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: John Stafford on 9 Jul 2010 07:17 In article <28fd67e0-84b3-4a72-a7ea-c3609fd6437f(a)c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Errol <vs.errol(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Excellent. And human consciousness is the universe is experiencing its creation through one of its created.
From: Michael Gordge on 9 Jul 2010 08:36 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
From: Errol on 9 Jul 2010 09:04 On Jul 9, 2:36 pm, 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 And the tax he paid on that gratuity is all being spent by guvvmint MIB holding a gun to his head while they concoct Global warming conspiracies, I suppose?
From: jmfbahciv on 9 Jul 2010 09:39 [spit a newsgroup] Michael Gordge 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? > You still have no ability to learn. Space and time are the things you use to avoid getting hit by a semi truck. /BAH
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 9 Jul 2010 10:50
Michael C 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 Nice perspective Michael. I work on an alternative theory built around polysign numbers: http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned which do provide arithmetic support for spacetime, with unidirectional time. What I like about your perspective is that the configuration should be a fundamental perspective. In that it claims to isolate time and space, then what should we make of including an objects velocity within the configuration? If it was to be fundamental, then it should not have values containing references to itself. Here is an opening that could prove to be useful. Most of physics makes use of position, first derivative, and second derivative. Why stop there? Space and time comprise four dimensions in modern theory. Well, I can falsify that. More important is the progression itself, and if there were an overlap with the calculus that makes modern physics tick then all the better. Why? Because polysign are capable of providing that breakpoint, which is most clearly exposed via product behavior. Still, the idea that the higher dimensions (and higher derivatives) could still play a part is present. This is nearby to conservation theory and the law that is in play is very much about conservation of distance, and breaking with that conservation principle under some operation; the arithmetic product. Weyl titled one of his books Space-Time-Matter though he never did open up to a new possible philosophy at this level of unification. Instead he built support for relativity theory by building up dizzying accounts of the math, and attempting to cripple criticism of relativity, which we may come back to see as a weak perspective, for the hope of a new opening is going to be via careful criticism of the existing theories. Relativity is actually a first instance of a structured spacetime. The metric itself exposes this, all the while claiming to fit the tensor structure. Well, this is a lie. The isotropic stance must take in time on the same footing as space if the tensor is to hold. This is not the case, therefor the math is not actually tensor math. It is a pseudotensor form. What we should take as truth is that spacetime is structured. The polysign progression I believe is the next form that humans will work with. It even provides room within the progression for 10D (plus 0D time) at T5 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 out a few places beyond the T3 spacetime support P1 P2 P3 . Though I have not found a natural breakpoint at T5 in terms of arithmetic behavior, the T3 breakpoint is loud and clear. This approach may be quite a grandiose shuffle, yet there are numerous overlaps with existing theory, including electromagnetic behavior within spacetime itself. The antisymmetric tensor happens to share the same format as the polysign progression, though the new form has the redundancy removed, and has added structure to the geometry itself, which is as it should be if electromagnetic behaviors are truly built into spacetime itself. The polysign numbers provide a new construction of the real number, and much more, for within the same rule set we can have unidirectional zero dimensional time, the complex numbers, and the higher dimensional forms as well, all algebraically well behaved. If we have gotten the real number wrong then what else could we have misconstrued along the way? The human mind, no matter how strong, is caught within the mimicry effect that allows the propagation of information, and so to break free and find a better answer is challenging for us. I have only half of an answer, but it is quite a pretty half. I hope someone else can fill in the rest, but I still try myself. - Tim |