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 18 Jul 2010 17:31

On Jul 18, 9:50 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 5:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7/18/10 5:22 AM, JT wrote:
>
> > > No Samtimeis the ***universal rate*** that a pulsar flickers with
> > > using a ***nonevariant unit***. Units are nonevariant according to
> > > your Dear SR theory clocks around the equatorial band would be slower
> > > then clocks at the fixed poles and it simply do not happen.
>
> > Not true with satellite clocks such as those used in GPS.
>
> Timeand length are the same thing.

One second, one hour, one day, one inch, ten feet and twelve miles are
all the same things? you really do need to check your premises.

Time and length are totally different and both are totally seperate
concepts which man uses to help solve the problems of his survival,
they (time and length) each have their very own unique and seperate
identities, they are NOT the same thing, where on earth are you
getting this garbage from?

MG

MG

From: John Stafford on 18 Jul 2010 18:05

In article
<7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292d93(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Huang <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 18, 11:05�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
> > In article
> > <28e13431-8e49-4b89-bef7-d7a5af5ed...(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 18, 9:10�am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad2624...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > �Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > [1] Relativity
> > > > > > [2] HUP
> > > > > > [3] WP-Duality
> > > > > > [4] A correct understanding of causality
> > > > > > [5] A correct understanding of continuity of spacetime
> > > > > > [6] An a-priori understanding of why we have such a thing as Planck
> > > > > > Length
> > > > > > [7] A correct understanding of order/disorder
> > > > > > [8] A better understanding of paradox and it's signifigance in
> > > > > > physics
> >
> > > > > Also forgot to mention perhaps the most important
> >
> > > > > [9] Conservation. I can explain conservation in a way that you've
> > > > > never heard before because scientists are dum. I can explain
> > > > > conservation without resorting to a magic wand.
> >
> > > > > You guys do nonstandard physics like Jacpaints pictures,
> > > > > here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall.
> >
> > > > You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.-
> > > > Hide
> > > > quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > If you say so pal - those are your words, not mine.
> >
> > Consider the trap of pride, a lack of self-criticism and skepticism.- Hide
> > quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> Consider making a valid rebuttal, attacking the points of my claims
> instead of making failed attempts at psychoanalysis. One broken tool
> cannot fix another.
>
> Where are the flaws in what I say ? And if you think that you can read
> my mind, then perhaps we can do a little experiment to confirm that
> you have the telepathic abilities which you seem to imply.

IMHO, you are on the wrong track, which is to say the conventional
interpretation of space/time fails if one uses conventional language.

Consider time as information. Issues of dimensions are leveled. No
delusions of dimensions. No phantom of space. Just pure information that
humankind can only begin to understand as an abstraction. Time/Space has
no serious relationship to human perception. It is abstract, mathematic.

From: Michael Gordge on 18 Jul 2010 18:38

On Jul 19, 7:02 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> You people know that the majority of the newsgroups you're
> crossposting to are 'sci' groups

'sci'fiction, you mean.

> and this sloppy touchy-feely
> alt.philosophy shite just doesn't get it, don't you?

Science is philosophy dependent and not the other way round.

MG

From: Immortalist on 18 Jul 2010 18:53

On Jul 14, 2:48 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 11:53 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 2:01 am, 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.
>
> > Is that a human theory, that matter exists necessarily or that
> > something being necessary makes it an irrefutable fact?
>
> Does that question make any sense to you?
>

Yes, theoretically though it cannot be determined either true or false
with certainty, a lot of good evidence points to the conclusion that
matter exists. The problem is that the representational modal of
reality which you and I are debating about, is not the reality.

The real question is how you have such faith that the theory of
necessity is absolutely true and you conclude that something must
exist, simply based upon this faith in basic logical representations
of theoretical events in the world. Think man, your not getting of
easy.

> MG

From: OwlHoot on 18 Jul 2010 20:10

On Jul 14, 4:18 pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:

> On Jul 14, 10:15 am, OwlHoot <ravensd...(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > If one works on that assumption (and I fully concede it may be kooky)
> > then broadly speaking studying particle physics amounts to eludating
> > the conditions and symmetries under which particles don't or somehow
> > can't, or are least likely to, or are slowest to, go back and "murder
> > their ancestors".
>
> The existence we lead seems to be more stable than your construction
> allows. To me this is a part of the fundamental puzzle that we should
> try to address.
>
> [...]

I'm sure you're right. I really just threw the idea up in
the air, with little conviction, to see what people might
make of it.

> I have some heavier posts that are not in sci.math or
> sci.space.history groups of this thread you might like
> to read; they are in alt.philosophy and sci.physics and
> sci.logic.

I'll try and check them out, but as I'm sure you're aware
the search function of Google Groups is completely broken.
So results are patchy to say the least.

(I must have made thousands of maths & physics usenet
posts over the last 20 years; but only a handful show up
on Google Groups, although for some of the missing ones
that's no bad thing ;-)

Actually, I prepared a longer reply, but this has now
reached epic lengths and I think would be better placed
on a blog I have just started. So I am currently working
on that and, FWIW, will post a link when ready.

Cheers

John R Ramsden