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: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:46 On Jul 9, 6:06 am, Errol <vs.er...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. But for you to notice that it goes unnoticed, isn't that a paradox? Unless you're not human that is...
From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:50 On Jul 8, 4:42 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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'. In four dimemsions. When is 1 = 4? A family? When the things on each side of the equation aren't of the same type. Sometimes philosophies that fit in a nutshell, belong there.
From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:51 On Jul 11, 7:08 pm, Wordsmith <wordsm...(a)rocketmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 2:42 am, Giga2 <justho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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'.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > As an organic totality, yes, but scientists and > philosophers love to pick 'em apart. > > W : ) Please define "organic totality".
From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:53 On Jul 8, 7:31 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. Something about experiments and testing need to be added to that.
From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:56
On Jul 9, 8:36 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Jul 9, 12:51 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > >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. > > > Hogwash. > > How much were ewe paid to say that? > > MG I rarely agree with Fred McCall, but this time I do. Space is not matter and time is not man made. Tools to measure time are man made. What do you call what exists between matter in space? More matter?!? |