How is the Universe here?

Yes, thanks. I was still getting confused between the difference and co-existance of "the future" and a "future light cone". I wrongly assumed that it was either one or the other, sort of a classical vs quantum type thing. It's not that the relative mind-set only has a "future light cone", it just also has one.I think I'm better now, thanks to you and all the others for indulging my ramblings.

Hopefully this won’t confuse things more but I want to expand on cavediver’s sheets of paper analogy. Cavediver has a ream of paper as his experience of spacetime. Each sheet represents a “now” in his existence. On each sheet are written all the things that happen “now.” Lower sheets record past now’s and upper sheets record future now’s.I also have a ream of paper as my experience of spacetime with each sheet recording my now’s.If cavediver and I are stationary relative to each other then both reams sit flat on the tabletop with each of our now’s in synch.If we are moving relative to each other then our reams are slightly offset. What I see on my “now” sheet would span several of cavediver’s sheets. I would record in my “now” some events that will take place on cavediver’s future sheets and some on his past sheets. But I would see all these events as happening in my “now.”Hope this helps.-P

Do you think it helps to think of this as your sheet being thicker than his?

No, not at all. What he means is that his sheets will cut across mine as they have a slightly different angle to the vertical. See my last diagram in Message 21 - the lines represent the sheets edge on.

Quote from cavediver Just to be clear, YOU agree with this concept (emphasis on concept) that time is very similar to our three spatial dimensions?

Qoute by V-Bird. I completely agree.

V-Bird and cavediver said the same thing. Why do you have a problem with what cavediver said, yet agree with what V-Bird said?I don't understand. One says all 4 dimension are basically the same thing, the other says all 4 dimensions are very similar.What's the difference?

Stile.It sounds as though cavediver is saying that time is a linear measurement of space, ie; length, width and height. Cavediver said in his statement that time was similar to these measurements. That is why I asked if he thought that time is very similar to spatial dimensions.V-bird on the other hand said that time and dimensions are just measurements, and both space and time are not things. V-bird did not allude to the idea that time and dimensions are similar concepts or things. That is what I was agreeing with.There is no physical scientific evidence that time, space, or dimensions are anything more than man made measurements.

No, none at all, unles you consider the whole of the past 100 years of relativistic and quantum field physics Anyway, it does seem that there have been some genuine questions regarding the role of dimensions, in amongst the bleating of the ignorant, so I will get around to addressing this topic.As a hint to the readers, if anyone starts making proclamations that space and time aren't things and are just measurments, and that real things are energy, etc, etc, then you need to actually ask them what they mean by 'things', 'energy', 'measurement', 'dimensions', etc. The fact is that they are peddling words with zero understanding. And if anyone thinks that I am doing the same, then call me on it.But sorry guys - will be back soon, I promise. It's VAT return time, I've put my back out, and I have my largest ever orders to deal with over the next few days. Aghh...

I'm really not the one to be arguing this sort of thing, but I think that both V-bird and cavediver are saying pretty much the same thing:Space (spatial dimensions) and Time are both real things.However, our human-measurements of those real things are man-made concepts and not necessarily perfectly accurate representations of those things. This would be because our information is imperfect, and our senses are limited.I don't think cavediver's saying that time is a linear measurement of space. I think that cavediver's saying that time is a linear measurement of a property of our universe the same way that the spatial dimensions are linear measurements of properties of our universe.Those 'properties of our universe' (or 'properties of things in our universe') are real things, and the measurements are human-concepts that are our best-method-available (right now) to try and describe those real properties of objects in this universe.That's how I see it, anyway. But, really, I don't have the background knowledge required to argue what I think cavediver or V-bird is saying. I could very well be misinterpreting them myself. It's probably best that I bow out of this particular arguement.

god, I hope not V-bird is another loon who thinks that cosmological models are built from sciency-sounding words and layman sparks of 'inspiration'. If ever in doubt, just ask for a calculation based upon their ideas Say the spin-up rate of a pair of orbiting neutron stars and ask how it compares to the GR calculation based on their 'theoretical' emission of gravitational radiation...

I don't want this thread bogged down, it has the makings of a good one. IF there is to be any discussion regarding the differing viewpoints on existence of space and time then it would be best served in my opinion in another thread, although it has been discussed before I think.CD sees space and time as having 'existence' in and of itself, I see space and time to be only the names for things like energy and mass and their interaction, we are not that far apart, and certainly not far enough apart for this thread to de-rail!CD can talk about space and time and I will see it my way and he his, I will avoid posting at all costs unless I can show where the differing viewpoints bifurcate beyond the limit of stretch, if the mods think it necessary I will happily just post a link to a separate 'alternative viewpoint' to the CD thread.I would like this thread to proceed without hindrance.Thankyou.

Hi john6zx, By this measure then would you consider gravity a thing, or the strong nuclear force a thing?Are you saying that space is NOthing?

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Onifire, both are attributes of energy, so yes, they are something that can be said to exist, they are part of the behaviour of energy.I suppose it ultimately comes to this fundamental question,:- If you travel along with a quantum of energy, where is time?The answer is that it is not there.It is not there because time is not an attribute of energy and because time is not an attribute of energy, it can have no physical properties to manipulate.This means that time cannot truly effect energy and energy cannot truly effect time.Time ultimately is nothing more or less than an idea for us to use to make measurements, it's a great idea, but it is only an idea.Being unable or reluctant to distinguish between an idea and a 'thing' is perhaps the division that marks me out most clearly from CD."Spacetime" is the measurement in relativity, the measurements are relative to the state of the observer making the measurement.But!This does not objectify space or time and turn either into an object.They are useful ideas of measurement, but remain only ideas.If we fail in distinguishing between 'idea' and 'thing' we can never develop a true insight into the cosmos,we relate to ideas all the time, but treat them as things, but this does not make them objects of reality.Edited by V-Bird, : Speelig erers

When I see the word "energy", the definition I'm used to is "the ability to do work".What definition of "energy" are you using? That time can be dilated shows that it is more than just an idea, that it is, in fact, a "thing". Last time I checked, the people who realize that time is a thing are the ones who are developing a true insight into the cosmos.Regarding time as an idea has gotten us what?

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"