(March 1, 2017 at 9:31 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:(March 1, 2017 at 9:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: Simply saying time is a dimension over and over in slightly different words is not working for me.
Your lack of understanding is not really my problem. I have explained the issue quite clearly: time is not what you assert that it is, and is not "created by causality" in any sense. It is a dimension in which entities can exist and interact. It is not the interaction itself.
(March 1, 2017 at 9:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: If you can't explain why a static universe would still experience time
Because time is a dimension, and is not dependent on things happening within it in order to exist any more than space is dependent on things moving across it.
(March 1, 2017 at 9:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: My position remains that causality (successive changes in states of matter) is all that is necessary for a measurement of time and you have done absolutely nothing to indicate why that position is wrong.
Save to explain exactly why it is, you mean.
(March 1, 2017 at 9:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: Can you point me to something I can read? Because what I am finding in my research is things like below:
This is describing spacetime as a mathematical model
...And describing time as a dimension.
(March 1, 2017 at 9:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: for the purposes of theories to understand better relative motion. (which you would not have in a universe with a static cube).
And which alters nothing about time being a dimension.
(March 1, 2017 at 9:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: And further in the same article:
In other words, it is treated as a dimension through which the rate of movement of all objects is equal and constant.
(March 1, 2017 at 9:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: So I am not getting that resembles time as being a necessary component of matter.
Time is not a component of matter. Time is a dimension in which matter exists.
(March 1, 2017 at 9:01 pm)SteveII Wrote: I don't think it is nonsensical to think that an object can exist timeless (I don't think that it really happens, I just can't understand why it couldn't).
Whether or not an object could exist without time is irrelevant. The question is whether or not causality can hold without time, with a side order of whether or not causality creates time.
It cannot, because causality is defined as an interaction within the dimension time, and it does not, because dimensions are not created by the interactions that take place within them, respectively.
Note the bold and tell me how much you added to this conversation. Physics describes the world by means of formulas that tell us how things vary as a function of time, but it does not explain what time is.
