What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: Huang on 22 Jul 2010 18:34 On Jul 22, 8:43 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. In mathematics things are proved. The reason you can do this is because everything exists very nicely and the whole stupid thing fits together like Lego building blocks, and ever piece fits perfect. That is mathematics. Conjecture is diferent. You begin by saying not "what exists", but "what might exist". Conjectures are NEVER proved to be true because they are and must remain conjectural. But you CAN show that conjectures are consistent, and so all of these conjectures fit together like Lego building blocks as well. In fact, for every mathematical statement there is a corresponding conjectural statement and vice versa. There is no mathematical way to transform back and forth between the two, such operations are currently under study but to be sure - I do know what math is and what it is not. I also believe that there are tools other than math which can accomplish the same things that math does. > >> >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. Define mass in terms of length - eh ? Ok - there are many ways to do this depending on how precise you want to make it. If you want an exact derivation you'll never get it because it's not calculable, would require too much computing power which does not exist at this time and probably never will. However, if we allow (for brevity) to model objects more coarsely we can come up with some decent models. Instead of considering every individual atom, just consider a planet as a whole and skip all of the fine structure. A planet may then be regarded (in my model) as a gradient. The gradient is comprised of a potential, and to each point in space we assign a potential that the point exists. That gives rise to this gradient. Consider that the nucleus of the planet is enriched, and the areas in it's outer shells are rarified. A planet (or atom) is nothing more than an imbalance as described. It is composed of nothing more than dimension. Enriched in it's core, and rarified at the periphery. It should be obvious that two such bodies which are near to each other create a "well" between them, and they will naturally be attracted to each other because that is how space is bent. Objects will tend to fall into such a depression, and both objects are creating a depression in the fabric of spacetime because the regions on their periphery is existentially rarified like a vacuum which decreases exactly as described elsewhere in physics where orthodox mathematics is being used, and I repeat that I have used no math here. Only set the stage for modelling conjecturally.
From: Michael Gordge on 22 Jul 2010 18:55 On Jul 22, 3:56 am, Eric Chomko <pne.cho...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Spaceis not > matter Space is not theory. > andtimeis not man made. In respect of time, there is matter and matter has motion - everything else about time - is mind dependent (man made), it is a tool. Time exists in the universe the universe does not exist in time. > What do you call what exists between matter inspace? Re-wording your question to ask the exact same thing. What does man call, what ever it is that exists between matter man has identified or can identify? Simple, I call it matter / unit / particle / substance that man has yet to identify. However, I read a couple of years ago, but cant remember where, that a group of scientists, I believe from the UK, claim to have identified the 3D form of matter / particle / substance (you choose) which man calls "space", they claim to have identified the 3D shape of a 'particle' of space by firing very narrow beams of lazer from many different locations on earth at the same 'spot' at the same instant far out into what man calls, 'the vacuum of space' and by measuring the angles of refraction at the point of intersection etc etc they claim to have discovered the size and 3D shape of a single unit of what man calls space. MG
From: Michael Gordge on 22 Jul 2010 18:57 On Jul 22, 11:35 pm, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > Spaceandtimeare two sides to the same coin. Einstein merged them. Only because he refused to accept / he rejected the law of identity. MG
From: John Stafford on 22 Jul 2010 19:55 In article <4a067370-2f31-4aa8-9c73-0b41271b76e7(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Huang <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In mathematics things are proved. Or they are not proved. > The reason you can do this is > because everything exists very nicely and the whole stupid thing fits > together like Lego building blocks, and ever piece fits perfect. That > is mathematics. Accepted for the moment - mathematical proofs build upon each other, and that is why proofs are so important - so that later posits do not collapse into a pile of.. well, legos as you put it. > Conjecture is diferent. You begin by saying not "what exists", but > "what might exist". Conjectures are NEVER proved to be true because > they are and must remain conjectural. No. Some conjectures have been proven. Your logic tumbles into the dumpster with that. > But you CAN show that > conjectures are consistent, and so all of these conjectures fit > together like Lego building blocks as well. In fact, for every > mathematical statement there is a corresponding conjectural statement > and vice versa. IOW, for every conjecture there is an infinite supply of poorly informed guesswork and wholly impressionistic objection which has nothing to do with the mathematics. I suspect you are exercising the same. > There is no mathematical way to transform back and > forth between the two, such operations are currently under study but > to be sure - I do know what math is and what it is not. I also believe > that there are tools other than math which can accomplish the same > things that math does. Exactly what is this 'back and forth' you write of? [...] > Ok - there are many ways to do this depending on how precise you want > to make it. If you want an exact derivation you'll never get it > because it's not calculable, would require too much computing power > which does not exist at this time and probably never will. You must tell us WHY this is so. A declaration is not sufficient. > However, if we allow (for brevity) to model objects more coarsely we > can come up with some decent models. Instead of considering every > individual atom, just consider a planet as a whole and skip all of the > fine structure. So you are presuming our planet, earth, without considering what you posited above which suggests differences among other planets. (In other words, speculative impressionistic ideas about distant systems which might not have the same physics humans experience. That's a panthromorpic view.) > A planet may then be regarded (in my model) as a gradient. The > gradient is comprised of a potential, and to each point in space we > assign a potential that the point exists. That gives rise to this > gradient. Consider that the nucleus of the planet is enriched, and the > areas in it's outer shells are rarified. A planet (or atom) is nothing > more than an imbalance as described. [...] I suggest that you would find some helpful views if you consider time as information in the the classic sense, and then move on. Keywords: holographic view of the universe, which is really an entirely impoverished view, but the best that humankind like you can fathom. Approximation might lead you to a failure of your philosophy that will lead you to a deeper concept.
From: Huang on 22 Jul 2010 21:05
On Jul 22, 6:55 pm, John Stafford <n...(a)droffats.ten> wrote: > In article > <4a067370-2f31-4aa8-9c73-0b41271b7...(a)d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > > Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > In mathematics things are proved. > > Or they are not proved. > > > The reason you can do this is > > because everything exists very nicely and the whole stupid thing fits > > together like Lego building blocks, and ever piece fits perfect. That > > is mathematics. > > Accepted for the moment - mathematical proofs build upon each other, and > that is why proofs are so important - so that later posits do not > collapse into a pile of.. well, legos as you put it. > > > Conjecture is diferent. You begin by saying not "what exists", but > > "what might exist". Conjectures are NEVER proved to be true because > > they are and must remain conjectural. > > No. Some conjectures have been proven. Your logic tumbles into the > dumpster with that. I use the word "conjecture" slightly differently than a mathematician would. I use this word because it is the best word to describe the tentattive kinds of relationsships I seek to manipulate. Yet at the same time, a conjecture can never be proven or disproven. My usage of the word conjecture is not the same as the common usage. A conjectural statement, in my scheme, is a statement which is based on existential indeterminacy which would form a valid mathematical statement under the assumption of either existence or nonexistence. Such objects are different from the standard conjectures that are common in math, science and elsewhere. Conjecture, in my usage, cannot be proved. All you can do is demonstrate consistency with mathematics. If a conjecture forms a valid mathematical statement under the assumption of existence, then it's a valid conjecture in the sense that it will be consistent with every other conjecture in this construction. |