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: JT on 19 Jul 2010 06:32

On 18 Juli, 23:31, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> 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

No a nonevariant unit means it is possible to quantify the unit just
like ****MASS****.
There is no observers the mass is what it is.

JT

From: jmfbahciv on 19 Jul 2010 08:11

Huang wrote:
> On Jul 18, 5:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/18/10 5:22 AM, JT wrote:
>>
>> > No Sam time is 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.
>
>
> Time and length are the same thing. They are just dimensions. Our
> perception is that time is somehow different but it is not. They are
> the same thing.
>
> We can model these dimensions as existing with certainty = 1, or we
> can model them as if they were existentially indeterminate. These two
> approaches are equivalent. Starting with this fundamental view you can
> derive many things.
> [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
>
> So pick a topic and I'll explain why I'm right, unless you lack the
> balls to hold my feet to the fire.
>
How do you define mass? How do you measure it with a ruler?

/BAH

From: jmfbahciv on 19 Jul 2010 08:11

John Stafford wrote:
> In article
> <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad26245a2(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Huang <huangxienchen(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 Jackson Pollock paints pictures,
>> here's a clue: Jello dont stick to the wall.
>
> You are sooooo superior. And you will be obsolete without knowing it.

That's what happens when people don't do experiments. Huang,
obviously, never did a simple Physics 101 lab.

/BAH

From: Michael Gordge on 19 Jul 2010 17:22

On Jul 19, 7:32 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 Juli, 23:31, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> >Timeand length are totally different and both are totally seperate
> > concepts which man uses to help solve the problems of his survival,
> > they (timeand 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
>
> No a nonevariant unit means it is possible to quantify the unit just
> like ****MASS****.
> There is no observers the mass is what it is.
>
> JT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That Kantian garbage does not excuse you from refusing to give space
and time there very own seperate unique identity, they do not equate
to each other.

MG

From: Michael Gordge on 19 Jul 2010 17:30

On Jul 19, 11:40 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim
> among the many I have made above.

Time exists in the universe the universe does not exist in time, space
and time do not share an identity.

MG