Originally posted by @humyThis is completely true. Four time dimensions can make anyone go nuts.
I bet if we ever traveled to a universe with, say, 4 dimensions for time and 6 dimensions for space, we will be seriously confused.
The display on your wrist watch made in that universe would be horrendously complex because it would show 4-dimensional time. You would be hoping nobody asks you what would be a simple question in OUR universe of "what is the time?". And as for navigation; lets not go there.
So when the eleven space dimensions was presented with the string theory, people went nuts too. But we cope with it.
Science believe that we have only one time dimension, but cannot explain why, nor deny the (remote probable) possibility of more time dimensions. Perhaps curled up in the micro world, perhaps a super universal time, perhaps any other highly speculative idea.
But what about a third dimensional class, other than spatial and temporal?
Originally posted by @fabianfnasOne could consider mass to be a dimension.
But what about a third dimensional class, other than spatial and temporal?
Originally posted by @twhiteheadTo be at one position in the four dimensional universe I use three spatial coordinates and one temporal.
One could consider mass to be a dimension.
Why would I use a mass dimension to describe my position? Mass is a property, not a coordinate.
1 edit
Originally posted by @fabianfnasAnd in the five dimensional universe you have to specify mass as well.
To be at one position in the four dimensional universe I use three spatial coordinates and one temporal.
Why would I use a mass dimension to describe my position?
Why not?
Mass is a property, not a coordinate.
On what basis do you make that claim?
I concede it isn't a coordinate in the spacial dimensions, but then that is the whole point of dimensions, they are orthogonal.
Another dimension that will confuse you is half integer spin. It is confusing because it only has particular values, but being a dimension helps to explain the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
1 edit
Originally posted by @twhiteheadIf you say that mass is a coordinate, then you have to show that.
And in the five dimensional universe you have to specify mass as well.
2 edits
Originally posted by @fabianfnas"Hey, let's have a date! Let's have a drink at the café at the southeast corner at Central Station (three spatial dimensions), at three o'clock (one temporal dimension), at 98 kilograms (one mass dimension)!"
Mass is a property, not a coordinate.
Does anyone think I will succeed to convince her to meet me? D:
No, neither do I.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasDrinking 98 kilograms of anything doesn't sound very appealing.
"Hey, let's have a date! Let's have a drink at the café at the southeast corner at Central Station (three spatial dimensions), at three o'clock (one temporal dimension), at 98 kilograms (one mass dimension)!"
Does anyone think I will succeed to convince her to meet me? D:
No, neither do I.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasLets see if you can meet your date while weighing 0kg. Clearly to be present at a location, you also need mass.
"Hey, let's have a date! Let's have a drink at the café at the southeast corner at Central Station (three spatial dimensions), at three o'clock (one temporal dimension), at 98 kilograms (one mass dimension)!"
Does anyone think I will succeed to convince her to meet me? D:
No, neither do I.
As I said, there is no reason to attribute spacial concepts to a new dimension. The whole idea of meeting someone, is a spacial and temporal concept, but even there, you treat space and time differently. So treat mass differently too rather than trying to make it space or time.
Lets see you try and set a date for yesterday. Does anyone think you will manage?
No, neither do I. Clearly you can only travel one direction in time. Maybe travelling in mass has other limitations.
How do you decide what mass of something is, if not on a scale?
Originally posted by @twhiteheadMass is not a coordinate. Neither are money, sunlight, religion. Neither of these are coordinates. You cannot meet anyone at 98 kg, neither at $100, neither at buddhism. How are you thinking?
Lets see if you can meet your date while weighing 0kg. Clearly to be present at a location, you also need mass.
As I said, there is no reason to attribute spacial concepts to a new dimension. The whole idea of meeting someone, is a spacial and temporal concept, but even there, you treat space and time differently. So treat mass differently too rather ...[text shortened]... n mass has other limitations.
How do you decide what mass of something is, if not on a scale?
Length and time are coordinates. Not mass.
Originally posted by @fabianfnasNeither is time. Unless you look at it mathematically in which it IS a coordinate, but then we can do the same for mass.
Mass is not a coordinate.
Neither are money, sunlight, religion. Neither of these are coordinates. You cannot meet anyone at 98 kg, neither at $100, neither at buddhism. How are you thinking?
Bad analogies.
Try this: the surface of the earth has latitudes and longitudes. All points on the earth have two coordinates. Suppose someone points out that there is a third dimension. If I said 'you cannot meet anyone at 5 metres high', would you buy that argument?
And by the way I most definitely CAN meet someone at 98 kg, because that is where I am most of the time.
Length and time are coordinates. Not mass.
Why not? Every point in space has:
An x coordinate.
A y coordinate.
A z coordinate.
A time.
A mass.
You are forgetting that dimensions are BY DEFINITION orthogonal.
Originally posted by @twhiteheadYou are forgetting that dimensions are BY DEFINITION orthogonal.
Neither is time. Unless you look at it mathematically in which it IS a coordinate, but then we can do the same for mass.
[b]Neither are money, sunlight, religion. Neither of these are coordinates. You cannot meet anyone at 98 kg, neither at $100, neither at buddhism. How are you thinking?
Bad analogies.
Try this: the surface of the earth has l ...[text shortened]... oordinate.
A time.
A mass.
You are forgetting that dimensions are BY DEFINITION orthogonal.[/b]
Utter nonsense. What a stupid thing to say. Ornithology has nothing to do with it. Go back to school, and this time pay for your education. You obviously got what you paid for the first time around.
Oh, you said "orthogonal"?
Okay, so... never mind.
as you were
1 edit
Originally posted by @twhitehead"Did you meet your date?"
"I knew where she was..."
"Yes?"
"I knew when to meet her..."
"Yes, so?"
"But I didn't knew her mass!"
"So you missed her?"
"Yes!"
Can I be clearer without insulting you?
Originally posted by @fabianfnasApparently not. And when you are struggling to explain something, it is often because you are wrong.
Can I be clearer without insulting you?
Originally posted by @twhiteheadAnd you came with the first insult. Meaning that you've lost.
Apparently not. And when you are struggling to explain something, it is often because you are wrong.
Because when the civil arguments isn't enough some think that insults will shut the other one up.
Yes, I find it meaningless to discuss with ignorant people. I stop here.
Remember what question I gave you. I will remember that you didn't know the answer.
Originally posted by @twhiteheadRest mass is a scalar quantity.
One could consider mass to be a dimension.