Quote from: MiSKLaCH on April 10, 2017, 03:22:54 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 10, 2017, 01:39:11 PM

Quote from: MiSKLaCH on April 10, 2017, 01:25:40 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 10, 2017, 01:04:45 PM

Quote from: anks on April 10, 2017, 09:26:59 AM

Quote from: TooQik on April 10, 2017, 08:44:02 AM

Quote from: anks on April 10, 2017, 07:27:53 AM

but its not a unification into the fourth dimensional continuum Grin

we dont even know if such a continuum exist
time could exist with the first and second dimension its just a parameter of physical changes. not a dimension.
the first and second dimension wouldnt exist without time. it doesnt build on the third dimension.
it builds on the existence of everything. no time no nothing.
its not against you i just say because its not logical.

its not just words just think about it

What you're effectively saying is that time causes change, this is not true; time allows us (humans) to measure the rate of change by giving a point of reference, it doesn't affect (cause) change directly.

I personally don't believe that time exists outside of being a human construct.

i think i know what you mean.
i agree with you at measuring the rate. the thing is that you cant change time make go faster or slower.
so your right that it doesnt cause change directly because it has no influence of making changes (no affect).
but time is a inherent part of existence even if there is no physical influence of it. so my opinion is that it causes change.
time only exist on the same constant rate so its possible to measure it.
when you have many clocks at the same time you see that all clocks run on the same rhythm.
it doesnt have to be our human perception the machines show all the same time.
time always existed. no time would be against the energy conservation law.

the same problem you talk about is with colors. the human eye sees different colors than for a example a dog because the electromagnetic waves reflect different to the eyes. colors only exist at our perception. the neutral environment cant see anything. its a complicated thing for sure.

All time is, is, a unified rate of change. Even if traveling at the speed of light caused time to stop for the traveler with relation to those not traveling, it is all simply rate of change.

More than likely it would take infinite amounts of energy to get someone or something to move at the speed of light.

Cool

To be precise, the more you get something close to the speed of light the more its mass will proportionally increase at a point where, reached the speed of light, its mass will be infinite, so the energy required to keep it at constant speed of light would be infinite. Remember the famous Einstein's equation? (E=mc² - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence).

Of couse, due to time dilation, its time relative to us will slow down until a complete stop at speed of light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation).

I would agree with you, except for one little factor. E=mc² is a theory. If it had been proven to be fact sufficiently enough, it would be law. Since it isn't law, it might be wrong. It is fun to base our ideas on things that we don't know for sure, but it isn't wise.

Cool

Not really. The most spectacular proof of E=mc² equation are nuclear weapons. Those weapons (such as A and H bombs) are built on one principle that mass can be turned into energy, and the equation that exactly predicts that conversion is E=mc². If that theory is wrong, then nuclear weapons simply wouldn't work.

However. Those things that seem to prove the theory, haven't proven the complete theory. As with many theories, this theory needs to be tweaked to make it completely accurate. Not enough has been found out to prove the whole thing accurate.

Often a scientific theory will be introduced. Then the engineers will use the theory to make something work. Often the engineering will not work without the engineers adding, subtracting, or otherwise modifying, some of the things that the theory says. They do it in the engineering, and it isn't always easy to spot.

If the theory evolves to match the engineering, and only after the whole thing is proven to be correct, is it accepted as a law.

Cool