What if time wasn't just back and forth linear time but also side by side time? Is there a name for this?
Well, it's only possible if you consider time to be a separate dimension apart from spacetime or if you consider time as a dimension itself.What if time wasn't just back and forth linear time but also side by side time? Is there a name for this?
Thank you for putting in so much TIME and effort into answering me. HaWell, it's only possible if you consider time to be a separate dimension apart from spacetime or if you consider time as a dimension itself.
Now, I don't know if time travels back. Of course, the books and movies have the topic of time travel. But, as you know, we haven't yet invented a time machine and I wonder if it's even possible.
Now, let's come to my first assumption, i.e. considering time to be a separate dimension apart from spacetime. One of the two main pillars of modern-day Physics is Sir Albert Einstein's Relativity theories. That is, General Theory of Relativity and Special Theory of Relativity. GR (General Relativity) says that time is a dimension which has mixed with space to form spacetime. Like, sugar or salt dissolved in water. General Relativity says that the flow of time depends upon the object and it is malleable and relative. Now, time cannot function independently. Time is mixed with space, none of them will function without the other. No time, no space. No space, no time. Even if they exist, without each other, they can't function. So, each of them is useless without the other.
Now, let's come to my second assumption, i.e. considering time to be a dimension itself. You may wonder now, what's the difference between the two assumptions? The difference is the pillar. Yes, the pillar. This assumption resolves around the second pillar of modern Physics, Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Relativity don't fully agree with each other, but still, (I am not here to debate which is correct and which is not ) both should be counted if you want to answer that question by not just laughing it off. Now, as far as I know (I don't much and maybe I am wrong), QM says that time is universal and absolute, but GR says that time is relative and malleable. QM says that time is the same everywhere, but this is a direct violation of GR and vice versa. QM doesn't actually consider time as a dimension doesn't exist.
And also, you know, there are three main dimensions of space, latitude, longitude and altitude. Like, a line is one-dimensional. You can consider it to be either latitude or longitude or altitude. But, the moment you make a square out of the line, it turns two-dimensional. And, it has to be either latitude-longitude or altitude-latitude or longitude-altitude. And when you make a cube out of the square, it turns three-dimensional. It has to be latitude-longitude-altitude. So, you may think what's the relation of your question to this and why am I blabbering so many things? (Well, to be honest, I myself am also thinking that. LOL.) So, you see that each of the Space dimensions happen to linear. Or, if generalized, each dimension to be linear. Otherwise, the dimension is not one but many. Therefore, if you consider time to be one dimension, it's always got to be either back-and-forth or right-and-left or up-and-down. And, I don't think we feel time to be going sideways.
Therefore, my final conclusion is that, if time is one dimensional (if time is even a dimension), then it's impossible and implausible for time to be anything but linear. And, I think the Physicists are already sinking in the whirlpool of questions regarding time and, if I say that time is not one dimension, they will literally go mad...
4.351968E+17 |
That's also one point.How many seconds elapsed using *side by side time*?
What if time wasn't just back and forth linear time but also side by side time? Is there a name for this?
I have a theory that spatial Dimensions have eight sides to it or time can exit to and I think they opened time-warp somehow because some people I've asked our hearing voices and they're having conversations but they can't see the person and they are from one of the parallel universes. How do you feel about that theory?I don't know if there is a name for that But I do know that time runs backwards and forwards And in all different directions in this present dimension
Tell me what you mean by this, I will answer you then.or time can exit to
I have a theory that spatial Dimensions have eight sides to it or time can exit to and I think they opened time-warp somehow because some people I've asked our hearing voices and they're having conversations but they can't see the person and they are from one of the parallel universes. How do you feel about that theory?
Space-times 4th dimension is measured with a clock. It can go faster or slower but not backwards. (kcit kcot)
Co-temporalWhat if time wasn't just back and forth linear time but also side by side time? Is there a name for this?
Well, I thought we go from Wednesday to Monday after every 4 days without time dilation.Time dilation occurs when we travel from Wednesday to Monday, instead of Monday to Wednesday
IG, I never said it did. I just answered a question by supplying a word.Co-temporal time doesn't exist, Cat.
Maybe that's what De'ja' Vu is all about?What if time wasn't just back and forth linear time but also side by side time? Is there a name for this?
It depends on definitions. Back to semantics.Co-temporal time doesn't exist, Cat.
"Maybe that's what De'ja' Vu is all about? "Maybe that's what De'ja' Vu is all about?
De'ja' Vu def> the illusion of remembering scenes and events
when experienced for the first time
Have you any ideas relating time and dreams?I have a theory that spatial Dimensions have eight sides to it or time can exit to and I think they opened time-warp somehow because some people I've asked our hearing voices and they're having conversations but they can't see the person and they are from one of the parallel universes. How do you feel about that theory?
"We can move in 3 dimensions, so travelling in any of them we "produce" time. "Space = physical reality, time = concept. Thus, there is no such physical entity as space-time, and time is not the 4th dimension. We can move in 3 dimensions, so travelling in any of them we "produce" time.
--
Time dilation occurs when we travel from Wednesday to Monday, instead of Monday to Wednesday
Space and time are connected and space can curve and "wave", gravity waves. I believe this affects time and we always experience what I call "Time Drag" which is when massive gravity waves pass through our solar system and stretch out space and also time. So those times in school or at work when it seems like the clock is slow is actually true and we are under the effects of gravity waves. We have only recently been able to measure them with "LIGO" and "LISA" (I think those are the right names.)What if time wasn't just back and forth linear time but also side by side time? Is there a name for this?
Time, similarly as for instance, its synonyms motion/change cannot be a dimension."We can move in 3 dimensions, so travelling in any of them we "produce" time. "
That underlines the fundamental difference between a space dimension and the time dimension.
Aren't you forgetting what physics is?Maybe there is a case for distinguishing between "travel" into different "time" dimensions? See my point elsewhere in this topic about personal experience of time integrated into a "learned" time framework.
Time, similarly as for instance, its synonyms motion/change cannot be a dimension.
Dimension is a measure of the spatial extent.
Aren't you forgetting what physics is?
__
<<Comment removed by moderator>>
Space and time are connected and space can curve and "wave", gravity waves. I believe this affects time and we always experience what I call "Time Drag" which is when massive gravity waves pass through our solar system and stretch out space and also time. So those times in school or at work when it seems like the clock is slow is actually true and we are under the effects of gravity waves. We have only recently been able to measure them with "LIGO" and "LISA" (I think those are the right names.)
Also I believe we stand in the middle of a 7days future and 7days past, "time loop" on our planet. The speed of light can travel around our particular planet 7 times in one second (approx) and this is our "Sphere of Influence". The problem is that this shows how the past and future also create a "drag" on us and that is why most people get stuck doing the same things over and over and can't move in new directions. Only by being "present" can we cut these influences and therefore move in new directions.
The past is shown to constantly influence most people when they are stuck with traumas and bad (or even good) experiences from the past. We can also intuit our own future possibilities from 7 days out, if we can remain present and open.....
I win.
No, I win.Well, it's only possible if you consider time to be a separate dimension apart from spacetime or if you consider time as a dimension itself.
Now, I don't know if time travels back. Of course, the books and movies have the topic of time travel. But, as you know, we haven't yet invented a time machine and I wonder if it's even possible.
Now, let's come to my first assumption, i.e. considering time to be a separate dimension apart from spacetime. One of the two main pillars of modern-day Physics is Sir Albert Einstein's Relativity theories. That is, General Theory of Relativity and Special Theory of Relativity. GR (General Relativity) says that time is a dimension which has mixed with space to form spacetime. Like, sugar or salt dissolved in water. General Relativity says that the flow of time depends upon the object and it is malleable and relative. Now, time cannot function independently. Time is mixed with space, none of them will function without the other. No time, no space. No space, no time. Even if they exist, without each other, they can't function. So, each of them is useless without the other.
Now, let's come to my second assumption, i.e. considering time to be a dimension itself. You may wonder now, what's the difference between the two assumptions? The difference is the pillar. Yes, the pillar. This assumption resolves around the second pillar of modern Physics, Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Relativity don't fully agree with each other, but still, (I am not here to debate which is correct and which is not ) both should be counted if you want to answer that question by not just laughing it off. Now, as far as I know (I don't much and maybe I am wrong), QM says that time is universal and absolute, but GR says that time is relative and malleable. QM says that time is the same everywhere, but this is a direct violation of GR and vice versa. QM doesn't actually consider time as a dimension doesn't exist.
And also, you know, there are three main dimensions of space, latitude, longitude and altitude. Like, a line is one-dimensional. You can consider it to be either latitude or longitude or altitude. But, the moment you make a square out of the line, it turns two-dimensional. And, it has to be either latitude-longitude or altitude-latitude or longitude-altitude. And when you make a cube out of the square, it turns three-dimensional. It has to be latitude-longitude-altitude. So, you may think what's the relation of your question to this and why am I blabbering so many things? (Well, to be honest, I myself am also thinking that. LOL.) So, you see that each of the Space dimensions happen to linear. Or, if generalized, each dimension to be linear. Otherwise, the dimension is not one but many. Therefore, if you consider time to be one dimension, it's always got to be either back-and-forth or right-and-left or up-and-down. And, I don't think we feel time to be going sideways.
Therefore, my final conclusion is that, if time is one dimensional (if time is even a dimension), then it's impossible and implausible for time to be anything but linear. And, I think the Physicists are already sinking in the whirlpool of questions regarding time and, if I say that time is not one dimension, they will literally go mad...