What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: Arindam Banerjee on 20 Jul 2010 22:50 On Jul 8, 12:40 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > What sort of things are they if they are things? Space and time are measures of things, not things. > One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional > in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; One-dimensional time in a single given spatial reference. > 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. And measures given by time and space and also mass. > 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. True, in a given spatial frame of reference. > Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the > objects and events that they contain? Had there been no objects, the concept of space would not arise. Had there been no events, the concept of time would not arise. > 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? Einstein was the most brillantly wrong analyst in the entire field of science, and the sooner the world realises this fully, the better. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/
From: jmfbahciv on 21 Jul 2010 08:54 [spit a newsgroup] Huang wrote: <snip > > Starting with some preliminaries: > > If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont > really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should > be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking > there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. You don't have any idea what mathematics is. >Futher, I dont > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out. This is just your high-falutin excuse to not do any work. All endeavors require a starting point, including pissing in the toilet and eating your breakfast. You still have not defined mass using only space and time nor shown how to measure it with a ruler. <snip> /BAH
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 21 Jul 2010 09:44 On Jul 20, 1:03 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 9:07 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 10:40 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 7:38 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 18, 5:05 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > > > > In article > > > > > <7d088226-4fba-40b8-9336-70e962292...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Huang <huangxienc...(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 > > > I'd like to query this one. I understand that all theoretical > > construction will require some level of grants in the form of axioms, > > and that the least quantity of axioms is generally preferable. Here I > > interpret your [6] as a Planck axiom, so I ask you for its > > description. > > > I find lattice constructions unacceptable, for they will not yield the > > rotational stability that we observe; at least not the ones that I've > > tried to understand. This makes the discrete space attempts fall flat > > on their face, just as they try to get off the ground. These fail to > > provide observational correspondence. > > > - Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > [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. > > > > > That is what Kant said almost verbatim. > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > That's nonsense that even Kant would laugh at. If space is just > > > > abstract then the whole universe is just one big fantasy in someone's > > > > head ?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Very surprised that you didnt press me to validate even a single claim > > > among the many I have made above. You are all really lousy scientists, > > > and probably havent been laid in years.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Starting with some preliminaries: > > If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont > really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should > be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking > there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. Futher, I dont > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out. > > So, to justify [6] above I would proceed as follows: > > Physical length may be modelled as a conglomerate of existent segments > and nonexistent segments. I am still processing your thoughts and do take interest in this construction. Still, I think that your choice of words here is poor. You have just brought nonexistent segments into existence, and so are providing a self contradictory basis. I suggest simply choosing another term other than 'existence', for within the approach of building a basis we are providing fundamentally existent qualities. That there would be two such qualities is believable, but not that one of those qualities would be existence and that the other would be nonexistence. The quantity of things which are nonexistent within the basis of your own theory is quite large and there is no need to add formally to these. - Tim > Planck length is the smallest unit of length > which can exist from the point of view of approaching physics with > standard mathematics. My claim is that this property can also be > understood using conjectural methods (in place of mathematics) and is > a consequence of mixing the existent and the nonexistent length > segments. At this point I will remind readers that I do not believe > that this is the only correct view, but that there are several > approaches which are correct and would be equivalent in the sense of > Einstein's Equivalence Principle. > > Suppose you have a segment which is existent and write it as > [eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee] > > and you also have a nonexistent segment and you write it as > [nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn] > > If you combine these segments into a kind of conglomerate you can have > uncountably many different configurations which are all equivalent. > Some examples of would include an infinite number of different > discrete partiions, and also an infinite number of continuous > distributions which is modellable as a collection of gradients. I wont > include a graphic for that, you'll have to visualize it. > > My claim is that there is a ratio of existent/nonexistent where > nonexistence is more (a) "probable" than existence, and that is why we > have Planck Length. For some proportional combinations existence is > expected, and for others nonexistence would be expected. Planck Length > represents a ratio of 50:50 potential for existence, any proportion > less than this and nonexistence becomes the expected outcome if one > were to attempt to make an observation. > > This approach is conjectural, but should have a mathematical > couterpart which is based on existential dichotomy. Both approaches > are equivalent IMO. The problem is that no-one has thought of the > mathematical explanation yet because it is philosophically > intractible. > > So, when we mix the existent with the nonexistent we obtain a > conglomerate, and Planck Length is a limit on the extent to which > space may be bent by performing such operations. If it were not for > this limitation we would be able to bend space in ways which nature > will not allow. This is similar to the speed of light being the cosmic > speed limit. I do not have a more formal derivation at this time but > believe that it may be easier to model this using conjecture than > mathematics, and then convert the whole thing back into a mathematical > argument. I should probably study some more QM and try to make some > more formal derivations, but it does seem that gravity would be a > pretty good place to start. > > (a) I used the word "probable" for illustrative purposes only. Formal > probability theory technically cannot be used to make conjectures > because PT is orthodox mathematics. Instead, existential potential > must be used in place of probability theory. But to make the > explanation as clear as possible I sometimes use the word "probable" > as a means of conveying the broader idea.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 21 Jul 2010 09:56 On Jul 16, 10:07 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.net> wrote: > In article > <60daa7bc-b684-4ed6-a0b5-6e0439abe...(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, > "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 15, 9:34 am, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > > > Indeed, polysign is beautiful and heartening, but we disagree upon the > > > introduction of directionality _at this point_ of the discussion/view. > > > Can we be certain that entropy is not reversible in special cases? Are > > > special cases perhaps key to a breakthrough in our maths and > > > understanding? > > > > I enjoy your posts. Thanks for being here. > > > Within polysign there is room for accumulation within any of the > > domains. > > I'm not a firm believer in entropy from a thermodynamic point of view > > because I am not a believer in the thermodynamic interpretation as > > vibrating atoms. But you use an informational paradigm. I am all for > > the informational approach, but accept that the situation is > > ultimately noncomputable, since the quantity of information is so > > large. > > Consider that the information is the computation in progress. IOW, time > is the information changing, evidence of universe computation. This is > the means to avoid the problem of requiring an external computer which > would require every bit of the universe to crunch all the data of the > universe - an impossible task, as you suggest. > > > > > For instance, if we were to measure the gravitational pull at your > > position and find that it alters when I jump a foot over here then we > > would be consistent with theory. I admit that this figure is a very > > small dither, but informationally speaking the law of gravitation of > > the earth is built as an accumulation of its parts, and this > > accumulation is an act of summation within the integral. This is > > likewise true of all of matter, and even going relativistic on > > Newtonian gravity will not change this. > > I am suggesting that no such measure needs to be made. Gravity is > coupled to entropy. Time is coupled to entropy. Look to another means to > affirm the relationship - mathematics, cellular automata, statistics. > > > Somehow we have to admit that much of our attempts at physics require > > washing out the small perturbations, and it works well. They do wash > > out, but we have no hope of computing them either. Is this tied into > > the informational approach? I think so, somehow, but I haven't stated > > it very clearly. Still, to answer your question I suppose that > > accumulation is fundamental, which is to say that superposition is > > fundamental, and that its inverse is not necessary within the > > fundamentals since it can be defined in terms of superposition, just > > as subtraction is not a fundamental activity since we can declare it > > based upon a reversal of addition: > > 2 + 1 = 3 . (P2) > > Excellent! > > > We do see structures forming within the accumulation, so the > > interpretation that all must go into a blender and come out less > > structured is observably false. This may physically have something to > > do with cooling, so the thermodynamics does seem to be nearby, but I > > don't accept the modern form as final. We operate in a region of space > > that is at a triple point, colloidally speaking. We breath gas, our > > bones are solid, and our blood is liquid. There are other regions of > > space where this is not possible, and we would be inanimate due to > > being frozen solid, or completely gaseous to the point of the disorder > > that seems so close by to your focus. When solids form there are > > structured results. Sometimes pure crystals do form. Isn't the sole > > instance of a diamond formation evidence enough against entropy? Or do > > I have to treat this like the man jumping a foot off the ground? > > :) I think that intelligence can be gaseous, light-years wide, > completely different than skin and bones. Hmmm... Yes, I've considered this too, especially in those regions of space with rich gas. It is easy to ponder within those beautiful photographs. Anyhow, the thermal processes there may be important, and if something special condenses for a moment or two, well, in an energy rich environment the processes will be quite energetic. Still, I think the life within the gas low gravity environment could be flying about through the gas, taking a semi solid form with great freedom. This would again be at a weird sort of triple point, where exchanges take place and the same thing as crystal formation can happen. There can only be so much chaos in those places, especially at a small scale. Geeze, is that a paradigm? The quantity of chaos is limited by its volume. In other words if your throw enough small eddies into a fluid they will quell each other. Yeah. - Tim > > Diamonds and crystals are fodder for cellular automata simulations. Love > the idea.
From: Huang on 21 Jul 2010 14:14
On Jul 21, 7:54 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote: > [spit a newsgroup] > > Huang wrote: > > <snip > > > > > Starting with some preliminaries: > > > If one adopts the view of existential indeterminacy then you dont > > really have axioms which form the basis of mathematics. There should > > be a conjectural equivalent of every axiom, but strictly speaking > > there are no true axioms in the sense of mathematics. > > You don't have any idea what mathematics is. And you have no idea what an axiom is. I have never seen an axiom which ever said anything about quantities or objects or solutions which "may or mat not exist". Show me one such counterexample and then I will be forced to agree, otherwise I will assume that you'll be eating your words because to assume otherwise is really absurd. If you start from the point of view that things "may or may not exist with existential potential say p" then you are going to have one very difficult time creating an axiom based on that because of course it is quite impossible. I dont have any ideas what math is - indeed. lol > >Futher, I dont > > want to fall back on axioms or their equivalent because that could be > > seen as a kind of philosophical cop-out. > > This is just your high-falutin excuse to not do any work. All > endeavors require a starting point, including pissing in the toilet > and eating your breakfast. > > You still have not defined mass using only space and time nor > shown how to measure it with a ruler. > > <snip> > > /BAH I dont give an F an out defining mass with a damn ruler - the man said he wanted an explanation of PlanckLength from my point of view and that's what I provided. |