Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Time: Dimension vs. Element

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements? Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 6:27:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements? Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.

"Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are our four elements, seriously?

Are you here from another millennium perhaps?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 10:30:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 6:27:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements? Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.

"Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are our four elements, seriously?

Are you here from another millennium perhaps?

What's the problem? Are there more elements than that? I'm not counting Aristotle's aether.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 11:51:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements? Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.

Earth
Air
Fire
Water
Time
Space
Cheez wiz
Tivo
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 1:22:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 10:30:17 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2015 6:27:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements? Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.

"Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are our four elements, seriously?

Are you here from another millennium perhaps?

What's the problem? Are there more elements than that? I'm not counting Aristotle's aether.

There are 118, and "Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are not four of them.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2015 2:55:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 1:22:54 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 10:30:17 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2015 6:27:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements? Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.

"Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are our four elements, seriously?

Are you here from another millennium perhaps?

What's the problem? Are there more elements than that? I'm not counting Aristotle's aether.

There are 118, and "Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are not four of them.

Lol, I wasn't talking about the periodic table of elements. I was talking about the classical elements. That's my fault though, I should have been more clear. I figured since this was the philosophy forum that it'd be a given.

Ultimately, my question is why Time isn't considered as a (classical) element instead of its current classification as a dimension.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 6:07:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 2:55:52 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2015 1:22:54 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 10:30:17 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2015 6:27:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements?

No, it isn't empirically observable.

Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.

"Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are our four elements, seriously?

Are you here from another millennium perhaps?

What's the problem? Are there more elements than that? I'm not counting Aristotle's aether.

There are 118, and "Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are not four of them.

Lol, I wasn't talking about the periodic table of elements. I was talking about the classical elements. That's my fault though, I should have been more clear. I figured since this was the philosophy forum that it'd be a given.

Ultimately, my question is why Time isn't considered as a (classical) element instead of its current classification as a dimension.

Because the concept of the classical elements were devised almost four thousand years ago and time only became known as a dimension a hundred and ten years ago. It a function of time being a sequential ordering of events and only going in one direction.

Ultimately, your question is sort of like wondering why automobiles weren't considered one of the forms of transportation in ancient times.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 9:59:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 6:07:20 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 2:55:52 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2015 1:22:54 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 10:30:17 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2015 6:27:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements?

No, it isn't empirically observable.

It's on par with air. The only empirical evidence of it (air) is the effect of it through our sense of feeling and perhaps seeing (on objects that can be moved by air). Time is the same in that we can see and feel its effect.

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com...

Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.

"Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are our four elements, seriously?

Are you here from another millennium perhaps?

What's the problem? Are there more elements than that? I'm not counting Aristotle's aether.

There are 118, and "Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are not four of them.

Lol, I wasn't talking about the periodic table of elements. I was talking about the classical elements. That's my fault though, I should have been more clear. I figured since this was the philosophy forum that it'd be a given.

Ultimately, my question is why Time isn't considered as a (classical) element instead of its current classification as a dimension.

Because the concept of the classical elements were devised almost four thousand years ago and time only became known as a dimension a hundred and ten years ago. It a function of time being a sequential ordering of events and only going in one direction.

So, the fact that it is a sequential ordering that only moves one direction is the reason it's a dimension? Space moves in all directions, it is what allows for directions in the first place, so how is time and space in the same class (classified as a dimension)?

Ultimately, your question is sort of like wondering why automobiles weren't considered one of the forms of transportation in ancient times.

I get your analogy, but don't think it can encompass the comparison I'm making. Time was a concept understood roughly 6,000 years ago according to paleolithic artifacts which suggest the moon was used to track time. Some studies even purport the view that time was being utilized 10,000 years ago by the hunter gatherers in Aberdeenshire.

http://phys.org...

So, I don't think it's right to knock it down due to it only being classified as a dimension over 100 years ago.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 6:59:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 9:59:56 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/15/2015 6:07:20 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 2:55:52 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2015 1:22:54 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 10:30:17 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2015 6:27:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements?

No, it isn't empirically observable.

It's on par with air. The only empirical evidence of it (air) is the effect of it through our sense of feeling and perhaps seeing (on objects that can be moved by air). Time is the same in that we can see and feel its effect.

No, it isn't on par with air, air is physical, time is conceptual, it's an idea without any physical referent. Change can be observed, and time is a measurement of change, but it is a product of our cognitive processes, it is not an observable "something", it's an operative principle that occurs in the conceptual space of consciousness as an object of thought. Time is an epistemological construct, and as such, it has no observable ontological existence.

That"s why it has never been considered an "element", classically or otherwise.

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com...

Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.

"Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are our four elements, seriously?

Are you here from another millennium perhaps?

What's the problem? Are there more elements than that? I'm not counting Aristotle's aether.

There are 118, and "Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are not four of them.

Lol, I wasn't talking about the periodic table of elements. I was talking about the classical elements. That's my fault though, I should have been more clear. I figured since this was the philosophy forum that it'd be a given.

Ultimately, my question is why Time isn't considered as a (classical) element instead of its current classification as a dimension.

Because the concept of the classical elements were devised almost four thousand years ago and time only became known as a dimension a hundred and ten years ago. It a function of time being a sequential ordering of events and only going in one direction.

So, the fact that it is a sequential ordering that only moves one direction is the reason it's a dimension?

No, the fact that it is sequential and only moves one direction is the reason the ancients didn't adopt the concept of time as a dimension after Einstein developed the concept in 1905.

Space moves in all directions, it is what allows for directions in the first place, so how is time and space in the same class (classified as a dimension)?

In relativity theory space and time are simply coordinate systems of the geometric structure in which things and events occur. Spacetime is a mathematical structure used to describe and extrapolate from observed phenomena, literalization of the spacetime mathematical construct of the General Theory into an independently existing entity directly contradicts the very theory it is based on. It"s a matter of describing how the variables are related to one another within the theory; the idea that time is a dimension is a mathematical construct within relativity theory, that's all.

Ultimately, your question is sort of like wondering why automobiles weren't considered one of the forms of transportation in ancient times.

I get your analogy, but don't think it can encompass the comparison I'm making. Time was a concept understood roughly 6,000 years ago according to paleolithic artifacts which suggest the moon was used to track time. Some studies even purport the view that time was being utilized 10,000 years ago by the hunter gatherers in Aberdeenshire.

Yes, the ancients certainly had the concept of time, that isn't in dispute, what we are discussing is why the ancients didn't have the concept of time as a dimension, and the reason for that if because they didn't have the theory of relativity yet.

http://phys.org...

So, I don't think it's right to knock it down due to it only being classified as a dimension over 100 years ago.

Let's go back to the original question, the classical elements were considered the constituents of the material world, they were descriptive of the fundamental states of matter, the concept of time just isn't in that category. It isn't that the concept of time wasn't known when the ancients developed the idea of the classical elements; it's just that it wasn't something that fit into what they were describing with the classical elements.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 7:24:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Hey BOT long time no see.
Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements? Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

I think this is a great question cause it just shows how little we know about time.
So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.

Well interestingly enough gravity is theoretically caused by particles or these things called gravitons. And we know if you warp gravity you warp time. So either time is cause by similar particles like graviton or time is somehow linked to the dimension of space itself.

I think the effects of time are observable but not time itself. I think we would be able to observe the future if that were the case.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 10:56:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 6:59:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/15/2015 9:59:56 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/15/2015 6:07:20 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 2:55:52 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2015 1:22:54 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 10:30:17 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2015 6:27:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements?

No, it isn't empirically observable.

It's on par with air. The only empirical evidence of it (air) is the effect of it through our sense of feeling and perhaps seeing (on objects that can be moved by air). Time is the same in that we can see and feel its effect.

No, it isn't on par with air, air is physical, time is conceptual, it's an idea without any physical referent. Change can be observed, and time is a measurement of change, but it is a product of our cognitive processes, it is not an observable "something", it's an operative principle that occurs in the conceptual space of consciousness as an object of thought. Time is an epistemological construct, and as such, it has no observable ontological existence.

That"s why it has never been considered an "element", classically or otherwise.

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com...

Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.

"Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are our four elements, seriously?

Are you here from another millennium perhaps?

What's the problem? Are there more elements than that? I'm not counting Aristotle's aether.

There are 118, and "Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind" are not four of them.

Lol, I wasn't talking about the periodic table of elements. I was talking about the classical elements. That's my fault though, I should have been more clear. I figured since this was the philosophy forum that it'd be a given.

Ultimately, my question is why Time isn't considered as a (classical) element instead of its current classification as a dimension.

Because the concept of the classical elements were devised almost four thousand years ago and time only became known as a dimension a hundred and ten years ago. It a function of time being a sequential ordering of events and only going in one direction.

So, the fact that it is a sequential ordering that only moves one direction is the reason it's a dimension?

No, the fact that it is sequential and only moves one direction is the reason the ancients didn't adopt the concept of time as a dimension after Einstein developed the concept in 1905.

Space moves in all directions, it is what allows for directions in the first place, so how is time and space in the same class (classified as a dimension)?

In relativity theory space and time are simply coordinate systems of the geometric structure in which things and events occur. Spacetime is a mathematical structure used to describe and extrapolate from observed phenomena, literalization of the spacetime mathematical construct of the General Theory into an independently existing entity directly contradicts the very theory it is based on. It"s a matter of describing how the variables are related to one another within the theory; the idea that time is a dimension is a mathematical construct within relativity theory, that's all.

Ultimately, your question is sort of like wondering why automobiles weren't considered one of the forms of transportation in ancient times.

I get your analogy, but don't think it can encompass the comparison I'm making. Time was a concept understood roughly 6,000 years ago according to paleolithic artifacts which suggest the moon was used to track time. Some studies even purport the view that time was being utilized 10,000 years ago by the hunter gatherers in Aberdeenshire.

Yes, the ancients certainly had the concept of time, that isn't in dispute, what we are discussing is why the ancients didn't have the concept of time as a dimension, and the reason for that if because they didn't have the theory of relativity yet.

http://phys.org...

So, I don't think it's right to knock it down due to it only being classified as a dimension over 100 years ago.

Let's go back to the original question, the classical elements were considered the constituents of the material world, they were descriptive of the fundamental states of matter, the concept of time just isn't in that category. It isn't that the concept of time wasn't known when the ancients developed the idea of the classical elements; it's just that it wasn't something that fit into what they were describing with the classical elements.

This was the response I was hoping for. I appreciate the clarification you've provided, and see now why it wasn't nor can be an element in terms of being on par with the classical elements.

Thank you.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:04:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 7:24:22 PM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Hey BOT long time no see.

Hey, I'm not the one who comes and goes :) You can always catch me on DDO.

Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements? Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

I think this is a great question cause it just shows how little we know about time.
So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.

Well interestingly enough gravity is theoretically caused by particles or these things called gravitons. And we know if you warp gravity you warp time. So either time is cause by similar particles like graviton or time is somehow linked to the dimension of space itself.

I think the effects of time are observable but not time itself. I think we would be able to observe the future if that were the case.

Yeah, a previous post just hit the nail on the head. At this point I'd say the OP was answered.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 12:52:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/14/2015 12:44:09 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I've often heard of *Time* being described as a dimension. The 4th dimension. However, this leads me to wonder why it isn't an element instead. We have Fire, Water, Earth, and Wind as our four elements.

Why isn't Time one of them?

Is Time not as empirically observable as the other four elements? Clearly each element is a natural part of our world, regardless of our intervention, but so is Time.

So what makes Time different from our other elements?

I can't help but think that the phenomenon known to us as Time is actually on par with the four elements, rather than being a dimension in and of itself.

This is really simple. In physics, space and time are interchangeable units of measurement. If space is a dimension and time is interchangeable with a measurement of dimension, then time is a dimensional unit of measurement.....Think Light years....both a measurement of time and space.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 5:31:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 6:59:18 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

In relativity theory space and time are simply coordinate systems of the geometric structure in which things and events occur. Spacetime is a mathematical structure used to describe and extrapolate from observed phenomena, literalization of the spacetime mathematical construct of the General Theory into an independently existing entity directly contradicts the very theory it is based on. It"s a matter of describing how the variables are related to one another within the theory; the idea that time is a dimension is a mathematical construct within relativity theory, that's all.

Is it not possible that mathematical constructs have a reality to them in the same way that linguistic constructs are always assumed to be real. It seems that there is a bias against knowledge achieved through maths, which often gets dismissed as mere construct whereas linguistic constructs are rarely subject to such dismissive views. Time dilation has definite measurable effects, how can this be true if spacetime is merely a construct?.