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: Huang on 18 Jul 2010 20:38 On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(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. That is what Kant said almost verbatim. > 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.- Hide quoted text - That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's head ?
From: Huang on 18 Jul 2010 22:40 On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > > In article > > <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > Huang <huangxienc...(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. > > That is what Kant said almost verbatim. > > > 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..- Hide quoted text - > > That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just > abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's > head ?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists, and probably havent been laid in years.
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Jul 2010 23:24 On 7/18/10 7:50 AM, Huang wrote: > Time and length are the same thing. They are just dimensions. You are quite wrong. Look up the differences between space-like dimensions and time-like dimensions.
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Jul 2010 23:25 On 7/18/10 8:48 AM, Huang wrote: > 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. > I'm not surprised.
From: Michael Gordge on 19 Jul 2010 05:26
On Jul 19, 7:53 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Yes, But you are uncertain that it did make any sense to you? MG |