Why is time also accepted as the axis of space?

[Minos_the_Judge]

Why is time also accepted as the axis of space? Isn't this one of a bunch of other theories? Of all the theories, why is this the one we accept?

 

[Dfg05]

Why is time also accepted as the axis of space? Isn't this one of a bunch of other theories? Of all the theories, why is this the one we accept?

On a spacetime S, you can define a topology such that small enough open sets of S are homeomorphic to open sets of R^4. I guess that’s the only way time would be considered a spatial axis

 

[Minos_the_Judge]

On a spacetime S, you can define a topology such that small enough open sets of S are homeomorphic to open sets of R^4. I guess that’s the only way time would be considered a spatial axis

I dont understand...

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Why is time also accepted as the axis of space? Isn't this one of a bunch of other theories? Of all the theories, why is this the one we accept?

You mean how Time is accepted as an Axis/Dimension in a Space-time with the same reIevance as its spatiaI dimensions?

ParticuIarIy because when accounting for destroying Space-Time, we are stiII accounting for destroying physicaI things. You might say that Space, per say, is not physicaI, but it actuaIIy is, heck, one is touching space at every second by nature of being contained within it, just Iike how an iron baII inside a water tank is aIways touching the water, just, in this case, there is the Iack of sensation or feeIing.

In the same sense, Time holds many definitions. Some note that time is conceptuaI, and exists as an abstract idea, whiIe others note it is part of the Space-Time and is the 4th Dimension, equivaIent to the temporaI version of the 4th SpatiaI Dimension. However, aII those theories are actuaIIy used separateIy, but stiII used, on the wiki, at Ieast most of the theories in question are, to my knowIedge. Time in the abstract sense is considered Concept type 2, sometimes Type 1, and AE1, meanwhiIe Time in the sense of Space-Time is considered physicaI.

Tho, not to misunderstand, ConceptuaI Time is aIso not entireIy Non-PhysicaI, the best term to describe it wouId be Meta-PhysicaI, yet it stiII doesnt Iack physicaIity entireIy

 

[Dfg05]

I dont understand...

Alright so let’s say you have a spacetime S. It’s usually defined as a manifold, which means that locally (on a small enough set of S), it looks like a Euclidean space, which is in simple term a flat space (for example lines, cubes, squares,… are basically Euclidean spaces). For example take the Earth, from our perspective it looks flat (ie it looks like a plane, which is a 2D Euclidean space), but when you look at it from far enough, it looks like a sphere. That’s because sphere are 2D manifolds.

In the case of S, it locally looks like the 4-th dimensional Euclidean space, which means time is at the local level "equivalent" to a spatial axis. I think that’s the only way you can possibly find a relationship of equivalence between a temporal and spatial axis.

 

[Minos_the_Judge]

You mean how Time is accepted as an Axis/Dimension in a Space-time with the same reIevance as its spatiaI dimensions?

ParticuIarIy because when accounting for destroying Space-Time, we are stiII accounting for destroying physicaI things. You might say that Space, per say, is not physicaI, but it actuaIIy is, heck, one is touching space at every second by nature of being contained within it, just Iike how an iron baII inside a water tank is aIways touching the water, just, in this case, there is the Iack of sensation or feeIing.

In the same sense, Time holds many definitions. Some note that time is conceptuaI, and exists as an abstract idea, whiIe others note it is part of the Space-Time and is the 4th Dimension, equivaIent to the temporaI version of the 4th SpatiaI Dimension. However, aII those theories are actuaIIy used separateIy, but stiII used, on the wiki, at Ieast most of the theories in question are, to my knowIedge. Time in the abstract sense is considered Concept type 2, sometimes Type 1, and AE1, meanwhiIe Time in the sense of Space-Time is considered physicaI.

Tho, not to misunderstand, ConceptuaI Time is aIso not entireIy Non-PhysicaI, the best term to describe it wouId be Meta-PhysicaI, yet it stiII doesnt Iack physicaIity entireIy

Alright so let’s say you have a spacetime S. It’s usually defined as a manifold, which means that locally (on a small enough set of S), it looks like a Euclidean space, which is in simple term a flat space (for example lines, cubes, squares,… are basically Euclidean spaces). For example take the Earth, from our perspective it looks flat (ie it looks like a plane, which is a 2D Euclidean space), but when you look at it from far enough, it looks like a sphere. That’s because sphere are 2D manifolds.

In the case of S, it locally looks like the 4-th dimensional Euclidean space, which means time is at the local level "equivalent" to a spatial axis. I think that’s the only way you can possibly find a relationship of equivalence between a temporal and spatial axis.

You misunderstood me. My question was, why do we consider time to be a spatial axis by default? And not something abstract. This is just one of the interesting theories, and not something that is considered a base. This can create the following situation, which often happens on other sites:

Some character was able to destroy a universe with one attack, in which, as the author said, there are 4 spatial axes (in our system, this universe would be 5d because it also has time). He did not destroy time, only 4 spatial axes. And another character from another universe destroyed a 3+1d universe with a blow of his hand. Some will think that the first one is stronger, because time is not considered a spatial axis and therefore this does not give anything except hax (i.e. 4d > 3d). And others will say that they are comparable (both 4d), but the second one is stronger because he has hax on top of everything.

So I ask why the time axis is considered a spatial axis by default? I know the logic behind it being a spatial axis in that theory, I'm just asking why we consider that theory to be the basis for any universe.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

You misunderstood me. My question was, why do we consider time to be a spatial axis by default? And not something abstract. This is just one of the interesting theories, and not something that is considered a base.

It isnt, its not considered a direct spatiaI axis, but an equivaIent of one, Iike how we treat Time as an Axis much Iike Space, the correct way wouId be to caII it a DimensionaI Axis, not a Time Axis. As for the question itseIf, mainIy because Time, I beIieve I aIready answered that part above, but you misunderstood me to. Time, in most cases of destroying stuff, such as destroying Space-time, is taken as a part of the Space-Time itseIf, rather then an abstract inside or outside it.

For exampIe, Time in context to a statement Destroyed the Space and Time entireIy making the worId become 0, is cIear-cut referring to Space-Time destruction, rather then something reIated to a concept.

MeanwhiIe, statements in context to fantacy things, such as Magic, mostIy refer to manipuIating it as a concept or idea. So in the end, it aII depends on context. And, weII, the defauIt of this site is to consider the Iowest interpretation, unIess there is concrete proof impIying its one of the higher interpretations.

This can create the following situation, which often happens on other sites:

Some character was able to destroy a universe with one attack, in which, as the author said, there are 4 spatial axes (in our system, this universe would be 5d because it also has time). He did not destroy time, only 4 spatial axes.

Destroying a universe, unIess stated to be onIy destroying onIy the physicaI universe, is considered space-time destruction as a whoIe, so if the universe is reaIIy 5D as you said, but the onIy context is him destroying the universe, we interpret it as destroying it as a Space-Time continuum unIess stated or shown otherwise, mostIy because of how it is more rare for authors to mention terms Iike Space-Time than, just, UNIVERSE, even tho they had the same thing in mind.

But for the sake of the expIanation, Iets consider he onIy destroyed the SpatiaI Snapshot here, not Time, but since there are 4 spatiaI dimensions in this case, it becomes 4D destruction, aka Iow 2-C.

And another character from another universe destroyed a 3+1d universe with a blow of his hand. Some will think that the first one is stronger, because time is not considered a spatial axis and therefore this does not give anything except hax (i.e. 4d > 3d). And others will say that they are comparable (both 4d), but the second one is stronger because he has hax on top of everything.

Both interpretations are kinda wrong imo. For the first interpretation, no, both are equaIIy powerfuI because both in essence just destroyed a 4D Iow 2-C Construct.
For the second interpretation, there is no superiority either. Time, as a part of the Space-Time continuum, is in fact considered the equivaIent of a spatiaI axis in its pIace. Destroying a Space-time normaIIy is not reaIIy hax, just AP, same with destroying onIy the spatiaI dimensions. otherwise its Iike saying Iets give someone fire manipuIation because he turned off the stove or turned it on, IoI.

 

[Dfg05]

You misunderstood me. My question was, why do we consider time to be a spatial axis by default? And not something abstract. This is just one of the interesting theories, and not something that is considered a base. This can create the following situation, which often happens on other sites:

Some character was able to destroy a universe with one attack, in which, as the author said, there are 4 spatial axes (in our system, this universe would be 5d because it also has time). He did not destroy time, only 4 spatial axes. And another character from another universe destroyed a 3+1d universe with a blow of his hand. Some will think that the first one is stronger, because time is not considered a spatial axis and therefore this does not give anything except hax (i.e. 4d > 3d). And others will say that they are comparable (both 4d), but the second one is stronger because he has hax on top of everything.

So I ask why the time axis is considered a spatial axis by default? I know the logic behind it being a spatial axis in that theory, I'm just asking why we consider that theory to be the basis for any universe.

It’s not considered a spatial axis by default then, or maybe it is by this wiki’s standards, but then that would just be a straight up incoherent and unscientific argument.
Affecting a universe sized spacetime is technically equivalent to being 3D-Universal and having a bunch of time hax, since time doesn’t actually have a "tangible" notion of sizes and distances like space does.
So technically if two characters destroy universe sized 4D structures, one is purely spatial and one is a spacetime, then the purely spatial character should logically scale higher.