I found a brown dwarf with an accretion disk!!!

[Archduke]

If you take time as a variable in any mathematical equation you can call it a dimesion. Or don't, not everybody agree about it. But it's a physical property that is required to define a system and even if you zen and lose your perception of time it will still continue( fast or slow according to your chosen frame point). Those protons and electrons will be one place now and there later. The fact that you can say particle a was here, then here, then here means you are using time as a measurement. If the position or order of positions is meaningless then so is time, but usually it's pretty important and very much real. Even in the theoretical bounds of an event horizon there is the time before entering it and after the black hole eventually dissipates.Time exists and were all gonna die.I should stop watching those Kurzgesagt videos.

Dimensionality in abstract mathematical space is not the same as a physical dimensionality.I could, for example, describe my lunch nutritional values with vitamin, carbohydrate and protein dimensions - all of which would be accurate and descriptive - despite there being no such physcial extendinng carbohydrate dimension for which my lunch merely resides in a localised segment.Therefore, there are arguments in which you both are correct, but this is more due to the perspective and approach to the question:"Is time a dimension?"Time itself is illusory as Amadeus correctly identifies. Howewver, in using it descriptively, one often ascribes it to an INDEPENDENT axis, whereby it represents base vectors of a temporal dimensionality. In particular, this is useful in relativistic considerations whereby spacetime intervals require a time component in conventional 3+1 - however, one may elect to choose a different coordinate geometry.The problem with nomenclature is further compunded in that time is often refrfered to as an equivalent yet orthogonal to spatial dimensions - again, this is a choiice of geometry which intuitively matches our experience, not a physical reality.___The notion that you may claim to observe a particle HERE and 'then' HERE highlight s the problem with time as a concept. You are by the use of the word 'then' invoking a specific system of time measurement which you have already determined to represent in a coordinate system.Try to describe the process without relying on such pre-defined ocordinates and assumptions of "now" or "then".

 

[vindicator jones]

I have only seen a blackhole once.. And its true.. nothing seems to escape it.. And no matter how much stuff goes in there, it never ever seems to get full, and rarely ever reappears..

Of course I am referring to my missus handbag.... once I got too close and lost my watch.... its still in there..

 

[Hadarmil]

Dimensionality in abstract mathematical space is not the same as a physical dimensionality.I could, for example, describe my lunch nutritional values with vitamin, carbohydrate and protein dimensions - all of which would be accurate and descriptive - despite there being no such physcial extendinng carbohydrate dimension for which my lunch merely resides in a localised segment.Therefore, there are arguments in which you both are correct, but this is more due to the perspective and approach to the question:"Is time a dimension?"Time itself is illusory as Amadeus correctly identifies. Howewver, in using it descriptively, one often ascribes it to an INDEPENDENT axis, whereby it represents base vectors of a temporal dimensionality. In particular, this is useful in relativistic considerations whereby spacetime intervals require a time component in conventional 3+1 - however, one may elect to choose a different coordinate geometry.The problem with nomenclature is further compunded in that time is often refrfered to as an equivalent yet orthogonal to spatial dimensions - again, this is a choiice of geometry which intuitively matches our experience, not a physical reality.___The notion that you may claim to observe a particle HERE and 'then' HERE highlight s the problem with time as a concept. You are by the use of the word 'then' invoking a specific system of time measurement which you have already determined to represent in a coordinate system.Try to describe the process without relying on such pre-defined ocordinates and assumptions of "now" or "then".

Maybe I wasn't clear as I'm neither a physicist nor mathematician, but yeah, if time is a seperate vector in a certain system then it can be considered a dimension if you so choose to call it. I used the particle position thing to relate the fact that there is a certain order to these spaces and you can't reorder them arbitrarily, so the concept of time exists whether we call it that or not and whatever it's "speed" in a given instance.

 

[ChrisT]

Whats the difference between an accretion disk, and rings? Hrm... I guess with an accretion disk, you'd expect it to be a lot larger, and I suppose it would consist of gas, as much as harder matter. And maybe, as its getting pulled into a hot body, you'd expect it to be hot, maybe even starting to glow.

But yeah, spose it is an accretion disk of sorts.

 

[amadeus1171]

If you take time as a variable in any mathematical equation you can call it a dimesion. Or don't, not everybody agree about it. But it's a physical property that is required to define a system and even if you zen and lose your perception of time it will still continue( fast or slow according to your chosen frame point). Those protons and electrons will be one place now and there later. The fact that you can say particle a was here, then here, then here means you are using time as a measurement. If the position or order of positions is meaningless then so is time, but usually it's pretty important and very much real. Even in the theoretical bounds of an event horizon there is the time before entering it and after the black hole eventually dissipates.

Time exists and were all gonna die.

I should stop watching those Kurzgesagt videos.

Lol; time is not a "physical" property. Can you touch it, empirically? How do you measure it? In seconds, minutes, hours, days and years? What, exactly are those measurements based on?

I have proposed a measurement system for the forward motion of matter. You can use the distance light travels in a vacuum. 300k km/s in a vacuum of light propagating represents one second. The SI unit is represented by d/C. So (s*m)/m, which leaves us with the fictional unit, s (second).

 

[Cmdr Eran Mintor]

False advertising and bad link! Negative rep if there was such a thing

 

[amadeus1171]

Dimensionality in abstract mathematical space is not the same as a physical dimensionality.I could, for example, describe my lunch nutritional values with vitamin, carbohydrate and protein dimensions - all of which would be accurate and descriptive - despite there being no such physcial extendinng carbohydrate dimension for which my lunch merely resides in a localised segment.Therefore, there are arguments in which you both are correct, but this is more due to the perspective and approach to the question:"Is time a dimension?"Time itself is illusory as Amadeus correctly identifies. Howewver, in using it descriptively, one often ascribes it to an INDEPENDENT axis, whereby it represents base vectors of a temporal dimensionality. In particular, this is useful in relativistic considerations whereby spacetime intervals require a time component in conventional 3+1 - however, one may elect to choose a different coordinate geometry.The problem with nomenclature is further compunded in that time is often refrfered to as an equivalent yet orthogonal to spatial dimensions - again, this is a choiice of geometry which intuitively matches our experience, not a physical reality.___The notion that you may claim to observe a particle HERE and 'then' HERE highlight s the problem with time as a concept. You are by the use of the word 'then' invoking a specific system of time measurement which you have already determined to represent in a coordinate system.Try to describe the process without relying on such pre-defined ocordinates and assumptions of "now" or "then".

Why are you bringing back my horrible memories of multivariate calculus?! Calculus III, oh the nightmares! Darn you Newton!

 

[Shinji Ikari]

That's really not an accretion disk.

 

[Synthetic Frost]

That's really not an accretion disk.

No, it isn't. But we've got 4 pages of people spouting off psuedo-science and bad renditions of 1st year psychology lectures trying to prove otherwise. It's honestly funny to read.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

No, it isn't. But we've got 4 pages of people spouting off psuedo-science and bad renditions of 1st year psychology lectures trying to prove otherwise. It's honestly funny to read.

I should read that [haha]

It could also be a ring of matter falling into a proto-star, which is what this brown dwarf can be considered. So I hold true to my original description. I found a brown dwarf with an accretion disk.

A brown dwarf isn't a protostar and will never be unless extra mass is added.

Just appreciate the picture, man.

Yep, the picture confirms it's just a ring.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

It wouldn't blow up. It'd just be subject to extreme gravitational forces that increased by orders of magnitude for every centimeter closer you got. Side effects include extreme time dilation and spaghettification as the gravity on one end of your ship was higher than the other, resulting in you being stretched and ripped apart atom by atom for eons (due to aforementioned time dilation) before eventually succumbing to the event horizon.

Where you go after that, no one really knows.

Edit: Let's ignore physics for a second and say your ship had enough power to withstand and escape an accretion disk of a black hole. Even a few seconds in one means years or decades outside of it. So in the event you got caught in one and escaped even within a few minutes, everyone you knew and loved would be dead by the time you got out.

Well, from your perspective time would go on as fast as it always does but of course other frames of reference would see you fall to the black hole more slowly the nearer you'd get to it.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Did I ever tell you about my theory that time doesn't really exist? It's a human invention, like the north pole, the equator, and definition of a planet (#plutoisaplanet). Time is merely our way of trying to understand the passing of moments. And moments are simply the forward movement of matter.

Now, when I say moment, I don't mean that each moment is a set, quantum measurement. It simply means when matter moves.

And when I say the forward movement of matter, I don't mean matter moving in any particular direction. I mean that a moves in direction A, hits b, which moves in direction B, which hits c, that moves in direction C. Think of it as a clockwork automaton always in motion.

And when matter is stagnant there is no motion, and thus no moments, and no change.

So, when people say that time slows down around large masses, time doesn't actually slow
Down, because there is no time. It is the forward movement of matter that slows down, because it's means of propagation is by the significant body of mass, aka, the various force fields such as electromagnetism, gravity, etc, and the forces we still haven't discovered.

Oh, by the way, what time is it?

1º Einstein thought of this for decades and subsequent experiments for the next century made his theory rock solid, neither do you or I have enough education on the topic to debunk him.

2º If your theory were to be true then you wouldn't be talking about it here but in a peer-reviewed paper in a respected physics journal.

3º Sorry, if Pluto was still held as a planet we would have way more than 9 planets as much as you'd want it.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Heat is the perturbation of the electromagnetic field by the nucleus of atoms oscillating about their equilibrium.

Time is not a dimension. It is a perceived thing, imaginary.

Let's try this another way. I defined what we think is time. Now you tell me. What is time? Use concrete, specific, empirical facts that can be repeated via experimentation.

All particles can have heat except bosons (though I'm not sure but I know someone which I can ask). Each particle has it's respective quantum field so in a way heat is in ALL fields.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Nobody exists on purpose, nobody belongs anywhere, everybody's going to die.

Gasp, humans are the only entities we know of that give meaning to this questions so in a way we can answer those questions based on personal tastes. The last statement is true though I don't see death as a terrible thing.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

Lol; time is not a "physical" property. Can you touch it, empirically? How do you measure it? In seconds, minutes, hours, days and years? What, exactly are those measurements based on?

I have proposed a measurement system for the forward motion of matter. You can use the distance light travels in a vacuum. 300k km/s in a vacuum of light propagating represents one second. The SI unit is represented by d/C. So (s*m)/m, which leaves us with the fictional unit, s (second).

Yes it is according to Eistein. It can vary greatly depending on your frame of reference and AFAIK it's used as a physical entity in the calculations.

 

[Hadarmil]

Lol; time is not a "physical" property. Can you touch it, empirically? How do you measure it? In seconds, minutes, hours, days and years? What, exactly are those measurements based on?

I have proposed a measurement system for the forward motion of matter. You can use the distance light travels in a vacuum. 300k km/s in a vacuum of light propagating represents one second. The SI unit is represented by d/C. So (s*m)/m, which leaves us with the fictional unit, s (second).

My point is time is a variable and you can call it marmalade if you want. Actualy in math you could call anything whatever as long as you are CONSISTENT and apply all the established proven rules accordingly, or prove them prior yourself.

You can't touch time, but you can measure it's "velocity" using physical properties. If you get rid of the second, what did you achieve? The second is SI defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". The metre is defined as "length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in
1/299,792,458" seconds. These are nothing but abstract concepts being defined by one constant(to the best of our knowledge),physical, measurable and REAL thing.

So as I said, everything is in our heads. We are all floating in a machine powering some 90s greenish VR world. But concepts of time and space are pretty usueful to keep physicists, mathematicians and engineers from killing each other.