is come up with one single physical thing where you can specify the x, y and z co-ordinates for it's location and have it not depend on time. Do that, and I'll concede that time is not a dimension.
Of course, with all your continued efforts failing, it is only adding to the evidence that time is, in fact, a dimension. By all means, please continue. No. I'm telling you that your car's frame did not exist 300 years ago. Are you moving the goalposts to now ask about the materials that were used to create your car's frame? That is irrelevant to the true statement that your car did not exist 300 years ago. The frame will have a serial number on it. You can use that serial number to look up the exact date the frame was created.

Hi Mod, Length, width, and height are tools we use to measure object of mass.Time is a tool we use to measure duration between events in existence. We will just agree to disagree as our philosophies are worlds apart. Well no you have not explained how I travel through time. Sure it does.Time as we know it has only existed a few thousand years.Before that there was duration in existence.We are talking about whether the universe had a beginning to exist (creationism) or has always existed, in some form. Yes we got so smart we could declare a certain number of those vibrations a second.But what is a second based upon?The atomic clock will vary much less that the rotation of the earth.The earths spin is slowing down, and because the earth is not a perfect timepiece the atomic clocks have to be adjusted with a leap second every so often so they are in sync with the rotation of the earth. That something is a tool mankind has created to measure duration.We are living proof that non-existence did not exist. If non-existence had existed we would not be here.Therefore creation did not take place.There is eternal infinite existence.The only option is that all things begin to exist in and out of non-existence.Which is impossible. If you disagree please explain your reasoning.God Bless,

Yes. The earth is not a perfect time piece. It is imperfect as a specifier of duration. So why do you insist on relying on the rotation of the earth as the only correct measure of the passage of time?Why do you use rotation of the earth as an absolute reference when you know that the length of day/night varies throughout the year. Sidereal time might make a little more sense, because at least that time is not subjected to seasonal variations.Further, what causes you to believe that the rotation of the earth operates any differently than do atomic clocks, biological clocks, mechanical clocks etc. with respect to time dilation? For some reason you seem to find that result surprising.

Hi Son, I don't know He has always had clothes on. Yes I have heard and audible voice and had His physical hand on my physical shoulder. Sounds crazy to me too, as well as unbeliveable.God Bless,

Reasoning has been offered. One possible answer is that you have not listed all of the possible options, and thus your operation of elimination has failed. Another possible answer is that things can be created out of non-existence of the universe. A third possibility is that time itself was created along with the universe and that causality itself is meaningless without time.But no one will ever be able to provide answers to your satisfaction. You've asked the same questions in thread after thread, and you always dismiss each answer given with a wave of the hand, and then return to insisting that no possibility is given.So the goal of the discussion cannot be to convince you, but simply to provide an answer for lurkers who aren't quite as dismissive. I think that has been done multiple times, and in multiple threads.

Hi No, Silly me I didn't know that the length of the light period and dark period caused the earth to rotate at different speeds.Wait a minute it doesn't. To begin with the earth rotates on it axis 1 complete rotation in what man has determined is a day.The atomic clock operates on the viberations of the atom.Seems like a difference to me. I don't find the results of the fairy tale of time dilation surprising just unbelieveable.Just as soon as someone builds the spaceship that can travel at near the speed of light and someone preforms the experiment get back to me on that one.God Bless,

Where do you suppose he shops? Crazy, maybe, unbelieveable, no. Many people claim to hear voices and see images. Some claim it's God, others don't really know who the person is. It's a sign of mental illness, related to but not specifically: schizophrenic disorders, manic depression and psychosis. I have a friend who suffers from this, and oddly enough, like you, he tends to see the voice as a positive too.You should think about looking into psychiatric help though. It's not a sign of a healthy brain to hear and see images that no one else can. Just some advice.- Oni

Sure, but the entire realm of physics and the equations produced by Einstein don't stop being a fact just because YOU can't believe it. If you were right, don't you think some post-grad physics student looking to make a name for him/her/self would have already discovered it and turned the scientific world upside down?Do you honestly believe you've found a fault in Eiinsteins equations and NO ONE else in the world of physics has?What's more likely, that you simply don't understand what's being explained to you or that Einstein was wrong?- Oni

Hi No, Not really.I may not have presented all possible options but no one else has presented an option. First the universe would have to exist in order for the universe to be created out of the non-existence of the universe.That is circular reasoning. This would be creation from non-existence.Would you care to explain how 1 quark or gluon could be created out of non-existence.Is your mind capable of understanding what non-existence is or has it been filled with too much nonsense?Start by naming things that exist and eliminate them 1 by 1 until there is no thing left in existence to eliminate. Then eliminate existence and you have non-existence.There would be no vaccum for two branes to exist in, or Hawking's instanton. There would simply be non-existence.Now explain how anything could begin to exist, when there was non-existence.God Bless,

Hi Stile, I am glad you agree my house exist, I was beginning to worry a little bit.My house has existed from the day I bought it until now. It is problematic that it will exist Nov. 27, 2012.Time denotes the duration in existence that the house I reside in has been my house.Therefore time is not a dimension of the universe but rather a tool that measures the duration the house I live in has been my house. That is correct, as I did not exist therefore it could not be my house. Sure I can give you the coordinates of my house they are x,y,z.The only thing you are showing me is your ignorance.My house did not become my house until I purchased it. If I sell it on Nov. 27, 2012 it will cease to be my house. Since I am alive and have just given you the coordinates of my house there is no time dimension involved.God Bless,Lets put a fork in this turkey and get a little closer to the topic as this turkey is done as far as I am concerned.

I don't think Stile is worried about the ownership of the house.He simply means for you to give the coordinates of your house it requires the time dimension, since the structure did not exist prior to it being built, obviously. So the coordinates to find a house could not have been given, say, 200 years ago since the structure was not there, obviously. Therefore time remains a requirement, obviously.The coordinates of the structure are x,y,z and now. But, not x,y,z, year 1702.- Oni

Nonsense. Several options have been presented by multiple people.If it is the case that you have not presented all of the options, then your process of elimination fails. You need to demonstrate or at least provide a plausibility argument that there are no other options as part of making your case. So far you have merely asserted that such is the case.Given your track record of misunderstanding science, I am not going to accept naked assertions from you. No one should. I think you meant to say that the contrary would be circular reasoning. I suggest not, and I provide an alternative that is not circular for the purpose of rebutting your statement. As an alternative, the universe could be created out of some naturally occuring pre-cursor which already existed but that was not the universe.I don't have to prove that such is the case. You need to provide an argument that such is not the case. Again, your personal assertion are not of much value during a reasoned disagreement. You owe at least an argument. Labeling alternatives "impossible" is not an argument The quarks could have come from an extra-universe source. Well no. As long as the branes are not part of the universe, then there is no difficulty in having them exist independently from the universe and thus have them involved in the creation of our universe.If, in fact, it is possible to have multiple universes, then we cannot maintain the fiction that there must be "A universe" that contains everything that can or will exist.And I note that you left out one of the options I proposed. You have not addressed the possibility that the creation of time concurrently with the rest of the universe means that causality of the universe is a meaningless question. I don't personally know if I accept that possibility, but you have certainly heard it bfore. Should I assume that your omission was an accident? I find that difficult to do since it is the option that you have heard provided most frequently.

Hello ICANT. I hope your day is going well, mine is going great. This is not true. Time is a dimension.
And we have developed a test to show that is, in fact, a dimension:

quote:

---

You can prove me wrong... just describe the x, y, z location of any physical thing without implying a time component.
I will provide two different time components... one making your location description correct, and one making it false.

​

If you can describe the location of a thing at x, y, z that is completely independant of time... that is, the object is always there regardless of the time... I will concede that time is not a dimension of our universe.
If I'm able to describe time components when that location is correct, and when it is false... then I will be right and time will be a dimension of our universe.

​

Message 382

---

So far you have proposed 3 suggestions.
I have already done what I said I would do for all 3 of your suggestions (give you a time when the object exists, and a time when the object does not exist). Therefore you have yet to show that time is not a dimension.
However, we do seem to be stuck on the 3rd one, so we will continue: Claim: Your house exists at x, y, z.
Time your house exists at x, y, z: Nov. 26, 2012.
Time your house did not exist at x, y, z: Nov. 26, 1012 (or "1000 years ago").I am able to show a time when your house did exist at this location, and a time when your house did not exist at this location.
Therefore... your house's location does indeed depend on a time value.
Conclusion: Time is a dimensionYes, you've offered 3 suggestions for time not being a dimension. But all 3 suggestions have failed as I have shown that all 3 do depend on time.
Conclusion: Time is in fact a dimension.If you are now convinced that time is a dimension, then we can continue the discussion.
If you are not convinced that time is a dimension, feel free to provide a 4th suggestion and we can continue.
Please, do continue to offer suggestions. The more things I show to be dependent on time, the more evidence piles up that time is in fact a dimension of our universe.The fork has been stuck in this turkey for a very long time, ICANT. Science has understood that time is a dimension of our universe for longer than you have been alive.But, as I said before:

quote:

---

Don't worry, even if your first guess is wrong, we can do this over and over again until you are satisfied.

​

Message 382

---

We can stop if you are satisfied that time is a dimension.
If not, feel free to try some more suggestions.

Such space ships are not required to perform time dilation experiments. Time dilation is not just a thought experiment anymore.Time dilation occurs at relative speeds well below the speed of light. In fact, time dilation is measurable at the speeds at which earth orbitting satellites and jet planes travel, and the effect has been measured in those contexts. We can also measure gravitational time dilation effects that occur by moving only a few feet above the surface of the earth. Do you have some logical reason why the effect can be observed at 500 mph, but would disipate at higher speeds?And of course, time dilation effects have been observed with particles traveling very near the speed of light. Why is it reasonable to ignore those? [1]It is not reasonable to ignore such evidence. Your desire to place the effect out beyond the bounds of what is achievable is amusing, or at least it was the first time you I saw you express it; but that desire is not rational.[1] Completely rhetorical.

Hi ICANT, I did not say that it did. Not so ICANT.You are equivocating again. A day might refer to a light/dark period, where such period is not of a fixed length. In fact the length of light/dark varies with location on the earth as well as the time of year.'Day' might also refer to the length of Tuesday, which is exactly 24 hours long as measured by atomic clock.A solar 'day' is based on the rotation of the earth, but is not constant in duration due to the fact that the earth does not revolve around the sun at uniform speed.A sidereal 'day' is also based on the rotation of the earth, but is more nearly consistent in duration than a solar day. A mean solar day is the day we would experience if the earth moved around the sun in a circular orbit. 'Day' is also used to refer to the light period alone. Example: Genesis 1:5 "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."Some of the 'days' or 'Days' I have described above are completely consistent with the time indicated by an atomic clock. Others of them are only approximately consistent, and others are easily observed to be inconsistent. Yet all of them are based at least loosely on the rotation of the earth.And on top of that, the earth's rotational speed is not constant. The earth's rotational speed does not slow down at a constant rate or at a rate than can be predicted with high accuracy.So again, why is the earth's rotation the correct measure, while the atomic clock is incorrect? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.