# Time is NOT the 4th dimension...

#### stateofmind

##### seeker of lies
Valued Senior Member
I want to start this off by saying that I have no interest in the “there are infinite dimensions” debate that always comes up when the 4th dimension is mentioned. This is the debate where one person argues about what the 4th dimensions is (usually thought to be time) and the other person says that there are as many dimensions as there are variables (possibly infinite). Although I feel that this specific debate is caused by a misunderstanding of the one or both of the people, it is another debate entirely and if a person wants to pursue it then they should make a thread about it. This is NOT that thread! If a person brings up this point of contention I ask that the moderators please delete said posts.

Thank you!

**************************************************

Now I will begin…

Time is not a dimension of reality. To say that time is a dimension would be like saying that inches are the 2nd dimension.

Change is the 4th dimension of reality, not time. Time is not change itself. Time is an imposition upon change by humans for the purpose of measurement and abstraction. Even though every moment of reality is unique unto itself, it is convenient to use time as a tool to help synchronize our lives. This is similar to the way a builder uses inches and feet to synchronize the wood he cuts to build a house.

**************************************************

Principles:

1. time can only exist in periodicity (ie. a cycle or pattern; such as the earth orbiting the sun, the sun orbiting the star clusters in the milky way… etc.)

2. absolute periodicity and absolute aperiodicity cannot exist in reality

3. time is irrelevant without change

4. time is irrelevant in proportion to the amount of aperiodicity an observer experiences from moment to moment

Last edited:
Excellent post.
Supposition. Claims. Ignorance. And not one shred of actual argument.

Time is not a dimension of reality.
Why not? (Other than your personal feeling, of course).

To say that time is a dimension would be like saying that inches are the 2nd dimension.
No, it's like saying width is the second dimension. If you're using "inches" then should also use, for example, "minutes".
The dimension itself, not the units of that dimension.

Good to see you're still doing what you do best Dywyd... that is, mindless dismissal.

Why not? (Other than your personal feeling, of course).

It is not because time came from change, not the other way around. And what is time but the partitioning of change? Isn't this sort of a case of us putting the cart before the horse?

Good to see you're still doing what you do best Dywyd... that is, mindless dismissal.
Close. It's to match the mindless claims (which is what you do best), but my dismissal isn't mindless.

It is not because time came from change, not the other way around.
Evidence? (Oh, and in English next time please).

And what is time but the partitioning of change? Isn't this sort of a case of us putting the cart before the horse?
And of course you have evidence for this?

Oh, wait. No you don't.

I want to start this off by saying that I have no interest in the “there are infinite dimensions” debate that always comes up when the 4th dimension is mentioned. This is the debate where one person argues about what the 4th dimensions is (usually thought to be time) and the other person says that there are as many dimensions as there are variables (possibly infinite). Although I feel that this specific debate is caused by a misunderstanding of the one or both of the people, it is another debate entirely and if a person wants to pursue it then they should make a thread about it. This is NOT that thread! If a person brings up this point of contention I ask that the moderators please delete said posts.

Thank you!

**************************************************

Now I will begin…

Time is not a dimension of reality. To say that time is a dimension would be like saying that inches are the 2nd dimension.

Change is a dimension of reality. Time is not change itself. Time is an imposition upon change by humans for the purpose of measurement and abstraction. Even though every moment of reality is unique unto itself, it is convenient to use time as a tool to help synchronize our lives. This is similar to the way a builder uses inches and feet to synchronize the wood he cuts to build a house.

**************************************************

Principles:

1. time can only exist in periodicity (ie. a cycle or pattern; such as the earth orbiting the sun, the sun orbiting the star clusters in the milky way… etc.)

2. absolute periodicity and absolute aperiodicity cannot exist in reality

3. time is irrelevant without change

4. time is irrelevant in proportion to the amount of aperiodicity an observer experiences from moment to moment

Events pass reguardless of someone measuring the time it took to do so, the measuring of time is a concept we invented (i.e. seconds, minutes, hours,days, weeks, months) but the passage of events is not. Time is the fourth dimension according to modern physics, no matter if you don't agree. You'll forgive me if listen to Hawking and my physics professors over some random forum poster.

And of course you have evidence for this?

Oh, wait. No you don't.

How does one get evidence for something that is self evident?

What evidence did Einstein have to back up E=mc2?

How does one get evidence for something that is self evident?
Self-evident to a crank is NOT self-evident to the rest of us.

What evidence did Einstein have to back up E=mc2?
Evidence. Mathematics. Observation. Experiments. Reality.
(Oh, and rationality).

How does one get evidence for something that is self evident?

What evidence did Einstein have to back up E=mc2?

Uhhh, math? Is this joke or something?

Evidence. Mathematics. Observation. Experiments. Reality.
(Oh, and rationality).

Can you back that up? What mathematics, evidence, and experiments specifically did he employ to prove E=mc2? If you can't provide it I understand and I accept your apology.

Can you back that up?
Back it up? Did you ever have an education?
Are you somehow claiming that Einstein suddenly decided that E=mc[sup]2[/sup], declared it to be "self-evident" and everyone said "Oh, okay big guy. We'll work with that from now on"?

What mathematics, evidence, and experiments specifically did he employ to prove E=mc2? If you can't provide it I understand and I accept your apology.
Start here.

Einstein built on work already existing.
You, however, are not.

Back it up? Did you ever have an education?
Are you somehow claiming that Einstein suddenly decided that E=mc[sup]2[/sup], declared it to be "self-evident" and everyone said "Oh, okay big guy. We'll work with that from now on"?

Actually Einstein's original submission of his theory of relativity was notoriously non-mathematical. Some people commented on it saying "it was almost as if he had arrived at his conclusions by pure thought." (based on the lack of mathematics it contained)

This is why I think you'll have a hard time fulfilling my request. Good luck!

Can you back that up? What mathematics, evidence, and experiments specifically did he employ to prove E=mc2? If you can't provide it I understand and I accept your apology.

The A-bomb works, I think I just proved you wrong.

Actually Einstein's original submission of his theory of relativity was notoriously non-mathematical. Some people commented on it saying "it was almost as if he had arrived at his conclusions by pure thought." (based on the lack of mathematics it contained)
Yeah? Does this look like it's got no maths in it? Original German version here.

This is why I think you'll have a hard time fulfilling my request. Good luck!

But nice attempt at diversion away from having to support your specious claims.

I think the cesspool is all warmed up, does this thread care to take a dip?

Ben hasn't been around for a while, but it's a virtual certainty that when he does see this thread it's Cesspool or Pseudosci.
SoM has offered nothing new since his last arguments on this subject.

Yeah? Does this look like it's got no maths in it?

I was talking about his original paper on relativity, entitled The General Theory of Relativity.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

Scroll down to Part II on the webpage and look through the various parts of that paper. I don't think there's a single mathematical proof in there and the only equations are the ones he came up with such as E=mc2.

But really... how do you prove that which is self evident? How is it not obvious to you that we paste time on top of the natural changing of reality? You really think change was set to a meter (time) before movement and change in the universe existed??

But really... how do you prove that which is self evident? How is it not obvious to you that we paste time on top of the natural changing of reality? You really think change was set to a meter (time) before movement and change in the universe existed??

Time is simply a measurement of the passage of events. The units are arbitrary and agreed apon, not self determined.

I was talking about his original paper on relativity, entitled The General Theory of Relativity.
Oh, you mean you lied.

I linked to the first paper he did (1905), you, however linked to (as it clearly states on the page) Einstein’s own popular translation of the physics.
In other words a dumbed-down BOOK, not paper, (1920 - 15 years later) for general readership.
As the preface states:
THE PRESENT book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus 1 of theoretical physics.
Any more? Or do want to try defending your claims rather continue this diversion?