Einstein,
I think the biggest problem with this statement is that there doesn't seem to be any rigorous definition of what defines a dimension.
I would modify that and say that there is no definition that
you seem to be happy with and willing to accept. We know all too well your "renegade" spirit that tends to not wish to adopt operational definitions that a great many scientists have adopted. What is wrong with these definitions from the Columbia encyclopedia?
<font color="red"> IN MATHEMATICS: number of parameters or coordinates required locally to describe points in a mathematical object (usually geometric in character). For example, the space we inhabit is three-dimensional, a plane or surface is two-dimensional, a line or curve is one-dimensional, and a point is zero-dimensional. By means of a coordinate system one can specify any point with respect to a chosen origin (and coordinate axes through the origin, in the case of two or more dimensions). Thus, a point on a line is specified by a number x giving its distance from the origin, with one direction chosen as positive and the other as negative; a point on a plane is specified by an ordered pair of numbers (x,y) giving its distances from the two coordinate axes; a point in space is specified by an ordered triple of numbers (x,y,z) giving its distances from three coordinate axes. Mathematicians are thus led by analogy to define an ordered set of four, five, or more numbers as representing a point in what they define as a space of four, five, or more dimensions. Although such spaces cannot be visualized, they may nevertheless by physically significant. For example, the quadruple of numbers (x,y,z,t), where t represents time, is sometimes interpreted as a point in four-dimensional space-time (see relativity). The state of the weather or the economy, in current models, is a point in a many-dimensional space. Many features of plane and solid Euclidean geometry have mathematical analogues in higher dimensional spaces.
IN PHYSICS: an expression of the character of a derived quantity in relation to fundamental quantities, without regard for its numerical value. In any system of measurement, such as the metric system, certain quantities are considered fundamental, and all others are considered to be derived from them. Systems in which length (L), time (T), and mass (M) are taken as fundamental quantities are called absolute systems. In an absolute system force is a derived quantity whose dimensions are defined by Newton's second law of motion as ML/T2, in terms of the fundamental quantities. Pressure (force per unit area) then has dimensions M/LT2; work or energy (force times distance) has dimensions ML2/T2; and power (energy per unit time) has dimensions ML2/T3. Additional fundamental quantities are also defined, such as electric charge and luminous intensity. The expression of any particular quantity in terms of fundamental quantities is known as dimensional analysis and often provides physical insight into the results of a mathematical calculation.[/COLOR]
The thing is, you will always wish to argue that your definition is better. This is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty and a wish to get other people to see things your way. The end result of such hair-splitting over definition is the dead end of nihilism. The simple fact is that all things are relative, and that includes defintions. As such, I can argue with you about the definition of anything and claim that said definition is not "rigorous enough". It never WILL be rigorous enough if you continue to try to regress to some sort of absolute.
Mass by itself seems to be devoid of time.
This is a fallacy which can be falsfied in any number of ways. Radioactive half-life is the simplest fact to offer to falsify this thought. The fact that specific forms of matter have varying resonant frequencies (not forgetting that frequency is the reciprocal of time) would also work to falsify this. The very measure of temperature of any mass also possesses the thermodynamic equivalent of time, since it represents the mean internal oscillatory velocity of the atoms within a body. What I would like to know is why you think mass is devoid of time? Why do you believe there is any fundamental measure (which mass is) that is wholly unrelated to the other fundamental measures (space and time)?
But opposing forces or dare I say opposing time flows seem to satisfy a balanced equation.
Write that equation and I will be more than happy to have a discussion with you. But if you continue to avoid writing equations that can be discussed and debated outside the fallible confines of non-specific language constructs, then we will get nowhere.
Now I have pointed out that the gyroscope seems to have an open ended orthogonal force.
And I have pointed out to you that this erroneous thought by you is nothing more than a manifestation of your unwillingness to understand vector kinematics, and specifically to understand that angular momentum is vector quantity which obeys conservation laws. That orthogonal response is in direct proportion to the displacement of that spinning mass (i.e. angular momentum). You need tensors to fully explain this because there are multiple dimensions at work with angular momentum.
Again I must point out that just because you refuse to learn about advanced math, and understand how and why they work to explain things you think are unexplained, does not mean such phenomenon really are unexplained. All it means is that you continue to think they are unexplained.
Honestly I think we have to understand how reality works before we can begin to manipulate time.
Well of course, but you tend to wish to throw away the theoretical basis we have developed, even though experimental evidence has validated it within stated bounds. Before you can "throw out" some theory that has evidence to show it is accurate, then you must show where it is in error, and then present your MATH (not a visualization) that shows a way that is MORE accurate. This is only fair, especially since all the theories you wish to throw away are rigorously defined mathematically. You simply will never be successful in usurping them until you can do the math.
RMT
