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: Edward Green on 10 Aug 2010 20:29 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? Not in my way of looking at things. Space and time are abstractions of the observed regularity of events. What are the legal precedents for surveying after an earthquake? (That question isn't necessarily intended to be deeply related to what came before, but is an interesting question about "space".) > 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? I don't know what that means. > Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/
From: Edward Green on 10 Aug 2010 20:32 On Jul 7, 11:23 pm, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:40:44 -0700 (PDT), 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. Hamlyn > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/ > > There are probably 'higher' dimensional aspects to the situation. > Whatever that means? The place is quite mysterious, and 'we' > are quite 'stuck' 'herein'. Other than that 'we' have 'our' model > stories, perhaps that's all 'we' can handle. What is anything in > 'itself'? More mystery. > > BTW, I resent the shallow understanding > with which 'we' seem to be stuck. > > In the meanwhile, 'higher' > dimensional measurements and considerations are very interesting. > Even negative results, such as the 'recent' studies of gravity over > millimeter distances. Some of the 'space' studies are 'higher' > dimension oriented. String theory, though surprisingly productive, Not according to Peter Woit. As for your quotation mark habit, consult Strunk and White, and you may be broken of it. > remains very non intuitive.
From: Edward Green on 10 Aug 2010 20:34 On Jul 8, 5:01 am, 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. Stuff happens whether or not man makes it, or not.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 11 Aug 2010 03:29
On Aug 11, 10:29 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.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? > > Not in my way of looking at things. Space and time are abstractions of > the observed regularity of events. > > What are the legal precedents for surveying after an earthquake? According to Mr Malcolm Fabian of Mount Barker, South Australia, the pyramids in Egypt had a practical purpose. After the flood on the Nile, the boundaries between properties would need to be marked again. So the stable pyramids were the reference, and the referencing data was presumably a legal matter. Then again, the stability of the pyramids led to more correct observations of the stars, and their positional frequencies fixed time periods, useful for planting and religious ceremonies. In other words, in a changing surface, we need some absolute points, like pyramids and stars, plus supportive logic and data, to come to standards relating to time and space. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee |