The Anti-Time Theory

[Xeros]

(...)

OT: So then there are only three dimensions? Because I was under the impression that the fourth dimension was time.

There are sixteen dimensions

Wow... seriously? *scurries off the read about this "M-theory"*

EDIT: My mind has been blown.

EDIT 2: Although, from what I've read thus far, there are only 11 dimensions; 10 dimensions with an 11th to unify them.

 

[GIJoker]

Multidimensional theory is just that: a theory. It implies the existence of a number of dimensions which we can't perceive which strikes me as the antithesis of empirical study. Simply because throwing a bunch of random variables into an equation can balance it out doesn't mean it's the right answer. I'm curious if calculations have ever been done assuming only three dimensions exist and if that leads to any more straight-forward results. Ockham's Razor in action.

 

[SimuLord]

You can argue all day about the validity of time but my accounting homework's still due Monday and I'm just as fucked if I don't do it Sunday night.

There's such a thing as overthinking and I think you're guilty of it.

 

[HK_01]

Of course time exists. No offense, but what you're saying doesn't make sense, it's like saying that space doesn't actually exist because metres^3 is just a measurement created by man.

 

[Eternal_24]

I thought time was an actual dimension? Or was that theory scrapped?

 

[mip0]

This is for another thread and I'm sorry if I started it but I'm still gonna give a quick reply to these guys. Maybe I can end the multi-dimensional-theory discussion right here or at least connect it with the "anti-time theory".

(...)

OT: So then there are only three dimensions? Because I was under the impression that the fourth dimension was time.

There are sixteen dimensions

Wow... seriously? *scurries off the read about this "M-theory"*

EDIT: My mind has been blown.

EDIT 2: Although, from what I've read thus far, there are only 11 dimensions; 10 dimensions with an 11th to unify them.

Holy salamander shit! You can still read after getting your mind blown?
I'm glad I didn't get into that stuff too much or your news might have crumbled my world around me.
I guess it's changed since that documentary, like over time. Quite the rapid rate of change. A lot of busy seconds have passed, I wonder where they dispose of all those little ticks and tacks.

Multidimensional theory is just that: a theory. It implies the existence of a number of dimensions which we can't perceive which strikes me as the antithesis of empirical study. Simply because throwing a bunch of random variables into an equation can balance it out doesn't mean it's the right answer. I'm curious if calculations have ever been done assuming only three dimensions exist and if that leads to any more straight-forward results. Ockham's Razor in action.

Yes it's just a theory, they can't prove it through experiments.
Just like the anti-time theory, right? Have there been any experiments on that?

 

[blankedboy]

Yeah, time is just a measurement. A ruler isn't actually 30cm long, we just say it is. Earth doesn't spin for 24 'hours', we just say it does.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Time is an abstract concept used to measure an abstract concept.

The same could also be said about colour, smell or any other human experience. We've reduced the phenomenom down to a finite judgement where the majority opinion is agreed upon for ease of relation to others.

Your theoreum fails as it's as invalid to use "long", as there's no set way of measuring it other than the way we use to measure its passing.

Well done for picking up on the failings of physics though.

I thought time was an actual dimension? Or was that theory scrapped?

The problem with that theory is that it could be, but we have no way of knowing, or testing, if it is or isn't. Therefore, it's more of a label for thought than a theoreum.
If it is a dimension, Timetravel becomes possible, but we have to accept the Infinite Universe theory, which disproves certain theories like Einstein's and Newton's, because then energy can be shifted to another dimension, and thus destroyed/created for us.

 

[ICantBelieveItGoesBoom]

This means whenever someone says "How old are you?", they are politically incorrect. They should be saying "How long are you?". And a proper response could be "I'm 15 years long.".

[Mandatory Dick Joke]

"How long are you?" "8 inches"

HARDY-HAR-HAR

OT: While you points are true, it would just complicate things for us and is completely unnecessary to follow.

 

[Snow Fire]

I would think it to be like dark matter, that it is invisible, and if we could actually see time, our minds would be totally blown by what it looks like.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Multidimensional theory is just that: a theory. It implies the existence of a number of dimensions which we can't perceive which strikes me as the antithesis of empirical study. Simply because throwing a bunch of random variables into an equation can balance it out doesn't mean it's the right answer. I'm curious if calculations have ever been done assuming only three dimensions exist and if that leads to any more straight-forward results. Ockham's Razor in action.

Occam's razor is a very dangerous tool to use though as it fixes theory based on majority opinion. The obvious example is that it collapses the field of Quantum Physics because quantum flux isn't measureable therefore it provides no distinct differences between comparitive theories. That's why there's such a furor about the Higg's boson - as that would fuel Quantum Theory, while applying Occam's razor to other dependent theories like resistance.

 

[Jezzy54]

It doesn't work like that. Yes, years and days as we know them are only relevant for Earth, and other units like months are pretty arbitrary, but time sure as hell exists. Environments change, lifeforms age, events come and go, etc. Nothing stands still. It's that simple.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Actually, time is a measurement of the rate of change.
So, of course it exists.

TBF, time was created as a measurement of the rate of change. And a subjective one at that. Although, as has been said, so is length, depth, breadth, colour, smell...

 

[Iconoclasm]

... I think people should look into the scholarship behind these questions before saying anything too definitively. The questions are far too complex to have an answer that can fit so concisely in a forum post. There are tomes dedicated to the subject. See my reply earlier on.

I'm seeing mostly conclusions - without any genuine arguments. I'm simply assume this to be a passing fancy and not a real inquiry into the ontology of phenomenon (as it usually the case, unfortunately).

 

[Snow Fire]

It doesn't work like that. Yes, years and days as we know them are only relevant for Earth, and other units like months are pretty arbitrary, but time sure as hell exists. Environments change, lifeforms age, events come and go, etc. Nothing stands still. It's that simple.

How so, year refers to how long a planet takes to make a round trip around the star it orbits, and day refers to how long it takes a planet to complete a rotation on it's axis. While months are related to the motion of the moon, so it's not really important to moonless planets. I would consider these to be more relevant to the other planets in a sense.

 

[SimuLord]

It doesn't work like that. Yes, years and days as we know them are only relevant for Earth, and other units like months are pretty arbitrary, but time sure as hell exists. Environments change, lifeforms age, events come and go, etc. Nothing stands still. It's that simple.

How so, year refers to how long a planet takes to make a round trip around the star it orbits, and day refers to how long it takes a planet to complete a rotation on it's axis. While months are related to the motion of the moon, so it's not really important to moonless planets. I would consider these to be more relevant to the other planets in a sense.

Does that mean that if I can invent a brake for the Earth's rotation that I get more time to do the aforementioned accounting homework?

 

[Quiet Stranger]

Oh god I remember thinking that. I also remember hearing about it in a movie or a show or something. But meh, time or no time, the real question is, why is a tree?

I feel like there should be more to that question about the tree

 

[Dexiro]

The difference is that you can hold up two different blocks and compare them to each other to establish an objective measure of length. You can't do the same thing with seconds or minutes because to do so you'd have to step outside of time to observe them objectively. All experience of time is subjective.

Not entirely sure what point you're getting at but you can measure time comparatively too

It's just not as easy as measuring things such as length because you're not dealing with something physical.

 

[Redingold]

Yes it's just a theory, they can't prove it through experiments.

I hate it when people do this. It's a hypothesis, not a theory. If there's no proof, it's not a theory.

 

[Snow Fire]

How so, year refers to how long a planet takes to make a round trip around the star it orbits, and day refers to how long it takes a planet to complete a rotation on it's axis. While months are related to the motion of the moon, so it's not really important to moonless planets. I would consider these to be more relevant to the other planets in a sense.

Does that mean that if I can invent a brake for the Earth's rotation that I get more time to do the aforementioned accounting homework?

That would make the day much longer, which would mean less days in a year. How many rotations the planet makes within a single trip made around the star it orbits determines how long it's year will be.

My brain shorted out, anyone have a spare.