What are space and time? [Logic]

Prev: NP+complete-problem navigation, search In computational complexity theory, the complexity class NP-complete (abbreviated NP-C or NPC), is a class of problems having two properties: * It is in the set of NP (nondeterministic polynomial time) pr
Next: Continuity and Uncountability

From: Michael Gordge on 14 Jul 2010 18:51

On Jul 9, 10:39 pm, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> [spit a newsgroup]
>
> Michael Gordge wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 12:51 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 8, 11:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >What are space and time?
> >> >> What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> >> >Space is matter, it exists regardless of man's mind, time is a man
> >> >made mind dependent concept.
>
> >> Hogwash.
>
> > How much were ewe paid to say that?
>
> You still have no ability to learn. Space and time are
> the things you use to avoid getting hit by a semi truck.
>
> /BAH

Which says nothing of the meaning of space and time. To avoid a semi
truck you can also use legs, feet, speed, roller skates, etc. so you
need to distinguish between space and roller skates. When ewe can
explain the differences between space and time and roller skates, you
may then on the path to thinking.

MG

From: Huang on 14 Jul 2010 19:49

On Jul 14, 5:51 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 10:39 pm, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > [spit a newsgroup]
>
> > Michael Gordge wrote:
> > > On Jul 9, 12:51 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > >> >On Jul 8, 11:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >What are space and time?
> > >> >> What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> > >> >Space is matter, it exists regardless of man's mind, time is a man
> > >> >made mind dependent concept.
>
> > >> Hogwash.
>
> > > How much were ewe paid to say that?
>
> > You still have no ability to learn. Space and time are
> > the things you use to avoid getting hit by a semi truck.
>
> > /BAH
>
> Which says nothing of the meaning of space and time. To avoid a semi
> truck you can also use legs, feet, speed, roller skates, etc. so you
> need to distinguish between space and roller skates. When ewe can
> explain the differences between space and time and roller skates, you
> may then on the path to thinking.
>
> MG- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is no difference between space and time. Any percieved
distinction is just an illusion. They are the same.

You can argue the same thing about length and area if you really
wanted to, see : space filling Peano curves. Is it a length ? Is it an
area ? It is some type of wierd hybrid.

Time and length can both be regarded as being probabilistic, and
anyone who does not believe me probably eats his own boogers.

From: jmfbahciv on 15 Jul 2010 08:11

Huang wrote:
> On Jul 14, 5:51 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 10:39 pm, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > [spit a newsgroup]
>>
>> > Michael Gordge wrote:
>> > > On Jul 9, 12:51 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> > >> >On Jul 8, 11:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> >What are space and time?
>> > >> >> What sort of things are they if they are things?
>>
>> > >> >Space is matter, it exists regardless of man's mind, time is a man
>> > >> >made mind dependent concept.
>>
>> > >> Hogwash.
>>
>> > > How much were ewe paid to say that?
>>
>> > You still have no ability to learn. Space and time are
>> > the things you use to avoid getting hit by a semi truck.
>>
>> > /BAH
>>
>> Which says nothing of the meaning of space and time. To avoid a semi
>> truck you can also use legs, feet, speed, roller skates, etc. so you
>> need to distinguish between space and roller skates. When ewe can
>> explain the differences between space and time and roller skates, you
>> may then on the path to thinking.
>>
>> MG- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> There is no difference between space and time. Any percieved
> distinction is just an illusion. They are the same.
>
> You can argue the same thing about length and area if you really
> wanted to, see : space filling Peano curves. Is it a length ? Is it an
> area ? It is some type of wierd hybrid.
>
> Time and length can both be regarded as being probabilistic, and
> anyone who does not believe me probably eats his own boogers.
>

ARe you people on drugs?

/BAH

From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 15 Jul 2010 08:26

On Jul 14, 3:15 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote:
> To begin to imagine time, it helps to consider it evidence of
> information in the formal sense. Information acts upon other
> information. Time might just be the consequence of the exchange of
> information that we observe as entropy.

Whether one accepts the unification of space and time then becomes an
issue. This is the beauty of polysign: it presents a unidirectional
zero dimensional algebra that has been overlooked, just beneath the
real number. The real number is consistent within polysign as P2, or
the two-signed numbers. The one-signed numbers P1 match time's seeming
paradox. They are near to claims of nonexistent time since they have a
zero dimensional geometry. But this then does allow the spacetime
paradign to take deeper meaning. Time is not a real number. The real
number is bidirectional. Time is unidirectional. The whole system of
cartesian thinking is wrong because it relies upon the real number as
fundamental. The real number is not fundamental. Magnitude and sign
are more fundamental concepts. This is the marriage of continuous and
discrete that we work alot with in physics. The pure math of polysign
has been overlooked. Emergent spacetime with unidirectional time sits
there waiting for someone with the capability to generate a theory
that takes us into a new age. It will hopefully be a simpler and less
conflicted system than modern physics. There are plenty of dynamics in
the math as can be seen here:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/MagnitudeSweep/index.html

- Tim

- Tim

From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 15 Jul 2010 08:59

On Jul 14, 3:52 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> traits of a projected matrix.
> The speed of light is the frame rate.
> Planck's constant refers to the pixel size.
> Absolute zero is black. I dunno what the maximum intensity is, but
> prolly related to the maximum frequency of vibration.

Hi Day. It seems you like discrete systems. It's a nice point that
intensity can go two ways: toward higher frequency and toward higher
density. I don't believe there is any theoretical maximum intensity of
light established yet. Nor is there a maxiumum frequency. I do feel
open to there being some surprises that we've overlooked.

I was swimming the other day, and paddled up a vertical current with
my hand and found one distinct stationary wave of a very small height.
When I stopped paddling and the water slowed down the stationary wave
came in, and closed to a point. It is quite pretty and I tried it
again and again with success. It is a strikingly discrete process
occuring on what seems to be a continuum. I have no idea how to
explain it, but I suppose someone must have documented it before. Then
too, some discoveries like this may still be overlooked. There are
many pretty effects on still water that seem to have discrete
structure; Microripples and so forth.

Just as math can transform some systems from one domain to another
there may be parallel theories. Still, depending on the transformation
side effects can be important, no different than they are in software.
This is information theory. If we shuffle the isotropic stance as I
suggest then I believe that the system can hold up. A structured
spacetime does not necessarily deny taking relative reference frames.
In this arena the problems are quite open, but it is easy to me to
falsify the isotropic assumption of relativity theory. The same
fundamental problem exists when people start discussing time reversal
physics. We observe no freedom to traverse time, either forward or
backward, and anyone who insists that they can place a coffee mug
cleanly within a 4D spacetime tensor is eating food that is unfit for
human consumption. We need only rotate the x axis of the existing
reference frame to the t axis to observe the incoherent construction.
The tensor is by definition consistent with such rotations, and if we
step back to 3D space we see that it does work coherently. Clearly
time is somehow different than the other spatial dimensions. Therefor
the tensor construction is not sensible. The Minkowski metric was sold
to us, and this does paint the level of human ability in the topic.
Does each of us truly assess the validity of this theory, or do we
simply attempt to gulp it down, because it is professed? Here the
human social condition does enter into science directly, and
unfortunately the human does not hold up under such scrutiny. So it is
that we are apes, and as righteous as it is for us to attempt
understanding, and as bright as some of the greats have been, they and
we are so limited. The practice of construction from an open place
will lead to a better generation of physicists and mathematicians.
This means declaring the problems open early, and studying the
weaknesses of the existing system as much as measuring a child's
ability to mimic it. The grade A mimics rule for now.

- Tim