Are we missing a dimension of time?

A scientist has put forward the bizarre suggestion that there are two dimensions of time, not the one that we are all familiar with, and even proposed a way to test his heretical idea next year.

The tests he speaks of should be conducted some time after CERN gets back up and running.

Time is no longer a simple line from the past to the future, in a four dimensional world consisting of three dimensions of space and one of time. Instead, the physicist envisages the passage of history as curves embedded in a six dimensions, with four of space and two of time.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


I've independently been working on a similar theory myself. I even made a big post about it that went almost completely unnoticed, so now I'm showing you that yes, even "real scientists" are considering such an idea.

Here's another article about another scientist who's also considering two dimensions of time:

Those laws are exquisitely accurate. Einstein mastered gravity with his theory of general relativity, and the equations of quantum theory capture every nuance of matter and other forces, from the attractive power of magnets to the subatomic glue that holds an atom’s nucleus together. Free White Papers! But the laws can’t be complete. Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum theory don’t fit together. Some piece is missing in the picture puzzle of physical reality. Bars thinks one of the missing pieces is a hidden dimension of time.

www.physorg.com...

Imagine a triangle, where one point is the origin, and the other two points are past and future.

I think the 2nd dimension of time is an integral yet missing piece of our overall understanding of reality. I've suspected as much since my experiences with retrocausality and conventional science's inability to properly explain it, let alone admit that it exists.

Very interesting thread. Iwill keep and eye on this!

reply to post by Kruel


I think that science confuses time (ie 24hrs in a day etc..) with velocity
ie time (velocity) is a measurement of distance traveled between two points in space.

so we have height, width and depth as dimentions and then we have past present and future as dimentions. what we do in the present can effect both the past and the future. seeing how there would be other things existing in both the past and the future besides me if i did something to change the past it may not necessarly change or destroy a certain timeline as any other action i might do could put me back into a past or future reality multiple times.

Originally posted by iismtivuI think that science confuses time (ie 24hrs in a day etc..) with velocity
ie time (velocity) is a measurement of distance traveled between two points in space

Time is really just a measurement of events. We use the 24hr system, because that is what is relative to us, just like 12'' in a foot, and speed in horsepower, etc. Even without that formula, time still happens, and if it didn't, then we would be stuck in a single frame of existence with no thoughts or actions. It would be as if we were frozen.

Now, velocity can be categorized in many terms and measurements itself(ie. Relative, terminal, hyper, proper, time-average, etc). I really dont understand what definition of "velocity" you're going by, seeing as how there are many. On top of it, I'm not to sure if I agree with what you're saying, if I understand you correctly. Without time, we wouldn't have any ground basis/experience of speed and distance. Without those, we wouldn't have any comprehension on velocity. Do you see what I'm saying?

Anyways, I can't comment on the OP post, as I haven't looked into it yet, but this post by iismtivu struck me as odd, and I'm not quit sure if I'm understanding him completely. Please embellish if you could, iismtivu.

The way I see it is like this: Time is measured by events in one dimension, and by movement in another.

Originally posted by Kruel
The way I see it is like this: Time is measured by events in one dimension, and by movement in another.

OK, but without movement, we would be in one single frame of existence. I don't quit understand how you could have movement without comprehension of events. They kind of go hand-in-hand.

I read your theory, and its actually pretty close to what I had thought of "time", but I'm still confused on what exactly you mean. Give me some time to gather some questions, as its EXTREMELY late right now, and I'm not in the right mind-set. I'll look into this tomorrow.

Conventional science has yet to gather one simple fact. Time and space are functions of torque. In the case of our Universe… It’s continual torque in two directions (+ flow/ - flow). Start by contemplating/applying unipolar induction. Here’s the theory in its complete form:


Unified Theory for the Universal Structure: System of Truth


blog.myspace.com...


Here’s my main page: www.myspace.com...


Be sure to have some fun doing the research I did!

Conventional science has yet to gather a simple fact. Time and space are functions of torque. In the case of our Universe… It’s continual torque in two directions (+ flow/ - flow). Start by contemplating/applying unipolar induction. Here’s the theory in its complete form:


Unified Theory for the Universal Structure: System of Truth


blog.myspace.com...


Here’s my main page: www.myspace.com...

reply to post by TravisT

Even without that formula, time still happens, and if it didn't, then we would be stuck in a single frame of existence with no thoughts or actions. It would be as if we were frozen

No, that is wrong. Time doesn't exist, it's a mathematical figure created by humans to make calculations easy.

Instead of saying one birthday per orbit around the Sun, we say one birthday per year. That's all it does.

For example, the term spacetime, is nothing more than 'space change relative to another change in space'. We don't need 'time' to understand velocity, we only need changes in distance. 'Time' makes it easier.

Suppose space is nothing more than 2 electrons flying away from each other. Can you define time in such event? Not really, yet the two electrons are moving, not 'frozen in a single frame of existance'.

Originally posted by TravisT

Originally posted by Kruel
The way I see it is like this: Time is measured by events in one dimension, and by movement in another.

OK, but without movement, we would be in one single frame of existence. I don't quit understand how you could have movement without comprehension of events. They kind of go hand-in-hand.

Sorry for the late reply... I was somehow unsubbed from my threads and in my profile it said I had made the last post so I didn't bother checking it for a while.

To answer your question, yes, according to my theory it means that we all exist (past present and future) in a single frame of existence. The frame grows in complexity however, making it a dimension of time in itself. In order to comprehend events we must be traveling through both dimensions of time simultaneously, otherwise we would never "cross over" the changes.

Americanist, I read your stuff... interesting. A lot of similarities there with my thoughts.

Edit to say, sorry I thought I was in my other thread. I can't say if my theories of 2D time and the aforementioned scientists conform to mine. Though I wouldn't be surprised to find similarities.

[edit on 1/30/2009 by Kruel]

Originally posted by Kruel

Originally posted by TravisT

Originally posted by Kruel
The way I see it is like this: Time is measured by events in one dimension, and by movement in another.

OK, but without movement, we would be in one single frame of existence. I don't quit understand how you could have movement without comprehension of events. They kind of go hand-in-hand.

To answer your question, yes, according to my theory it means that we all exist (past present and future) in a single frame of existence. The frame grows in complexity however, making it a dimension of time in itself. In order to comprehend events we must be traveling through both dimensions of time simultaneously, otherwise we would never "cross over" the changes.

I can see what you're saying with your time model, but it still doesn't make that much sense to me. So, if we live in past, present, and future, then why can't we send messages to ourselves in the past?

[edit on 2-2-2009 by TravisT]

Interesting thread. I believe that time is a human invention to perceive this world. I also agree we are in one frame. That is everything past, present and future the way we perceive it is happening at once. Only God or a higher being can comprehend this, the alpha and the omega. This would, to me at least, explain how some people can "see" the future or past. It would also explain ghosts, images of the then in the now(which are the same) maybe the second component comes into play when we die?