What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:53 On Jul 8, 7:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/8/10 6:26 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: > > > > > > > On 7/8/10 3:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > >> On Jul 7, 7:40 pm, Immortalist<reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> What sort of things are they if they are things? > > >> Guess who said this: > > >> "It will be helpful to distinguish space and time into absolute and > >> relative. Relative space and time are measurements." > > >> That's Newton in the Principia. Einstein did quite a bit to reinforce > >> that notion. > > >> Of course, that's also more or less Plato, Buddha, and the first words > >> of the Tao and the Bible. > > >> Make of that what you will. > > > Scientific idea live with the support of empirical data. > > Perhaps a better statement: Scientific idea live that fit > current observations, are not contradicted by an observation > and make fruitful predictions. Something about experiments and testing need to be added to that.
From: Eric Chomko on 21 Jul 2010 14:56 On Jul 9, 8:36 am, 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 I rarely agree with Fred McCall, but this time I do. Space is not matter and time is not man made. Tools to measure time are man made. What do you call what exists between matter in space? More matter?!?
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Jul 2010 09:43 Huang wrote: > 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. Sigh! Not p. \ > > I dont have any ideas what math is - indeed. lol > No, you don't. You have no idea how it's built, how it's used, nor what it can't do. > >> >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. For you to make the declaration you did, then you must provide a method of defining mass with a ruler. Since you cannot, your premise that all existence can be described using only space and time is wrong. If you want to do science, you have to test your hypotheses; testing requires measurement and the ability to create an experiment which will falsify your hypothesis. You ain't doing science; you're just blowing gas. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 22 Jul 2010 09:43 John Stafford wrote: > In article <PM00048BE542696AEA(a)aca376f4.ipt.aol.com>, > jmfbahciv <See.above(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. > > Perhaps Huang is referring to Godel's theorem No. > but ignoring the part that > states that we can know an axiom is correct but not prove it within its > own system. He's using mathematical terms to prove scientifically his philosophy of existence. No labs, no measurements, lots of word salads using terms which he's heard. It doesn't even sound like he's read any of these books. /BAH
From: bert on 22 Jul 2010 10:35
On Jul 22, 9:43 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...(a)aol.com> wrote: > Huang wrote: > > 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. > > Sigh! Not p. > \ > > > > > I dont have any ideas what math is - indeed. lol > > No, you don't. You have no idea how it's built, how it's used, nor > what it can't do. > > > > > > > > >> >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. > > For you to make the declaration you did, then you must provide a method > of defining mass with a ruler. Since you cannot, your premise that > all existence can be described using only space and time is wrong. > If you want to do science, you have to test your hypotheses; testing > requires measurement and the ability to create an experiment > which will falsify your hypothesis. > > You ain't doing science; you're just blowing gas. > > /BAH- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Space and time are two sides to the same coin. Einstein merged them. It Fits TreBert |