Gathering perspectives: space and time
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-04-2014, 08:45 AM
RE: Gathering perspectives: space and time
When someone says "space" I think of a graph that has 3 axis. When someone says "spacetime" I think of graph with 4 axis, one of them labeled "time"

Insulting me will convert me real fast!
MSBB:
Don't let anyone define who you are.
Me:
Can we define him as he defines himself? Or will he define himself as we define how he defines himself? But, if we do that, will we define him as he defines himself based on our definition of how we see him define himself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
21-04-2014, 09:21 AM
RE: Gathering perspectives: space and time
(21-04-2014 08:45 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  When someone says "space" I think of a graph that has 3 axis. When someone says "spacetime" I think of graph with 4 axis, one of them labeled "time"
Very interesting view! Concise.

Let me ask you something, though. Where, in relation to the other three, does this fourth axis point to? Is the difference between your space graph and your spacetime graph that a new arrow points in yet another direction that is perpendicular to the other three, or is it something that appears with the motion of things that are located somewhere along the three spatial axes? From the opposite angle, can a 4D representation of something be said to be 4D if it is frozen at a single frame?

Thanks for your perspective!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2014, 09:30 AM
RE: Gathering perspectives: space and time
(21-04-2014 09:21 AM)living thing Wrote:  
(21-04-2014 08:45 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  When someone says "space" I think of a graph that has 3 axis. When someone says "spacetime" I think of graph with 4 axis, one of them labeled "time"
Very interesting view! Concise.

Let me ask you something, though. Where, in relation to the other three, does this fourth axis point to? Is the difference between your space graph and your spacetime graph that a new arrow points in yet another direction that is perpendicular to the other three, or is it something that appears with the motion of things that are located somewhere along the three spatial axes? From the opposite angle, can a 4D representation of something be said to be 4D if it is frozen at a single frame?

Thanks for your perspective!

Picture a series of images of that 3-axis graph. That's the 4th dimension - time.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2014, 09:35 AM
RE: Gathering perspectives: space and time
(21-04-2014 09:21 AM)living thing Wrote:  
(21-04-2014 08:45 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  When someone says "space" I think of a graph that has 3 axis. When someone says "spacetime" I think of graph with 4 axis, one of them labeled "time"
Very interesting view! Concise.

Let me ask you something, though. Where, in relation to the other three, does this fourth axis point to? Is the difference between your space graph and your spacetime graph that a new arrow points in yet another direction that is perpendicular to the other three, or is it something that appears with the motion of things that are located somewhere along the three spatial axes? From the opposite angle, can a 4D representation of something be said to be 4D if it is frozen at a single frame?

Thanks for your perspective!
The "time" part of the graph, or the "w" axis, couldn't be conceived in any image that I could show you. However, if you where to add a pseudo-w-axis to a 3d graph, you would just have to animate the graph. So imagine that our universe is a 3d graph, and every, I guess, Planck time is a frame. Putting together all of the frames or every planck (seconds) of the universe together, and running them at a speed to create an animation of the whole universe, would create an Illusion of the W axis.
The answer to the second question is the second clause of that sentence.
Quote: is it something that appears with the motion of things that are located somewhere along the three spatial axes
Yes, it is motion that appears anywhere along the three spatial axes, like I just explained in the first paragraph.
For the third question, my hypothesis states no, only a representation of 4D SPACE can be static, (However it could be called a representation of 3D SPACETIME.) but, if you where to represent a 4D SPACETIME graph fully, (Meaning without the "animation" and actually have time as an axis.) you would have to have 5 axis, meaning it could be a 4d SPACETIME graph, or it could also be a static 5D SPACE graph.

Insulting me will convert me real fast!
MSBB:
Don't let anyone define who you are.
Me:
Can we define him as he defines himself? Or will he define himself as we define how he defines himself? But, if we do that, will we define him as he defines himself based on our definition of how we see him define himself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
21-04-2014, 09:41 AM
RE: Gathering perspectives: space and time
(21-04-2014 09:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-04-2014 09:21 AM)living thing Wrote:  Very interesting view! Concise.

Let me ask you something, though. Where, in relation to the other three, does this fourth axis point to? Is the difference between your space graph and your spacetime graph that a new arrow points in yet another direction that is perpendicular to the other three, or is it something that appears with the motion of things that are located somewhere along the three spatial axes? From the opposite angle, can a 4D representation of something be said to be 4D if it is frozen at a single frame?

Thanks for your perspective!

Picture a series of images of that 3-axis graph. That's the 4th dimension - time.
That's actually what I'm trying to explain in the post below yours.
But, my hypothesis states that a 4D graph can be a representation of either 3D space-time, or 4D static space.
My hypothesis also states that the forth dimension should be treated like regular space, and it isn't inherently time, it just has another spatial axis. But, to simulate any spacetime, you have to have as much spatial axis as there are dimensions (three for third.) and then to simulate time, you have to add a temporal axis, or time. So a 4D SPACETIME graph has 4 spatial axis, and one temporal axis.

Insulting me will convert me real fast!
MSBB:
Don't let anyone define who you are.
Me:
Can we define him as he defines himself? Or will he define himself as we define how he defines himself? But, if we do that, will we define him as he defines himself based on our definition of how we see him define himself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
21-04-2014, 10:28 AM
RE: Gathering perspectives: space and time
Welcome, Chas, to this conversation.

(21-04-2014 09:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  Picture a series of images of that 3-axis graph. That's the 4th dimension - time.
(21-04-2014 09:35 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  The "time" part of the graph, or the "w" axis, couldn't be conceived in any image that I could show you. However, if you where to add a pseudo-w-axis to a 3d graph, you would just have to animate the graph. So imagine that our universe is a 3d graph, and every, I guess, Planck time is a frame. Putting together all of the frames or every planck (seconds) of the universe together, and running them at a speed to create an animation of the whole universe, would create an Illusion of the W axis.
Thank you both for your illustrative points. If I understand them both, they go along the same lines. I like the word you have chosen, Alex. Illusion. If I have a quick succession of three-dimensional images, I get the illusion of a fourth dimension.

I think I understand the meaning of what you are both saying, however I do not see your arguments as enough reason for me to consider that fourth dimension exactly analogous to the other three. The behaviour of things along the three spatial axes is not the same as the behaviour of things along the fourth, temporal axis.

For example, the transitions between the first three dimensions, regardless of the order in which I consider them, follow a pattern. When I go from a uni-dimensional line to a bi-dimensional surface, I am adding information in a direction perpendicular to that of the line. When I go from a bi-dimensional surface to a three-dimensional volume, I am once again adding information in a direction perpendicular to that of the surface. However, that is not how I get from the third to the fourth dimension. In order to achieve that fourth illusory axis, I need to replace locations along the three spatial axes. I don’t achieve the new axis by adding information in a direction perpendicular to the other three, but by changing the information in three orthogonal axes that I already had.

Do neither of you see a conceptual difference between the first lot of axes (up/down, left/right, forth/back) and that fourth axis (future/past)? I can move up and down, left and right, forth and back, but as I do, I always go into the future. I cannot go into the past. Isn’t that difference enough to concede that spatial axes are not exactly the same kind of notion as the temporal axis?

Well, I find it enough, so I view them differently because, in my mind, it makes more sense. But I do thank you both for trying to clear my misunderstandings.

(21-04-2014 09:35 AM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  For the third question [can a 4D representation of something be said to be 4D if it is frozen at a single frame?], my hypothesis states no, only a representation of 4D SPACE can be static, (However it could be called a representation of 3D SPACETIME.) but, if you where to represent a 4D SPACETIME graph fully, (Meaning without the "animation" and actually have time as an axis.) you would have to have 5 axis, meaning it could be a 4d SPACETIME graph, or it could also be a static 5D SPACE graph.
What exactly do you understand by “static”?

The problem I find in that idea is that you have already consumed your ability to call for motion when you went from three-dimensional space to four-dimensional spacetime. You can’t just have a moving scene, pretend it is not by calling it “static”, and then appeal again to motion in order to jump from a fourth axis to a fifth, and presumably so on.

But you may be right, so please don’t view my questions as any kind of claim that you’re wrong. It is just that I do not understand how your hypothesis can be true. Although maybe other people will indeed understand it, so I thank you for sharing it.

Cheers!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2014, 10:49 AM
RE: Gathering perspectives: space and time
(21-04-2014 10:28 AM)living thing Wrote:  Thank you both for your illustrative points. If I understand them both, they go along the same lines. I like the word you have chosen, Alex. Illusion. If I have a quick succession of three-dimensional images, I get the illusion of a fourth dimension.

I think I understand the meaning of what you are both saying, however I do not see your arguments as enough reason for me to consider that fourth dimension exactly analogous to the other three. The behaviour of things along the three spatial axes is not the same as the behaviour of things along the fourth, temporal axis.

For example, the transitions between the first three dimensions, regardless of the order in which I consider them, follow a pattern. When I go from a uni-dimensional line to a bi-dimensional surface, I am adding information in a direction perpendicular to that of the line. When I go from a bi-dimensional surface to a three-dimensional volume, I am once again adding information in a direction perpendicular to that of the surface. However, that is not how I get from the third to the fourth dimension. In order to achieve that fourth illusory axis, I need to replace locations along the three spatial axes. I don’t achieve the new axis by adding information in a direction perpendicular to the other three, but by changing the information in three orthogonal axes that I already had.

Do neither of you see a conceptual difference between the first lot of axes (up/down, left/right, forth/back) and that fourth axis (future/past)? I can move up and down, left and right, forth and back, but as I do, I always go into the future. I cannot go into the past. Isn’t that difference enough to concede that spatial axes are not exactly the same kind of notion as the temporal axis?

Well, I find it enough, so I view them differently because, in my mind, it makes more sense. But I do thank you both for trying to clear my misunderstandings.


I think there is a big difference between the three spatial dimensions and the time dimension.

There is nothing in physics or mathematics that requires all dimensions of an n-dimensional space be identical.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2014, 11:37 AM
RE: Gathering perspectives: space and time
Hello Chas, thanks for coming back.

(21-04-2014 10:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  I think there is a big difference between the three spatial dimensions and the time dimension.
Would I be abusing your kindness if I asked you to please expand that idea? What is the big difference you find between the three spatial dimensions and the time dimension?

Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: