What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: Wordsmith on 11 Jul 2010 19:10 On Jul 8, 10:29 am, Pat Flannery <flan...(a)daktel.com> wrote: > On 7/8/2010 3:48 AM, bert wrote: > > > Sam Einstein has "time" more important than space. He gave it a > > dimension. > > A dimension of sight and sound? > Where you are the last man on Earth, and you've broken your glasses? ;-) > > Pat Go see Spinoza. He'll grind you some new lenses cheap! W ; )
From: spudnik on 11 Jul 2010 22:40 if you let time be a spatial dimension, the morons win ... if you can't convert it, back. > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is > -- Heinrich Heine thus&so; very funny, mister President -- and, I read a book like that! > > travel agent and say "get me door-to-door to the Library of Congress". thus&so: well, what did he do, when he got to n=67? (sumorial ?-) > Fermat proved all successes of the exponent 2 are non-successes for exp.4.. I would speculate that Fermat squared the square of the Pythagorean sides to get the fourth power he used in his proof, and that he used fractions in his own explorations. The ancients, I have read, used fractions. Number theory also simplifies overwhelming information. thus&so: so, how about for base-3? -- not "sumorial," if that's not a pun. > "Generalization to digits beyond the first". --les ducs d'oil! http://wlym.com
From: Michael Gordge on 11 Jul 2010 23:50 On Jul 11, 4:54 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > There are many that are smart, and many that are not. So are your smart enough to answer -- What is it about time that you and "mainline science" do not understand? > There are fewer that are very smart and only a very few > that are exceptionally smart - So are you exceptionally smart enough to explain what it is about time that you and "mainline science" do not understand? > Then there are those that are so dumb that they > think they are smart - So do you think you are smart enough to explain what it about time that you claim "mainline science" doesn't understand? MG
From: Michael Gordge on 11 Jul 2010 23:52 On Jul 12, 11:53 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Your proposing at least two separate arguments at > once disguised as one argument. Nope, you are. > What your leaving out is a > justification for the theory of necessity. You are equating epistemology to metaphysics, very Kantian and very stupid. MG
From: spudnik on 12 Jul 2010 14:50
yeah, but are the rubber glasses, 3d, or the clocks? > ... so, I said, "Hey, Einstein, space and time are made of rubber! > "Just kidding, dood." > I am, however, not implying that he was a surfer, but > he did know the canonical surfer's value ... of pi. thus&so: it's just his bot, as far as I can tell, without researching it ... googoling would be way too much positive feedback, and that's unpositively moderation. anyway, what difference between lightwaves and rocks o'light, vis-a-vu the curvature of space (as was uncovered by You now who & you know whO-oo, in the 18th and BCE centuries (or 2nd and Minus Oneth millenia ?-) also, don't forget the ... well, their are a few of them! > If only the esteemed colleagues know, what good? thus&so: it's typically considered to be perpendicular to all of the three spatial directions; at least, in some abstract sense. anyway, I invented the terminology; so ,there.... um, perpendicular Universes: http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_space.html http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/Articles/LSI05/Cahill-FinalPa... --BP's cap™ call of brokers the group! association http://tarpley.net |