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?

"mattsdad2" wrote in message
om...
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?

Exactly what problems are you talking about, and exactly why do you think
two temporal dimensions can solve them. Calculations please.

davidoff

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?

When you try to define serial time it is difficult to do unless you
have a clock. At the minimum you need to be able to measure before
and after. If you want units of time that are a constant part of a
second then you need the clock to have a fixed period that is some
fraction of a second.

Since clock periods change when they undergo acceleration you need to
account for different frames of reference. For the purpose of
calculating and synchronizing different reference frames using the
X,Y,and Z spatial dimensions to describe acceleration is usually
adequate. Spatial dimensions could be replaced with X,Y,and Z
dimensions of time to yield the same result but what advantages would
that give?

"mattsdad2" wrote in message
om...
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?

Have a read of C.S.Lewis' unfinished novel "The Dark Tower" to read of a
world where multiple time dimensions are familiar.

mattsdad2 wrote:

Since space and time are considered equivalent dimensions,

Noooo... The dimension of space is length (e.g., meters) and the
dimension of time is time (e.g., seconds). If you want a consistent
basis, you need ct (c=lightspeed) to make the time dimension length
(e.g., (seconds)(meters/second)=meters).

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?

Heinlein "Number of the Beast." Classical gravitation field theory
(e.g., General Relativity) is the maximally simple self-consistent
geometry that gets the job done. No prediction has been contradicted
by observation, no observation is not already within theory,

http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308010
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system

Name one "problem" that would be solved with more than one time
dimension - and how said "problem" would be so solved.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"mattsdad2" wrote in message om...
Since space and time are considered equivalent dimensions,

Only morons consider time as a physical dimension at all.
Humans with non brainwashed heads actually have found out clocks
have faults and time (in science) does not change rate.
Time only changes rate in SciFi crap theories that work great for
the next SciFi movie or series.

In article ,
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?

They're not equivalent. You can see that right in the metric, where time
is given the opposite sign as the spatial dimensions. Also different is
the measurement of them, and that a massive particle must always go
forward in time regardless of the coordinate system, although a coordinate
system can be chosen to make a particle in any state of motion at rest.

--
"Is that plutonium on your gums?"
"Shut up and kiss me!"
-- Marge and Homer Simpson

Spaceman wrote:

"mattsdad2" wrote in message om...
Since space and time are considered equivalent dimensions,

Only morons consider time as a physical dimension at all.
Humans with non brainwashed heads actually have found out clocks
have faults and time (in science) does not change rate.
Time only changes rate in SciFi crap theories that work great for
the next SciFi movie or series.

Does it burn, stooopid Space****, does it burn?

1) Where is the clock in the Mossbauer effect, Space****?
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html

2) Fill in the following (the first one is mercy humped):

(+1)(+1) = +1
(-1)(+1) = ?
(+1)(-1) = ?
(-1)(-1) = ?

http://www.yugop.com/ver3/stuff/03/fla.html
Clock for Space****
http://bkocay.cs.umanitoba.ca/Students/Theory.html
The distorted cube
http://www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman
Space**** emulator
http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html
Chew on it
http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/maths/spctime.htm
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/Fields2.pdf

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"Uncle Al" wrote in message ...
Does it burn, stooopid Space****, does it burn?

Still can't spell of copy correctly huh Uncle Albert?


1) Where is the clock in the Mossbauer effect, Space****?

I have told you moron,
It is the resonance tick tock you ding dong.

I'm so sorry, Uncle Albert,
I'm so sorry that I cause you so much pain.
I'm so sorry Uncle Albert,
But you really should find another brain.

--
Spaceman

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