Time, space , and volocity?
365082
Why, how is it moving 1.2 times the speed of light?  Anyway, you just use the age of the Universe and multiply by the velocity of the particle.  5 billion years times 300km/s time 1.2
1186741
Time is called a dimension because in Einstein's theory of relativity it makes mathematical sense to do so. Events happen in spacetime, 3 spatial and 1 time dimension. But their orientation in space and time relative to each other, depends on the observer and the relative speeds of the events.\n\nIn Einstein's formulas these dimensions are mixed by transformations depending on the velocities. This works only if we add time as a dimension.    \n\nTo give the *position* of an event in four dimensional space-time you need to give a reference observer first, another event, relative to which you measure.  And the answer will depend on your speed and the speed of the observer. And that is just what relativity means: the resulting coordinates or not the same for everybody but depend on the relative speeds.
136568
well, we all assume that time flows in one direction and one thing follows another. Maybe that's just the way we see it. Try to imagine that you were a cartoon, 2D on a page, you have no concept of the 3rd dimension. If we could se everything that had happened at once, time wouldn't be linear but I digress. In effect non-linear time means that one thing would not necessarily come after the other e.g. I wrote this 'before' you asked the question.
1009023
The universe that we live in has only three spatial dimensions. We are limited to length, width, and height, and we can only travel along three perpendicular paths. This page attempts to explain the properties of a hypothetical universe with a spatial fourth dimension. While people generally call time the 4th dimension in the universe we live in, time will be the 5th dimension in my hypothetical universe. \n\nMany fascinating possibilities exist when a spatial fourth dimension is present. Several types of wheels are possible, very complex machines can be built, and many more shapes are possible. Objects can pass by each other more easily, but they are harder to break into multiple pieces. Energy reduces much faster with distance than in the 3rd dimension, so both light and sound are weaker. Much more things can be compacted into a small space, but its much easier to get lost. In this page, I will explore these and many other interesting properties of the fourth dimension.
1045387
GOOD QUESTION: well done! There is not really any such thing as time, it is merely our way of describing a particular abstract concept. If it was a solid physical reality it surely couldn't be relative. Lets all go and read Einstein and try to figure it out!
728817
Time is relative.  It doesn't really exist.  Time is effected by the speed of motion, and is not an object.
320013
Time and Motion Study by Frederic Taylor.
615899
Physicists like to lump time with space. The distance between A and B can be expressed as distance or time. \n\nBut, what is time? That's a bit like "what is mass?" or "what is charge?"\n\nThis is what we know about time. \n1. It is relative.\n2. It has a forward bias with respect to our perspective.\n3. The faster your friend goes, the slower he moves.\n\nI think you just have to accept it for how it is.
1130438
none of the above. your forgeting that we define movment based on something relative to location. there are 3 dimensions all which are defined from a point of origin. the earth can move which ever way you want it too based on what point of reference you wish to choose.
200856
The author Kurt Vonnegut once wrote that (I'm paraphrasing) units of time (moments, seconds, etc.) should be thought of not as connected points along a line, but rather like grains of soil in a mountain.  It's an interesting concept if you think about it.  One could move through time from one unit to another adjacent one without the ability to skip over one. Since each of us only exists in only one of them "at a time", so to speak, collectively we would be occupying all of them simultaneously.  It could explain where we "go to" when we are lost in thought, or how time seems to slow during some activities and speed up during others.  It might also help to understand the concept of multiple simultaneous dimensions. The notion of moving "ahead" through time is relative to your local frame of reference, just as "up" is relative to your local field of gravity and ceases to exist without a center of gravity.
432971
The idea that time is another dimension is not currently in favor, so if you were to take a contemporary view, time isnt a dimension at all.  Thus, a 2 dimensional object moving through time would be just that- a changable 2D object.  Time is a degree of freedom for motion, physical and chemical reactions, etc, but not (again, currently thought) to be a dimension equivalent to the three we exist in (or the 13 or so that are sub-microscopic).
400541
I believe in the multiverse in the sense that we are perceiving one universe, but there are many possible realities that could have brought me to my current perceptions and there are many possible realities that originate from my current perceptions.  If there is no such thing as time, then all possible perceptions exist together, and what we perceive as time passing is merely our awareness of particular moments in one of the threads of events that are already existing in the "multiverse".
471213
It all dependend where you are filling time. In an insane intitution there are people who experience 4 ,5 of more dimentions . so far I have heard of 26 dimensions being filled including many dimentions of time.\nSpace and time have the same thing in common they can be filled both at the same instance!
570269
at the present time we define the universe by four dimensions, length, width, height, and time.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
113366
The 4th dimension is time. It is essentially equivalent to "flat land" falling through the 3rd dimension.
255954
I will take a shot at it.\n\nWe are all very familiar with 3 dimensional space, up down, left right, forward backward. To describe the location of an object in space we have to use those three dimensions. BUT. Nothing is actually fixed in space. Everything is moving. So in order to describe the location of an object in space you must also describe at what time that object was at that location or will be at that location. That is why time is called the 4th dimension. \n\nNow here is the really bizaar part. Some scientists think there are more than 4 dimensions. Some propose 10 dimensions and some 26 dimensions. It is called string theory and it is all over my head.
830585
Y'know, I've been trying to get a handle on that for a long time, but so far I understand it to mean that post-Einstein, once you  include time as a fourth axis to the 3 spatial ones, the universe makes sense in terms of our physical laws working everywhere and everytime.  That is a neccessity of a good physical law - it must always work no matter where in the universe you test it or how fast you're travelling.  In other words, translations and rotations of objects or fields or whatever must have no effect on the validity of the law.  If you do not include time as an axis perpendicular to the 3 spatial ones (mathematically, of couse), what we predict won't agree with what we see, especially in such cases as high relative velocities (as in approacing the speed of light), and strong gravitational fields.  Amoung the oddest result of this view is that, in truth, all time actually exists simultaneously, and there is some not-quite-understood mechanism that only lets us see one instant at a time.\n\nAnyway, to answer your question, "How does spacetime work?", the answer is, much better than space or time alone and separate.  They are, in fact, as inseparable as the pair of poles of a magnet.\n\nThis all might be not quite accurate, especially since I'm so far just an "armchair physicist" with no formal education in the area, (tho I'm looking forward to taking physics, including the higher levels, if I can ever get thru these friggin' calculus classes).  Anybody else have something to contribute or set me straight on??