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: Wordsmith on 11 Jul 2010 19:06 On Jul 7, 8:40 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/ Sounds like, to Einstein, space and time are made of rubber. W : )
From: Wordsmith on 11 Jul 2010 19:08 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 : )
From: Wordsmith on 11 Jul 2010 19:10 On Jul 8, 10:29 am, Pat Flannery <flan...(a)daktel.com> wrote: > On 7/8/2010 3:48 AM, bert wrote: > > > Sam Einstein has "time" more important than space. He gave it a > > dimension. > > A dimension of sight and sound? > Where you are the last man on Earth, and you've broken your glasses? ;-) > > Pat Go see Spinoza. He'll grind you some new lenses cheap! W ; )
From: spudnik on 11 Jul 2010 22:40 if you let time be a spatial dimension, the morons win ... if you can't convert it, back. > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is > -- Heinrich Heine thus&so; very funny, mister President -- and, I read a book like that! > > travel agent and say "get me door-to-door to the Library of Congress". thus&so: well, what did he do, when he got to n=67? (sumorial ?-) > Fermat proved all successes of the exponent 2 are non-successes for exp.4.. I would speculate that Fermat squared the square of the Pythagorean sides to get the fourth power he used in his proof, and that he used fractions in his own explorations. The ancients, I have read, used fractions. Number theory also simplifies overwhelming information. thus&so: so, how about for base-3? -- not "sumorial," if that's not a pun. > "Generalization to digits beyond the first". --les ducs d'oil! http://wlym.com
From: Michael Gordge on 11 Jul 2010 23:50
On Jul 11, 4:54 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > There are many that are smart, and many that are not. So are your smart enough to answer -- What is it about time that you and "mainline science" do not understand? > There are fewer that are very smart and only a very few > that are exceptionally smart - So are you exceptionally smart enough to explain what it is about time that you and "mainline science" do not understand? > Then there are those that are so dumb that they > think they are smart - So do you think you are smart enough to explain what it about time that you claim "mainline science" doesn't understand? MG |