What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: jmfbahciv on 19 Jul 2010 08:11 John Stafford wrote: > In article > <82f51801-6ce2-41d7-a3a1-f42ad26245a2(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > Huang <huangxienchen(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. That's what happens when people don't do experiments. Huang, obviously, never did a simple Physics 101 lab. /BAH
From: Michael Gordge on 19 Jul 2010 17:22 On Jul 19, 7:32 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 18 Juli, 23:31, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > >Timeand length are totally different and both are totally seperate > > concepts which man uses to help solve the problems of his survival, > > they (timeand 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 > > No a nonevariant unit means it is possible to quantify the unit just > like ****MASS****. > There is no observers the mass is what it is. > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - That Kantian garbage does not excuse you from refusing to give space and time there very own seperate unique identity, they do not equate to each other. MG
From: Michael Gordge on 19 Jul 2010 17:30 On Jul 19, 11:40 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim > among the many I have made above. Time exists in the universe the universe does not exist in time, space and time do not share an identity. MG
From: Huang on 19 Jul 2010 17:57 On Jul 19, 7:11 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote: > Huang wrote: > > On Jul 18, 5:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/18/10 5:22 AM, JT wrote: > > >> > No Sam time is 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. > > > Time and length are the same thing. They are just dimensions. Our > > perception is that time is somehow different but it is not. They are > > the same thing. > > > We can model these dimensions as existing with certainty = 1, or we > > can model them as if they were existentially indeterminate. These two > > approaches are equivalent. Starting with this fundamental view you can > > derive many things. > > [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 > > > So pick a topic and I'll explain why I'm right, unless you lack the > > balls to hold my feet to the fire. > > How do you define mass? How do you measure it with a ruler? > > /BAH- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The same way that Einstein did in GR. Mass is a measure of gravitational attraction which is caused by the bending of space, i.e. the bending of dimensions of time and length. I would define mass in terms of probability distributions, unlike GR which uses Lorentz Transform. Defining mass using probability distributions makes GR compatible with QM - a completely accidental consequence but not really an unpleasant surprise - so merry early Christmas that's your present. You measure mass by the distortion of rulers.
From: Huang on 19 Jul 2010 21:23
On Jul 19, 4:57 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 19, 7:11 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Huang wrote: > > > On Jul 18, 5:54 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 7/18/10 5:22 AM, JT wrote: > > > >> > No Sam time is 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. > > > > Time and length are the same thing. They are just dimensions. Our > > > perception is that time is somehow different but it is not. They are > > > the same thing. > > > > We can model these dimensions as existing with certainty = 1, or we > > > can model them as if they were existentially indeterminate. These two > > > approaches are equivalent. Starting with this fundamental view you can > > > derive many things. > > > [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 > > > > So pick a topic and I'll explain why I'm right, unless you lack the > > > balls to hold my feet to the fire. > > > How do you define mass? How do you measure it with a ruler? > > > /BAH- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > The same way that Einstein did in GR. Mass is a measure of > gravitational attraction which is caused by the bending of space, i.e. > the bending of dimensions of time and length. > > I would define mass in terms of probability distributions, unlike GR > which uses Lorentz Transform. Defining mass using probability > distributions makes GR compatible with QM - a completely accidental > consequence but not really an unpleasant surprise - so merry early > Christmas that's your present. > > You measure mass by the distortion of rulers.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I do believe that I just said that mass should be modellable using probability distributions, making GR compatible with QM. Not seeing any comments. Schrodingers cat got ya tongue ? |