Uses of The 4th Dimension (Einstein was wrong!)

by use4d 138 Replies latest social current

• 

  jst2laws

  
  Hello Flyphisher,

  In a so-called "black hole" there is no TIME, because there is no atomar or subatomar structure able to sense TIME anymore.. . . . You understand, I hope..

  No I don't understand. How does a " subatomar structure ..sense TIME"? Remember the Relative in "Relativity" is attached to an Observer. How can there be time without an observer.

  And if we as the observer can only perceive 3 spacial dimensions, how can we say there are no other universes existing in the other dimensions. The math works out for many more dimensions then we perceive as limited, conscious humans. How can one say nothing exists except what we can experience. You might argue that nothing is of consequence except what we experience but that mentality certainly limits exploration. Steve
• 

  AuldSoul

  jst2laws,

  That is a very good point. To add to it a bit, there is no EVIDENCE that we only experience 3s+1t. In the mathematical models you spoke of there is every bit as much possibility that 5s+2t objects could impact our 3s+1t space as there is that our 3s+1t space impacts 2s+1t space. There is only evidence that we observe 3s+1t, in the strict setting of observation equating to visual observation, but can observe conceptually far more dimensions than that. Also, many of the seemingly inexplicable phenomena we have observed become easier to understand in a hyperdimensional concept of reality.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  flyphisher

  AuldSoul

  the Relative in "Relativity" is attached to an Observer. How can there be time without an observer.

  Yes, thats what I meant ! There cannot be TIME without an OBSERVER ! And the question is: WHO can serve as an observer in the physical understanding? So-called "REALISTS" believe, that only consciousness (e.g. a person) can serve as an "observer" in physics. They believe that a wavefunction collapse (in quantum theory) has to be bound to an observation through a conscious person. But this is not right.

  The new physical discoveries and cognitions in quantum theory (see: The Role of Decoherence in Quantum Mechanics) show us, that every material structure can serve as "observer", even elementary structures. Of course, we do not know the lowest level. Can photons sense TIME? I do not believe so. But a complete atomic structure certainly can.
• 

  Satanus

  This guy only left this one post, then dissappeared back into the fourth dimension. He/she is like a giant multidimensional seagull, that flew through this dimension, dumping a pile of ephemeral $hit, then winking back out of existence.

  S
• 

  zen nudist

  there is something very bizzarre about how time is viewed by most people....

  they have this bizzarre notion that other moment in time still exist or exist already before they have happened....

  and that if there were a god in reality he could scan ahead and see the future.... I used to believe this way, and I find it very common still

  I am totally amazing how easy it is to believe in this view of time.....

  but time is not a dimension like space... space is a measurement of distance in 3 axises but time is a measure of changing relationship amoung objects that do not grow nor shrink in number.... what I mean is that my car moving down the highway does not leave copies of itself behind nor does it gobble up phantom copies ahead of it as it moves along the road.... instead my relationship with every other element of the universe is changing and that can be standardized by reference to stable repeating countable events such as the mechanisms of a clock or the location of the sun in the sky etc....

  this idea that God, is outside of time and able to see the future is absurd, the future does not, by definition exist outside of really bad guesswork on our part and even on the part of any actual god.... the reason for that is not too obvious, but comes from the necessity to slice experiences into viewable frames... or sampling... you cannot infinitely sample and because of this there are gaps of knowledge which exponetially increase and after just a few minutes, all attempts to accurately guess what is coming fade out to noise...and not even a god can get around this....

  the bible god is not all knowing [see genesis 18:20-21] and to my knowledge never claimed anywhere in the bible to be so.... most of his grandeous pronouncements concerning the future were related to his ABILITY to perform or carry them out...not his psychic foreknowledge... most prophecies begin with THIS IS WHAT I WILL DO, etc....

  those which seem like foreknowledge are just human silliness creeping into the myths as it always does.
• 

  Oroborus21

  Flyphisher:

  Naturally, my comments presuppose an existence of a supernatural God who exists in a spiritual or non-physical existence, outside of what is encompassed by the physical universe.

  If one believes or assumes that, then it is easy to see that God exists outside of not only the physical dimensions of space but also outside of time itself. His existence is not tied to the physical universe at all and thus he could exist, in his spiritual realm, prior to any beginning (assuming that particular model) of both space and time i.e., the Big Bang. Such a paradigm supports the idea that He created the physical universe and that he has always existed and will always exist.

  Of course if one does not accept a traditional religious belief along these lines, then you are either talking about an entirely different type of being or relationship to God or no belief at all, all of which is your perogative.

  -Eduardo
• 

  flyphisher

  oroborus21
  

  Naturally, my comments presuppose an existence of a supernatural God who exists in a spiritual or non-physical existence, outside of what is encompassed by the physical universe.

  Hello. Sorry, but there is no need for a "spiritual" or "non-physical" existence. This is nonsense. I believe in God too. I`m NO atheist! What I believe, is the fact that we today are not smart enough to grasp the entire nature of the "physics" wherein God is existing, and that is the reason why we go to construct a "non-physical realm", a "heaven", or whatever... Time will come and change our understanding. Same will happen with the meaning and intension of the Tetragrammaton "JHWH".
  

  If one believes or assumes that, then it is easy to see that God exists outside of not only the physical dimensions of space but also outside of time itself. His existence is not tied to the physical universe at all and thus he could exist, in his spiritual realm, prior to any beginning (assuming that particular model) of both space and time i.e., the Big Bang. Such a paradigm supports the idea that He created the physical universe and that he has always existed and will always exist.

  It is simple: If one assumes he exists outside of time itself (e.g. before the "big bang"), then the image of a "personal" God had to change. (For reasons of mathematical logic! Yes, indeed!). Note, and let’s put on our thinking caps;-): BEFORE a big bang, there was no TIME (physical verifiably!), and IF God is existing in a "sphere" wherein no TIME exists, then this "sphere" had to consist of pure mathematical axioms! In this case, God is existing in form of a mathematical and/or logical axiom! And - don`t be angry, please: Even this possibility does NOT disagree with the bible. They never described, how a "spiritual" entity has to look like, or what sort of suggestion we should have of a "spiritual entity".
  That is the reason why I am very angry about all pictures and images of "spiritual entities" in some magazines, e.g. angels, Jesus Christ, the 144000 in heavens realm, of even of God himself. The bible condemns that, as you know.
• 

  Terry

  
  
  Imagine if you will a large room with those wooden block you played with as a child. A whole heap in the middle of the floor.
  

  
  
  The room is empty otherwise.
  

  
  
  To build anything you must resort to some number of those blocks. As you build you make the heap smaller and the object larger; but, the total of the blocks remains a constant.
  

  
  
  This is an analogy.
  

  
  
  All things are made of a "smallest part". We used to call them atoms. Suffice it to say these building blocks are what "things" are made of.
  

  
  
  Now, to disprove time travel!
  

  
  
  If you build a little house out of blocks the heap grows smaller by the same amount as what appears in the building.
  

  
  
  TODAY'S HOUSE is from the heap. (It diminishes the heap).
  

  
  
  For a number of houses to be built they must always be built from actually existing blocks in the heap. OTHERWISE, the TODAY'S house must be scavanged.
  

  
  
  This is the key to understanding.
  

  
  
  Things fall apart, die, disintegrate and dissolve freeing up their blocks (atoms) to be used to build something else.
  

  
  
  There are probably atoms from Julius Caesar in your body right now. He won't mind; he's not using them.
  

  
  
  BUT!
  

  
  
  You (being made from part of Caesar) cannot go back in time and visit with Caesar since his blocks have been used for TODAY'S constructions.
  

  
  
  Yesterday has been demolished and the parts recycled!
  

  
  
  You'd have to double/triple/etc. all the atoms existing in the universe many times over to have enough blocks for a continuum to allow the past to "exist" and still build a future.
  

  
  
  So--this is a physical limitation.
  

  
  
  That is why there can be no time travel. Not enough parts and reused parts.
  

  
  
  (p.s. "TIME" doesn't exist the way atoms exist. Time is a bookkeeping method of marking the distance between actual events.)
• 

  ballistic

  "TIME" doesn't exist the way atoms exist. Time is a bookkeeping method of marking the distance between actual events.

  Time still exists without an observer, although there is a philosophical opinion that time does not exist without change. I personally believe in the idea that time is more of an inherant property of space and not merely a mathematical construct "space-time".
• 

  AuldSoul

  Terry,

  Interesting analysis of time travel, but I am struck by the fact that it presupposes the nature and source of the building blocks. These two assumptions seem rather hasty given the current uncertainties about both the basic nature and the source of the building blocks. If they are like bricks and they are limited to a construction-like usage, then your analysis makes perfect sense.

  Terry: You'd have to double/triple/etc. all the atoms existing in the universe many times over to have enough blocks for a continuum to allow the past to "exist" and still build a future.

  And this is impossible? If so, why?

  While we are on the subject of "very small building blocks," what is a gluon? A hadron? A quark? Without something that serves as a gluon, why do quarks bind together?

  How can a particle be both neutral and massless and still be considered a "particle?" I invite you not to gloss over it, as the nature and properties of the building blocks is the very foundation of your argument. I think you started with an already built building block, didn't you?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul