Time is movement away from the center, of the 4th dimension

If the universe is closed as Einstein would have it it would be the surface of an ever expanding hypersphere. We are moving away from the center of this four dimensional hypersphere and this movement(expansion) is time(sigma.)

I thought time was the 4th dimension in a relativistic (non Euclidean) universe?

Is this another time dimension?

The idea of time as motion I approve of, but how to model it?

The idea of time as motion I approve of, but how to model it?

all is done already:
in physical formulas symbol t mens duration of motion of particles and massive bodies into space.

important to understand that movement does not happen into time
movement happens into space only
movement tiself is time
time is what we measure with clocks
with clocks we measure duration of motion into space

Our universe has 3 spacial dimensions but 4 dimensions in total, so the 3d space can be a surface of a 4 dimensional entity, hence why things like space-time curvature something don't make intuitive sense to us when we think in 3d because it curves in a way you can't physically imagine.

As someone has already pointed out to Nick, Einstein didn't have much to say about the open or closed nature of the universe, it depends on the value of the cosmological constant and there was much confusion around Einstein's time about that.

From Nick's proposition.. that the universe is closed..

I think you have to hunt through the science words and just hope to find the concept behind the question. This is my attempt..

Take a 3D picture of the universe at one instant .. take another an instant later .. the pictures are not the same but they are not expanding, repeat until satisfied.

Even if the universe were not closed the sequence of pictures would not fall within my definition of a hypersphere.

-C2.

X4 = i x t x c

t is a simbol that give us duration of motion
X4 is spatial X4 is not temporal

Nick isn't the first to take the Balloon model (frequently used to explain Hubble expansion) too seriously. GR doesn't even assume that the universe is embedded in a higher-dimensional space-time -- the curvature is intrinsic. GR certainly doesn't demand that the space of the universe has a topological equivalence to S^3 ( in analogy to the balloon's surface of S^2 ).

This post has been edited by rpenner on Jul 24 2006, 06:00 PM

universe is to big
man will never define the size of the universe

There still seems to be some confusion as to the cosmological constant if we are using seconds which vary quite abundantly. Tis I see as a big problem though i think they have put thought into it and are taking in all gravitational forces I don't feel we'll ever make our potential if we keep this up.


I especially liked the part about people not understanding how the fourth dimension curves. Neat to picture...

fourth dimension is spatial and not temporal
curvature of space is determinated by its density......................