What is the 6th Dimension?

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
and in order to have any speed you need object(s) and there movements to provide a situation in which time has the possibility to be applied and then calculated

Correct.
In order for there to be speed you have to move: otherwise you're stood still.
Sort of elementary.

But even if stationary time will pass.

based on ?

 

[Dywyddyr]

based on ?

Based the fact that time passes.
See my previous example (again!) about nuclear decay.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
based on ?

Based the fact that time passes.
See my previous example (again!) about nuclear decay.

and nuclear decay is ( again ) based on the cause of the decay not because of time !!

 

[Dywyddyr]

and nuclear decay is ( again ) based on the cause of the decay not because of time !!

But, as stated: it's time-dependent.
If there were no time there'd be no decay.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
and nuclear decay is ( again ) based on the cause of the decay not because of time !!

But, as stated: it's time-dependent.
If there were no time there'd be no decay.

the statement is wrong

how ?

what property does time have that it has the ability to cause the decay in the first place ?

this is what you are suggesting

 

[Dywyddyr]

the statement is wrong

No it isn't.

what property does time have that it has the ability to cause the decay in the first place ?
this is what you are suggesting

Incorrect thinking.
Time doesn't cause the decay. And I made no suggestion that it did.
The decay is time-dependent. The decay requires time to occur.

 

[thinking]

“ what property does time have that it has the ability to cause the decay in the first place ?
this is what you are suggesting ”

Incorrect thinking.
Time doesn't cause[/i] the decay. And I made no suggestion that it did.

good

The decay is time-dependent. The decay requires time to occur.

disagree

if the decay is time-dependent , then how ?

 

[Dywyddyr]

disagree

It doesn't matter whether you agree or not.
It doesn't alter the fact that it is.

if the decay is time-dependent , then how ?

What do you mean "how"?
The more time that passes the more decays will take take place. (or the more chance there is that any given decay will occur).
The same when something is cooling down: the more time that passes the cooler it will get (Until equilibrium of course).

 

[thinking]

“ if the decay is time-dependent , then how ? ”

What do you mean "how"?

well how ?

The more time that passes the more decays will take take place. (or the more chance there is that any given decay will occur).

and that time is based on the Nature of the object that decays

as I said time has no ability to affect this decay

you can't , delay , stop , or speed up the decay based on time

The same when something is cooling down: the more time that passes the cooler it will get (Until equilibrium of course).

above

 

[Dywyddyr]

well how ?

and that time is based on the Nature of the object that decays

No.

as I said time has no ability to affect this decay
you can't , delay , stop , or speed up the decay based on time

If you could start, stop, or otherwise alter time then you could affect the decay.

 

[thinking]

“ and that time is based on the Nature of the object that decays ”

No.

of course it is

what else have you got to base time on but the resultant consequence of the physical dynamics of the decays in that object ?

nothing

 

[Dywyddyr]

of course it is

Wrong.

what else have you got to base time on but the resultant consequence of the physical dynamics of the decays in that object ?
nothing

The fact that it occurs.
How does movement happen if there's no time for it occur in?
How does nuclear decay happen if there's no time?
Etc etc.

 

[thinking]

“ as I said time has no ability to affect this decay
you can't , delay , stop , or speed up the decay based on time ”

If you could start, stop, or otherwise alter time then you could affect the decay.

they way you could alter the decay is to bring in an object that would do just that

you can't , by using time because time has no ability to do so because time is a mathematical concept used to understand things and there behaviour

as I said time is a mathematical after affect of movement

 

[Dywyddyr]

they way you could alter the decay is to bring in an object that would do just that

You could also alter it by changing (somehow) time.
No need to introduce another object.

you can't , by using time because time has no ability to do so because time is a mathematical concept used to understand things and there behaviour

Wrong. Still.
Time itself (as stated) does not alter things.
Things alter IN (the dimension of) time.

as I said time is a mathematical after affect of movement

And if there's no movement (see previous examples) time STILL passes.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
they way you could alter the decay is to bring in an object that would do just that ”

You could also alter it by changing (somehow) time.

wrong

because time is an after affect calculation

and has no ability to change anything

but time has the ability to calculate the change mathematically

No need to introduce another object.

yes there is

since time can't do it alone

 

[Dywyddyr]

wrong
because time is an after affect calculation

Still wrong.

and has no ability to change anything

For the umpteenth time: agreed now stop bringing up strawmen.
Does "length" change anything?

since time can't do it alone

Time, as stated many times, does not "do" anything.
It's a dimension.
"Movement" in the time dimension is an indicator of change, but it is not time "doing" it.
For time to pass there doesn't need to be movement.

 

[thinking]

“ you can't , by using time because time has no ability to do so because time is a mathematical concept used to understand things and there behaviour ”

Wrong. Still.
Time itself (as stated) does not alter things.

exactly

Things alter IN (the dimension of) time.

because of the Nature of the objects

 

[Dywyddyr]

exactly

How many more times?
Neither does "length".

because of the Nature of the objects

And regardless of their nature things wouldn't occur if time weren't real.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
exactly ”

How many more times?
Neither does "length".

length ( breadth ) is a necessary dimension and is a real dimension because without length no aspect of substance can become

hence three dimensions

hence the manifestation of substance

 

[Dywyddyr]

length ( breadth ) is a necessary dimension and is a real dimension because without length no aspect of substance can become

Yep, just like time.

hence three dimensions

Hence four dimensions (minimum).

Do you have anything, anything at all, other than your unsubstantiated belief to back you up?