On 3 Oct 2003 10:54:28 -0700, (mattsdad2) wrote:

Since space and time are considered equivalent dimensions, why do most
theories adhere to trying to define physics with many spatial
dimensions, but only one time dimension. It appears to me that having
more than one orthognal time dimensions would solve a lot of the
complications.

So why does everyone stick to one time dimension?

For several years I have been trying to convince people here that here MUST be
more than one time subdimesnion.
Tine flows at the rate of 'one second per second', an expression that would be
circular if the two 'seconds' belonged to the same time dimension.

We have no problem with measuring slopes of hills in metres/metre. dt1/dt2 is
just the rate of change of one time dimension wrt another.

Clocks integrate dt1/dt2 to get an interval along one 'time axis'.


Henri Wilson.

"Whenever a relativist moves, half the universe shrinks and the other half expands".

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm