I have a theroy that has probibly already been created, but hey, im 16. This is in regard to 4-d objects. if you look at a sample linear timeline you see a 3-d object (you...ect) this object is represented as a point. You can only exist in one spot on a timeline. You cant be in the past, because it happened already. You cant be in the future, because it hasn’t happened yet. You can only be on one point. I think that a 4-D object (since space and time are related) would exist as a “line” over the timeline. in other words, instead of a one dimensional point, a 4-D object is represented as a line segment, thus living its entire existance at once over many time periods. This creates a little bit of thought in my mind about a timeline. we always see a timeline as a 2-D line segment, and we are (according to my theroy) represented as a 1-D point. perhaps if you raise the dimension of the object being represinted on a 2-d timeline from 3-d to 4-d the timeline must also change from a “number line” to a cartisean grid. this brings what I like to call 4-D time. I will return in a couple of days to see how wrong this is. if you just cant wait to debunk my theroy, stop laughing and e-mail me at michael_moski@yahoo.com Thanks!

Hurkyl

http://www.cord.edu/dept/physics/credo/spacetime.html

Does this describe what you mean?

Raavin :)

quote:

---

Originally posted by wavelength:
instead of a one dimensional point, a 4-D object is represented as a line segment, thus living its entire existance at once over many time periods

---

First of all, you say "living" and "living" applies to a biological unit... not what you are calling a line segment or "4D object". Perhaps use the word "existing all at once over many time periods" there.

Also... please give your explaination of a "time period".

Secondly: if I am observing the "line segment" or "4D object" from a view point off the "line segment"... that makes me part of the dimension determining that segment. In other words, I have become one of the reference points used in determining its existance.

Thirdly: I'll interject that my point... or point of view... is also existing simultaniously with all other points (including all "time co-ordinates") so... all existance exists in what you are determining as the 4th Dimension.
Existance occurs in all other dimensions, simultaniously, as well. So........

.......where is the big news in your theory?

You're saying that there are multiple time dimentions as well as space directions... so space is composed of 3 spatial directions and 3 time directions.

I have read in the past (dunno if they do it anymore) that String Theorists consider structures with more than one time dimention. I'm not entirely sure what the consequences of such would be.

Hurkyl

I think generally time is considered as an extra to the spatial dimensions and is attributable to a change in conditions. I'm not sure if any of this is right, but I think that time in that respect, is seen as a net result of spatial change and is considered a 'dimension' by association only. In the current line of thinking, a 4d shape would be considered to have 4 spatial and 1 time dimension, each spatial axis running perpendicular to the level below. If you are talking about multiple time dimensions not spatial, then it might make things a bit clearer to say that your 4d time is actually 3d plus 2d time. Does that make sense or is that not what you're getting at?

To Carl, I think you're being a bit anal about your definition of 'living'. You know what he meant. Check out my 'sad days' post for my opinions of people running around trying to make others feel stupid. Play nice. I'm on a mission ;)

Raavin

quote:

---

Originally posted by wavelength:
Not what i ment! i am saying that time itself is on the x axis, and a fourth dimension of time is on the y axis. in that we exist on a 2-d timeline, and 4-d space has its own timeline (which includes ours as the x-axis). in this way, as the dimension of space increases, so does the dimension of time. I already know everything about the space time continoum,this is a new idea all my own.

---

Why only 2d timeline? We can find the uncountable amount of examples that each object in universe exists in its cycle of time. The minimum cycle of time (quantum of time) synchronizes all these cycles. Does not exist the abstract time. Even often remembered here twin paradox confirms this.