Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Rest mass is a scalar quantity.

How's that work on quarks?

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
And you came with the first insult.

Did I? Where?

Meaning that you've lost.
Nonsense.

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.
It seems you have no wish to discuss it any further and so have resorted to false accusations and insults.

Remember what question I gave you. I will remember that you didn't know the answer.
And I will remember that you decided to make a claim then run away without defending it.
Meaning that you've lost.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Rest mass is a scalar quantity.

And hence a suitable number to be considered a dimension. A vector typically requires two or more dimensions.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
How's that work on quarks?

How does what work on quarks?

Originally posted by @twhitehead
And hence a suitable number to be considered a dimension. A vector typically requires two or more dimensions.

Not how it works.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Not how it works.

Actually that IS how it works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(vector_space)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_field_theory#Dimensional_analysis_and_scaling

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Space and time has different properties. We shouldn't treat them as alike.


I cannot think about space without time, but I cannot think about time without space either. But where do I have the scientific foundation to that?
Perhaps there are plenty of universes out there with any combination of time dimensions (zero, one, or more) and space dimensio ...[text shortened]... lasses of dimensions* - are there more classes of dimensions as well? Again - pure speculations.

I cannot think about space without time

Sure you can. Imagine looking at a still shot photograph, or better yet a still shot holographic image. You won't see motion (time) but you can distinguish the difference between objects separated by space. In a still shot we don't see evidence of time or gravitation, because nothing in that picture is moving... every object sits in the same fixed postion relative to every other object.

Now imagine you are watching a motion picture. You are now able to see evidence of both time and gravity. The reason I'm incuding gravity in these scenarios is because without time you wouldn't have gravitation. But it's even more specific than that, because if there were no relative time differences (if the movement of time was a fixed constant) time would still exist, but not gravitation...


Someone here will undoutedly wet their pants over this last bit about time and gravity, but you know what?

I DON'T CARE !

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)!"

Does anyone think I will succeed to convince her to meet me? D:
No, neither do I.

Does anyone think I will succeed to convince her to meet me? D:

1 kilogram is equal to 2.0462 pounds. If your intended date is the presumed fifth dimensional coordinate weighing in at 98 kilograms, then perhaps it is better if...

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]I cannot think about space without time

Sure you can. Imagine looking at a still shot photograph, or better yet a still shot holographic image. You won't see motion (time) but you can distinguish the difference between objects separated by space. In a still shot we don't see evidence of time or gravitation, because nothing in that picture is mo ...[text shortened]... wet their pants over this last bit about time and gravity, but you know what?

I DON'T CARE ![/b]

Well, any still picture assumes it somehow got to this positions. I cannot imagine that universe would be created in this fixed position from the beginning.
We know that the time started in the BigBang. If time wasn't started, then the universe wouldn't evolve at all but still be the same starting condition. Meaning no universe.
When I observe a still shot then the time isn't still. My brain functions observing the still shot is still rolling. My eyes are moving from the left end to the right end.

No, I have a hard time to think of a universe without time. But this doesn't mean that there are universes without time, where nothing happens, no inhabitants observing, no evolution from the first superatom to something else. Everything still. But this demands a multiverse where there are any kind of universes. Space without time, time without space, many time dimensions but only one space dimension, or one time dimension but three space dimensions like ours.

But I cannot think about space without time, but that doesn't mean that there are none.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Well, any still picture assumes it somehow got to this positions. I cannot imagine that universe would be created in this fixed position from the beginning.
We know that the time started in the BigBang. If time wasn't started, then the universe wouldn't evolve at all but still be the same starting condition. Meaning no universe.
When I observe a still ...[text shortened]... ours.

But I cannot think about space without time, but that doesn't mean that there are none.

Well, any still picture assumes it somehow got to this positions.

Although your assumption is correct, it is based on what you already know and observe in your everyday life. But the still shot itself is only showing stuff separated by space.
You could also observe pieces of dry macaroni, pebbles and bottle caps glued onto poster board. But there would be no reason for you to assume those objects got into that position in the same way as in the still photo.

I cannot imagine that universe would be created in this fixed position from the beginning.

Neither can I.

We know that the time started in the BigBang. If time wasn't started, then the universe wouldn't evolve at all but still be the same starting condition. Meaning no universe.
When I observe a still shot then the time isn't still. My brain functions observing the still shot is still rolling.

Yes, your brain is informing you based on what you know. Nevertheless, your eyes are only veiwing a still shot photo. If there is more assumption than observation taking place, then observation can become muddled and murky.
It happens all the time at these forums. No matter how clearly you speak your thoughts, someone is sure to be overpowered by their own thoughts and completely miss your point.

My eyes are moving from the left end to the right end.

Which does what, create the illusion of motion in your minds 'eye'? You know those objects are moving, but 'knowing' is not the same thing as seeing.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I cannot think about space without time

Sure you can. Imagine looking at a still shot photograph, or better yet a still shot holographic image. You won't see motion (time) .....

But without time, you wont see or think. So he is correct, one cannot think without time.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
No matter how clearly you speak your thoughts, someone is sure to be overpowered by their own thoughts and completely miss your point.

And when you miss my point, you get all upset and insult me while falsely accusing me of insulting you.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]Well, any still picture assumes it somehow got to this positions.

Although your assumption is correct, it is based on what you already know and observe in your everyday life. But the still shot itself is only showing stuff separated by space.
You could also observe pieces of dry macaroni, pebbles and bottle caps glued onto poster board. But th ...[text shortened]... r minds 'eye'? You know those objects are moving, but 'knowing' is not the same thing as seeing.[/b]

A still picture has a before and an after. A still universe (without the temporal dimension) has not a before and an after. Therefore an universe without time is still and stuck in the t=0 state. I have problem to picture it otherwise.

How our universe can start our time from scratch I cannot explain in any way. I can speculate but that wouldn't be science.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]Does anyone think I will succeed to convince her to meet me? D:

1 kilogram is equal to 2.0462 pounds. If your intended date is the presumed fifth dimensional coordinate weighing in at 98 kilograms, then perhaps it is better if...[/b]

...if?

Originally posted by @twhitehead
But without time, you wont see or think. So he is correct, one cannot think without time.

yes, and without time, there would be no time for signals to travel around the brain (also up the optic nerve) so you would not only not 'think' but not 'perceive' and that means you wouldn't even be able to 'see' nor 'conceive' nor 'visualize' in any sense ANY picture.
Don't know why Lemon-lime doesn't understand this.