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: Sam Wormley on 8 Jul 2010 19:26

On 7/8/10 3:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
> On Jul 7, 7:40 pm, Immortalist<reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
>
> Guess who said this:
>
> "It will be helpful to distinguish space and time into absolute and
> relative. Relative space and time are measurements."
>
> That's Newton in the Principia. Einstein did quite a bit to reinforce
> that notion.
>
> Of course, that's also more or less Plato, Buddha, and the first words
> of the Tao and the Bible.
>
> Make of that what you will.
>

Scientific idea live with the support of empirical data.

From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jul 2010 19:31

On 7/8/10 6:26 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 7/8/10 3:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 7:40 pm, Immortalist<reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> What sort of things are they if they are things?
>>
>>
>> Guess who said this:
>>
>> "It will be helpful to distinguish space and time into absolute and
>> relative. Relative space and time are measurements."
>>
>> That's Newton in the Principia. Einstein did quite a bit to reinforce
>> that notion.
>>
>> Of course, that's also more or less Plato, Buddha, and the first words
>> of the Tao and the Bible.
>>
>> Make of that what you will.
>>
>
> Scientific idea live with the support of empirical data.

Perhaps a better statement: Scientific idea live that fit
current observations, are not contradicted by an observation
and make fruitful predictions.

From: spudnik on 8 Jul 2010 19:33

"Time is not a dimension; or, it's the only dimension,
whereby we preciece any others." now, Bucky saith,
and that is a commonsensical thing, compared
to Minkowski's ridiculous slogan about a mere phase-space,
then, he died.

thus&so:
are they still using the passive albedo & evapotranspiration,
ignoring the burning of "fossilized fuels" and nuclear power?

there is a longstanding anomaly, not described by any model
or GCM, that the nights & winters are warmer
than the days & summers; so, do the math!

thus&so:
arctic ice isn't stable; it's all floating, won't change sea-level
if it should melt. (we must take into acount *all* human actions,
where possible, not just mere emmssions from Al Gore's footprints .-)

here's another thing that I've never seen considered about it,
when I read of Buzz Aldrin and company's picnic at the N.Pole:
750K-horsepower Soviet ice-breaker to get there. now,
get the schedule for that turkey & do the math of angular momentum!

thus&so:
the elephant in the water is Waxman's '91 bill on SO2 and NOX,
which supposedly was very effective, and it is cap&trade. so,
why does the Wall St. J. call his current bill, that's passed,
"cap&tax" -- did they refer to Kyoto as cap&tax, also, then?

while sequestration probably will not work,
there is one way of making fuel out of CO2 from coalplants,
combining it with methane to make methyl alcohol,
developed by a Nobelist, and used commercially for busses
in Europe and Asia, already, along with a further transformation
into another fuel.

thus&so:
Waxman's '91 bill on NOX and SO2 was cap™
Kyoto was cap&trade & Dubya "ought" to have signed it,
by his lights as an MBA;
Kerry-Lieberman's and Waxman's passed bill are nothing,
but "freer trade," cap&trade.

so, why can't we just have a simple, small carbon tax?... well,
it'd be a lot like a VAT, it'd be so all-encompassing,
which Waxman doesn't seem to realize, and is certainly
being played-down by the "yeah" and "neigh" sides
of this political debate; eh?

thus&so:
Oilgate is, Californians the #1 consumers of Gulf and Alaska,
with Beyond Phossilized Phuels the largest producer --
I think, unless Shell is, in Alaska (but, it's half British).
sure, partly because we have the biggest population, but ...

thus&so:
it easily could have been leaked on purpose, because
the "mainstream" is so hegemonic with their rough-edged GCMs,
which simply cannot predict weather with any great fidelity,
for any length of time & given approximation
to "initializing conditions."
the funding for the old "cooling" paradigm
of the last two million years (Quaternary preiod),
went out the door to "warming," with a mid-'70s meeting
of the NSF, at which Oliver "Buck" Revelle laid-out the matter
-- he, later to be an unindicted co-conspirator
of George HW Bush in Iran-contra! (of course,
HW was also not indicted, just like for Watergate;
see http://tarpley.net).

thus&so: took just one of your exempli gratia; let's dyscuss it!
> >>Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
> >>I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three
> >>explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and
> >>tower two started to come down.

thus&so:
to prove that the redshift was due to velocity,
would be some thing. similarly, to prove that
half of the stars in the visible universe were not antimatter,
would be nothing ... if you could do it!

thus&so:
so, you believe in the corpuscle, discredited by Young (well,
it was never a theory *per se*, from mister Fig "hypothesis non fingo"
Knewtonne; that is, he asserted that light goes faster
in denser media, which was already (I believe) out of whack
with Snell's law of refraction, proven by Fermat).
of course, the most important milestone, aside
from Roemer's proof of the non-instanteity of light
(waves, he didn't know), was the elucidation of the "path
of least-time" by Leibniz and Bernoulli -- although,
that is just "ray-tracing," which is often interpreted
to be the path of a rock o'light!

--my broker says to call your broker about cap&trade, and
I'll tell you what happens.
http://wlym.com

From: Michael Helland on 9 Jul 2010 05:56

On Jul 8, 4:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/8/10 6:26 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 7/8/10 3:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote:
> >> On Jul 7, 7:40 pm, Immortalist<reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> >> Guess who said this:
>
> >> "It will be helpful to distinguish space and time into absolute and
> >> relative. Relative space and time are measurements."
>
> >> That's Newton in the Principia. Einstein did quite a bit to reinforce
> >> that notion.
>
> >> Of course, that's also more or less Plato, Buddha, and the first words
> >> of the Tao and the Bible.
>
> >> Make of that what you will.
>
> > Scientific idea live with the support of empirical data.
>
> Perhaps a better statement: Scientific idea live that fit
> current observations, are not contradicted by an observation
> and make fruitful predictions.

I couldn't agree more.

From: Errol on 9 Jul 2010 06:06

On Jul 8, 7:00 am, Michael C <michaelcochr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 10:40 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> > One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional
> > in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; that is to
> > say that they consist of continuous manifolds, positions in which can
> > be occupied by substances and events respectively, and which have an
> > existence in their own right.
>
> > It is in virtue of the occupancy of such positions that events and
> > processes are to be seen as taking place after each other and
> > substances are to be seen in certain spatial relations.
>
> > Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the
> > objects and events that they contain?
>
> > Did Einstein show, through his theory of relativity, that since space
> > and time can change in shape and duration that space and time are more
> > complex than just sustained perceptual constants?
>
> > Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/
>
> Immortalist,
>
> I think a moment in time is a certain configuration of the
> universe. Now, it's not enough to just know where the atoms in the
> universe are located in that "moment in time". You'd have to include
> things like momentum and the directions they are "currently" moving.
> Now, does this definition still allow time to be the fourth
> dimension? Well, if a moment in time is a configuration of the
> universe, then it seems that knowing what moment in time the universe
> is currently at would be enough to describe everything, length, width
> and height and then some of all the objects in it. Is time an all
> inclusive dimension - does dimension simply mean piece of information
> about an object? If you know what time it is, would you know the
> length, width, height and locatons (and anything else) of all the
> universe's objects?
>
> Michael C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think that each configuration of the universe along the space-time
continuum is an act of observation by the universe of itself (whether
by human observation or interactions of particles). This particle
interaction helps explain the explicable state of twinned particles at
a distance as well. Eternity might separate observations, but it is
unnoticed by sentient consciousnesses such as humans.