Alex, are you saying that time is not a dimension? If that’s what you’re saying, then you pretty much disagree with every theoretical physicist that I know of!
The only explanation that I can think of is that there are 2 different concepts being discussed here. You are talking about ‘dimensions’ in a ‘standard’ sense-- like cartesian coordinates (within this context you’re absolutely correct), but the standard formalism on ‘dimensions’ has changed (long ago) with relativity... the vocabulary has changed to include time as a ‘dimension’ that is JUST as valid as a space dimension (in fact they’re interchangeable!) in describing the position of an object in our four dimensional space-time. (3 space and 1 time dimension).

I’m sure all this hoopla is just a ‘vocabulary thing’ rather than a conceptual one.
Macula


Please, show math saying that "...time dimension is JUST as valid as a space dimension".

I do not think it is a challenge for you as a doctor to master such math. Othervise I assume that your doctorate in physics is "just hoopla" and you concept of "time dimension" came JUST from reading popular literature or Hawkins and Greene.

• Here goes nothing.... - smartguy - October 10, 2001 - 17:38 UTC
  • Big mistake in HTML..... should have read... - smartguy - October 10, 2001 - 17:41 UTC
    • DAMMIT!! Sorry guys... here's one more correction... - smartguy - October 10, 2001 - 17:45 UTC
    • How about a little information! - doctordick - October 10, 2001 - 17:50 UTC
      • HTML for Dick. - alexander - October 10, 2001 - 18:42 UTC
        • Thanks Alex! - doctordick - October 11, 2001 - 15:12 UTC
  • Correction for Mark. - alexander - October 10, 2001 - 18:49 UTC
    • I'm fully aware, - smartguy - October 10, 2001 - 19:39 UTC
      • So, where is "slow time" then? - alexander - October 10, 2001 - 19:47 UTC
        • Is acting like you can't understand what I'm saying.. - smartguy - October 10, 2001 - 23:43 UTC