Is time really a dimension and why is it associated with relativity?

[Fliption]

Originally posted by heusdens
Perhaps you mean this link?

"www.everythingforever.com"[/URL]

It contains some interesting ideas, but I am not sure weather they are anyway valid viewpoints.
[/quote]

Yes, that's the link. I wondered if it was you who provided it. You're right, it may not be valid at all. My only point was that there is room to debate(as this link shows) what we call the end result of entropy but I don't think we need to bog this thread down with it.

[quote]
As opposed to this, I would argue that time and the rate of change from order to disorder can not be the same thing. Time must be different from change and independend from it, else we could not measure the rate of change. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't understand this at all. I don't know if I agree or disagree because I don't know what it means.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption In light of the symmetry issue above, wouldn't it be just as accurate to say that time is the rate of the entropic process? As opposed to disorder?

To say "entropic process" is fine with me.

Originally posted by Fliption Also, what would you say is the nature of this immaterial potential? Does this question even make sense to ask? [/B]

I did take a shot at modelling it in my original post for this thread relying on inference from universally-present traits in creation.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Fliption
Yes, that's the link. I wondered if it was you who provided it. You're right, it may not be valid at all. My only point was that there is room to debate(as this link shows) what we call the end result of entropy but I don't think we need to bog this thread down with it.

I provided the link yep.

Of course there is room to debate, which is a way of trying to understand one own's thoughts and that of others.

I don't understand this at all. I don't know if I agree or disagree because I don't know what it means.

cite from Anti-Duhring (Friedrich Engels, 1877)

Just because time is different from change, is independent of it, it is possible to measure it by change, for measuring always requires something different from the thing to be measured. And time in which no recognisable changes occur is very far removed from not being time; it is rather pure time, unaffected by any foreign admixtures, that is, real time, time as such. In fact, if we want to grasp the idea of time in all its purity, divorced from all alien and extraneous admixtures, we are compelled to put aside, as not being relevant here, all the various events which occur simultaneously or one after another in time, and in this way to form the idea of a time in which nothing happens. In doing this, therefore, we have not let the concept of time be submerged in the general idea of being, but have thereby for the first time arrived at the pure concept of time.


So, measuring the rate of change of entropy, requires something essentially different from the change of entropy, in other words if - as you claim - time and change of entropy are the same, then we could not measure it.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by heusdens
I would argue that time and the rate of change from order to disorder can not be the same thing. Time must be different from change and independend from it, else we could not measure the rate of change.

I didn't mean they were the same thing. I am saying that "time" is a way we've devised to keep track of the rate of entropy. Time itself is an arbitrary concept invented by humans. It doesn't really exist. What does exist is "rate of entropy." We can choose to track that or not . . . we've decided to track it.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

I didn't mean they were the same thing. I am saying that "time" is a way we've devised to keep track of the rate of entropy. Time itself is an arbitrary concept invented by humans. It doesn't really exist. What does exist is "rate of entropy." We can choose to track that or not . . . we've decided to track it

You seem to be contradicting yourself. First, you define time as the rate of entropy(which is true) and then at the same time you insist it doesn't exist. The rate of entropy=time.
As for your first post on this thread, I would say that you are right; there is no such a thing as a perfect vacuum(or nothing, as you put it). In QM, negative energy exists when there is no positive energy (which is what we're used to, while negative energy is...i guess you could say more of a metaphysical aspect) just like in a vacuum. anyhow, you get my point.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta
You seem to be contradicting yourself. First, you define time as the rate of entropy (which is true) and then at the same time you insist it doesn't exist. The rate of entropy=time.

I see what you mean. By saying time doesn't exist I only meant it seems to be a scale we've chosen somewhat arbitraily (orbital pace). Possibly our orbital cycle really is related to the rate of entropy; maybe the pace of orbiting, as movement, reflects a universal entropy rate. On the other hand, maybe we chose it for no other reason than it is relatively constant, and so we can adjust our clock pace to that. To tell the truth, I haven't been able to figure out any absolute reason why clocks should move at the pace they do. I would be very interested in any insights anyone has on this.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
However, I do say the following is irrefutable: no thing can exist in time which is not preceded by the potential for it to exist. Can you dispute that?

Can you prove it ?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by heusdens
Yes, I have read about that, but what has the breaking of symmetry, and splitting apart of individual forces to do with entropy?

I never went "into" the entropy part.
I was simply responding to your demonstration
about what you called - a possibility of symmetry
increase in our "local" part of the Universe.

Originally posted by heusdens
Drag,

For the most part this thread has been dealing with semantic issues around materialism.

A "modern" materialism.
Semantics - is just another word for philosophical
technicalities then...

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I see what you mean. By saying time doesn't exist I only meant it seems to be a scale we've chosen somewhat arbitraily (orbital pace). Possibly our orbital cycle really is related to the rate of entropy; maybe the pace of orbiting, as movement, reflects a universal entropy rate. On the other hand, maybe we chose it for no other reason than it is relatively constant, and so we can adjust our clock pace to that. To tell the truth, I haven't been able to figure out any absolute reason why clocks should move at the pace they do. I would be very interested in any insights anyone has on this.

Time is just a parameter that fits into
physical equations and shows the rate of change
of a physical system. Entropy increase is a result
of physical laws (their equations).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
However, I do say the following is irrefutable: no thing can exist in time which is not preceded by the potential for it to exist. Can you dispute that?

Originally posted by drag
Can you prove it ?

It is a point of logic isn't it? It seemes to me it's either a tautology or very close to one.

Originally posted by drag
Time is just a parameter that fits into
physical equations and shows the rate of change
of a physical system. Entropy increase is a result
of physical laws (their equations).

I know, but I was asking why the scale is based on orbital and rotational rates. After thinking about it I decided it was probably first determined in order to be able to predict daylight/night and seasonal changes. Of course later others such as navigators and astrologers learned to make use of the scale too.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I see what you mean. By saying time doesn't exist I only meant it seems to be a scale we've chosen somewhat arbitraily (orbital pace). Possibly our orbital cycle really is related to the rate of entropy; maybe the pace of orbiting, as movement, reflects a universal entropy rate. On the other hand, maybe we chose it for no other reason than it is relatively constant, and so we can adjust our clock pace to that. To tell the truth, I haven't been able to figure out any absolute reason why clocks should move at the pace they do. I would be very interested in any insights anyone has on this.

Remember, LW Sleeth, that orbitals and clocks (and the rate of entropy, for that matter) all just ways of measuring travel along the time dimension. IOW, time is a dimension, not the rate of entropy/movement of a clock/orbital period/etc... which are just ways of measuring our movement along this dimension.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Remember, LW Sleeth, that orbitals and clocks (and the rate of entropy, for that matter) all just ways of measuring travel along the time dimension. IOW, time is a dimension, not the rate of entropy/movement of a clock/orbital period/etc... which are just ways of measuring our movement along this dimension.

HA! How did I know you were going to say that? I am going to have to think of a way of proving to you that time is the same sort of a dimension that temperature is, a dimension of measurement.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
HA! How did I know you were going to say that? I am going to have to think of a way of proving to you that time is the same sort of a dimension that temperature is, a dimension of measurement.

Thoroughly predictable, it may be. However, if it is wrong, Relativity is wrong.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Thoroughly predictable, it may be. However, if it is wrong, Relativity is wrong.

I'm sorry Mentat, I am not sure what you mean would contradict relativity. That time is not a dimension, but is rather the rate of entropy? If so, why?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I'm sorry Mentat, I am not sure what you mean would contradict relativity. That time is not a dimension, but is rather the rate of entropy? If so, why?

Yes. Because Relativity defines time as a dimension. A dimension that warps and changes, no less.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes. Because Relativity defines time as a dimension. A dimension that warps and changes, no less.

I don't see why the concept of a time "dimension" must be part of relatively (I mean a spatial-type dimension; I've already said I can understand using the concept of a dimension as a metaphor). Consider the so-called "twins paradox." One twin leaves planet Earth to take a spaceship journey, travels close to the speed of light, comes back to find that his Earth-bound twin brother's situation (i.e., not just the brother, but his entire frame of reference) seems to have aged faster than the traveling twin.

Time apparently has "passed" more quickly on Earth. The Earth-bound twin, the furniture in his house, his wife, the planet as a whole . . . all have aged at a higher rate than the twin returning from his spaceship ride. As I've said, to say "time passing" is like saying the sun rises when it is more accurate to say the Earth has spun.

"Time" has not passed, but rather material integrity has deteriorated at different rates in the each twin's frame of reference. What caused this difference in entropy? Interesting question. Might it be, for example, that approaching the speed of light slows entropy?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Yes. Because Relativity defines time as a dimension. A dimension that warps and changes, no less.

I think I agree with LW Sleeth on this. From all my readings, the quote above, while maybe true, does not contradict anything about entropic theories of time. I will admit I am not an expert here, but currently I don't even see how this quote is relevant, let alone a counter-point. Any gurus want to take a shot?

On this subject of "time", I am confident there is no consensus

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Fliption
On this subject of "time", I am confident there is no consensus. . . Any gurus want to take a shot?

Something I wonder how the gurus might answer is related to one of LG's points, and comments you made about it.

Returning to the twins paradox, I wonder if each twin's experience of time would be the same. Say the traveling twin were gone five years according to shipboard clocks, and when he came back to Earth saw that 40 years had passed according to Earth clocks.

But although only five years had passed would the traveling twin feel like it had been the longest five years he'd ever experienced? That is, though his physical situation had been subject to time constriction, did it also make his consciousness fully relative to the physical circumstances?

 

[Mentat]

Did I confuse someone? I don't see how I could be more clear. General Relativity requires that time is a dimension, that warps, do to "movement". If you'd like to prove Einstein wrong on this, more power to ya, but that is what it postulates.

Also, LW Sleeth, the twin's paradox only proves my point - since the fact that time warps do to the "movement" of a twin is implied.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
Did I confuse someone? I don't see how I could be more clear. General Relativity requires that time is a dimension, that warps, do to "movement". If you'd like to prove Einstein wrong on this, more power to ya, but that is what it postulates.

I don't see what your clarity of communication has to do with this dispute. The issue is if you are correct in your statement that relativity requires time to be a "dimension."

From your previous posts I know that you consider time virtually a spatial dimension. As you know, I disagree with you on this. I could agree that time can be thought of metaphorically as a dimension, but one of change (i.e., not space). But I have never read a single thing supporting your proposition that time must be considered a dimension (as you mean it) in order for relativity to be true.

Originally posted by Mentat
[BAlso, LW Sleeth, the twin's paradox only proves my point - since the fact that time warps do to the "movement" of a twin is implied. [/B]

We've never disagreed about the distortion of "something." Slowing the rate of entropy warps measurement quite nicely. You can't say "time" being warped means anything unless you first define what time is.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Mentat
Did I confuse someone? I don't see how I could be more clear. General Relativity requires that time is a dimension, that warps, do to "movement". If you'd like to prove Einstein wrong on this, more power to ya, but that is what it postulates.

Mentat, the consideration of time as a "dimension"
in GR is one that is due to the fact that the
mathematical equations treat space and time together
through 4-dimensional geometry. While the defintion of
a "dimension" in mathematics has a clear and defined
meaning, I believe that the physical defintion
of time as a "dimension" is simply a subsequent
interpretation of the theory due to the mathematical
techneaques that are being used. I do not think that
there is a clear definition and destinction of
time as a "dimension" from the the general meaning
of time, which is the rate of change in a system,
which coupled to thermodynamics also "gives" us
Universal entropy increase.

In addition, like Flipton said - I can't see
the relevance of this to LW Sleeth's argument
about "preceeding potential".

Live long and prosper.

 

[wuliheron]

While the defintion of
a "dimension" in mathematics has a clear and defined
meaning, I believe that the physical defintion
of time as a "dimension" is simply a subsequent
interpretation of the theory due to the mathematical
techneaques that are being used. I do not think that
there is a clear definition and destinction of
time as a "dimension" from the the general meaning
of time, which is the rate of change in a system,
which coupled to thermodynamics also "gives" us
Universal entropy increase.

This is a bit misleading in my opinion. I've heard physicists refer to the forth dimension as a "temporal" one sometimes and as a spatial one at other times. In addition, the basic axioms of Euclidian Geometry were discovered to be incomplete and possibly flawed 150 years ago with the discovery of the hyperdimensional mathematics that made GR possible. The later discovery of Fractal Geometry then pointedly demonstrated that an entirely new definition of "dimension" may be necessary.

Like the invention of transfinite mathematics and other new and poorly understood and loosely defined concepts, all of these discoveries have been used by every tom, dick, and harry to prove their personal philosophies and spiritualities. Shortly after discovering forth dimensional mathematics, psychics and mediums began fleecing the public claiming the forth dimension was the spirit world. So bad was the situation that many respectable mathematicians and scientists avoided the subject entirely until Relativity became fairly well established.

Many even then refused to accept GR until the mathematics were simplified in the sixties so that more than a handful of mathematicians could understand the theory. Now we are seeing a resurgence of such things with Fractal Geometry and time, both of which are considered poorly defined and understood both mathematically and physically.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by wuliheron
This is a bit misleading in my opinion. I've
heard physicists refer to the forth dimension
as a "temporal" one sometimes and as a spatial
one at other times. In addition, the basic
axioms of Euclidian Geometry were discovered
to be incomplete and possibly flawed 150 years
ago with the discovery of the hyperdimensional
mathematics that made GR possible. The later
discovery of Fractal Geometry then pointedly
demonstrated that an entirely new definition
of "dimension" may be necessary.

Wait a minute ! NOBODY said that Euclidian
Geometry is wrong ! In fact, it is not possible
to say about a mathematical concept that it is
wrong unless what you mean is that the proof
of the concept from basic axioms is incorrect.
Euclidian Geometry is the wrong mathematical tool
to use in physics becuase it can't accamodate
curvature of any type and we do observe curvature.

In general however, I do not see how what I said
is indeed misleading according to what you said.
Even if the mathematical definition of dimension
can change, or to be more accurate - expand to
account for more general cases, there is always
a clear definition that is used - math can't work
without clear definitions. As for physics and
the "time dimension" part in particular, I do not
believe there is a clear definition of this concept,
except that the observed seems to partially/mostly/
fully fit the mathematical definition of the time
when the theory is concieved, thus employing the
use of the mathematical definition for an abstract
interpretation of the physical theory.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I don't see what your clarity of communication has to do with this dispute. The issue is if you are correct in your statement that relativity requires time to be a "dimension."

From your previous posts I know that you consider time virtually a spatial dimension. As you know, I disagree with you on this. I could agree that time can be thought of metaphorically as a dimension, but one of change (i.e., not space). But I have never read a single thing supporting your proposition that time must be considered a dimension (as you mean it) in order for relativity to be true.




We've never disagreed about the distortion of "something." Slowing the rate of entropy warps measurement quite nicely. You can't say "time" being warped means anything unless you first define what time is.

I did define what time is. Time is the dimension, on which we measure "when" something is, instead of "where" it is (which is what you do with "space").

As I've said before, I could say that space is just the measurement of distance, between one object and another. However, Relativity (and QM, for that matter) say otherwise. Relativity requires that space be "something", that warps and changes, due to the presence of matter.

Have you ever heard the term "spacetime"? The word "space" includes all of the spatial dimensions, but it excludes the "time" dimension. Thus, they coin the word "spacetime" - including time, as one of the dimensions.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Mentat, the consideration of time as a "dimension"
in GR is one that is due to the fact that the
mathematical equations treat space and time together
through 4-dimensional geometry. While the defintion of
a "dimension" in mathematics has a clear and defined
meaning, I believe that the physical defintion
of time as a "dimension" is simply a subsequent
interpretation of the theory due to the mathematical
techneaques that are being used. I do not think that
there is a clear definition and destinction of
time as a "dimension" from the the general meaning
of time, which is the rate of change in a system,
which coupled to thermodynamics also "gives" us
Universal entropy increase.

In addition, like Flipton said - I can't see
the relevance of this to LW Sleeth's argument
about "preceeding potential".

Live long and prosper.

Well, you're right, it's not relevant to his/her thread.

I agreed with the point of this thread, and I still do. I just disagreed with LW Sleeth's concept of time. But, I guess that's a subject for another thread.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Mentat, the consideration of time as a "dimension"
in GR is one that is due to the fact that the
mathematical equations treat space and time together
through 4-dimensional geometry. While the defintion of
a "dimension" in mathematics has a clear and defined
meaning, I believe that the physical defintion
of time as a "dimension" is simply a subsequent
interpretation of the theory due to the mathematical
techneaques that are being used. I do not think that
there is a clear definition and destinction of
time as a "dimension" from the the general meaning
of time, which is the rate of change in a system,
which coupled to thermodynamics also "gives" us
Universal entropy increase.

Think about what you're saying. You are saying that time is a dimension, only in mathematics, and that it is just the rate of change, in actual practice. I refer you to my previous post to LW Sleeth. I'd also like to add that I think the mathematics of Relativity were intended to describe reality. They describe space as warping and changing, and no one here seems to have a problem with that; but when they do the same thing with time, everyone denies it, because they can't visualize it .

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by drag
Mentat, the consideration of time as a "dimension"
in GR is one that is due to the fact that the
mathematical equations treat space and time together
through 4-dimensional geometry. While the defintion of
a "dimension" in mathematics has a clear and defined
meaning, I believe that the physical defintion
of time as a "dimension" is simply a subsequent
interpretation of the theory due to the mathematical
techneaques that are being used.

Good point.

Originally posted by drag
I do not think that
there is a clear definition and distinction of
time as a "dimension" from the the general meaning
of time, which is the rate of change in a system,
which coupled to thermodynamics also "gives" us
Universal entropy increase.

My non-technical understanding of the inclusion of time with space, and calling it a dimension," is because with either gravity or acceleration, both space and time are constricted. In terms of measurement/calculation in GR, it is impossible to do so correctly unless one recognizes that. I always thought calling time a dimension was a way to show its inseparable link to space distortion. Mentat in past debates has indicated he thinks time is virtually a space dimension, and so has proposed ideas about it that require it to possesses spatial traits. That is the only part of Mentat's concept I've disagreed with since I believe time is a measurement device reflecting entropic change.

Originally posted by drag
In addition, like Flipton said - I can't see
the relevance of this to LW Sleeth's argument
about "preceeding potential".

This is my doing because I brought up time in my discussion with Heusden. I don't think Mentat is saying time is relevant to my potentiality argument, but rather is rekindling a debate we've had before. I like the debate very much, by the way, because I always get a clearer picture of both time and GR.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
They describe space as warping and changing, and no one here seems to have a problem with that; but when they do the same thing with time, everyone denies it, because they can't visualize it .

You are wrong to say that anyone has a problem with time distorting . . . the problem is treating it like a spatial dimension. You have assumed that applying the word "dimension" means it is similar to a space dimension because the same word is used to describe them both. But "dimension" can simply be a way of delineating a distinct realm or dynamic, sort of like a "set" in math is used to define a collection of elements. In this case, I believe time is describing a feature of the universe that is part of everything: change. If it is part of everything, you cannot ignore it when calculating/measuring. So that is why it becomes crucial in GR, because the rate of change is affected by gravity.

It feels like you are getting upset by this debate ( ). I don't know why, I am enjoying it. Have fun!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You are wrong to say that anyone has a problem with time distorting . . . the problem is treating it like a spatial dimension. You have assumed that applying the word "dimension" means it is similar to a space dimension because the same word is used to describe them both. But "dimension" can simply be a way of delineating a distinct realm or dynamic, sort of like a "set" in math is used to define a collection of elements. In this case, I believe time is describing a feature of the universe that is part of everything: change. If it is part of everything, you cannot ignore it when calculating/measuring. So that is why it becomes crucial in GR, because the rate of change is affected by gravity.

It feels like you are getting upset by this debate ( ). I don't know why, I am enjoying it. Have fun!

No, I'm enjoying this debate. That was the "disapprove" smily. I "disapprove" of people's denying what they can't visualize.

You may define a "dimension" as you wish, but I was defining it as being synonymous to an "axis" or "coordinate", and I believe that that's how GR defines it, as well.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
You may define a "dimension" as you wish, but I was defining it as being synonymous to an "axis" or "coordinate", and I believe that that's how GR defines it, as well.

Okay then, draw a four dimensional representation and indicate where time is.

I've not defined a dimension any way I wish, I am just trying to see how it makes sense. I can see it very easily if time represents rate of change . . . the unstoppable dynamic of change is very clearly observable. Time as a spatial coordinate however I have never seen, nor anything like it. What sort of experience can you refer me to that will help change my mind?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Okay then, draw a four dimensional representation and indicate where time is.

This is exactly what I disapproved of. You are asking me to help you visualize it, and implying that you won't believe it, unless I do.

I've not defined a dimension any way I wish, I am just trying to see how it makes sense. I can see it very easily if time represents rate of change . . . the unstoppable dynamic of change is very clearly observable. Time as a spatial coordinate however I have never seen, nor anything like it. What sort of experience can you refer me to that will help change my mind? [/B]

I never said it was a spatial dimension.

You have never gone fast enough to appreciate the distortion of spacetime. In order to experience the distortion of time, you need either extreme speed, or extreme gravity.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
This is exactly what I disapproved of. You are asking me to help you visualize it, and implying that you won't believe it, unless I do.

You are the one treating it like a coordinate. If it is, then explain where you place it with space coordinates. I say, the only way you can depict time is as a pace/rate, and that's because time is movement, not an actual "place" or coordinate that can be treated the same way as a spatial dimension. It has entirely different rules and dynamics than space, yet you attempt (at least in the past you have) to theorize with time as one would with space.

Originally posted by Mentat
You have never gone fast enough to appreciate the distortion of spacetime. In order to experience the distortion of time, you need either extreme speed, or extreme gravity.

That isn't a valid counterpoint.

I have never suggested that time is not altered. That is NOT our debate. The debate is, what does the term "time" represent in actual, physical reality.

 

[drag]

May I suggest that purhaps you should continue
discussing the original subject of this thread.
Or do you guys like arguing about this, unsolvable
as it is, preference of definition too much...

Live long and prosper.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by drag
May I suggest that purhaps you should continue
discussing the original subject of this thread.
Or do you guys like arguing about this, unsolvable
as it is, preference of definition too much...

I enjoy all of it as long as people are thinking and interested. Of course I'd rather put things back on track, but people stopped commenting on my original idea a long time ago. So if "time" is stimulating thought, so be it!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You are the one treating it like a coordinate. If it is, then explain where you place it with space coordinates. I say, the only way you can depict time is as a pace/rate, and that's because time is movement, not an actual "place" or coordinate that can be treated the same way as a spatial dimension. It has entirely different rules and dynamics than space, yet you attempt (at least in the past you have) to theorize with time as one would with space.

You seem to be having the same problem as (Q), on another thread. I can tell you that Relativity posulates that time is a coordinate, which warps and changes, due to the presence of matter. If you want another source, pick up a book about Relativity. As a matter of fact, if you get the book, The Elegant Universe (by Brian Greene), you can get at least a very basic idea of Relativity's view of the time dimension. I also suggest reading the book, "Relativity, the Special and General Theories", by Albert Einstein (obviously a reliable source, as to what Relativity postulates ). You don't have to believe what these - or any other - books say, but you apparently don't think that that is what Relativity postulates, and so I suggest that you read about it.

That isn't a valid counterpoint.

It wasn't intended to be. It was intended to show you that I can't help you visualize the warping of time, any more than I can help you visualize Quantum Uncertainty, or what we look like from the Fourth Spacial Dimension. But, as I said before, I don't approve of people dismissing an idea, just because they can't visualize it. It is unreasonable, and irrational, to do so.