What are space and time?
in [Math]
|
Prev: andre@moorelife.nl
Next: get cancer and die, musacunt
From: kado on 14 Jul 2010 05:24 On Jul 11, 8:50 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote: > 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? Time. > > > 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? TIME! > > > 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? Never stated, claimed, or implied that. > > MG Having to explain the clear and simple message contained in the sentences of my original post empirically demonstrates the truth of the last statement that: There are those that are so dumb that they think they are smart. D.Y.K.
From: Michael Gordge on 14 Jul 2010 05:40 On Jul 14, 6:24 pm, "k...(a)nventure.com" <k...(a)nventure.com> wrote: > Having to explain the clear and simple message.............. You said: "So it can safely be said that mainline science does not understand time or space. Period!" It's a simple question ---- What do you mean by "time" in your claim ...."that mainline science does not understand time or space. Period"? MG
From: Michael Gordge on 14 Jul 2010 05:48 On Jul 12, 11:53 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 2:01 am, 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. > > Is that a human theory, that matter exists necessarily or that > something being necessary makes it an irrefutable fact? Does that question make any sense to you? MG
From: OwlHoot on 14 Jul 2010 10:15 On Jul 8, 3:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > What sort of things are they if they are things? > > One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional > in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; 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. > > 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. > > Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the > objects and events that they contain? > > 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? > > Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/ When discussing the nature of time, in particular the arrow of time, people often raise the "grandfather paradox", namely that if travel back in time were possible you could go back and kill your own grandfather. Well it struck me the other day (and forgive me if this is old hat to physicists, although I haven't seen it mentioned in the many popular books and blogs I read) that maybe grandfathers _are_ killed all the time, almost all of them. But they must be extremely small, and they and their grandchildren are conventionally called virtual particles. If one works on that assumption (and I fully concede it may be kooky) then broadly speaking studying particle physics amounts to eludating the conditions and symmetries under which particles don't or somehow can't, or are least likely to, or are slowest to, go back and murder their ancestors. Cheers John Ramsden
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 14 Jul 2010 11:18
On Jul 14, 10:15 am, OwlHoot <ravensd...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > On Jul 8, 3:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > What sort of things are they if they are things? > > > One natural answer is that they comprise continua, three-dimensional > > in the case of space, one-dimensional in the case of time; 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. > > > 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. > > > Or do space and time have properties of their own independent of the > > objects and events that they contain? > > > 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? > > > Metaphysics - by D. W. Hamlynhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/ > > When discussing the nature of time, in particular the arrow of time, > people often raise the "grandfather paradox", namely that if travel > back in time were possible you could go back and kill your own > grandfather. > > Well it struck me the other day (and forgive me if this is old hat to > physicists, although I haven't seen it mentioned in the many popular > books and blogs I read) that maybe grandfathers _are_ killed all the > time, almost all of them. But they must be extremely small, and they > and their grandchildren are conventionally called virtual particles. > > If one works on that assumption (and I fully concede it may be kooky) > then broadly speaking studying particle physics amounts to eludating > the conditions and symmetries under which particles don't or somehow > can't, or are least likely to, or are slowest to, go back and murder > their ancestors. > > Cheers > > John Ramsden The existence we lead seems to be more stable than your construction allows. To me this is a part of the fundamental puzzle that we should try to address. It would be excellent if we could derive this level of stability rather than grant it as an axiom. It is not permanent stability, but is impressive within the window of human life. There are less stable positions in the solar system, like in the sun, so that thermodynamics does seem critical. We are at the triple point; making our existence colloidal, though at a finite scale. I remember reading about some old reference weights (in France?) losing some weight over time. This is a fine study, and we might suppose that if they were kept at a colder temperature they might have kept more stably. Could they be made to gain weight? Well, I like this as an open problem. I haven't read much about it recently. I have some heavier posts that are not in sci.math or sci.space.history groups of this thread you might like to read; they are in alt.philosophy and sci.physics and sci.logic. - Tim |