Is Time a dimension or what? I'm trying to tutor and explain

File: image_005.jpg (393KB, 1280x1828px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1280x1828px

yes

>>8512783
>Is Time a dimension or what?

It's a scalar.

>>8512783
The whole "time is le 4th dimension xD" shit is a bit of a meme bu it is a dimension in the sense that it can be used to describe physical change independently of the three spatial dimensions, but it's not something we can freely transverse (yet?) like x, y, and z.

>>8512828
>is a bit of a meme
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

File: PANRICK.png (119KB, 540x304px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 540x304px

>>8512813
>let me give a non-answer

>>8512783
>the slower the time due to gravity bending the space around it
the Einstein linked space and time in "spacetime" though. What you mean is (gravitational) time dilation, an effect interpreted with spacetime curvature.
I suggest reading up on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

>>8512854
>let me give a non-answer

Go ahead, i'll wait.

>>8512857
you don't understand.
>>8512813
this anon already gave a non-answer.

File: u-so-mad.jpg (5KB, 231x218px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 231x218px

>>8512863
I am both of those people.

And the answer I gave was genuine.

A dimension is a measurement that is possible to be mathematically transformed into anouther frame of refrence, such as the lorentz transofrmation used by relativity.

A scalar is a measurement that is incapable of such transformation.

Hence, the answer I gave was genuine, and you are confirmed for John Green tier retardation.

>>8512871
>and the answer I gave was genuine
it was a genuine non-answer though as simply saying "no, OP, it's a scalar" doesn't clarify any of the OPs questions.
Keep sucking your own dick. Go ahead.

>>8512881
>doesn't clarify any of the OPs questions.

OPS question:

>Is Time a dimension

My literal answer:

>It's a scalar.

fuck off, moron.

File: thatisanicejpeg.jpg (8KB, 231x218px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 231x218px

>>8512885

>>8512891
Go to bed John Green.

>>8512896
dude, i'm not even saying your wrong, i'm just saying that your answer doesn't help OP.

it's a simplification.

it's like if someone asks: "what is gravity? gee i don't get it, can someone explain?" and you go: "it's a force :>".
gee thanks. no questions left now. thanks for explaining you autistic little shit.

wrong or not.. it's a non answer.

>>8512912
>dude, i'm not even saying your wrong, i'm just saying that your answer doesn't help OP.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

Also, nice little false analogy you have there.

>wrong or not.. it's a non answer.

Tell your girlfriend or wife I said hi.

>>8512896
The author of "The Fault in Our Stars"?
The IRA member?
The ABC News producer?
The Bigfoot researcher?
The 17th-century English physician who was hanged for fucking his wife in the ass?

File: john-green.jpg (20KB, 610x324px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 610x324px

>>8512922
this one.

>>8512813
Physical objects are not equal to mathematical objects. You can't directly identify one with the other. Mathematical objects do not exist in the physical world, they are pure abstractions. You can think about a mathematical model where time is abstracted as a scalar, alright, but that's not helpful in this context.

>>8512928
>You can think about a mathematical model where time is abstracted as a scalar, alright, but that's not helpful in this context.

Why not?

>>8512783
think about the definition of "dimension."

if you have a box, and you measure its length to be 1m, its width to be 2m, and its height to be 3m, you have measured three dimensions of the box.

however, you could also measure its weight. then, weight is a dimension being used to describe the box. you could measure the amount of dollars it cost, which would be another dimension.

you can also measure the amount of time that has passed since the box was manufactured. in that sense, time-since-manufacturing is a dimension being used to measure the box. and the same goes for any amount of time being measured to obtain some property of the box.

I don't know if this is what you mean by "dimension," but I want to stress that if you don't have a definition for it, we can't possibly tell you whether something "is a dimension" or not.

>>8512813
>It's a scalar.
No, time is not a scalar, it's an element of a 4-vector.

>>8512954
>No, time is not a scalar

Yes it is.

File: huh.gif (1MB, 245x267px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 245x267px

..so time is the rate of change?

but it's not absolute, it's relative.

so wtf.

>>8512963
>>>8512954 (You)
>>No, time is not a scalar
>Yes it is.
No, it isn't, because a Lorentz transformation (or a diffeomorphism in general relativity) doesn't leave time invariant, which is one of the properties of the scalar.

Quoting wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_(physics)): "A vector is usually said to be a physical quantity that has magnitude and direction. Formally, a scalar is unchanged by coordinate system rotations or reflections (in Newtonian mechanics), or by Lorentz transformations or space-time translations (in relativity)."

And, if you look at its transformation properties, time is an element of a vector.

>>8512977
>No, it isn't, because a Lorentz transformation (or a diffeomorphism in general relativity) doesn't leave time invariant, which is one of the properties of the scalar.


Time *IS* invariant though.

>>8512978
>Time *IS* invariant though.
[math] t'=\gamma (t- \frac{\vec{v}\dot \vec{x} }{c^2} ) [/math]
Time is NOT invariant, you have the boosts.

>>8512986
>Time is NOT invariant, you have the boosts.

Nice math, now show me it's practical application.

>>8512930
Because most of the information about what time is in that model is determined by how it relates to other things in that model.

>>8512992
>Because most of the information about what time is in that model is determined by how it relates to other things in that model.

So, your model is real because the math in the model requires it to be real, huh?

Nice circular logic, einstein.

>>8512989
>Nice math, now show me it's practical application.
Ever heard of time dilation and length contraction?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Simple_inference_of_time_dilation_due_to_relative_velocity

>>8512948
The best answer

>>8513008
>Ever heard of time dilation and length contraction?

Sure have.

Never seen it actually happen though.

And neither have you.

>>8512954
Retard, the vector you are referring to is ct not t, notice how c is a vector and scalar times vector is a vector kys

>>8513017
>what are myons
>what are relativistic effects in GPS

if time is variant.. then.. it's physical reality is still just rate of change?!

>>8513023
>>what are myons

I think you mean to say Muons, yes?

The decay time of muons produced in the upper atmosphere is incapable of making it to earth, even with the supposed relativistic effects of the earths gravity well.

>>what are relativistic effects in GPS
GPS doesn't use relativistic calculations, and it never did.

>>8513023
>if time is variant

*Invariant

>then.. it's physical reality is still just rate of change?!

Basically, yes.

It's related to entropy.

>>8513023
> it's physical reality is still just rate of change?!

Put it like this....

We measure time by using clocks, yes?

Which part of a clock couples to "Time"?

>>8513035
>which part of a clock couples to "time"
the constantly changing one. be it the pendulum, the sun or the... carbon decay (?). what's your point?

>>8513030
>you mean to say muons, yes?
myons is the german spelling, so yes.

the effects of the gravity well don't, their relativistic velocities do.

and google says you're wrong about the GPS.

that's pretty thin ice to deny timedilation and length contraction like that >>8513017 (indirectly deny*)

>>8513063
oh, plus this
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html

time is variant. doesn't change the fundamental definition of time though, does it? only its formerly assumed invariance.

>>8512783
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtkGtXtDlQA

This video will explain it all for you.

>>8513063
>the constantly changing one. be it the pendulum, the sun or the... carbon decay (?). what's your point?

So, what part of the universe, cosmos, whatever, is a clock MEASURING?

>myons is the german spelling, so yes.
k

>and google says you're wrong about the GPS.

(google) says

Oh do they?

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA516975

>that's pretty thin ice to deny timedilation and length contraction like that >>8513017 (You) (indirectly deny*)

Oh, buddy, I'm not indirectly denying it.

I'm not even implying.

The shit's straight up FALSE.

File: dot pee dee eff.png (153KB, 1033x839px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1033x839px

>>8513096

File: 2b8bc924ce04ed298c71ad0c76d03212.png (193KB, 859x766px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 859x766px

>>8513023
>what are myons

>>8512996
I'm honestly too lazy to get what the fuck you missed in my post, so I will just inform you that you are an idiot.

>>8513030
>The decay time of muons produced in the upper atmosphere is incapable of making it to earth, even with the supposed relativistic effects of the earths gravity well.
Without length contraction: 2.197 µs×ln(2) × 0.9997×c=456 m
With length contraction: an additional factor of 1/sqrt[1-0.9997^2]=40.83 --> 18617m=18.6 km
Height of muon creation: 15 km (Page 6 of http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-cosmic-rays.pdf)

Then, we can say that you are talking shit.

>>and google says you're wrong about the GPS.
>(google) says
>Oh do they?
>www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA516975
Quote form your source: "But this error [not using Special and General Relativity] would be incurred only if the station clocks were independent of the GPS satelliteclocks, each MS keeping its own time. That's not the way the OCS works."
They correct for relativistic effects in another way.

>Oh, buddy, I'm not indirectly denying it.
>I'm not even implying.
>The shit's straight up FALSE.
And that is the reason why you are full of shit.

>>8512828
In Minkowiski space time posses an equivalent position of all the other 3 coordinates

>>8513101
That paper is wrong.

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/04/scott-rebuttal-i-gps-relativity.html

File: argument level-zero.png (30KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 350x200px

>>8513108
>I'm honestly too lazy to get what the fuck you missed in my post, so I will just inform you that you are an idiot.

>>8513112
>>The decay time of muons produced in the upper atmosphere is incapable of making it to earth, even with the supposed relativistic effects of the earths gravity well.

And muons are only produced in the upper atmosphere, eh?

"An attempt was made"

>They correct for relativistic effects in another way.

Nope, it's not even necessary because the satellite clocks are synchronized one per orbit (90 min) with the ground station, and even if relativistic effects WERE REAL, the total time drift would be less than a millisecond per orbit.

So, its literally not even a thing.

>And that is the reason why you are full of shit.

Good luck with that stupidity you have there.

>>8513145
>That paper is wrong.

.mil vs .blogspot.

okay lad.

>>8513166
>.mil vs .blogspot.
OK, moron, I'll spoonfeed yout:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a508049.pdf

Oh look .mil

>The theory behind corrections is presented with references given for any derivations not done here. Through
our theoretical discussion we show that the Interface Control Document (ICD-GPS-200) specifications, as
issued by the Joint Program Office of the Global Positioning System [ 11, consistently aver the requirements
of relativity down to the sub-nanosecond level for time. We respond to questions in the literature [2, Fliegel, H.F., and DiEsposti, R.S., GPS and Relativity: an Engineering Overview] as to
whether the ICD specifications include relativity corrections with enough accuracy for certain applications.


http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf

>A report distributed by the Aerospace Corporation [Fliegel, H.F., and DiEsposti, R.S., GPS and Relativity: an Engineering Overview] has claimed that the correction expressed in Eqs. (38) and (39) would not be valid for a highly dynamic receiver – e.g., one in a highly eccentric orbit. This is a conceptual error, emanating from an apparently official source, which would have serious consequences. The GPS modernization program involves significant redesign and remanufacturing of the Block IIF satellites, as well as a new generation of satellites that are now being deployed – the Block IIR replenishment satellites. These satellites are capable of autonomous operation, that is, they can be operated independently of the ground-based control segment for up to 180 days. They are to accomplish this by having receivers on board that determine their own position and time by listening to the other satellites that are in view. If the conceptual basis for accounting for relativity in the GPS, as it has been explained above, were invalid, the costs of opening up these satellites and reprogramming them would be astronomical.

>>8513205
nice how none of your links actually contain any data except for assertions.

nice try though.

>>8513205
>Through our theoretical discussion

>theoretical discussion


lol.

File: zwztm.jpg (987KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

987KB, 1440x1080px

>B..but, Muh Einstein!

>>8513213
>nice how none of your links actually contain any data except for assertions.
Nice how you just proved you didn't even scroll through the papers I posted since the second does contain data. Moron.

It's also incredibly hypocritical to demand data when the paper you posted that I'm responding to contains no data.

>>8513220
>Through our theoretical discussion
What do you think the paper you posted is? Did you even read it beyond the highlighted text? Apparently not.

>>8513235
>Nice how you just proved you didn't even scroll through the papers I posted since the second does contain data. Moron.

not likely.

>It's also incredibly hypocritical to demand data when the paper you posted that I'm responding to contains no data.

Nice baseless assertion.

You are forgetting I posted a screenshot of the first page with the text highlighted that plainly states that GPS doesn't use Relativity.

noob.

>What do you think the paper you posted is? Did you even read it beyond the highlighted text? Apparently not.

Dood, I didn't read ANY of it, fucktard.

You really think a .0000000001 second THEORETICAL LAG is going to make any difference at all?

You are literally grasping at straws.

I'll patiently await your next bullshit, hastily assembled and backdated "Research paper" that references literally no real world applications.

This thread illustrates very vividly why /sci/ isn't worth shit. It's literally a few enthusiastic freshmen fighting against lazy trolls for all eternity.

>>8512783
I don't know about GR but in special relativity, more specifically in Minkowiski Space, time is a coordinate just like all the other 3 spatial coordinates. They share the same properties and transformation in similar ways.

Like I said, I can't tell you how general relativity sees this problem, but here's a curious special relativity case of time dilation: any event within space-time can be described by a 4 component vector, a relativistic particle for example posses a 4 component vector to describe its position, hence you can find its 4 component velocity (the so called quadrivelocity).

The interesting fact is that the vector that describes the body velocity has a CONSTANT magnitude of "c". Now think about it, if the vector containing your velocity "in time" also describes your velocity in space has a fixed size, whenever you move in space, your "speed" in time will decrease. You can also think that this is actually why you can't get to the speed of light, your time would stop.

>>8513247
>This thread illustrates very vividly why /sci/ isn't worth shit. It's literally a few enthusiastic freshmen fighting against lazy trolls for all eternity.

dat damage control.

now go tuck tail and run.

File: Ohwow.jpg (39KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 562x437px

>>8513245
>not likely.
LOL, so you instead of looking at the paper you are just guessing? Are you retarded or just pretending to be?

>Nice baseless assertion.
Wow, so your calling that a baseless assertion when you just admitted you didn't look at the paper yet asserted it contained no data.

>You are forgetting I posted a screenshot of the first page with the text highlighted that plainly states that GPS doesn't use Relativity.
And then I posted two papers pointing out how that specific paper is wrong.

>Dood, I didn't read ANY of it, fucktard.
Yeah, so not only did you lie, you also lost the argument since you can't respond to something you neither understand nor read. Loser.

>>8513251
>interesting fact is that the vector that describes the body velocity has a CONSTANT magnitude of "c".

I like the part where you call the mathematical assertions a "fact"

it almost makes them seem valid, and like you aren't attempting damage control.

>>8513254
>LOL, so you instead of looking at the paper you are just guessing?
That's literally what he does, he has no arguments, nothing, he just keeps bullshitting because you respond. Just stop, it's not worth it.

>>8513261
I am stopping. He lost the argument until he responds to the paper.

>>8513254
>LOL, so you instead of looking at the paper you are just guessing?

I don't need to guess.

I KNOW relativity is bullshit, because the only tactics it's proponents have is ridicule.

>Wow, so your calling that a baseless assertion when you just admitted you didn't look at the paper yet asserted it contained no data.

It CAN'T contain any data, because relativity is bullshit.

>And then I posted two papers pointing out how that specific paper is wrong.

No, you posted two blogs about how einstein was right in some way, when he was a lying plagerist who used other people s math to trick the nations of the world into thinking that he was intelligent, and then creating a cult of personality around jewish identity.

>Yeah, so not only did you lie, you also lost the argument since you can't respond to something you neither understand nor read. Loser.

No, I didn't lie... I said that your paper containing any information was "Not likely"

I already said I didn't read it, because it's completely unnessecary to do so.

and you better hope I never DO read it, because i'll crush it like a paper cup.

>>8513262
>I am stopping. He lost the argument until he responds to the paper.

You don't even know how to argue the point, all you know how to do is follow your pro-einstein shill script.

File: disappoint.gif (754KB, 400x358px) Image search: [Google]

754KB, 400x358px

>>8513271
>>8513275
>No response to the argument
You lost.

>>8513271
Good strategy, it's easier to convince yourself things don't exist if you just don't look at them.

>>8513279
>>No response to the argument

No response was required, numbnuts, you didn't HAVE an argument.

>>8513281
>Good strategy, it's easier to convince yourself things don't exist if you just don't look at them.

So, you didn't even read it yourself, did you?

File: intothetrash.jpg (31KB, 352x450px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 352x450px

>>8513271
>nice how none of your links actually contain any data except for assertions.
>No, I didn't lie... I said that your paper containing any information was "Not likely"
Liar.

>>8513260
That "mathematical assertion" is a direct consequence of Minkowiski space algebra, and Minkowiski space itself is a construction that is not only compatible to special relativity, but it is the most used way to study special relativity in literature. So, as long as special relativity is not false, I think I can safely call that a "fact" in a humble way. Cheers, my autistic friend.

>>8513288
Einstein shills BTFO

>>8513287
>No response was required, numbnuts, you didn't HAVE an argument.
Denial is not an argument, you lose.

>>8513287
>>8513291
Pure ignorance.

>>8513293
>Denial is not an argument,

then stop doing it.

you haven't responded to a single argument of mine yet.

>>8513290
>That "mathematical assertion" is a direct consequence of Minkowiski space algebra

which doesn't apply to reality.

>>8513297
>Pure ignorance.

nice rebuttal.

>>8513304
You brought nothing to the table so far, just fucking nothing. You fucking suck man

>>8513306
>You brought nothing to the table so far,

You have made no assertions to rebut.

nice shill tactics, I can see you in the dark.

>>8513299
Yeah, special relativity doesnt apply to reality

>>8513309
>Yeah, special relativity doesnt apply to reality

correct.

>>8513299
>No I won't read your article debunking my argument
>you haven't responded to a single argument of mine yet
Delusional nutjob having a temper tantrum

>>8513308
Still nothing, just keep talking about irrelevant shit. Going good so far, good performance!

He is trolling faggots, stop replying

>>8512025
Is this a new shitpost?

>>8513313
>Delusional nutjob having a temper tantrum

aw, poor baby, you get paid much to be an einstein shill?

>>8513314
>Still nothing, just keep talking about irrelevant shit. Going good so far, good performance!

You have yet to actually state anything of relevance, other than playing for an audiance.

Your shill posts have already exceeded /sci/'s PPH count.

>>8513315
>Moot
>He is trolling faggots, stop replying

Lol, moot doesn't even go here, moron.

>>8513321
Strong troll, gotta give you credits for the stamina

>>8513325
>Strong troll

I'm not a troll... I'm a shill destroyer.

>gotta give you credits for the stamina

Yeah, I can go all night long.

>>8513328
That's not what your wife thinks

>>8513917
>That's not what your wife thinks

Yeah, it's what YOUR wife thinks.