Time is not a grouse!
It's more like a ptarmigan.
What is time??
- Thread starter Shadow1
- Start date
It's more like a ptarmigan.
There is no how involved. They came before the object because they are an inherent feature of space/time. They are the substrate on which objects exist.
. . .Sometime ago on Sciforums, I posted an out-of-the-box visualization of the "projection" technique, in which one can start with a higher-level dimensional system (e.g., xyz - 3-D, plus time). Using this technique, one can'project' sequentially from higher levels to lower levels . . . . projecting 'through' the time aspect, one 'sees' the
3-D (frozen in time) framework . . . then projecting thru one of the 3-D aspects (say, z), one sees the 2-D framework (i.e., 'flatland (planar) configuration'), xy (frozen in time AND z), then one projects along one of the remaining two (x or y) dimensional aspects (say, line y), and the resultant is a 1-D configuration (e.g., a point x, frozen in time, z, and y). My original challenge was to run the process 'backwards' and try to create a visualization of the 'next-higher' dimensional aspect (above xyz+time). . . . there were no 'takers'!
3-D (frozen in time) framework . . . then projecting thru one of the 3-D aspects (say, z), one sees the 2-D framework (i.e., 'flatland (planar) configuration'), xy (frozen in time AND z), then one projects along one of the remaining two (x or y) dimensional aspects (say, line y), and the resultant is a 1-D configuration (e.g., a point x, frozen in time, z, and y). My original challenge was to run the process 'backwards' and try to create a visualization of the 'next-higher' dimensional aspect (above xyz+time). . . . there were no 'takers'!
what are you trying to show ?
Why not?
Okay, what is the substance of length, depth and breadth?
And time...
I'll take this as another avoidance.
Well, in point of fact, if string theory is correct, there are actually 11 dimensions, but the others are too small to detect.
While length, depth and breadth are physical aspects of an object, the object could not exist without the space/time to exist in, whereas space/time does not need the object to exist.
. . .that there are mental and graphical techniques that MAY permit visualization of higher-order dimensional systems . . . above xyz+time (i.e., spacetime)
So what?
This does not address your contention that
Pardon?
Is that not the material of the object itself?
How is this the "substance of length"?
You're pretty dogmatic about that, but again, if string theory is correct, than the basic element of space/time is a one dimensional object. So something can't exist without length, but the same might not be true of width and breadth.
Maybe in Europe but not Florida. I visited the Dali Museum today. Do you know what Dali's theory of time is? Did you ever see his melting clocks? He saw time as a strange flow :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Persistence_of_Memory
And my favorite:
http://www.aaronartprints.org/dali-softwatchatthemomentoffirstexplosion.php
And an index to Dali Dimension seems appropriate.
http://www.dalidimension.com/eng/index.html
Yes, and the strings are one dimensional. And they cannot vibrate unless there is a direction they can move in. The dimensions are not dependent on the strings, they are a condition of the universe in which the strings exist and vibrate.
. . .or . . .from SQR (or QGP) --> VPs --> MPs (+ CMBR) . . . . visit:
https://sites.google.com/site/eemuhypothesis/
Empty claim.
It becomes 2D.
So what?
Again:
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?
A one dimensional object may move in any direction. It may move along the x, y, or z axis. A violin string is essentially one dimensional but flexes in all three dimensions.