Summations Only

Yes, I understand.
Even your ownership of the house depends on time.
There is a time you did not own the house.
There is a time you did own the house.Here's another example:We have a room with a ledge in it.
The ledge top is located at x = 6 feet in, y = 2 feet left and z = 3 feet high.
A video camera is fixed so that it is pointing at this specific location. It records from 9am until 3pm.
At noon, a spoon is placed on top of the ledge. What is a dimension?
A dimension is a required piece of information in order to describe a physical object.
In our simple case, we're discussing the required information in order to describe the location of a physical object. Describe the location of the spoon
After the experiment, at 5pm, we decide to analyze our data:

0 Dimensions
If we don't see anything, obviously we cannot describe the location of the spoon.

​

1 Dimension
x = 6 feet in.
If we simply look at "6 feet in"... there will be nothing there except floor and the far wall.
This is obviously insufficient.
The location of the spoon depends on more than just this one dimension.
We need another dimension.

​

2 Dimensions
x = 6 feet in, y = 2 feet left.
If we look at "6 feet in and 2 feet left"... we will see the base of the ledge and the spoon on top and the ceiling. There is one "level" where the spoon is present. But there are many "levels" where the spoon is not present.
We are doing better, but this is not accurate for all observations of this 2-dimensional location.
This is also insufficient.
The location of the spoon depends on more than just these two dimensions.
We need another dimension.

​

3 Dimensions
x = 6 feet in, y = 2 feet left, z = 3 feet high.
We look at "6 feet in, 2 feet left and 3 feet high"... and we see the spoon on the ledge and nothing else! Wonderful! But wait... the video camera... there is some time where the spoon is present and some time where the spoon is not present at the same location on the ledge.
This is much better, but this is still not accurate for all observations of this 3-dimensional location.
This is still insufficient.
The location of the spoon depends on more than just these three dimensions.
We need another dimension!

​

4 Dimensions
x = 6 feet in, y = 2 feet left, z = 3 feet high at 2pm.
We look at the camera for "6 feet in, 2 feet left, 3 feet high at 2pm"... and we see the spoon and nothing else!
This is fantastic, the spoon is present for all possible observations of this 4-dimensional location.
This is completely sufficient.
The location of the spoon depends on four dimensions.
We don't need any more dimensions.

​

We are now safe to tell our supervisors the location of the spoon.
If we had told them that the spoon was present based on just the 3 dimensions... it may be possible that the spoon was removed from the room (maybe the guy who put it there wanted it back). And then we would look silly telling people that the spoon was there.

​

The time dimension may often be implied to the point of even being ignored. But it is still required for an accurate description of the location of any and all physical objects.

​

Your inability to provide an example of a physical object's location that does not depend on time is proof of this concept.

​

Conclusion: Time is a dimension

Rulers and clocks are the tools that we use to measure those things. Length is used to describe one of the spatial dimensions an object might have. Indeed. As far as you are concerned Henry VIII still exists, as does every single building of the ancient world. And if I set fire to your money, that wouldn't be the end of the atoms and energy - so it would be wrong to say that the cash lasted from 1989-present.I'm perfectly happy to argue as if it made sense, but it doesn't lend itself to clear English. Instead of saying the 2 x 4 has a finite duration, I will instead say that the 2 x 4 maintains a certain configuration for a limited period of time, before it changes to a form which for some reason you want to continue calling it a 2 x 4, even though its an irregular heap of ash. You don't have to do anything to travel through time, any more than you have to do anything to travel through space when you fall off a building.I also pointed out how you could alter the rate at which you travel through time. Yet the only evidence you have presented contradicts your view, considerably.But your notion doesn't in any way that I see as being important to our discussion, contradict Carroll's notion I presented at the beginning of this discussion. Are you saying that Carroll's notion might be feasible now?Could you give me your best shot at defining what duration is, exactly. And how it can exist without time. And how do you know that there is an infinite amount going backwards?

quote:

---

the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

---

It was originally defined based on a fraction of the mean solar day. But that was 50 years ago or so.What difference does it make what units we use?
Can we measure duration by counting the number of times a regular phenomenon occurs (the swing of a pendulum, the rotation of the earth, the oscillations of an atom) or not? So, if we're making precise measurements - it's probably best not to use the quite imperfect earth's rotation duration, right? We'd do better to find something that is a better timepiece, right? And using the precise measurement of the atom's oscillations, we note that the atom's oscillations vary depending on the speed the atoms are travelling - agreed? Well, non-existence can't exist, otherwise there'd be existence (the existence of non-existence). Well, while I agree with your conclusion, your reasoning doesn't lead to it. Creation models posit a god, who is usually 'timeless' or 'eternal' or somesuch, that decided to create space and time and everything within it. If you want to use the strange meaning of the term creation model which simply means 'any model of reality that has a finite past', then its just going to cause unnecessary confusion.If God exists, then there is not non-existence. Therefore creation models don't postulate that non-existence existed. If there is nothing before existence and it has a finite past, then there was never any point in existence in which there was nothing, from which existence could be postulated as forming. Therefore even using the strange definition of creation model, you don't have existence coming from non-existence.I don't think anybody is proposing that existence is created out of non-existence, despite you repeated attempts to frame your opponent's position that way. You are probably doing this because you cannot grasp existence with a beginning. Where there is no thing, nothing, that preceded it. You insist there must have been 'duration' before it, but that's not the model as it is presented. If you want to say that 'duration' can exist 'before' existence, then you have to do a lot more work than saying it.The visible universe began 13.7 billion years ago; it may be that that's it. Or there may be 'prior' regions from which the universe was formed. There may be no 'beginning' - but just the state of existence increasing its entropy in both directions of time. Or maybe there is a finite history to existence.I don't know - but you sure seem to be confident in the inferences you have made about the cosmos based on the claims of ancients. But just because there is always existence, it does not follow that there is 'eternal infinite' existence. You have not ruled out existence that has a beginning (but did not come from anywhere or nowhere) and no end, for example. I agree that would be impossible, but I disagree that its the only option. Since it is not the only option, I'm not forced to agree with your hypothesis. But I already postulated a universe that stretches infinitely far back and forwards, and you tried to disprove it.I've got as good a grip on your position as I'm ever likely to have - but I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to accept it. Do you have any?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

People have already performed experiments demonstrating time dilation. However, before I list them, what form of experiments will you accept? Surely you don't need to build a spaceship with a near-light engine and put human beings on it. Will you accept GPS results and similar measurements by inanimate apparatus?

I have been hoping that you would undertake this endeavor.In this thread Existence, you can find some hint of the arguments and evidence that ICANT will not accept. Perhaps you could start with helping ICANT understand what an inertial reference frame is.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi Stile,I had to address this, Actually you haven't given the coordinates of the spoon.You have given the location of a ledge that is of zero dimensions.Do you care to modify?God Bless,

Hi Son,What effect does gravity have on an atomic clock?God Bless,

Dude - I don't want to be the naysayer here but...ICANT has demonstrated his inability to comprehend even the most basic physics concepts and frankly you stand no chance at all with inertial frames. Message 401 and up/down thread.ICANT can provide a useful foil to test and develop your own understanding and powers of explanation. But don't expect anything remotely sensible from him in reply.....

You could look this stuff up....

quote:

---

Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational potentials) run faster, and clocks close to massive bodies (or at lower gravitational potentials) run slower.

---

quote:

---

Gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the faster the gravitational potential (the closer the clock is to the source of gravitation), the more slowly time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity[1] and it has since been confirmed by tests of general relativity.

​

This has been demonstrated by noting that atomic clocks at differing altitudes (and thus different gravitational potential) will eventually show different times. The effects detected in such experiments are extremely small, with differences being measured in nanoseconds.

---

Wiki on gravitational time dilationEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As Roger Hodgson might sing "Well I know, I know, I know"I just thought I'd learn something if Son Goku took a stab at it.

Gravity would correct the energy levels inside an atom whose oscillations were used to measure time. This technically would affect the oscillations but the effect is so minor as to be negligable.
It has been experimentally shown that gravitational effects on particles are a minor effect, examples of experiments are those of V.V.Nesvizhevsky of the Institut Laue-Langevin in Grenoble.A more significant effect is that due to the curvature of spacetime, which results in clocks deeper in a gravitational field running at a slow rate compared to those outside. This is experimentally tested in every GPS system everyday. The slowing of time measured by GPS systems agrees exactly with the slowing of time General Relativity predicts from the assumption that time is a physically real extra dimension.

As should be expected. In the effort to provide some quantification, consider the following.The force of gravity compared to the forces that establish energy levels in the atom are tremendously tiny on the scales and masses involved within the nucleus.Page not found

quote:

---

At distances of a few fermi the nuclear force is overwhelmingly larger than the electrostatic force, but at 10 fermi they are of the same magnitude. [value given is several newtons at a distance of 10 fermi]

​

There are other forces involved such as the gravitational attraction between the nucleons, but the gravitation attraction is so weak that even at a distance of 0.5 fermi it is less than 10^-30 newtons.

---

That's right, the gravitational force would be 30 powers of ten (orders of magnitude) less than the electrostatic or nuclear forces involved.There is simply no way that gravity disturbing an atom could produce an effect that can be measured my moving a clock less than one millimeter in a gravitational field. On the other hand, the affect of gravity on time in that area is very measurable.General relativity tested on a tabletop | Nature

quote:

---

Now, a team led by Holger Mller of the University of California, Berkeley, has measured the time-shifting effects of gravity 10,000 times more accurately than ever before. They show that gravity's effect on time is predictable to 7 parts per billion (H. Mller, A. Peters and S. Chu Nature 463, 926—929; 2010). And they did it using two laboratory clocks with a height difference of just 0.1 millimetres a set-up that seems quaintly small in this day of big physics. "Precision experiments on a tabletop are not something of the past," says Mller, whose research team consisted of Achim Peters of the Humboldt University of Berlin and Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy.

---

As a final argument, let's note that the time dilation is not related to the strength of the gravitatonal field, as would be expected if this was about gravity crunching the molecules, but it is related to the difference in potential between two different observers. The observer at the bottom of the gravity well would see no change in his own clock rate due to gravity at the bottom of the well.

Sure.
And, technically, you are correct.
I was referencing the top of the ledge, where the spoon woud be placed with x, y and z.
Whenever a spatial reference (the first 3 dimensions in the example) to the spoon sitting on top of the ledge is made, you can call this the following:Instead of "x", use "x + f(a)"
Instead of "y", use "y + f(b)"
Instead of "z", use "z + f(c)"Explanation:f(a), f(b) and f(c) are functions. They can be as simple as a constant, or as complex as an algebraic description of specific curvature (or anything else).

f(a) would be the + or - value in the x co-ordinate's dimension that is required in order to get from "the top of the ledge" to "however ICANT would like to describe the spatial location of the spoon that is sitting on top of the ledge"

​

f(b) would be the + or - value in the y co-ordinate's dimension that is required in order to get from "the top of the ledge" to "however ICANT would like to describe the spatial location of the spoon that is sitting on top of the ledge"

​

f(c) would be the + or - value in the z co-ordinate's dimension that is required in order to get from "the top of the ledge" to "however ICANT would like to describe the spatial location of the spoon that is sitting on top of the ledge"

​

Because they are functions, you can use them as place-holders to get from "on top of the ledge" to any specific point in the spoon (maybe the tip, or middle, or even the centre of gravity of the spoon) that is sitting on top of the ledge. Or you can use them as place-holders to get from "on top of the ledge" to the actual spatial description for the specifc size and shape of any spoon that is sitting on top of the ledge.

​

I will leave the exact numbers and equations up to you... this will allow you to describe the spoon's spatial location on top of the ledge in any way you wish.

​

tl;dr (Too Long; Didn't Read):
It is technically correct to add this pedantic addendum to the example. But it is irrelevant to the point being made about how dimensions are required information in order to describe the location of the object... and that the 2nd and 3rd spatial dimensions are required (to restrict confusing observations) in the same way the 4th dimenstion is required (to restrict confusing observations). Therefore, you can add/subtract whatever values you prefer in order to get from "on top of the ledge" to "the spoon that is on top of the ledge."

​

---

​

I notice you don't seem to have any more suggestions for the location of objects that do not depend on time.

​

The test is still available, you can continue whenever you're ready:

​

quote:

---

Time is a dimension.
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

---

​

All you need to do is come up with a single physical object that has a location that is independent of time. Surely if time is not a dimension, this should be an easy task for you?

​

Colour is not a dimension. I can fully describe the location of a spoon, or your house, or lots of other things without referencing colour in any way. It doesn't matter what colour it is, that information is not required in order to describe the location of the physical object. See? It's easy for things that are not dimensions.

​

It's not easy for "time" because time actually is a dimension.

​

If you have any more suggestions, please continue. We can go over your suggestions as long as you'd like.

​

Or, if you're satisfied that you cannot describe the location of a physical object that is independent of time... if you're satisfied that time is, in fact, a temporal dimension of our universe just as x, y and z are spatial dimensions of our universe... we can continue with our original discussion about time and eternity and the beginning of the universe, if you'd like.

​

Whenever you're ready.

Hi Son, If the effect is so minor as to be negligable why does the number of oscillations in a second have to be changed for the Atomic clock that is placed in the satellite so it will be in sync with the clock on the ground? The atomic clock on the satellite will tick faster by by some 45,900 ns/day due to being in a weaker gravatational environment than the atomic clock on the ground. GRThe atomic clock on the satellite will tick slower by by some 7,200 ns/day due to movement. SRSo the atomic clocks that are in the satellite have to be adjusted for the 38,700 ns/day difference so the clocks can be in sync.You just stated above that that difference is the slowing of time.I propose that the 38,700 ns/day difference is due to the atomic clock in the satellite being is a weaker gravatational field than the clock on earth.It has absolutely nothing to do with the slowing of time.But for the life of me I don't understand why it is said that the time is slower on the satellite. A day on the satellite would pass 38,700 ns faster than it does on earth.Could you explain?God Bless,

It has to do with experiencing time slower. Not the slowing down of some universal time. You're misuunderstanding. No one with any knowledge of relativity says that "time is slower on the satellite." That is not properly stated and leads to the consusion you're feeling.What is said is that "an object in motion experiences time slower than a stationary object." Thus time on the satillite is slower than time on the clock on the ground.There is extensive evidence of this, and adjustments for this are made in GPS systems like Son explained.- Oni

You are confusing two different effects.You would like to believe that the effects observed on the clocks is due to gravity affecting the clock mechanism. But your belief is wrong. Gravity has no measurable effect on the oscillations that are the basis of atomic clocks. Gravity is too weak, and the mass of nuclei are too small for gravity to have any appreciable effect on the energy levels in an atom.The effect that is appreciable is the effect of gravity on time itself. That is the effect predicted by General Relativity and is the effect that you wish to deny. But that effect turns out to be fairly easy to measure using modern equipment even when the height of the clock is small.Son and I both addressed this question in our posts. In fact, it was the point of Son's post. I know that you do. But the entire point of Son's post was to explain why effect is not related to gravity affecting atomic [molecular] vibrations. I provided some additional quantitative support for what Son posted. The wording is a bit confusing. A ground observer would agree that the clock was slower, but an observer in the satellite would have a different opinion. Your wording is confusing, but I've addresed that already.What, in your opinion is the source of the 7200 nanosecond discrepancy?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Correct molecular to atomic