CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Where space is warped time is warped. For example, in a gravity field. This supports the idea that time is a dimension of space.
Sure but I always hear them referred to separately, for instance you will hear people say "there are ten spatial dimensions plus time" but I've never heard it stated that time is actually a dimension of space, only that it is connected. And if time is just a part of space then is it so unreasonable to suggest that space is just part of a grand unified field and that everything in the universe is literally the same thing fundamentally rather than separate fields and particles?
No, you definitely have not. But you can start here:-
In 1908, Hermann Minkowski presented a paper consolidating the role of time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the basis for Einstein's theories of special and general relativity.
I question myself every day when translating mathematic time, I must go to work but will answer the question later. Your question of my translation is not taken personal.
The loss of mathematic principle to explain plagiarism. Absolute time 21:60, 1:60, 1:60 the corruption of the principle reads as follows (21.0:60.0, 1.0:60.0, and 1.0:60.0).The principle is that a cube is more accurate to define space then a sphere. When the final shape is unknown does it matter?
All that is added mathematically by physics with space-time and the theory of general and special relativity is dimension of space changes from where you stand inside of the area. That’s it. To some up why Einstein is wrong about the relativity of time. Time is the circle to square cubit of space. Why time works in the square is 4 -90 degree angles can from a square 360:180 and 270:90 are right angle triangles held by a radius of circle. Form two circle we get square.
Time is a mathematical absolute to which space is part of by design. Where space is warped, only energy can be warped. There appears to be some concept or principle of mathematical absolute not understood if the hypothesis states space and time are connected in any way.
Special relativity is simple accepting that General Relativity was incorrect.
My grievance is that time has been corrupted at the dimension of second, by associating a ratio which is not proportioned into the original ratio. This forces the absolute mathematic to be relative by numeric corruption. As Special Relativity and Time now share the same numerical irrational state when they did not always.
It could be true, I may be an idiot. So I will need an answer from a superior mind like your own. Do numbers normally have two decimal points? Is Special Relativity is a calculus equation which implicates relationships between ration? If so does it required that absolute time be corrupted to give an appearance of its relationship?
Though not formally a part of institutional physics I have written a law of gravity which simply states. All gravity is elasticity, modulation, and reverberation. This is an addition to Newton’s laws of motion. As it describes gravity in such a way that is not directly related to the motions of inertia force, and centrically force.
Gravity has no effect on mathematical absolute alone, other than by meaning being used as a description of the ability for humanities corruption to destroy scientific evidence in some way. Example: The gravity of that action had a direct result in the outcome being recorded.
All that is added mathematically by physics with space-time and the theory of general and special relativity is dimension of space changes from where you stand inside of the area. That’s it. To some up why Einstein is wrong about the relativity of time. Time is the circle to square cubit of space. Why time works in the square is 4 -90 degree angles can from a square 360:180 and 270:90 are right angle triangles held by a radius of circle. Form two circle we get square.
Why the plagiarism dictates that time must be bend to space is a square bends space to try and mimic how the circle creates the arc of every circle. Using algebra and fix equation at some point of scale the arc reverts to straight line. Many people may disagree as to why this is, but I relate it to motion and a need for an additional Pi described as yPi.
Almost all parts of the seen universe are space without time as the mathematic absolute has not been interpreted correctly by physics. Creating space is not a reasonable objective for scientific grievance.
Okay looking past the humor of short sightedness of mathematics. As a person who truly hates math I understand your choice of wording. Let’s ask a question that will piss them off. It is 12:00 o’clock on earth, there are currently 37 local times in use on earth. Wat time is it on Mars.
My restarted answer to the question is if it is 12:00 o’clock on Earth, it is 12:00 o’clock on Mars. So this is what we are not saying when we ask for an exact time on Mars, it is 12:00 o’clock noon where? The answer is we must be on mars to find out all we know for sure is it is only 12:00 o’clock one place on mars and one place on earth. This will take place at the same instant.
I came across this which I think is a fairly good answer .......
Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers
What is the relationship between space and time?
Mathematically, and in accordance with relativity, they are in some sense interchangeable, but we do know that they form co-equal parts of a larger 'thing' called space-time, and it is only within space-time that the most complete understanding of the motion and properties of natural objects and phenomena can be rigorously understood by physicists. Space and time are to space-time what arms and legs are to humans. In some sense they are interchangeable, but you cannot understand 10,000 years of human history without including both arms and legs as part of the basic human condition.
Return to the Special & General Relativity Questions and Answers page.
All answers are provided by Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) for the NASA Astronomy Cafe, part of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program.
There is no such thing as "before time". The entire meaning of the word "before" is "earlier in time". Besides which, space and energy cannot expand without time, therefore your premise is false.
Time is a mathematical absolute that was formulated, then written, it has a self-value. It is not a premise relating to theory, time is a mathematic ratio of (12:60, 1:60, 1:60) what it looks like t the eye is that motion cannot be measured without the use of the mathematic ratio set to as a single velocity that translate from energy by use of inertial force to scale. This is complicated to explain directly but might be better said as all motion on a clock is made at the identical speed it is just in different scale. This makes the observation wrong as you see the second faster than the hour.
The fact is space and energy can expand without time it will simply go unrecorded by accurate means. Space-time is plagiarism of the mathematic ratio as if it had no self-value. There is a ways to calculate mathematically dimensions of time. They simply are not anywhere near what they are proposed to be by science fiction.
I've just explained to you that it is not absolute. This was Newton's idea but Einstein disproved him. Newton hypothesised that the speed of light was relative and time was absolute, but Einstein proved it was the other way around.
But! The grievance is it was absolute, then made relative by human error.
Your grievance is demonstrably false. Sat nav systems have to use Einstein's equations because time runs at a different rate in orbit than on the ground. See:-
For accuracy to within a few meters, the satellites' atomic clocks have to be extremely precise—plus or minus 10 nanoseconds. Here's where things get weird: Those amazingly accurate clocks never seem to run quite right. One second as measured on the satellite never matches a second as measured on Earth—just as Einstein predicted.
My grievance is not demonstrated false you are saying Sat nav is the system holding inconsistency’s with the use of atomic time. To point out an observation Einstein never translated a way to calculate absolute time so it may be taken with an object that is traveling faster than the speed of light.
While by observation it appears atomic time has a problem with just the speed of sound. I’m I correct?
By the way I have to write this question so I can understand were your idea of time is mathematically, plus or minus 10 nanoseconds compared to what? An absolute time you and I both admit is not mathematically absolute anymore, and you don’t know why until the mention of different forms of ratio?
A dimension of time is nothing more than a detail of time. The accuracy of time can be increased and decreased like focus on a camera to understand an image of area.
It would be rude at this point, even maybe unfair not to try and describe what would happen to a dimension of time past three, and why. Time is a mathematical absolute because it is created in relationship to the principle of square which is related to degrees of a circle...
There are only 360 degrees in a circle, and the degrees are broken down also by hours, minutes, and seconds. Thus three demission’s of time. 1. Hours. 2. Minutes. 3. Seconds. The Forth demission of time is simply just simplified like many other mathematic fractions.( 2/4 = ½)
I respect the idea of all who have posted here and am not trying to issuant anyone.
Time is a sphere. Two or more spheres set by proportion can be used to remove the use of Pi principle and replace it with a ratio. ( 4Pir^2). Pi is the focus of relativity to cube not time.
Time is a sphere. Two or more spheres set by proportion can be used to remove the use of Pi principle and replace it with a ratio. ( 4Pir^2). Pi is the focus of relativity to cube not time.
This guy has some bizarre theories. I find bizarre theories very entertaining, although I know they are ridiculous. That's the only reason I ever tolerated Mingi as much as I did. This guy's claims reminds of me Mingi somewhat,
The grievance expressed is based in ratio. (12: 60, 1: 60, 1: 60) then adding that Pi as an irrational state is abused by its relativity to the ratio of the decimal system. .1, .2, .3, .4, and .5 these numbers express a change in direction of motion to scale as well. They count upward form one while at the same time counting upward from .1 in the opposite direction. This means a premature numerical center is created. The arc of the scale is not equal to the curve of the whole.
So a square and a sphere are in general mathematically relative? Please share they are what both shapes?
You are arguing mathematic principle with the idea of medication, making accusations of over medication, or lack of proper medication. How original.
What is funny is Einstein and many mathematicians cannot see the independence between a cube and a ball, area and velocity, and the person who can is the one overmedicated. By the way Flora it is not a theory it is an observation of mathematical fact. General and Special Relativity are the theory, remember that is why it was titled the Theory of relativity.
So a square and a sphere are in general mathematically relative?
This is absolutely classic straw man argumentation. You have provided literally zero support for any of your claims and your claims contradict the standard model of physics. You cannot then simply presume your claims are true and you DEFINITELY cannot presume that we accept your claims as true. We do not.
Space is not a square because squares exist in two dimensions not three.
Simply because an object has three dimensions, does not necessarily mean it is a cube.
Claiming that space is a cube and time is a sphere does not make what you are saying true. You are just writing lots of illegible nonsense which makes no sense to anybody, and for some reason you believe this qualifies as an argument.
You are arguing mathematic principle with the idea of medication, making accusations of over medication, or lack of proper medication. How original.
Again, more straw man argumentation. I did not argue that what I said was original. My purpose in writing it was humour, not originality.
What is funny is Einstein and many mathematicians cannot see the independence between a cube and a ball, area and velocity
Just wtf?
That's literally the third straw man argument you've used and I'm not even halfway through your post.
Shut the hell up telling me what Einstein cannot see. There's a good reason why we follow his theories and not yours.
Excuse me! Strawman argument? First: Yes, I set mathematic evidence on the boards saying that the ratio of absolute time is. >>>> (12:60, 1:60, 1:60) <<<<< The fact of mathematics then states that adding a decimal point is a corruption of that set Absolut when set inside the numbers held in ratio by it. You are literally presenting no mathematic rebuttal. Zero. None. Nada. Pi and the numerical state of decimal numbers like (.1, .24, .4617) are what makesE=Mc^2 look relative to time. The most basic math translation between time and space is round and square.
Clearly you do not grasp the basic mathematics involved here1:10(is the language of a numerical decimal ratio) and 1: 60 is a ratio of absolute time. Either these two are the same ratio, or they are not? This according to physics. It is you who are making the strawman defense because you are giving credit to the planarization of time by fictional physics/ Science fiction. Not mentioned above in the title of the debate.
The grievance is that Space X, Y, and Z is cube, when equal area as condition is set. (X= 10, Y = 10, and Z = 10)While if we write this as X=10, Y = 10 it is now square again not complicated abstract math. Absolute time is Hour, Minute, and Second. Times fourth state is degree also know by science fiction as the 4th dimension.If you like I will formulate it so you can write and explain how Isaac Newton might also explain the addition of multiple dimension of time and how it is then simplified down to one if necessary.
“Just W.T.F.”
Again strawman argument, Not! Is time a dimension of space? no and all of what has been written is explaining why.
You present a strawman defense to the grievance I bring to the debate. All you are saying is not related and you don’t act like you understand the math here.
First it is not all of physics I am in disagreement with, in fact there are laws of motion shown with simple numbers I presented as evidence on times behalf. I’m not asking you to follow my law of gravity, the law tells you why you are following that law of gravity. I am the writer. Gravity is a motion. People are an object that can be moved. Elasticity is energy one, modulation is energy two, and finally reverberation is energy three, when these accumulated energies are set to scale and proportion objects move. The motion is then called gravity. Again not a straw man argument. As the use of Einstein theory places relevance to gravity in topic.
So let there be physics and let there be science fiction. We both know that physics is science fiction when the word theory is place in front, or behind the discussion. We both know it is grievance when the statement has numbers as a direct exchange of principle.
John C, you are writing utter incoherent gibberish which makes absolutely no sense and follows no logical chain of thought. I am just going to give one example:-
Pi and the numerical state of decimal numbers like (.1, .24, .4617) are what makesE=Mc^2 look relative to time.
E=MC2 has nothing to do with time. It is an Einsteinian equation which illustrates that energy is equivalent to mass multiplied by the speed of light (in a vacuum) squared.
Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of math, physics or even English can see that you do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about and almost certainly possess some form of mental health problem.
First: E=Mc^2 is mentioned in the forum as means to Space-Time being an effect of energy warping space. I have grievances related to your interpretation of General relativity but then we are creating a straw man argument. So back on focus. (gravity) = 8pi G x (energy and momentum). = (H=8piG) = ( E=Mc^2)
There is a basic mathematic violation made by ratio when Pi is used in relativity’s formulation to assume quantity of energy, mass, or volume. On one side of linear form or both E (Pi is implanted often by math never removed) = Mc^2 (Pi is implanted by math and often never removed) this is a violation to fixed linear algebra as the equation must detail Pi and exclusion.
The grievance is in the way decimal state is shared with Absolute Time (12:60), (1:60), (1:60)Uncorrupted.Absolute Time (12.00:60.00), (1.00:60.00), (1.00:60.00)corrupted.the decimal point is added to second under the idea it is adding accuracy. It is by grievance changing the ratio uniting to relative with Pi. Einstein loved Pi.
Kinetic energy is KE = 5.5 x mv^2 O
Mass M = F/a (force/acceleration)
Volume
1. Cube = a^3 O
2. Rectangular = abc O
3. Cylinder = Pi r^2 h X
When a decimal point is added to a formulation of Time a center and change of direction are implied. The decimal point is the new start for a linear addition of value to take place going on the opposite direction of the whole number. The whole number is not continued by use of ratio. Still giberish
John_C you are writing utter incoherent gibberish which makes no sense and follows no logical chain of thought.
Untrue the train of though is the errors which make General Relativity the corruptor of mathematic principle with the use of Pi and decimal point position. A numerical decimal position .01, 1/100th The ratio of Time 12:00:00 AM should not have a decimal point like this 12:00:00.00 AM it should be written and translated like this 12:00:00:00 AM the logic is to keep the integrity of the ratio of absolute time.
A Generalized Question: 12:00 PM occurs in and on all these places at the same instant. The Earth, the Moon, Mars, Saturn, Our solar system, the Milky Way, and the Universe. They are in a place of boundary called space. For many reasons the Time 12:00 PM though shared as one instant by all these places does not occur in the same space at that one instant.
Is Time a dimension of space?No Time is not a dimension of space it is mathematic. No straw man argument here. An answer is given, and the detail of the answer is explained so it can be found independently confirmed or disproven by debate.
The dimension of Time written as a Time Dimensional Expansion. (T.D.E.) Rights Reserved.
12:00 PM can become 12:00:00:01 the :01 is the 4th dimension of time and disappears when the 4th dimension of time reaches this point 12:59:59:59PM Time is simplified by mathematics to 1:00 AM
This time 01:00:00:00 AM is identical to this time 01:00 AM in accuracy by principle of time.
Grievance calling BS, by adding a decimal point the ratio 12:00:00.0 AM makes the whole thing less accurate period. Rights Reserved.