- #1
Audax Dreik
- 8
- 0
Hello, this is my first time posting, I do hope I've found the right place.
I have relatively no knowledge of physics but am about to minor in it in college. The questions and ideas I am about to set down concern time, an issue of which I again know very little.
While sitting idle one day it occurred to me that I wasn't really aware of what time was, I had no definition for it and was only vaguely aware of it's concept in enough to understand the importance of it's passing. After much thought I came up with a definition which in all logic seems correct to me however it appears to go against the idea that time is the 4th dimension. The definition I was able to come up with is as follows:
"The change in the relative positions of all objects in a dimension due to the exertion of energy."
The first point: Time necessitates change, does it not? For how else would it be said to be passing?
The second point: Time must include all objects and their relative positions to one another. If all objects maintain the same relative positions then nothing is changing and that would mean there was no passage of time as indicated by the first point. At the instant one object moves time occurs because that causes an instant change in the positions of all other objects relative to itself.
The third point: Time occurs within a dimension because it's passage is dependant upon the change of the already physical dimensions of the objects.
The fourth point: I don't know what brought about the mentioning of the exertion of energy being the cause of it all, it seems relevant.
Now the problem arises when the definition is put together. A dimension is a physical property or measurement that can be moved around in. For example height, width and depth are all physical properties that can be moved around in (i.e moving along an x, y or z axis). However, this is not so with time. You cannot move in time and it's measurement is much more complex than just height, width or depth. I say that time cannot be moved around in because of my definition. My definition says that time is a result of moving, not a causation. Things don't move because time passes, time passes because things move. Also things are not necessarily moving forward in time or progressing, just changing which does not indicate movement in any particular direction. You could not travel back in time unless every atom was reverted to the same position it held at that given time. Even if this were possible you could say that it merely existed in the same state a second time after it existed in that state the first, however, if it were exact it's previous existence in this state would have no bearance on it's current existence or the time between thus making it seem that the time between did not occur at all.
As pertaining to the measure of time I came up with this. I have no idea what I am doing, I know basic Algebra and am familiar with Einstein's theory of relativity as is just about everyone (e=mc^2, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared) so what follows is probably an overly simplistic combination of the two. When I looked at my definition I noticed out of complete coincidence the following:
"The change in the relative positions of all objects (read mass) in a dimension due to the exertion of energy."
This of course brought to mind Einstein's theory of relativity, but the elements of changing positions/distances and time that are in my definition seemed to be missing. So here comes the algebraic reworking...
energy = mass x speed of light (299,792,458 m/s)
So within the speed of light we see elements of a distance and time. I reworked the equation into a generalized form of time = square root of (mass x distance^2 / energy). I know this is flawed, I'm doing this off a scrap paper because I don't have my further calculations handy. If you plug in the above given measuremnt for c then you should come up with something along the lines of 1 sec = etc. This whole part is probably hokey anyway... But I do hope it illustrates my point that the measurement is much more complex.
Anyway, that's my case, sorry for rambling. I admit to not having done much research before posting this topic, as I stated previously my knowledge is minimal. All attempts failed miserably in subject matter that was either over my head or of a very basic nature. I guess I'm somewhere in between and I need someone to explain these things to me in those terms, particularly why everyone says time is the 4th dimension
I have relatively no knowledge of physics but am about to minor in it in college. The questions and ideas I am about to set down concern time, an issue of which I again know very little.
While sitting idle one day it occurred to me that I wasn't really aware of what time was, I had no definition for it and was only vaguely aware of it's concept in enough to understand the importance of it's passing. After much thought I came up with a definition which in all logic seems correct to me however it appears to go against the idea that time is the 4th dimension. The definition I was able to come up with is as follows:
"The change in the relative positions of all objects in a dimension due to the exertion of energy."
The first point: Time necessitates change, does it not? For how else would it be said to be passing?
The second point: Time must include all objects and their relative positions to one another. If all objects maintain the same relative positions then nothing is changing and that would mean there was no passage of time as indicated by the first point. At the instant one object moves time occurs because that causes an instant change in the positions of all other objects relative to itself.
The third point: Time occurs within a dimension because it's passage is dependant upon the change of the already physical dimensions of the objects.
The fourth point: I don't know what brought about the mentioning of the exertion of energy being the cause of it all, it seems relevant.
Now the problem arises when the definition is put together. A dimension is a physical property or measurement that can be moved around in. For example height, width and depth are all physical properties that can be moved around in (i.e moving along an x, y or z axis). However, this is not so with time. You cannot move in time and it's measurement is much more complex than just height, width or depth. I say that time cannot be moved around in because of my definition. My definition says that time is a result of moving, not a causation. Things don't move because time passes, time passes because things move. Also things are not necessarily moving forward in time or progressing, just changing which does not indicate movement in any particular direction. You could not travel back in time unless every atom was reverted to the same position it held at that given time. Even if this were possible you could say that it merely existed in the same state a second time after it existed in that state the first, however, if it were exact it's previous existence in this state would have no bearance on it's current existence or the time between thus making it seem that the time between did not occur at all.
As pertaining to the measure of time I came up with this. I have no idea what I am doing, I know basic Algebra and am familiar with Einstein's theory of relativity as is just about everyone (e=mc^2, energy equals mass times the speed of light squared) so what follows is probably an overly simplistic combination of the two. When I looked at my definition I noticed out of complete coincidence the following:
"The change in the relative positions of all objects (read mass) in a dimension due to the exertion of energy."
This of course brought to mind Einstein's theory of relativity, but the elements of changing positions/distances and time that are in my definition seemed to be missing. So here comes the algebraic reworking...
energy = mass x speed of light (299,792,458 m/s)
So within the speed of light we see elements of a distance and time. I reworked the equation into a generalized form of time = square root of (mass x distance^2 / energy). I know this is flawed, I'm doing this off a scrap paper because I don't have my further calculations handy. If you plug in the above given measuremnt for c then you should come up with something along the lines of 1 sec = etc. This whole part is probably hokey anyway... But I do hope it illustrates my point that the measurement is much more complex.
Anyway, that's my case, sorry for rambling. I admit to not having done much research before posting this topic, as I stated previously my knowledge is minimal. All attempts failed miserably in subject matter that was either over my head or of a very basic nature. I guess I'm somewhere in between and I need someone to explain these things to me in those terms, particularly why everyone says time is the 4th dimension