 |
| 
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 3/6/2006 2:08 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Why is time considered the 4th dimension? I mean... where'd they come up with that?
Why couldn't spatial relations be a 4th dimension and time simply being the carrier from sofa1 to sofa2 (btw...sofas=states of affairs)
Not that I'll have much time (pun somewhat unintended) to really get on here and discuss... but I'm just wondering if any of you have an answer to this??? Alan and I were just briefly talking about this and I thought I'd just throw this out here to see what y'all think...
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]: Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/11/2006 2:07 PM (GMT -6) | | I was under the impression that time is considered as a fourth dimension in Einstein's relativity--not in the prior Euclidean view reference frames. In the latter view, there are three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, but no such idea as time "warping" and space "bending." For prior to relativism, space and time were considered to be the ultimate, but DISTINCT, frames of reference for beings and events.
There is still a minority view in physics today that rejects relativity on the grounds that it is conceptually meaningless. What, for example, is the frame of reference which conditions our conception of space "bending?" Or, to put it differently, with respect to WHAT frame of reference does space bend?"
There are relativists who admit that relativity is counter-intuitive, but they are undetterred by philosophical problems. Some are perfectly content to believe that our intuitions are imperfectly evolved and that our apprehension of reality is only to be "corrected" in terms of pragmatic value.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/11/2006 9:28 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 3/11/2006 10:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everyone,
jefscott said...
I was under the impression that time is considered as a fourth dimension in Einstein's relativity--not in the prior Euclidean view reference frames.
Yes, that is what I meant...
jefscott said...
What, for example, is the frame of reference which conditions our conception of space "bending?" Or, to put it differently, with respect to WHAT frame of reference does space bend?"
The frame of reference without the gravitational object that would be said to cause bending?
There is another interesting aspect of this that I have read of, and that is the fact that physics would work exactly the same in both directions in time. That is, if you have an egg go splat on the floor, and then if you could possibly set all the egg splatter particles in exactly the opposite motion they had when they landed on your nice spotless tile floor (I say "your" because my kitchen floor is not so spotless!), then the egg would reassemble on the kitchen counter. The laws of physics really don't mind which direction time is flowing.
And position and time are actually virtually the same in the formulas for getting from one frame of reference to the other, so it really does work to just treat time as another regular sort of dimension, regardless of your philosophical bent, it would seem...
Blessings,
Lee <- Who finds all this very interesting
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 3/11/2006 9:36:17 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 3/15/2006 2:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Jeff,
So... does that mean that the "4th dimension" is based on and simply assumes Einstein's ToR?.... that the ToR is the foundation for the current understanding of the 4th dimension (for those who accept it)?
Hmmm... if so... I guess I'd need to find out if the ToR really holds water... but I can't help thinking that the whole relation between 4D and ToR is just circular... chicken or egg?
Is it circular?
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 3/15/2006 2:42 AM (GMT -6) | | I guess my other question (I'll probably have to investigate this sometime...) is, what evidence is there supporting the validity of the ToR?
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 3/15/2006 9:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Violin for God said...
I guess my other question (I'll probably have to investigate this sometime...) is, what evidence is there supporting the validity of the ToR?
Well, it's been verified quite a bit more than most other theories, I've heard! For example, the global positioning systems that cell phones use, they wouldn't work if they didn't take into account the difference in time caused by orbiting, that is, the relativity effects.
Also, they have actual pictures now of gravity bending light from distant galaxies. So the theory does indeed make very unexpected, and verifiable predictions.
Yet it may be wrong! But like Newton's theory was wrong, that would seem to be the most that would be expected, and then need further refinement...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 3/16/2006 3:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Ah, I see. Cool. Thanks Lee! Yeah, I've heard that the ToR has done a lot to help in technology stuff and that all (maybe?) scientists really dig the ToR... but I don't know any of the specifics. Thanks for your input! (Let me know if you come across any other stuff in the future about this too)
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/16/2006 6:59 PM (GMT -6) | | i just heard today from some guy talking on Minnesota Public Radio that gravity is NOT the reason you stay put in a chair when you sit (there is no such thing as "gravitational pull," he said); rather, it is air pressure that forces you to stay seated. But, then, the guy went on to mention something about gravity affecting us, but I don't know now it affects anything it if isn't a push or pull.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/18/2006 2:43 PM (GMT -6) | | VFG: So... does that mean that the "4th dimension" is based on and simply assumes Einstein's ToR?.... that the ToR is the foundation for the current understanding of the 4th dimension (for those who accept it)?
Jeff: Well, to the best of my understanding, the particular meaning attached to the phrase, "the 4th dimension," is a relativistic one.
VFG: So... does that mean that the "4th dimension" is based on and simply assumes Einstein's ToR?.... that the ToR is the foundation for the current understanding of the 4th dimension (for those who accept it)?
Jeff: I would say yes in the sense that the phrase has a relativistic meaning. But it could still have a relativistic meaning in the context of Lorentzian relativity, too. But Lorentzian relativity doesn't rule out a true Euclidean space and time. That is a very important difference, philosophically speaking. For if our intuitions (which even relativists admit are contrary to Einsteinian relativity) are not strictly true, then one could argue that God didn't intend for us to know truth accurately.
So I would say that a philosophy that holds to benevolent theism would side with Lorentzian relativity until it has been ruled out. But then one could ask, "How can a mind with invalid intuitions prove anything, conclusively?" See the problem?
VFG: Hmmm... if so... I guess I'd need to find out if the ToR really holds water... but I can't help thinking that the whole relation between 4D and ToR is just circular... chicken or egg?
Jeff: I think some of the evidence for "relativity" is compelling. However, I have a video series on relativity. The teacher, who is a staunch Einsteinian relativist, admits therein that Lorentzian relativity IS a logical possibility but that we don't have a theory/mechanism to explain it. I say "so what?" There is a host of things we don't know mechanisms for. Does that prove they don't occur? Of course not.
To my mind, it's just plain anti-philosophical to prefer mystery and counter-intuitive explanations to intuitive ones. It seems to imply that God does not intend for us to KNOW truth. Because ALL beliefs are conditioned by our intuitions/categories. Now that doesn't rule out the possibility that some truths may be SUPRA-intuitional. But even so, when there is no compelling reason to resort to SUPRA-intuitional explanations, it seems intellectually dishonest (to me, at least) to do so.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Ronald A. Newcomb
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 4/2/2006 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Before we get too enamored with Einstein, he had several major problems.
He was an atheist and, trained by Mach attempted unsuccessfully to remove any absolutes of any type at all, and nearly did so. In that attempt he removed ether as an invisible substance that is everywhere, makes up the majority of the matter in the universe and s the matter/medium through which light travels. Now we have a problem, we have to try and figure out why this thing (light) acts as both a particle and a wave. Well, the old ether theory, laughed out of existence because it allowed for absolute positioning in the universe Einstein wanted to be relative, simply stated that it was a particle traveling through the ether and left a wave. While Einstein didn’t like it, he was forced to recant on that and now we call it dark matter or black hydrogen. Same theory, just revisited. Einstein realized before he died that his relativity theory didn’t work without it.
When you hear Einstein talking about “god” he is not speaking of an all powerful personal being, he is using a metaphor for the universe.
But back to dimensions.
The theories of dimensions continues to develop. Here is a brief:
Things must exist in something, some place, and have certain aspects. So where do things exist? They exist in a domain made up of no less than two dimensions. A domain is the minimal place anything can be described o exist. It is the interaction of two dimensions.
Let’s take height and length interacting to create a domain. This is a very flat domain with zero width, but in it I can describe a ray, a line, an angle, a plane. If you remove one of the dimensions, you have no domain, ergo, no ability for any of these to exist in.
If we want something with mass, we need to add the dimension of width, now we have three and mass can exist, right?
Not exactly.
Without the forth dimension, time, there can be no mass because mass is made of matter and matter = energy (E=MC2, take away the constant which Einstein said was a mistake and you have E=M or Energy=Mass), and energy is always moving, ergo you need time.
So, for anything with mass to exist you must have a domain made up of not less that four dimensions.
Einstein made a mistake in thinking time can be warped. It isn’t time that is warped, rather the effect of physical things in a heavy gravitational field changes giving the appearance that time has been altered.
Look at it this way. It takes, say 8 hours to drive from San Diego to Sacramento, except when Haley’s Comet appears than it only takes 5 hours. Has time warped because of Haley’s Comet? No, the car moved faster. But if this happens in the universe, Einstein said, time was warped. Why? Because he wanted everything to be relative. Yet even he realized that his theory only worked in a gravitational field.
Well, if you have a theory entirely dependent on one natural force, it is a theory of that force, ergo, his theory is one of gravity. It doesn’t/can’t work without mass/gravity.
Einstein was a naturalist as was his mentor, Earnest Mach. Naturalism is the belief that only things in nature exist, i.e. only the physical universe exists.
Of course we hold that this is a false philosophy as its sister, scientism is. Scientism is the philosophical construct that claims that only things proved by scientific experimentation are true. It, of course, is not proved by science, ergo, by its own standards, it is false.
Relativity goes back to Galileo, however, it was Einstein who made relativity and absolute, that is, everything is relative. Prior to him, it was things in motion that had relative positional aspects. This was a better view of things.
R.A.Newcomb
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:36 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|