There is a logical discrepancy when physicists explicitly define dimension as “freedom of movement.”

In order for a concept to be per se applicable to a science like math or physics, that concept needs to be defined in such a way as to allow no latitude, or “fudging.” That is, the concept needs to be either black or white; there can be no gray area for such considerations.

But “freedom of movement” is gray, and here’s why:

There is no genuine freedom of movement in space-time. If there were, I could be on the surface of Pluto in a nanosecond. But I cannot. It’s not physically possible. I couldn’t even reach the sun in less than eight minutes.

Clearly, time and space are elementary components of the same entity.

• Free in space only requires 1 quantum option - dolphin - November 7, 2001 - 07:32 UTC
  • And: true: space and time (reference space) - dolphin - November 7, 2001 - 07:37 UTC
    • Clear as mud - luis_hamburgh - November 8, 2001 - 00:11 UTC
      • Relative simultaneity and absolute simultaneity - dolphin - November 8, 2001 - 05:51 UTC
        • I should visit www.emmynoether.com - dolphin - November 8, 2001 - 06:40 UTC
        • The Price of Tea in Paris - luis_hamburgh - November 9, 2001 - 01:07 UTC
          • It probably costs less than in New York - dolphin - November 9, 2001 - 09:23 UTC
• So, Luis, how do we "travel in time" then? - alexander - November 8, 2001 - 16:14 UTC
  • Working from a Proper Definition of Dimension - luis_hamburgh - November 9, 2001 - 01:24 UTC