What is the 6th Dimension?

[thinking]

“ because of the Nature of the objects ”

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

real in the sense of mathematics

but to the nature of things

time is irrelevent

things just do what they do

if any being wants to calculate this movement then so be it , the things could careless

 

[Dywyddyr]

but to the nature of things
time is irrelevent

Utterly totally wrong.

if any being wants to calculate this movement then so be it , the things could careless

Movement is not required.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
length ( breadth ) is a necessary dimension and is a real dimension because without length no aspect of substance can become ”

Yep, just like time.

no

unlike time , time needs the reality of substance to exist before the mathematical concept of time could exist

as I said , time is the mathematical calculation of the after affect of the consequence of objects

 

[Dywyddyr]

no
unlike time , time needs the reality of substance to exist before the mathematical concept of time could exist
as I said , time is the mathematical calculation of the after affect of the consequence of objects

Still wrong.
Still showing you have no clue.
All you have is a false belief and nothing to support your opinion.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
no
unlike time , time needs the reality of substance to exist before the mathematical concept of time could exist
as I said , time is the mathematical calculation of the after affect of the consequence of objects

Still wrong.
Still showing you have no clue.
All you have is a false belief and nothing to support your opinion.

its not about belief at all


it is though about reality and the way things really are

plain and simple really

 

[Dywyddyr]

its not about belief at all
it is though about reality and the way things really are
plain and simple really

And as you have demonstrated many times in this thread, and others: your contention that black holes don't exist (based on hydraulics for crying out loud), and your persistent querying about which is the "true" perspective of the rotation of the Earth etc., you have no clue as to reality and how things are.
It's that simple.
Your belief (and it is nothing more than that) is not based on reality at all.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
its not about belief at all
it is though about reality and the way things really are
plain and simple really

And as you have demonstrated many times in this thread, and others: your contention that black holes don't exist (based on hydraulics for crying out loud), and your persistent querying about which is the "true" perspective of the rotation of the Earth etc., you have no clue as to reality and how things are.
It's that simple.
Your belief (and it is nothing more than that) is not based on reality at all.

so we've cleared up this time problem then ? good

 

[Dywyddyr]

so we've cleared up this time problem then ? good

I doubt it, unless you've suddenly come round to accept that time is a real dimension.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
so we've cleared up this time problem then ? good

I doubt it, unless you've suddenly come round to accept that time is a real dimension.

ahhh.... no

so if the Universe had no objects in it , what is time then based on ?

 

[Dywyddyr]

ahhh.... no
so if the Universe had no objects in it , what is time then based on ?

If the universe had no objects what would length be based on?
If there's nothing IN the universe then there are, by definition, no dimensions at all.

Edit: that we can talk about with any certainty.
Although time may exist in such a universe, especially if it dies at some point.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
ahhh.... no
so if the Universe had no objects in it , what is time then based on ?

If the universe had no objects what would length be based on?

nothing

If there's nothing IN the universe then there are, by definition, no dimensions at all.

and therefore no time

 

[Dywyddyr]

nothing
and therefore no time

You missed my edit.
Regardless: that does not mean that time is "based" on objects any more than length is (possibly less so in fact).
If the dimension does not exist then the object cannot.

 

[thinking]

You missed my edit.
Regardless: that does not mean that time is "based" on objects any more than length is (possibly less so in fact).

really how so ?

If the dimension does not exist then the object cannot.

why ?

 

[Dywyddyr]

really how so ?

Because, as stated, if that universe dies out at some point time must have passed.

why ?

If the dimension isn't there then the object can't "manifest" in that dimension...

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
really how so ?

”

Because, as stated, if that universe dies out at some point time must have passed.

well of course a certain amount of time has passed

so time is the cause of the Universe dying out ?

not the objects within the Universe

but time its self ?

 

[thinking]

“ why ? ”

If the dimension isn't there then the object can't "manifest" in that dimension...

but the object can manifest in the three dimensions

without time

 

[Dywyddyr]

so time is the cause of the Universe dying out ?
not the objects within the Universe
but time its self ?

One more time: time itself is a dimension NOT a cause.

but the object can manifest in the three dimensions
without time

It could.
But then it wouldn't do anything.
At all.

 

[thinking]

“ Originally Posted by thinking
so time is the cause of the Universe dying out ?
not the objects within the Universe
but time its self ? ”

One more time: time itself is a dimension NOT a cause.

in order for time to be a true dimension then it must produce a cause

time must have a consequence to the the physical dynamics of things , rather than just being a measure of movement to be a true dimension

time does not interfer or have any bearing on the physical dynamics of things because it is the measurement of movement by things

if you add time or substract time in any mathematical equation it must be followed up by the change in the physical dynamics of a thing or things

which does not happen

therefore time is not a true dimension , only a dimension in the mathematical sense , and is the the consequence of physical dynamics only

 

[AlphaNumeric]

in order for time to be a true dimension then it must produce a cause

Only if everyone is using a dictionary you wrote.

if you add time or substract time in any mathematical equation it must be followed up by the change in the physical dynamics of a thing or things

which does not happen

therefore time is not a true dimension , only a dimension in the mathematical sense , and is the the consequence of physical dynamics only

And you're using your extension experience in physics to justify that....?

 

[Dywyddyr]

in order for time to be a true dimension then it must produce a cause

Nonsense.

time must have a consequence to the the physical dynamics of things , rather than just being a measure of movement to be a true dimension

It does: decay...

time does not interfer or have any bearing on the physical dynamics of things because it is the measurement of movement by things

More nonsense.

if you add time or substract time in any mathematical equation it must be followed up by the change in the physical dynamics of a thing or things
which does not happen

Actually it does.

therefore time is not a true dimension , only a dimension in the mathematical sense , and is the the consequence of physical dynamics only

Still getting it wrong...