Space and Time dimensions equals 6 not 4

[Zak247]

So we have the traditional idea that there are basically, known to our perceptive range, 4 dimensions: length, width, volume, and time.
Wait a minute, something to me doesn’t fit in this equation. Time doesn’t fit.

Why in the world is time, a clear asymmetric measurement from space, empirically speaking (notwithstanding Einstein’s space-time theory) added to the symmetry of space?

Proposition: If we confine time to one dimension, and arbitrarily add it to the space dimensions then we must be precise, right?

Fine, then, if you’re going to add time to make it nice and symmetrically beautiful then one must designate time as not one dimension but three.

Time= present, past, and future
Therefore, there are not 4 perceptible dimensions but six or maybe, adding space-time, seven

Reason: IF, you’re going to expand the dimension of space to three dimensions then one has to expand the dimension of time to three dimensions, as well. This isn’t merely a symmetrical and arbitrary proposition at all, since past, present and future is as observable to ordinary reality as the 3 dimensions of space: height, length, and width. In fact, we existentially live in the 3 dimensions of time which are as malleable and relative to the dimensions of space to our reality.

If not then we have only 2 dimensions, of space and time.

Addendum
To be literal, because of Einstein, then we can combine space-time and say, logically, no, there aren’t merely 6 dimensions but seven when we add space-time. This requires, like the whole premise further thought.

[Satori]

Interesting. But I think the distinction may be this: the three demensions of space are extant simultaneously. For example, we can hold a box in our hands and the box exists in all three demensions at once. Hence we have 3. In contrast, in time the present, now, is all that is extant. Past is gone. Future has not arrived. Neither is extant. Thus we have 1. 3+1=4.

[Bill Ryan]

Time= present, past, and future
Therefore, there are not 4 perceptible dimensions but six or maybe, adding space-time, seven



If you're measuring a line (one dimension), you can look to the right, to the left, or at a single point in the middle.

That's still just one dimension. That's why a timeline is called a timeline.

If there's more than one timeline, like parallel lines, or one line which splits, drawn out on a piece of paper (area = two dimensions), then time becomes more than one-dimensional.

[Ernie Nemeth]

To define space takes three dimensions because they are spatial parameters. To define time takes one dimension because it is a temporal distinction. All equations described by physics work just as well in either direction with respect to time - forward or backward.

Light describes a cone of existence and may be the best illustration of this idea. It begins at a point in time, it extends forward through space, expanding in three-dimensional space, until its end. At its end each photon has described a four-dimensional structure, three in space, one in time that if illustrated becomes a cone shape.

https://www.google.ca/search?ei=GPU9W8rYEYPijwSYoJXAAg&q=the+light+cone&oq=the+light+cone&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i10k1l10.6061.9139.0.12559.14.12.0.2.2.0.108.1169.5j7.12.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.14.1196...0j0i67k1j0i131k1.0.b1l705SuWp8

[Ultima Thule]

I've entertained myself with the idea that there really is only space or only time - to be exact, the arrangement of objects in space in relation to eachother makes up time or objects move to reflect passage of time. I suppose that is the idea of spacetime really?

So: is space a byproduct of time or vice versa? Would there be any time to be measured, should the objects not move in relation to eachother? As my profoundly lay-person opinion I would state that space and time are the same thing and movement(=life) is the key concept and it has to have both space and time available to exist.

UT

[Olaf]

The German physicist Burkhard Heim created a system of equations that combined the known electromagnetic field laws with the laws of quantum mechanics. Due to symmetries, some of the resulting equation systems are always identical to zero. However, 36 systems remain describing deformations of space. These 36 equations can only be arranged in a 6x6 tensor and thus must describe dynamics of a physical space with 6 dimensions.
Of these 6 dimensions, 3 are the known spatial dimensions.
Three dimensions are imaginary: time, x5 and x6. The latter describe organizational states, thus have an effect on organisation of matter.
These two additional dimensions are not directly modulating space R3, but act in a modulation of the time coordinate, changing probabilities of processes. So they may influence the probality of the results of physical processes.

[Hervé]

...

One needs to dig that a "dimension" is something that can be measure with a yard stick... not a chronometer...


Dimensions... dimensions... no matter where around I look at, there are only three of them:
Length

Width

Height

That's it and that's that!

Why?

Simply because any universe that's built to maneuver objects around, shares "space" as a common ground and any space -- no matter where -- can be reduced to three dimensions only.

Time is only a factor that measures a rate of motion or re-arrangements of objects within a space and therefore is subsequent and subject to these three dimensions of that space. Conversely, if in that space there are no motions of any kind, no decays, growths nor changes; then, in such a space, there is no time. In other words, time is "frozen."

When one uses stereoscopic devices (eg. glasses to "see" movies in 3D), superimposing two pictures taken from slightly different angles, one reconstructs a 3D picture in one's mind. Yet, in the real 3D world, one is only looking at two flat pictures or plane geometric figures. The reconstructed object exists in one's mind. Hence, one could conclude that one's mind is a separate universe base on space and which is governed by its inherent 3 dimensions.

This introduces the concept of different universes.

However, when these different universes are based on the existence of a space where objects can be seen and manipulated, then, again, such a universe reduces to 3 dimensions.

Therefore, rather than "dimensions" or even "densities" or "frequencies"; "universes" better fit the different point of views as to anything that's "out of this world."

Another tack on this concept is that, in order for different universes to interact with each others, they must share -- as a prerequisite -- the same common ground/building bloc/element. The corollary being that, if universes do not share anything in common, they cannot possibly interact with each other. In other words, there is nothing to lock in/on for these different universes to interact with or perceive each others.
"Space" is a volume... by definition. A uni-dimensional universe is no space; neither is a two-dimensional universe.

Time is defined as a rate of change within a 3D physical space and is dependent upon the pre-existence of "space" as a volume and is not, itself, a "dimension" of that volume/space; just a way of quantifying a speed/rate of change within a particular space.

[Ernie Nemeth]

The problem is really a conceptual one. There is no matter or space or time. There is just one giant point, equal in every way. Perfectly homogenous and perfectly balanced with no ingongruity. The reason this is not what we describe is because our model is incorrect .

We think we are smart but in fact we are just about as ignorant as a caveman or a knat.

[Zak247]

To define two things one should use equal criteria.

The existing idea of 4 dimensions is a flawed idea, no doubt, on many levels.

Anyway, this is a thought inducing idea; I have to do some work. I’ll be back I'll answer some of you

In one dimension of time, the future

[halcyon026]

Imagining the tenth dimension
XjsgoXvnStY

[Zak247]

My take is simply that if they add time to the dimensional definition it has to be three dimensions or leave it out of juxtaposing it to the spatial dimensions.

Sort of like the idea of the 4 cardinal points. No, there are 6 cardinal points

[Hervé]

[...]
Sort of like the idea of the 4 cardinal points. No, there are 6 cardinal points
OK, but that's triaxial or along three axes giving a total of six "directions"... which is still the three dimensional Cartesian reference system for space... right?

[Zak247]

I’m not a physicist or mathematician. This idea came to me while reading about time. I didn’t get this from anyone or anyplace but my own logic.

It's obviously not a novel idea

But here’s a guy on the web who extrapolates on 3-time dimensions
http://www1.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~amt6eac/threetime.htm

[Ernie Nemeth]

How about this way of looking at it...

The past as a dimension is not real because it is populated by nothing. It is merely the memory of a string of events that remains, not the events - the members of the event have all moved on and keep pace with the present like everything else. Likewise, the future is not real because it is also populated by nothing, not even a memory exists of it.

There is only this present moment that is real because it contains everything. We like to think that by extension the past existed because the present could not have got there without it. And the logical alternative is to hold that the future presents imply a future that is real but it does not.

Unlike space, which is already extant (unless you like the notion of an expanding universe), time merely exists now and not then, until then arrives, and when its gone its gone for ever.

But we all know that tomorrow never comes...

[amor]

Things are made of countervailing forces in a constant state of motion, change of angular momentum. What we are made of is this same whatever. We are constantly changing in TIME. To pin this down into a geometric pattern which is static cannot be done.