Mike,

in my struggle to "visualize" space-time the following has passed through my mind.

imagine a "super" motion camera that could record the universe from "birth" onward...
allowing that the 2 dimensional projection of the recorded image is a reduction of the 3 dimensionality of space then consider each frame as a slice of time. the whole product ie the stack of "time" frames of reduced 3d space can be likened to the nature of space-time.

with respect to your question:
"If we could view the vortex in motion,
as a geometric figure, would that mean
motion is a dimension?"

i would say the time component of motion could be considered a dimension.

regards, tim

• kinda sorta - quiet - April 17, 2003 - 06:21 UTC
  • component in the sense of part that something is made of - sagefr0g - April 17, 2003 - 13:36 UTC
    • Do x,.y and z axes change as velocity changes? - quiet - April 17, 2003 - 19:56 UTC
      • relative motion - sagefr0g - April 18, 2003 - 09:52 UTC
        • motion revisited - sagefr0g - April 19, 2003 - 03:58 UTC
          • ONE metaphor suggests "Time" ... but MANY begs a better concept - quiet - April 19, 2003 - 23:32 UTC
            • another "timely" view - sagefr0g - April 20, 2003 - 01:12 UTC
              • In "time" I will reply again with respect to the math - kantolfir2 - April 24, 2003 - 22:06 UTC
                • contrived derivative with respect to no time - sagefr0g - April 25, 2003 - 18:08 UTC
                  • It appears we are on a plateau. - carefuluniverse - April 27, 2003 - 17:12 UTC
                    • i'm no poet and i know it :) - sagefr0g - April 28, 2003 - 02:47 UTC
  • sorta leaves out the future aspect of time frames - sagefr0g - April 19, 2003 - 04:01 UTC