[quote=name:Ckol] Also be aware that that is a REPRESENTATION of a Tesseract, its impossible for our brains to comprehend things with four spatial dimensions[/quote] Exactly, A valid Tesseract can only exist if all of the lines are of equal length, and is all of the corners are of 90 degree angles. (only in the fourth dimension) We, here in good ol 3rd can only represent the tesseract with lost information (not equal sides, not all 90 degrees) the same way you lose information when you draw a cube on a piece of paper. because you take away a dimension, you lose information. The cube on paper does not have perfect 90 degree angles, and the sides aren't equal length. [quote=name:Vi3t-X][quote=name:Rantent][quote=Vi3t-X]we would be time itself?[/quote] Who's to say we aren't time already?[/quote] Who says time exists at all?[/quote] i don't believe in time. i believe in the measurement of present action (clocks, watches) Clocks and watches and memories all create the illusion of time. people say, man i wish i could go back in time.... But really, even if they wished it, there is no going back. Why? basically because there is no gigantic recording device that remembers where all of the atoms of the universe were at whatever petty measurement your referring to, or must i say it "point in time" that you were referring to.

Quote from Ckol

Also be aware that that is a REPRESENTATION of a Tesseract, its impossible for our brains to comprehend things with four spatial dimensions

Exactly, A valid Tesseract can only exist if all of the lines are of equal length, and is all of the corners are of 90 degree angles. (only in the fourth dimension)

We, here in good ol 3rd can only represent the tesseract with lost information (not equal sides, not all 90 degrees) the same way you lose information when you draw a cube on a piece of paper. because you take away a dimension, you lose information. The cube on paper does not have perfect 90 degree angles, and the sides aren't equal length.

Quote from [Vi3t-X]

Quote from Rantent

Quote from Vi3t-X

we would be time itself?

Who's to say we aren't time already?

Who says time exists at all?

i don't believe in time. i believe in the measurement of present action (clocks, watches)
Clocks and watches and memories all create the illusion of time. people say, man i wish i could go back in time.... But really, even if they wished it, there is no going back. Why? basically because there is no gigantic recording device that remembers where all of the atoms of the universe were at whatever petty measurement your referring to, or must i say it "point in time" that you were referring to.

Yet we are moving in another manner that we are not conscious of, in the fourth dimension. I suppose it's rather theoretical, but it seems rather arrogant to assume that it is simply impossible without any evidence, for or against. For one, I'm fairly sure that there are times that it seems electrons can travel "backwards" in time, but that's a subatomic particle.

Yet we are moving in another manner that we are not conscious of, in the fourth dimension.

I suppose it's rather theoretical, but it seems rather arrogant to assume that it is simply impossible without any evidence, for or against.

For one, I'm fairly sure that there are times that it seems electrons can travel "backwards" in time, but that's a subatomic particle.

time can't be the 4th dimension because time is virtual, it doesn't exist.

time can't be the 4th dimension because time is virtual, it doesn't exist.

Thing is, time is used by science as a fundamental quantity and used to define other units, such as the meter. So if time doesn't exist, how can you use it to define something?

Thing is, time is used by science as a fundamental quantity and used to define other units, such as the meter. So if time doesn't exist, how can you use it to define something?

That doesn't make sense as an arguement. It assumes that people are defining meters using time. People don't.

That doesn't make sense as an arguement. It assumes that people are defining meters using time. People don't.

What does it mean to exist?

What does it mean to exist?

[quote=name:devilesk]What does it mean to exist?[/quote] RED HERRING!!! :P Time and measurements of lengths are independent of each other, the only way you could make tht arguement is if you find a way to connect units of length with units of time, such as an equality like this: 100 blagometers = 1 blags of time.

Quote from (U)devilesk

What does it mean to exist?

RED HERRING!!!

Time and measurements of lengths are independent of each other, the only way you could make tht arguement is if you find a way to connect units of length with units of time, such as an equality like this:

100 blagometers = 1 blags of time.

[quote=name:Zombiechao]That doesn't make sense as an arguement. It assumes that people are defining meters using time. People don't.[/quote] Actually, the official metre (standard or so) is measured by the distance that light travels in space in an X ammount of time. That ammount of time is, of course, really small but it's that way because the speed of light in space is constant. So, you need to press F5 on your sources.

Quote from Zombiechao

That doesn't make sense as an arguement. It assumes that people are defining meters using time. People don't.

Actually, the official metre (standard or so) is measured by the distance that light travels in space in an X ammount of time. That ammount of time is, of course, really small but it's that way because the speed of light in space is constant. So, you need to press F5 on your sources.

[quote=name:Zombiechao]That doesn't make sense as an arguement. It assumes that people are defining meters using time. People don't.[/quote] [quote=name:A_of-s_t][quote=name:devilesk]What does it mean to exist?[/quote] RED HERRING!!! :P Time and measurements of lengths are independent of each other, the only way you could make tht arguement is if you find a way to connect units of length with units of time, such as an equality like this: 100 blagometers = 1 blags of time.[/quote] Wrong and Wrong, and i quote: "The metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. It follows that the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. " Actually, you DO define a metre using time.

Quote from Zombiechao

That doesn't make sense as an arguement. It assumes that people are defining meters using time. People don't.

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote from (U)devilesk

What does it mean to exist?

RED HERRING!!!

Time and measurements of lengths are independent of each other, the only way you could make tht arguement is if you find a way to connect units of length with units of time, such as an equality like this:

100 blagometers = 1 blags of time.

Wrong and Wrong, and i quote:

"The metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. It follows that the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. "

Actually, you DO define a metre using time.

Wrong!!!!! I knew that fact and it does not define the meter with time. It defines the meter by how much the earth would spin.

Wrong!!!!! I knew that fact and it does not define the meter with time. It defines the meter by how much the earth would spin.

[quote=name:Zombiechao]Wrong!!!!! I knew that fact and it does not define the meter with time. It defines the meter by how much the earth would spin.[/quote] Explain, that definition has nothing to do with the spin of the earth, 299,792,458m/s is the exact speed of light [b]IN A VACUUM[/b], last time i checked, the earth isn't a vacuum, so how does the spin of the earth come into it? If your referring to the definition of a metre "as one ten-millionth of the length of the Earth's meridian along a quadrant, that is the distance from the equator to the north pole", get with the times, that was the definition in 1791. Please provide actual evidence to support your claims ^^

Quote from Zombiechao

Wrong!!!!! I knew that fact and it does not define the meter with time. It defines the meter by how much the earth would spin.

Explain, that definition has nothing to do with the spin of the earth, 299,792,458m/s is the exact speed of light IN A VACUUM, last time i checked, the earth isn't a vacuum, so how does the spin of the earth come into it?

If your referring to the definition of a metre "as one ten-millionth of the length of the Earth's meridian along a quadrant, that is the distance from the equator to the north pole", get with the times, that was the definition in 1791.

Please provide actual evidence to support your claims

I didn't read through the whole thread, but I always thought that the 4th dimension was personality. But then again, maybe that only applies to video games...

I didn't read through the whole thread, but I always thought that the 4th dimension was personality. But then again, maybe that only applies to video games...

Fourth dimension is whatever we define it as. Seems to me that the discrepancy is what best suits the term, or if anything at all should. Ultimately, what does it matter?

Fourth dimension is whatever we define it as. Seems to me that the discrepancy is what best suits the term, or if anything at all should.

Ultimately, what does it matter?

[quote=name:Ckol]"The metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. It follows that the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. "[/quote] This definition is redundent. It pulls obscure numbers out to support its own claim. It defines a meter as the time it takes for light to travel a meter, so it has proven nothing. I can do the same thing: The 1 length of a pencil is equivelent to the time it takes for a snail to travel in 30 seconds. 1 pencil = 30 seconds of snail speed 1 p = 30 s/p 1 p = 30 s/ 1p 1^2 p^2 = 30 s So, 1 pencil squared is equal to 30 seconds, which just doesn't make sense. The reason I bring this up, is because you can do the same thing with the equation you proposed, and you end up with an obscure answer like mine.

Quote from Ckol

"The metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. It follows that the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. "

This definition is redundent. It pulls obscure numbers out to support its own claim. It defines a meter as the time it takes for light to travel a meter, so it has proven nothing.

I can do the same thing:

The 1 length of a pencil is equivelent to the time it takes for a snail to travel in 30 seconds.

1 pencil = 30 seconds of snail speed

1 p = 30 s/p

1 p = 30 s/ 1p

1^2 p^2 = 30 s

So, 1 pencil squared is equal to 30 seconds, which just doesn't make sense. The reason I bring this up, is because you can do the same thing with the equation you proposed, and you end up with an obscure answer like mine.

[quote=name:A_of-s_t][quote=name:Ckol]"The metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. It follows that the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. "[/quote] This definition is redundent. It pulls obscure numbers out to support its own claim. It defines a meter as the time it takes for light to travel a meter, so it has proven nothing. I can do the same thing: The 1 length of a pencil is equivelent to the time it takes for a snail to travel in 30 seconds. 1 pencil = 30 seconds of snail speed 1 p = 30 s/p 1 p = 30 s/ 1p 1^2 p^2 = 30 s So, 1 pencil squared is equal to 30 seconds, which just doesn't make sense. The reason I bring this up, is because you can do the same thing with the equation you proposed, and you end up with an obscure answer like mine.[/quote] Your example is flawed. I't doesn't define a metre as the time taken to travel a metre, it defines it as the interval of length that light travels over a defined period (time). It uses a constant, which is, surprise surprise, [b]always[/b] the same and relative to [b]nothing[/b], and thus, the interval of the constant will always. by definition, be constant. 1 Metre does not equal 1/299,792,458 metres per second, it equals the distance traveled in 1/299,792,458 fractions of a second. i.e 1 m = 1⁄299,792,458s NOT 1m = 1/1⁄299,792,458m/s

Quote from A_of-s_t

Quote from Ckol

"The metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. It follows that the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. "

This definition is redundent. It pulls obscure numbers out to support its own claim. It defines a meter as the time it takes for light to travel a meter, so it has proven nothing.

I can do the same thing:

The 1 length of a pencil is equivelent to the time it takes for a snail to travel in 30 seconds.

1 pencil = 30 seconds of snail speed

1 p = 30 s/p

1 p = 30 s/ 1p

1^2 p^2 = 30 s

So, 1 pencil squared is equal to 30 seconds, which just doesn't make sense. The reason I bring this up, is because you can do the same thing with the equation you proposed, and you end up with an obscure answer like mine.

Your example is flawed.
I't doesn't define a metre as the time taken to travel a metre, it defines it as the interval of length that light travels over a defined period (time). It uses a constant, which is, surprise surprise, always the same and relative to nothing, and thus, the interval of the constant will always. by definition, be constant.

1 Metre does not equal 1/299,792,458 metres per second, it equals the distance traveled in 1/299,792,458 fractions of a second.

i.e 1 m = 1⁄299,792,458s NOT 1m = 1/1⁄299,792,458m/s

My snail travels at a constant speed and will travel the distance of a pencil in 30 seconds. We can measure this snail's speed to be 1 pencil per 30 seconds, or 1/30 p/s, or 30 s/p. We now hold this as a constant. According to your idea, we can take this to mean that 30 s = 1 p. However, this would assume that 30 s/p = 1, since we multiply each side by p. 30 s/p 30 s/p = 1 30 s = 1 p And this would also assume that we can have a number in this equation without a type of measurement. The speed of light is a constant, so we take how long it travels in a certain amount of time. However, this becomes pointless if we say that the speed of light travels this many units in this amount of time, so this unit is this amount of distance vs. time. It basically states the same thing without actually stating how the measurement came about. The truth is, "the metre was defined by the French Academy of Sciences as the length between two marks on a platinum-iridium bar, which was designed to represent 1⁄10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the north pole through Paris", so it holds nothing when being compared to time. If you really want to go about it this way, then find a way to connect time and space without using a definition that uses circular reasoning. Yes, this means I'm saying that the SI definition uses a circular arguement, but you should be okay with this since it would be a logical fallacy to assume its lacking flaws. [quote]Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong! [/quote] [quote]Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. Here is one of my favorite examples (in pared down form): "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!" A good summing up statement is, "In other words, they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true! [color=#CE091D]But they have yet to tell us why it's true.[/color]" [/quote] EDIT: [quote]"The metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. It follows that the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. "[/quote] And technically, you would be defining speed of light through meters, which pretty much sets us back to sqaure one.

My snail travels at a constant speed and will travel the distance of a pencil in 30 seconds. We can measure this snail's speed to be 1 pencil per 30 seconds, or 1/30 p/s, or 30 s/p. We now hold this as a constant.

According to your idea, we can take this to mean that 30 s = 1 p. However, this would assume that 30 s/p = 1, since we multiply each side by p.

30 s/p

30 s/p = 1

30 s = 1 p

And this would also assume that we can have a number in this equation without a type of measurement.


The speed of light is a constant, so we take how long it travels in a certain amount of time. However, this becomes pointless if we say that the speed of light travels this many units in this amount of time, so this unit is this amount of distance vs. time. It basically states the same thing without actually stating how the measurement came about. The truth is, "the metre was defined by the French Academy of Sciences as the length between two marks on a platinum-iridium bar, which was designed to represent 1⁄10,000,000 of the distance from the equator to the north pole through Paris", so it holds nothing when being compared to time.

If you really want to go about it this way, then find a way to connect time and space without using a definition that uses circular reasoning. Yes, this means I'm saying that the SI definition uses a circular arguement, but you should be okay with this since it would be a logical fallacy to assume its lacking flaws.

Quote

Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. Example: "At least 70% of all Americans support restrictions on access to abortions." Well, maybe 70% of Americans are wrong!

Quote

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing. Here is one of my favorite examples (in pared down form): "Marijuana is illegal in every state in the nation. And we all know that you shouldn't violate the law. Since smoking pot is illegal, you shouldn't smoke pot. And since you shouldn't smoke pot, it is the duty of the government to stop people from smoking it, which is why marijuana is illegal!"

A good summing up statement is, "In other words, they are trying to tell us that X is true because X is true! But they have yet to tell us why it's true."

EDIT:

Quote

"The metre is the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. It follows that the speed of light in vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 metres per second. "

And technically, you would be defining speed of light through meters, which pretty much sets us back to sqaure one.

There is no circular argument, humans (as of 1983) we have defined the metre as being derived from the speed of light. The SI speed of light is consider to be EXACT, any refinement to the actual speed of light in a vacuum will NOT change the number 299,792,458, the definition of the metre will be adjusted to be exactly 1⁄299,792,458th of the distance light travels in that interval.

There is no circular argument, humans (as of 1983) we have defined the metre as being derived from the speed of light. The SI speed of light is consider to be EXACT, any refinement to the actual speed of light in a vacuum will NOT change the number 299,792,458, the definition of the metre will be adjusted to be exactly 1⁄299,792,458th of the distance light travels in that interval.

This distance is derived from the SPEED of light, which is distance over time. So our distance is derived from distance. The time in the equation becomes irrelevant when you begin to talk about the DISTANCE the light has travelled. And besides, we measure the speed of light in meters, so we can easily take the meter's length from the speed of light which we already measured in meters!

This distance is derived from the SPEED of light, which is distance over time. So our distance is derived from distance. The time in the equation becomes irrelevant when you begin to talk about the DISTANCE the light has travelled.

And besides, we measure the speed of light in meters, so we can easily take the meter's length from the speed of light which we already measured in meters!

[quote]it seems rather arrogant to assume that it is simply impossible without any evidence, for or against.[/quote] Is it rather arrogant to assume that there isnt an invisible dancing leprachon on my desk, even though i have no evidence for or against? How about the inside of watermelons being blue until opened? - A lack of proof, and a lack of disproof, removes all legitimacy. [quote]it seems electrons can travel "backwards" in time[/quote] please, source... man i gotta see this one >.>

Quote

it seems rather arrogant to assume that it is simply impossible without any evidence, for or against.

Is it rather arrogant to assume that there isnt an invisible dancing leprachon on my desk, even though i have no evidence for or against? How about the inside of watermelons being blue until opened? - A lack of proof, and a lack of disproof, removes all legitimacy.

Quote

it seems electrons can travel "backwards" in time

please, source... man i gotta see this one >.>

[quote]Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true. [/quote] [quote]Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument. [/quote] Yes, yes it is.

Quote

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

Quote

Argumentum ad logicam (argument to logic). This is the fallacy of assuming that something is false simply because a proof or argument that someone has offered for it is invalid; this reasoning is fallacious because there may be another proof or argument that successfully supports the proposition. This fallacy often appears in the context of a straw man argument.

Yes, yes it is.