What are space and time?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 400.5: Why is P(B) or P(AB) = 2P(A) - 1 Optimal Rather than nP(A) - 1, n > 2?
Next: Quantum Gravity 400.6: Mechanical Advantage in Terms of Force, Distances, Probabilities
From: Mark Earnest on 8 Jul 2010 01:43 On Jul 7, 9:40 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/ Space is the Final Frontier, and Time is the ticking of a clock. Easy enough?
From: Giga2 on 8 Jul 2010 04:42 On 8 July, 03:40, 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/ I think one fundamental aspect of Einstein's idea of spacetime is that it is a single 'thing'.
From: Michael Helland on 8 Jul 2010 04:46 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.
From: Michael Helland on 8 Jul 2010 04:49 On Jul 7, 10:43 pm, Mark Earnest <gmearn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 9:40 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/ > > Space is the Final Frontier, > > and Time is the ticking of a clock. Newton said that relative time is the ticking of the clock. And relative space is the reading of a ruler. For some reason (possibly the writing of Einstein) the definition of time is easily recited but the proper analogy to space is a bit of head scratcher.
From: Michael Gordge on 8 Jul 2010 05:01
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. MG |