What is time??

[Dywyddyr]

how though
you have not explained HOW though

What do you mean "how"?
Can you show me an 21-dimensional object?
An actual material one?
No. Because there aren't 21 spacial dimensions for it to exist in.
Likewise if there were only 2 spacial dimensions everything would be flat - there couldn't be any any 3D objects.

Or do you somehow think that if you could construct a 21D object (how would you go about it? Which ways would it extend?) you would automatically bring about the creation of 18 other spacial dimensions?

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
and that is based on the object its self , not on duration or time ”

What?
Your sentence has no meaning.

it is the object that has the movement(s) based on the structure and properties of its self

 

[wlminex]

AlexG . . . not a bad definition . . . time is the ability to transform coordinates . . .I like it!

 

[AlexG]

it is the object that has the movement(s) based on the structure and properties of its self

But there is no movement without time.

 

[river]

I don't think HOW is applicable. It exists. It is a direction, in which there is the ability to transform coordinates, i.e. 'move'.

if the implication that dimension come before the object

then the HOW is applicable

 

[wlminex]

. . or perhaps . . .time is the dimensional quality that allows transformation of coordinates . . ?

 

[AlexG]

if the implication that dimension come before the object

then the HOW is applicable

Why do you think that dimensions are dependent on object? A dimension is only a degree of freedom. There is no HOW about it.

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
how though
you have not explained HOW though ”

What do you mean "how"?
Can you show me an 21-dimensional object?
An actual material one?
No. Because there aren't 21 spacial dimensions for it to exist in.
Likewise if there were only 2 spacial dimensions everything would be flat - there couldn't be any any 3D objects.

Or do you somehow think that if you could construct a 21D object (how would you go about it? Which ways would it extend?) you would automatically bring about the creation of 18 other spacial dimensions?

just talking about 3D objects

your saying that dimension came before objects

how do dimensions exist before the object ?

 

[Dywyddyr]

just talking about 3D objects
your saying that dimension came before objects
how do dimensions exist before the object ?

Read my post!
If the dimension doesn't exist then an object cannot exist in that dimension.

And STILL waiting:
What is the substance of length?
Can you give me a cup full of length?

 

[river]

Why do you think that dimensions are dependent on object? A dimension is only a degree of freedom. There is no HOW about it.

if there was no object(s) how would you understand , " dimension" ?

 

[Dywyddyr]

if there was no object(s) how would you understand , " dimension" ?

Pardon?
If there were only two dimensions and you made a square HOW could you extend it into a cube?
Theoretically only.
There could NOT, EVER, be a cube in reality.

 

[wlminex]

pardon?
If there were only two dimensions and you made a square how could you extend it into a cube?
Theoretically only.
There could not, ever, be a cube in reality.

'flatlanders unite!!"

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
just talking about 3D objects
your saying that dimension came before objects
how do dimensions exist before the object ? ”

Read my post!
If the dimension doesn't exist then an object cannot exist in that dimension.

doesn't answer the question of HOW , do dimensions exist before the object ?

And STILL waiting:
What is the substance of length?
Can you give me a cup full of length?

I already answered that question

 

[AlexG]

if there was no object(s) how would you understand , " dimension" ?

Whether there are objects or not, the ability to transform coordinates along any of four axis still exists. It is a condition of space/time, not a result of something.

 

[Dywyddyr]

doesn't answer the question of HOW , do dimensions exist before the object ?

Because that's the universe we live in.

I already answered that question

No you haven't, but you've skirted and avoided it.

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
if there was no object(s) how would you understand , " dimension" ? ”

Whether there are objects or not, the ability to transform coordinates along any of four axis still exists. It is a condition of space/time, not a result of something.

so space/time is mathematical then

and something or objects don't matter then ?

 

[AlexG]

so space/time is mathematical then

and something or objects don't matter then ?

Space/time is not dependent on objects to exist.

 

[quantum_wave]

Would someone be willing to start a thread on "time" in the new Alternative Theories forum. Seems no one has an alternative theory to spacetime and yet there is a lot of grousing about what time is and isn't.

 

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
doesn't answer the question of HOW , do dimensions exist before the object ? ”

Because that's the universe we live in.

so you can't explain how dimensions came before the object

yet you think your theory is right ?

 

[Dywyddyr]

so you can't explain how dimensions came before the object

I just did.

yet you think your theory is right ?

It's not a theory. Those dimensions are a fundamental to our universe.
If you wish to claim differently then, please answer the following questions:
What is the substance of length?
If there were only two dimensions and you made a square HOW could you extend it into a cube?
Or do you somehow think that if you could construct a 21D object (how would you go about it? Which ways would it extend?) you would automatically bring about the creation of 18 other spacial dimensions?