What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: Huang on 18 Jul 2010 11:07 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 Jackson Pollock paints 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.
From: John Stafford on 18 Jul 2010 12:05 In article <28e13431-8e49-4b89-bef7-d7a5af5edefc(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Huang <huangxienchen(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 Jackson Pollock paints 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.
From: Huang on 18 Jul 2010 12:17 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 Jackson Pollock paints 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.
From: Michael Gordge on 18 Jul 2010 17:31 On Jul 18, 9:50 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 18, 5:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 7/18/10 5:22 AM, JT wrote: > > > > No Samtimeis the ***universal rate*** that a pulsar flickers with > > > using a ***nonevariant unit***. Units are nonevariant according to > > > your Dear SR theory clocks around the equatorial band would be slower > > > then clocks at the fixed poles and it simply do not happen. > > > Not true with satellite clocks such as those used in GPS. > > Timeand length are the same thing. One second, one hour, one day, one inch, ten feet and twelve miles are all the same things? you really do need to check your premises. Time and length are totally different and both are totally seperate concepts which man uses to help solve the problems of his survival, they (time and length) each have their very own unique and seperate identities, they are NOT the same thing, where on earth are you getting this garbage from? MG MG
From: John Stafford on 18 Jul 2010 18:05
In article <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292d93(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Huang <huangxienchen(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. 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. |