What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jul 2010 18:33 On 7/8/10 6:48 AM, bert wrote: > On Jul 8, 12:10 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/7/10 9:40 PM, Immortalist wrote: >> >>> What sort of things are they if they are things? >> >> Some Background >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime >> >> "The concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract >> "space", for which a unified coordinate system is chosen. Typically >> three spatial dimensions (length, width, height), and one temporal >> dimension (time) are required. Dimensions are independent components of >> a coordinate grid needed to locate a point in a certain defined "space". > > Sam Einstein has "time" more important than space. He gave it a > dimension. Without time you can not be at a given place to meet. > Without time how could we measure the size an age of the universe? > TreBert I'm surprised you don't have a theory that gives each of the four dimensions equality--none being more important than any other and yet all as one entity--Spacetime.
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jul 2010 19:16 On 7/8/10 12:26 AM, Michael C wrote: > Also, if a moment in time is a configuration of the universe, then it > seems that traveling "back to" a certain moment in time is a little > more possible in theory. We are part of the universe--we can't step outside of it and go where we choose as if we where "above it all".
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jul 2010 19:26 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.
From: Sam Wormley on 8 Jul 2010 19:31 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.
From: spudnik on 8 Jul 2010 19:33
"Time is not a dimension; or, it's the only dimension, whereby we preciece any others." now, Bucky saith, and that is a commonsensical thing, compared to Minkowski's ridiculous slogan about a mere phase-space, then, he died. thus&so: are they still using the passive albedo & evapotranspiration, ignoring the burning of "fossilized fuels" and nuclear power? there is a longstanding anomaly, not described by any model or GCM, that the nights & winters are warmer than the days & summers; so, do the math! thus&so: arctic ice isn't stable; it's all floating, won't change sea-level if it should melt. (we must take into acount *all* human actions, where possible, not just mere emmssions from Al Gore's footprints .-) here's another thing that I've never seen considered about it, when I read of Buzz Aldrin and company's picnic at the N.Pole: 750K-horsepower Soviet ice-breaker to get there. now, get the schedule for that turkey & do the math of angular momentum! thus&so: the elephant in the water is Waxman's '91 bill on SO2 and NOX, which supposedly was very effective, and it is cap&trade. so, why does the Wall St. J. call his current bill, that's passed, "cap&tax" -- did they refer to Kyoto as cap&tax, also, then? while sequestration probably will not work, there is one way of making fuel out of CO2 from coalplants, combining it with methane to make methyl alcohol, developed by a Nobelist, and used commercially for busses in Europe and Asia, already, along with a further transformation into another fuel. thus&so: Waxman's '91 bill on NOX and SO2 was cap™ Kyoto was cap&trade & Dubya "ought" to have signed it, by his lights as an MBA; Kerry-Lieberman's and Waxman's passed bill are nothing, but "freer trade," cap&trade. so, why can't we just have a simple, small carbon tax?... well, it'd be a lot like a VAT, it'd be so all-encompassing, which Waxman doesn't seem to realize, and is certainly being played-down by the "yeah" and "neigh" sides of this political debate; eh? thus&so: Oilgate is, Californians the #1 consumers of Gulf and Alaska, with Beyond Phossilized Phuels the largest producer -- I think, unless Shell is, in Alaska (but, it's half British). sure, partly because we have the biggest population, but ... thus&so: it easily could have been leaked on purpose, because the "mainstream" is so hegemonic with their rough-edged GCMs, which simply cannot predict weather with any great fidelity, for any length of time & given approximation to "initializing conditions." the funding for the old "cooling" paradigm of the last two million years (Quaternary preiod), went out the door to "warming," with a mid-'70s meeting of the NSF, at which Oliver "Buck" Revelle laid-out the matter -- he, later to be an unindicted co-conspirator of George HW Bush in Iran-contra! (of course, HW was also not indicted, just like for Watergate; see http://tarpley.net). thus&so: took just one of your exempli gratia; let's dyscuss it! > >>Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) > >>I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three > >>explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and > >>tower two started to come down. thus&so: to prove that the redshift was due to velocity, would be some thing. similarly, to prove that half of the stars in the visible universe were not antimatter, would be nothing ... if you could do it! thus&so: so, you believe in the corpuscle, discredited by Young (well, it was never a theory *per se*, from mister Fig "hypothesis non fingo" Knewtonne; that is, he asserted that light goes faster in denser media, which was already (I believe) out of whack with Snell's law of refraction, proven by Fermat). of course, the most important milestone, aside from Roemer's proof of the non-instanteity of light (waves, he didn't know), was the elucidation of the "path of least-time" by Leibniz and Bernoulli -- although, that is just "ray-tracing," which is often interpreted to be the path of a rock o'light! --my broker says to call your broker about cap&trade, and I'll tell you what happens. http://wlym.com |