What is time? So the best answers of this would be "it is a change in space ".These is what we experienced everyday but this means it's a change and generally change is not something which can be reversible as it contradic the possibilities of time travel,but what time is more than a change in space?as strings theory spacetime continuum is not the fundamental it self, would it mean it can be broken it to more fundamental elements and arranged it ? Does that mean time can work as spatial vector?
What is Time Fundamentally?
- Thread starter Anuka
- Start date
It would be pleasure mine to know your thoughts about it..
Jay Walker
Temporal Navigator
This question up until recently was bothering me.
Einstein considered time to be the fourth dimension. However, he thought of it as something unlike spatial dimensions. Creating what we know now as spacetime. Einstein also suggested that the distinction between past, present, and future is merely a "stubbornly persistent illusion"
However, after listening to Ron Mallet, he gave me some insight that I had not considered.
He was describing the conditions surrounding a Kerr black hole, or a rotating black hole.
He said that it was like the space around the black hole was tea in a cup, and the rotating black hole was like a spoon that was swirling and mixing time space. The tea would fold back onto itself. So, if someone were caught in the current, they too could go back where their journey had begun.
That implied that time essentially was actually much like spatial dimensions, but you would need specific conditions to be able to move around in time the same way we move around in space.
Or, in other words, I don't believe in the arrow of time.
➡
Einstein considered time to be the fourth dimension. However, he thought of it as something unlike spatial dimensions. Creating what we know now as spacetime. Einstein also suggested that the distinction between past, present, and future is merely a "stubbornly persistent illusion"
However, after listening to Ron Mallet, he gave me some insight that I had not considered.
He was describing the conditions surrounding a Kerr black hole, or a rotating black hole.
He said that it was like the space around the black hole was tea in a cup, and the rotating black hole was like a spoon that was swirling and mixing time space. The tea would fold back onto itself. So, if someone were caught in the current, they too could go back where their journey had begun.
That implied that time essentially was actually much like spatial dimensions, but you would need specific conditions to be able to move around in time the same way we move around in space.
Or, in other words, I don't believe in the arrow of time.
➡
Last edited:
Yeh exactly but also the reason why time doesn't work as spatial dimensions for us is that we are not created for that just like as we know any 2d object need a 3rd dimensions as height to be in 3d .so there would be something which we called past or future which also work as dimensions .that what i thinkThis question up until recently was bothering me.
Einstein considered time to be the fourth dimension. However, he thought of it as something unlike spatial dimensions. Creating what we know now as spacetime. Einstein also suggested that the distinction between past, present, and future is merely a "stubbornly persistent illusion"
However, after listening to Ron Mallet, he gave me some insight that I had not considered.
He was describing the conditions surrounding a Kerr black hole, or a rotating black hole.
He said that it was like the space around the black hole was tea in a cup, and the rotating black hole was like a spoon that was swirling and mixing time space. The tea would fold back onto itself. So, if someone were caught in the current, they too could go back where their journey had begun.
That implied that time essentially was actually much like spatial dimensions, but you would need specific conditions to be able to move around in time the same way we move around in space.
Or, in other words, I don't believe in the arrow of time.
M
Marlfox
This question up until recently was bothering me.
Einstein considered time to be the fourth dimension. However, he thought of it as something unlike spatial dimensions. Creating what we know now as spacetime. Einstein also suggested that the distinction between past, present, and future is merely a "stubbornly persistent illusion"
However, after listening to Ron Mallet, he gave me some insight that I had not considered.
He was describing the conditions surrounding a Kerr black hole, or a rotating black hole.
He said that it was like the space around the black hole was tea in a cup, and the rotating black hole was like a spoon that was swirling and mixing time space. The tea would fold back onto itself. So, if someone were caught in the current, they too could go back where their journey had begun.
That implied that time essentially was actually much like spatial dimensions, but you would need specific conditions to be able to move around in time the same way we move around in space.
Or, in other words, I don't believe in the arrow of time.
Heh. Y'know there's so much I haven't shared because this universe hasn't caught up with the very basics of Multiversal Mechanics--but one of the big themes is information. Also because yeah, "time" has always been an illusion. "What time is it?" is another thing that pops up a whole lot.
In MM, black holes are not really just a product of mass condensing past its Schwartzchild radius....but also of "information overload" as the universe tries to resolve the fixed and flux points. Information is encoded on the event horizon.
--Too many fixed points (I) that restricts quantum uncertainty == spacetime collapse <-- fixed points remember are the GR side of MM, so there's where the mass aspect comes in.
--Too many flux points (Y) to resolve == spacetime collapse <-- This is where QM fkery comes in.
P = {I1, Y1, ..., In, Yn} is the golden formula. For ease of explanations a lot of times you'd see P = I + Y, but really MM is meant for infinities.
So...
(I + Y) / P = 0 <-- This is Tabula Rasa. A self-referential frame where all observations of fixed and flux points have yet to be observed. This is a boundary condition for null space, and can also occur when there's a universe that exists only as a meta-layer between several universes (i.e., a universe that would not exist normally on its own, but as a byproduct of multiple universes; which create fractals)
(I + Y) / P = 1 <-- This is a fully collapsed universe where there are no more observations or choices to be made, which is the state from which a universe diverges into the next P state. Think of this as "this universal frame has been fully computed, now on to the next (t) state"
(I + Y) / P > 1 <-- This is a diverged universe. One in which there is too much information in the I / Y components. A collapsed universe rejects this information outwards into a different geometry, which can also appear as paradoxes n stuff.
Mass dominance loves I.
Massless dominance loves Y.
Jay Walker
Temporal Navigator
Good point.
I was thinking about the airplane. The airplane has a floor and seats in it. You sit on this 2nd dimensional surface, while a machine designed to penetrate the 3rd dimension lifts into it.
What if a machine needs to be invented in order to use past and present to penetrate different layers of time known as other world lines.
Jay Walker
Temporal Navigator
In standard 1D time, paradoxes like the grandfather paradox or information loops arise because time is treated as a linear, unidirectional axis. Any backward traversal risks violating consistency: if you change the past, you risk erasing the conditions that allowed you to make the change.
“Did A cause B, or did B cause A?”
I ask instead:
“Are A and B adjacent in the causal manifold, and what is the curvature between them?
This relationship is captured by the following action integral:
Like a Möbius strip of cause and effect
Timelines are coherent superpositions across 𝑇 not discrete branches.
Causality paradoxes don’t need to be “fixed” because they don’t exist in this geometry.
Meta-action principle—a Lagrangian framework that unifies my Topological Volume-Time theory with Multiversal Mechanics (MM)’s fixed/flux points.
I’m proposing a geometric counterpart—a 3D temporal manifold where causal curvature emerges from entropy gradients, and realized spacetime volume evolves as a topological response to informational imbalance, unifying structural complexity with universe-level state transitions.