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: John Stafford on 24 Jul 2010 10:18

In article
<f1aa9214-a7ca-4553-a7fb-db1c437b172e(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttpppggg(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 21, 11:29 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote:

> >
> > There is a strange outlier in crystal formation. Perhaps it is best to
> > call it a quasi-crystalline structure that has a tiling pattern that
> > cannot possibly be built in the traditional atom-to-atom, linear manner
> > (symmetric translation). See the work of Dany Shechtman, 1984.
> >
> > The point illustrated by this quasi-crystal is that in order to form its
> > five-fold symmetry, all the atoms in the solution would have to
> > simultaneously organize. It's a non-local action. Spooky stuff, as the
> > man said.
>
> I found a SIAM article covering Shechtman's discovery. Pretty neat.
> I've got a copy of Kittel's solid state physics which specifically
> rules out the 5-fold symmetry. I do have a hard time with the Bravais
> breakdown because it seems so cartesian based. I do have an
> alternative lattice style in polysign:
> http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/Lattice/Lattice.html .
>
> How much of a space can we actually have? Some work that I've done
> exposes that we can have more or less than tradition will allow:
> http://bandtechnology.com/ConicalStudy/conic.html
> Perhaps there is a way around the simultaneous organization
> requirement here.
>
> I've never fully followed the crystallographic X-ray patterning, which
> is supposed to be the boon of analysis, even under the Shechtman
> discovery, but am happy to consider that there could be some
> electromagnetics in diffraction that is being overlooked too
> conveniently. We don't see any photograph of the aluminum and
> manganese alloy, which I suppose does not look very impressive. Should
> there be some attempt to grow one of these and see if there is some
> growth pattern? I couldn't find any photos of the material, or even a
> name for it. Didn't work too hard at it though.
>
> - Tim

I found a photo in Roger Penrose's _ Emperor's New Mind_, page 564 in
our library copy. It is early, and different from the later
representations. If you surf for "penrose aluminum-manganese alloy"
(sans quotes), you should come up with some good information.

I struggle to follow Penrose, but that's my shortcoming. He's a very
good instructor and writer.

From: spudnik on 24 Jul 2010 15:28

ain't that the truth;
Minkowski's slogans about space & time are just
a commonplace of phase-space,
which can be graphed on paper as "1+1 dimensions;" but,
hey, we get fourier analysis to look at!

"measuerment taketh time" --Are Bucky Fullofit
"and so does travel" --me,myself&brian

> Nonpossible to visualize space without time and time without space.

thus:
think you'll find, in reports of Franklin's original experiment
-- even if he didn't actually do it --
that the set-up is a fail-safe to ground, like his lightening rod.

thus:
the voluntary market in carbon credits is huge in the USA,
mostly via the Chicago Board of Trade -- and the reform does
not do anything to control derivatives til much later.

thus:
haven't got to the "last sentence before the supplement," but
the first footnote shows the problem with Newton's "theory"
of emmission.
> You have this:http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
> Null in MMX is obvious. But in 1925 Michelson
> detected the Earth rotation. So the exact result of MMX is 0.5 km/s.

thus:
sorry, Gauss said, the Queen of sciences, which has
been supposed to imply that there was a King,
to be physical economy -- at least as important
as numbertheory (big chunk of _Cranks_).

thus:
I like Dudley's books, not particularly _Cranks_, but he misses the
boat
in the second paragraph, because he emphasizes mere arithmetic *and*
the subjects that are not quite *mathematica*, or *quadrivium*, and
this is the self-same problem of all primary or "elementary" ed. in
math,
a sort of glorification of Euclid's encyclopedia, addended to the
trivium (or,
the three Rs .-) http://www.ams.org/notices/201005/rtx100500608p.pdf

thus: maybe, if they stopped listening to alt.deism,
they'd start funding you, instead; either way,
definitely a New Age soundtrack a.k.a. Muzak TM.
> "Listening"?... http://en.wookiepoopya.org/wiki/Synesthesia

thus: Hawking's got a new set of fairy tales?... well,
he's a part of the Trinity on STreKtheNGeneratioN, so,
He can do that!

thus: Liebniz's *vis viva* is half of mvv;
compare to Galileo's linear ideal, but
don't try to disprove his relativity,
til you've gotten off of the boat!

--les ducs d'oil!
http://wlym.com

--BP's next bailout of Wall St. and "the City"
(of London, gated community & financial district), or
the last, if nothing is left of the USA.
http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/
http://tarpley.net/online-books/george-bush-the-unauthorized-biography/
http://tarpley.net/world-crisis-radio/

From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jul 2010 09:49

[spit a newsgroup]

Vladimir Kirov wrote:
>
>
>
> I consider that space - nonconstant ensemble.
> Term a space-time is error since space bound with time and time is
> part of space. Nonpossible to visualize the space without time and
> time without space.
>
> With respekt!
>
Oh, good grief. The term space-time implies a geometry which is
not Euclidean.

/BAH

From: jmfbahciv on 25 Jul 2010 09:49

[spit a newsgroup]

John Stafford wrote:

<snip>

> I found a photo in Roger Penrose's _ Emperor's New Mind_, page 564 in
> our library copy. It is early, and different from the later
> representations. If you surf for "penrose aluminum-manganese alloy"
> (sans quotes), you should come up with some good information.
>
> I struggle to follow Penrose, but that's my shortcoming. He's a very
> good instructor and writer.

I never made it through the third chapter of that book; it always
ended up being thrown against the wall. Some day I'll try to
read it again.

/BAH

From: Vladimir Kirov on 25 Jul 2010 10:11

jmfbahciv:

> wrote:
> The term space-time implies a geometry which is
> not Euclidean.
>
> /BAH

This well all known. But this nothing non changes.