noxiousraccoon wrote:WaeV wrote:No, time is a dimension. Seconds are a measure of time.
You wouldn't say that length is a measure of itself.
You wouldn't say that length is a measure of itself because it isn't. Length, measures the distance between to given points. Now, I'm no physics expert, but if your willing, please explain how time is a dimension. If time is a dimension, then how is seconds relevent to it? How does seconds accurately measure time, if time is measurable at all in seconds?
Well the simplest demonstration of how time isn't a measurement is that you don't say "The TV show was 3 times long!"
The best way to understand this would be to watch the 10 dimensions explained video, but I'll give it a shot.
Paraphrased from The Time Machine:
A mathematical line with no thickness has no real existence. Neither does a mathematical plane. They are abstractions. In order for something to exist in the real world, we are taught, it must have 3 dimensions: length, width, breadth.
However, just as a line with no thickness cannot exist and a plane with no breadth cannot exist, and instantaneous cube cannot exist.
There are really four dimensions, three which we call the three planes of Space, and a fourth, Time. There is, however, a tendency to draw an unreal distinction between the former three dimensions and the latter, because it happens that our consciousness moves intermittently in one direction along the latter from the beginning to the end of our lives.
[/paraphrase]
Time and space are both relative, however. For example, an astronaut going close to the speed of light would experience time much more slowly than another astronaut observing him from a fixed point. This is because the speed of light is a constant. If light is going 299,792,458, m/s and the astronaut is following at 200,000,000, m/s in the same direction, time passes more slowly for him such that the ~100,000,000 m/s lead the beam of light has on him appears to be the full 299,792,458, m/s.
