Time - fourth dimension or scientific nonsense?

[eMTe]

I think time as a fourth dimension is a nonsense. Physics as a science relies too much on mathematics and too little on observations as it was in pre-Einstein times. If there was anything like "time" and its power could have been changed like other fundamental interactions by applying other power we would observe it. Fundamental interactions between particles have been observed ever since living organisms started to interact with environment, but they werent explained by science before modern times. Everybody knew that dropped stone falls, flint and steel sparked together cause sparks etc. , human civilization just didnt have the answer why it happens. Now has anybody ever observed how time, whatever it is, stops, accelerates or does other weird unexplained things? Nope. Time is a product of mathematics - one of the variable in equation and nothing more. There's no time and space, there's only space. Einstein was wrong.

Share your wildest views on this subject.

[Chroelle]

I want whatever painkillers you are on!

[Pater Alf]

Now has anybody ever observed how time, whatever it is, stops, accelerates or does other weird unexplained things?

No, but I observe how it flows nearly every single day of my life. So I'm pretty sure that it is there...

[Chroelle]

But it if is there, then it has to have some form of form right? IF it is not there, and is only a mathematical term, is space not the same then? Does space have a form? IMO it only has that when filled, and then it is filled with not-space.

[Drasir-Vel]

I can understand why some would say time is the fourth dimension. Think that if you were making a game, there would be several fundamental factors you would have to incorporate in some way or another. The 3 space dimensions and time. Depending on where you were in the "timedimension", it would change the state of the other dimensions as well. (in that moment those particles should be there, and in another they should be a little further). Likewise, changes in each spatial dimension, results in changes in the other dimensions as well. There most be some sort of inter-dependency. The 2'nd dimension is dependent on the 1'st to define 2'dimensional space. And the 3'rd is dependent on the 1'st and 2'nd to define 3'dimensional space. So in that way we could say that if there were a fourth dimension, it should be something that the other dimensions depend on to define themself. And time changes the status of the 3 dimensions.
Just some thoughts i had sometime.

[SFault]

Throw a pointy item to a location 1) at the time your friend is there 2) at the time your friend is not there. Is there a difference? How about throwing two pointy items simultaneously to two different locations. One where your friend is and one where he/she is not.

[eMTe]

What does it have to do with "time"? It proves that things look differently from different points of view, but not that there's anything like time.

[Chroelle]

This is a very interesting topic actually, but also pretty hard to prove your point in...
I think time should be considered as a dimension, since none of the dimensions can actually be proven to be there. eMTe you said that

What does it have to do with "time"? It proves that things look differently from different points of view, but not that there's anything like time.

But in this you have to also say:
It proves that things look differently from different points of view, SEEN BY A SENTIENT, EGOCENTERED PERSON. And then we are right back to "Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound..."
Does a wall actually have 3 dimensions, since you can only rely on the 2D front you are seing...You cannot see the depth of the wall when standing in front of it. You will have to assume that the depth is actually there. In the very same way you have to assume that given TIME the depth was not there, and will again not be there. So time is as much a believable term as the rest of the dimensions.

[eMTe]

Dimension is also a mathematical term. It's way of describing things, not immanent characteristic of nature. Objects are not two- or three-dimensional, they simply exist.

As for wall's depth we dont assume that depth is there, we know it is there, because weve seen many walls before and we know it has depth. We dont see it, because our eyes cant see through dense objects. If we had x-ray vision we would see it. Depth or lack of depth is not a problem, wall has depth regardless of do we see it from our standing point or not. It's just the matter of moving to different viewing position.

Now as for "time" we observe that events happen in a consecutive manner, but for me calling this manner a fourth dimension sounds like moving from scientific grounds into philosophical ones. "Time" as a term is a consequence of observing nature. We see that stone falls, so we examine its density, shape, environment he is placed in, powers that affect its movement and finally we discover that he was once in position a and later in position b and apply "time" to this dilemma. Seems like time is some kind of power which appears only if other powers work. Gravity carries the stone from place a into place b and it happens in time t. If nothing happens - time doesnt exist, because there's no event we can apply the term "time" to. Or maybe if time flies regardless of events, even if nothing happens at all in given part of space then what it is - some undiscovered type of dark matter?

In the very same way you have to assume that given TIME the depth was not there, and will again not be there.

I guess you meant "that IN given time", not "that given time", because it doesnt make much sense.

In this particular mathematical time the wall has not depth FOR YOU and when youll move into other place the depth will be there and if youll stand still wall will be a two-dimensional object still also. Nothing changes for the wall, and for the observer only angle of view changes. Where's "time" in here?

[Chroelle]

Well the theory here would be that you would actually have to assume (informed assuming) that the wall had depth, as you have encountered thousands of walls in your life, and all of them seemed to have depth. You cannot from one standing position define a wall as having depth, without assumption. If you had 4 guys standing on every side of the wall telling you what they saw, then you would still have to assume that they were telling the truth, and that you all had the same idea as to what depth was, and that they were indeed staring at the same wall as you and not another one. So dimension is hard to define as well as time, as we would always have to assume it has been or is there. But I can see more clearly after your stone vs. gravity -theory where your point was with time. I would however still say that if you take a big empty room that is completely static, and then throw a rock through the room, then time is shown, but if you didn't throw the rock, then time would still happen. You would just have to define time to "nothing happening" instead of "rock passes room". The term " And nothing happened for 5 minutes" would otherwise be obsolete, and every time nothing happened time would stand still. That seems unlikely to me.
Boy I love this thread!

[eMTe]

So dimension is hard to define as well as time

What you say proves my point. If we need to "define" something then this is a value we can only assume exists or we simply have to add it to our calculations. Both terms "time" and "dimension" seem to depend on viewer's position. As such they are more of philosophical nature.

Everybody can say that dropped stone falls, but people standing in different positions can say that it fell into different directions (for somebody standing above the stone it will move only a little down and wont change its position much, for somebody standing next to somebody who drops it it moves 1 meter down). Position of viewer doesnt change the sole fact that round stone weighing 1 kg fell 1 meter down. What you see is not relevant to what really happened.

Same applies to "time".

[Chroelle]

My point has always been in life that there is no such thing as objective. A very common thesis in my field of work is that there are two circles called personal actions and skillbased actions and where they overlap is called professional actions (very roughly put). I have always said that you cannot take the personal out of any of the two other fields. You are always personal no matter what you do. You cannot do something without applying yourself - may it be your assumptions, your theories, your background, your social heritage, your education, your view on life and people, etc...
So - no - there are no other things than you and your vision of the world.