On 10/06/2010 07:35 AM, Michael Torrie wrote: > On 10/06/2010 12:26 AM, Levi Pearson wrote: >> Did I say it was a spatial dimension? No. I said it was as real as >> the spatial dimensions, which clearly implies that it is not itself a >> spatial dimension. > > Just as long as no one goes around calling it the "fourth dimension" > which it clearly is not.
When people refer to time as a 4th spatial dimension, I think of a cube that is 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter x 10 years. Then I try to mentally rotate that cube so that its "height" is 10 years instead of 1 meter, making its duration 1 meter instead of 10 years. I don't know how to make sense of that. :-) Shane /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
