It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Can Space equal Time, as Matter equals Energy?

page: 2
0
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:58 AM
0-dimensions = a point, not quite a coordinate, not yet a position
1-dimension = a line, a number line, can have a position, has (length), requires at least two points of reference to determine an exact location.
2-dimensions = a plane, an area, can have a shape, can have a more complex position (2-d coordinate), has (length, width), requires at least four points of reference to determine an exact location.
3-dimensions = a space, a volume, has (length, width, depth), can have a form and shape, can have an even more complex position (3-d coordinate), requires at least six points of reference to determine an exact location (the movie/show Stargate is about this).

Referencing:
1-dimension: The number is an integer. It is between 1 and 3. The number is EXACTLY 2.
2-dimensions: The numbers are integers. The location is between (0,0),(0,2),(2,0),(2,2). Slope equations give us: (2-0)/(2-0)=1,(0-2)/(2-0)=-1. Now draw in the lines/slopes on the coordinate plane. The two lines intersect at (1,1). Thus, we have an integer location between our four coordinates at EXACTLY one coordinate, the EXACT location.
etc.
Note: Referencing requires at least 2 more coordinates for every additional dimension to determine an exact location.

OK, so these are properties of the dimension we KNOW because we live them. Space is included in these. Time is not. Time is part of the 4th dimension, as explained in a previous post. An example of how the 4th dimension works can be seen in a hypercube.

A hypercube - play with the settings and watch the cube turn its insides-out

This is the motion throught mathematics behind how 3-d objects move. Time is a part of how 3-d objects move (obviously).

THEREFORE, TIME and SPACE are not of the same dimension and thus are NOT EQUAL

Time is a DESCRIPTOR. It is quantifying how much POTENTIAL movement/change 3-d objects can undergo given its quantity (AMOUNT OF TIME).

Although this is a bit of an exaggeration, Time and Space can be related to kinetic and potential energy. Time (its amount) allows for 3-d objects to change up to a maximum threshold. What???

The speed of light is the current known limit for mass (what you call matter). The speed of light is 186,000 miles/second. That means that the maximum that a particle of matter could move is (less than) the speed of light before it is turned into energy (because matter cannot survive at this point) and the cosmic speed limit of 186,000 miles/second is set and NO MORE MOTION can occur beyond this limit for 3-d objects.

So the speed of light is the maximum potential limit (actually, less than the speed of light, not including the speed of light) of motion that any 3-d mass can achieve. However, no mass has been known to travel this fast and WE HUMANS certainly don't move anywhere near that fast.

If you want more proof, do your own research, get yourself some fancy degrees, and either prove it right or wrong in your own mind and your own work.

[edit on 30-7-2006 by Protector]

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:50 PM
I believe the problem becomes that energy can also be a constant in this scenario. You can interchange energy in nearly any respect:
Matter=Energy
Space=Energy
Time=Energy

Space = Time

It has been shown that Time exists as a secondary force outside the realm of matter, effecting, but not sharing qualities with. Now, you can really push this hypothesis to the next step and go so far as to assume that if-

Matter=Energy, and Energy=Time, then you can almost push that Matter=Time, in a more compound sense. Such that-
Force of matter=amount of time, or more simply, the energy of matter=the amount of time.
If two cars are thundering towards one another at fifty m/p/h, then it is safe to assume that the energy compacted as atoms in the bodies of those cars will collide at the speed that time has allowed for. If you slow the time, thereby slowing the verocity of the compacted energy, the energy released in the collision is dramatically decreased. Therefore:

Matter=Time

I believe it is only through a breakdown of the basic component of space-matter and energy, that you can come to any conclusion as to a comparison of space and time. In the regard that they are equal, of course.

Here is another interesting question I would pose. Time is something that humans measure by a clock, and yet something that is honestly without measure. If you turn back the hands of a clock, altering the space between the hands, you have technically turned back time. The more you turn back the hands, the more time you create. Thereby ensuring that, at least in this instance,

space=time

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:00 PM

Originally posted by EdenKaia
Matter=Energy
Space=Energy
Time=Energy

Space = Time

Are you serious? Did you not read the actual mathematical and scientific posts that I made?

Matter is expressed as related to energy (e=mc^2)
Space is a location for Energy to show its properties (potential and kinetic). Or Space is just 3-d "space".
Time is a quantified measurement of a 4th dimensional property.

SPACE DOES NOT EQUAL TIME!

And if you insist on continuing your pointless discussion, use the term TRANSFORM--where one state turns into another... not EQUAL TO another.

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:09 PM
maybe this is what spawned the theory that as you approach the speed of light time slows? i have heard this in different forms over the years but was never quoted a direct source... maybe someone here has?

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:53 PM
Speed of light is a constant *jots down for future reference*.
Of course, dE/dm=c^2, which makes perfect sense unlike the jibberish I stated.

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Protector
Are you serious? Did you not read the actual mathematical and scientific posts that I made?
Matter is expressed as related to energy (e=mc^2)
Space is a location for Energy to show its properties (potential and kinetic). Or Space is just 3-d "space".
Time is a quantified measurement of a 4th dimensional property.

SPACE DOES NOT EQUAL TIME!

And if you insist on continuing your pointless discussion, use the term TRANSFORM--where one state turns into another... not EQUAL TO another.

The point of the post was actually a jest on how many posts had been made, all sounding very interesting and intelligent, but actually proving nothing at all. Honestly, if you can get this worked up over a post, I would suggest a sedative. It is fairly obvious that Space is not equal to Time. It is the same as saying that your eyeball is equal to your toenail and then trying to come up with validation. Shoot an arrow into a wall and paint a target around it. The fun is in the exploration of things that have already been "proven". What would happen if I were to suggest to you that Time=Mass? Would a little vein in your forehead explode? Really, ease up a bit. Ever hear of an ulser? And in response to your comment on my "pointless discussion":
First=-if the discussion is pointless to you, go elsewhere and find a place where you can sulk in happiness.
Second=read the question in the initial post. Where in that equation do you see "transforms", as opposed to "equal"? Everyone here is aware of the fact that matter is not equal to energy. Matter can become energy, and vice versa. We don't need someone standing on the sidelines pointing it out. I mean really,

if you insist on continuing your pointless discussion,
the rant forum is down the hall. Calm down, have fun, and contribute what you have to say that is actually constructive. Anything else is just a waste of time that is just going to incite an argument. Follow?

posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:48 PM

Originally posted by EdenKaia
The point of the post was actually a jest on how many posts had been made, all sounding very interesting and intelligent, but actually proving nothing at all. Honestly, if you can get this worked up over a post, I would suggest a sedative. It is fairly obvious that Space is not equal to Time. It is the same as saying that your eyeball is equal to your toenail and then trying to come up with validation. Shoot an arrow into a wall and paint a target around it. The fun is in the exploration of things that have already been "proven". What would happen if I were to suggest to you that Time=Mass? Would a little vein in your forehead explode? Really, ease up a bit. Ever hear of an ulser? And in response to your comment on my "pointless discussion":
First=-if the discussion is pointless to you, go elsewhere and find a place where you can sulk in happiness.
Second=read the question in the initial post. Where in that equation do you see "transforms", as opposed to "equal"? Everyone here is aware of the fact that matter is not equal to energy. Matter can become energy, and vice versa. We don't need someone standing on the sidelines pointing it out. I mean really,

if you insist on continuing your pointless discussion,
the rant forum is down the hall. Calm down, have fun, and contribute what you have to say that is actually constructive. Anything else is just a waste of time that is just going to incite an argument. Follow?

You're right, I do get fired up easily. But I'm good at what I do. You can't be good and be wrong at the same time, just as you can't be the best athlete if you have the worst stats. I'm not trying to earn anyone's respect. I've put in my time and effort and I wish others to do the same. People don't get paid to almost be right.

Stating questions like, "What if the moon turned into a giant popsicle!!!???!!," really doesn't get us anywhere. I understand the point of your question from a conspiracy standpoint, but I also know that most questions on these forums probably wouldn't be asked if the person did five minutes of research. For tougher questions, such as ones involving Calculus, it helps to have someone with a good background to put in their two cents. People SHOULD help each other.

If you had come back and really said, "WHat if TimE = Ma\$s?!??," I would have shot myself. The truth is that Energy does transform into mass and vice verse, they abstractly relate to time, and beginning to master the why of these problems will create people and professionals who can change the world.

And let's face it... you aren't having fun exploring science, as you put it, as much as you are mocking it. If you take it easy on people who want to learn, you'll end up with creating people with simple minds who think the colors "clear" and "rainbow" are the greatest things since electricity. It is easy to forge a peon. Just hand him a beer and say, "You're good enough as you are." Legends are people who were told that they could never stand up to the best... and did it just in-spite of everyone else.

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Large Johnson
Space, time, & light are all the same thing.

Im sorry but i think this is wrong, space and light are governed by time and space and light moves through time. They are not the same thing if you get my drift.

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 06:12 PM
So can there be time without movement? If an object just sits in one place, does it experience time? Does time pass around it?

[edit on 1-8-2006 by Enkidu]

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 06:32 PM
hehe nobody knows as nothing we have ever known has sat in one place. Everything we see is moving through space either away or towards each other. Maybe if it does then it dissapears to us as it is no longer in our time web. ah well im sure many people will have a stab in the dark about what would happen.

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 09:56 PM

Let's disregard time for the moment and pretend that instead of asking whether space and time could swap places, you asked whether length and width could swap places. You should realise that you cannot solely use width to express a certain length, and vice versa. If you think of the universe as having three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension (time), you can see that we can apply the same logic with space and time as I did with width and length.

Also, matter and energy don't exactly switch places. Matter can be converted into energy and vice versa, you see the former everytime you light a match and how it gives off heat and light.

quote: Originally posted by Protector
Are you serious? Did you not read the actual mathematical and scientific posts that I made?
Matter is expressed as related to energy (e=mc^2)
Space is a location for Energy to show its properties (potential and kinetic). Or Space is just 3-d "space".
Time is a quantified measurement of a 4th dimensional property.

SPACE DOES NOT EQUAL TIME!

And if you insist on continuing your pointless discussion, use the term TRANSFORM--where one state turns into another... not EQUAL TO another.

Okay, maybe the problem is with my Question, not with my Physics. okay Protector?

To you and Nightblade, I rephrase the question.

What you're saying (either of should correct me if I'm wrong.) is, where you have matter OR energy, You in essence, have both, which are different states of the same material. Well, why can't this happen with Space/Tme?

[edit on 14-8-2006 by Toelint]

posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Toelint
What you're saying (either of should correct me if I'm wrong.) is, where you have matter OR energy, You in essence, have both, which are different states of the same material. Well, why can't this happen with Space/Tme?

To the first part, "sort of." The problem is like saying, "You have a boy or a girl." They aren't the same, but they are both human. Small difference can be SIGNIFICANT differences, if you catch my drift. I'll go along with the "different states of the same material" part. It is over simplifying and over generalizing, but you're moving in the right direction.

An over simplification of how Time could appear like space is if you took a snapshot of time. You'd essentially have a 3-d object w/o motion. Or, reverse that idea and animate a 3-d object to make it have an extra dimension of time. Again, it's over-simplifying.

I happen to like the ease of the word "spacetime." It doesn't really mean space or time, but rather how they interact in our universe. Objects have properties. Time is like a special property. Put them together and you have objects with very dynamic properties. Make a science out of it. Call it physics.

Is it really important whether you separate them? Is it really important if you must have them together? Not really. Science only studies things that give useful results. If one way works, GREAT! If the other works, GREAT. If both work, GREAT!

posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Toelint
Can Space and Time switch places like Matter and Energy...and is there a FORMULA forwarded by a reputable source to prove it?

Err... not sure what you're getting at here, but time isn't a factor in "space." You can have time independant of any spatial quantity and you can have spatial quantities without time. If time slows down, you don't suddenly get lots and lots of "space."

It takes you longer to get across the space, but the space hasn't expanded.

But if you keep a constant (light speed), and assume points A and B keep their same distance from the EDGES of a giving area, then it must take more time to travel between them as the area expands. That's part of what got me on this kick to begin with. By the same token, if the area between A and B is zero, (like in the center of, say, a Big Bang particle) then the time to travel between them is zero. Theoretically, in the center of a Big Bang particle, you're everywhere at once.

Does this make sense?

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 01:40 AM

Abstract

Presented is a theory in fundamental theoretical physics that establishes the relationship between time and energy, and also the relationship between inertia and gravity. This theory abandons the concept that mass increases as a result of relativistic motion and shows instead that the extra energy related to an object undergoing such motion is a direct result of the affect that the slowing of time has on velocity. In support of this premise, new formulas are introduced for acceleration and used in conjunction with a relativistic time transformation factor to develop new equations for both kinetic and total energy that replace those of special relativity. These and subsequently derived equations for momentum, distance, acceleration, inertia, gravity, and others, establish a direct relationship between the presented theory and the principles of an earlier theory, the millennium theory of relativity. A final consequence of this theoretical analysis is the discovery of two new laws of physics involving acceleration, and the realization that a unified theory of physics is now possible.

Mrelativty.Net

You may find this paper an interesting read.

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Toelint
Why...why...WHY...am I still pondering this?! Perhaps because Space, Time, Matter and Energy are constantly slung around as a package deal in all the Science forums or something. (Not that THAT means anything.)

Okay, just maybe it DOES mean something! Can Space and Time switch places like Matter and Energy...and is there a FORMULA forwarded by a reputable source to prove it? Help me out here, folks.

Think of it space and time as the z from a xyz axis.

Space is the distance between two points and time is both those points at the same space.

Much easeir when used with a metaphore

[edit on 10-9-2006 by Sonata]

[edit on 10-9-2006 by Sonata]

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 04:12 AM
What your doing is looking at geometric space.

There are different ways to look at space and the word "SPACE" then means something totally different.

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 12:10 AM
By the way, bodebliss, I checked out tht site you recommended...GREAT read!

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 02:22 AM
Thanks toelint,

I try to provide good links.

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:21 PM
Ok well if it was so then:

If space = time, When space expands, time expands. However when Space shrinks time
"goes smaller" aka goes backwards.

If it was like this, wouldn't time be an unlimited circle? I mean like when space is has expanded to it's maxium point then everything implodes "goes back in time". Then after time and space has imploded to it's maxium it starts to expand and time starts to run again.

Or a other case scenario it would be exacly the otherway around. Which means when TIme goes forward space shrinks. So after big bang time started to go backwards still space reached it's maxium "range" and then started to shrink and time started to move forward (this would mean galaxy is shrinking right now since I think we are going forward in time, this would too mean that time is an infine loop and you live this exacly same life over and over again... be careful what you do with it heh)

Ok well I don't buy that kind of belief and somebody acually proved that it is false too (I just explained somehow what would happen if that was the case, but then again my post might be completly biased depending on how you define space).

Allso this would say that the bigger / smaller the universe is the faster/slower time goes Allso this would mean the bigger the scale is the faster time goes by.

And has anyone ever thought about what if the solar system or galaxy is just like bigger sized atom... that together forms a other galaxy and allso all atoms inside us would form a whole other galaxy in micro scale too. (where time goes much faster than here). This could mean that inteligance life = cancer...

I have such a beliefs at some times but then when you start digging in to them it dosen't make much sense at all, I just wrote this here to see if anyone has something to comment / critisice(SP?) about this.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by Mr Dumb]

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 02:48 PM
I believe that time is imaginary in its entire concept. Time is more like a feeling expressed by humans to define the emotion of waiting in any given duration from which a moving object is acted upon to the concusion of its result. Without movement time does not exist. With movement comes result. since our entire universe is continualy moving, it is simply a durational period between action and result. Stoping time or swaping time would lead to a suspened animation.

new topics

top topics

0