It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


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


Dimension of time. Which one?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 05:41 AM
Ì was wondering if anybody here can explain in which dimension time is? We can think that it is in every one of them, of course, but this is not exactly what I am about. Time is usually considered fourth dimension, if I have understood physics on this correctly. What if it is in fact the first?

I wanted to share this because I had a dream about this. I propably develop this way of thinking further because I think these kinds of things are fun to do. I don't care that much about accuracy in real life, but it would be neat if equations would allow this point of view.

This is mostly just a point of view that I am talking about, I'm not sure if equations will allow this kind of thinking. Here comes:

We have a problem in equations such that every law in physics works in both directions. Time, so far, doesn't. It helps us understand symmetry and to realize that there is a possibility that symmetry is the correct way of thinking physics. Time remains a problem in it though because we cannot (at least not yet) run our equations in both directions in a concrete way. IF however we think time as being first dimension instead of fourth, we come to a conclusion that since it is in a way 1D-space and plane, there is no way for it to "turn around". It even works if we think of different time lines, all going along in a straigth line one after another. We can't jump past another timeline, thus our time cannot turn in such a plane. This would have to apply so that in our 3D-world, all axises have this single dimension constant that cannot reverse itself because other timelines push this one forward.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:36 AM
my personal feelings on time as a dimension are basicly that its not a dimension . (lol, i know this is gonna start chins wagging)

things in the universe exist, or dont exist, i dont feel that time really plays much of a part.

time as we know it is a man made measurement, developed to explain the passing of life.

i was going to try and elaborate, but to save myself looking like a fool i wont. as ive just blew my brain up trying to think about space time and the speed of light, my brain is now arguing with itself.

maybe it is a dimension, i suppose teh question is really what is time, and is time an entity or a measurement.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:47 AM
I believe the "normal" view of time is wrong altogether, but to each his own. In 1D, there is no movement, so nothing to compare anything moving in any direction to. However 2D there is another plane so movement can be seen, thus time exists in 2D and every other dimension. I can't think of a better explanation at the moment, but will come back to it.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:20 AM
I believe my view of time can explain this quite well. If we take into account that time really does not exist, there is no reason to even try to make it exist in 2D for example. In one dimensional being there would be no measurable existence beyond human invention.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 08:44 PM
Simply stating time in itself does not exist, does not make it so. Time is in fact man made, but only because there was reason to make it...night and day...change of seasons.

And the reason time does not repeat itself, or turn around in the other direction is that everything in space is moving. Earth rotates around the sun...Sun rotates around the singularity at the center of our galaxy...and the galaxy moves through space as well. Everything is in constant movement. Even though it seems the earth travels along the same path around the sun, it is in fact not. By the time the earth gets back around, the sun has moved through space around the singularity. If earth was able to hit the exact same spot in its travel around the sun, time would in fact repeat.

But to be honest, I don't think my reply will answer this for you because I am not sure I follow your reasoning.

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 09:21 PM
For all you people suggesting that Time doesn't exist, how would you explain Growth/Age, Movement, and Sequence?

Time isn't man made, the measurement of time is whats man made. Time had to obviously exist before man for them to be able to measure it, pretty simple concept.

And when you attempt to explain to me exactly what accounts for Growth/Age, Movement, and Sequence; try not to apply any of them, as they are the main indicators of time.

Time is in every dimension, its a requirement for life.

posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:34 PM
I don't know whether to believe time as a dimension or not but i don't see why it need be.

Time as a dimension would mean the past still exists and in turn the future does, but if thats the case theres really no explanation for why we experience the present at all the way we do, if time is a dimension like this then everything should happen instantly or to put it another way exist complete like space exists complete, though perhaps you could make the argument it doesn't due to expansion and perhaps time is expanding in a similar way to the universe/space if that makes sense.

Anyway time as merely movement and our experience of it in space is probably more likely, the past does not exist in this case and neither does the future, there is only the 'now' and space which things can move in, the past only exists as a memory of a prior state of the universe before it changed.

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:36 AM
reply to post by rawsom

time does not exist, only space does. see einsteins theory of relativity

top topics


log in