Originally posted by Palynka
Bear with me, I think I'm getting close to understanding this.
Your example was somewhere along the lines of what I was expecting after I read about Minkowski spaces, but it seems that Lorenz Transformations are just rotations in a Minkowski space.
If this is correct, then the different treatment of time in LT comes naturally from the nature of Minkow ...[text shortened]... think this is key for me finally understanding why time is fundamentally different from space.
now i'm really interested to read about minkowski spaces and non-euclidean geometry, but sadly don't have enough "time" at the moment!
however, i will throw my hat in the ring once more...
thought experiment: consider a universe in which motion does not exist. not at the microscopic nor macroscopic level. change ceases to be. i posit that time does not exist in this universe either, and is an irrelevant concept. but then isn't time (and change itself) irrevocably linked to motion? isn't the so-called "4th dimension" in fact entirely dependent upon the other three?
but i think, (though it may often be useful to think of it as a 4th dimension for practical purposes, or even for elegant quantification of change) that time is subordinate to our "usual three" dimensions; that time is merely a dependent function of measurable physical measurable variables.
then why do we need a physical construction for time to describe a universe that is aptly described by changes in position? for ease of use and relating global and local change to others, i understand it... but i wholeheartedly don't see the need to fundamentally separate it from the ideas of mass, space, and change in relative position of bodies within that space. i think the conception of absolute time creates more difficult and more abstract (and perhaps even more inelegant) consequences in our understanding of our universe, without reconciling any particular flaws in the "more simple" understanding of three dimensions.
occam's razor isn't even close to always right... but it has quite an edge. creates in me the same qualms i have about string theory and religion! 🙂
...all that said, from what i can read between the lines of the posts about minkowski spaces, i may change my tune entirely if there is evidence for why time must be fundamentally separated from motion!