Thanks for the reply,
Read that post, nothing of the sort there. You may be confusing algebra with explanation.
I have quite a firm grip on these calculations. I am, actually, quite familiar with most things scientific. That is not my point. Let me list my observations, so that some of you could help.
1. Consider 3-space (x,y,z). A change in 3-space has two characteristics we will agree upon. The first is innocuous - a function f(x,y,z) describing a change in coordinates in 3-space is continuous. In other words, no magic teleportation. Second, and this is important, the function f(x,y,z), describing change in coordinates, instantiates time or necessitates the creation of time.
2. Examples of allowed changes in 3-space include: motion resulting in change in coordinate in a positive or negative direction relative starting point, a return to any previous coordinate desired, a wide range of velocities and accelarations decribing changes in coordinates.
4 (no, 3 sir). Consider the dimension of time. A change in this dimension is in no way similar to a change in 3-space. There is no instantiation of time with a change of time, if you follow my meaning. One may not move arbitrarily amongst time coordinates. There is no concept of time velocity or acceleration. In fact, there seems to be only one time coordinate, that being "present".
4. Finally, time has only one direction, an effect which we call causality, and this is firmly rooted in the space-time diagrams folks have interspersed among the posts in this thread. (It is therefore an inherent assumption in the calculations as well.) There is no corresponding restriction in 3-space.
So, I am confused about how time is considered on equal footing with 3-space. I fully understand the equations. Heck, I work with such mathematics more than most of you do. But I understand that models do not equal reality, and often do not explain reality.
It could be that if we accept all these caveats, that we may model space-time as including a psuedo-dimension called time. In this case, time as a dimension would merely be a convenient mathematical model. Is that what SR is saying?