What are space and time?
Immortalist
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. Hamlyn
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/
Sir Frederick Martin
There are probably 'higher' dimensional aspects to the situation.
Whatever that means? The place is quite mysterious, and 'we'
are quite 'stuck' 'herein'. Other than that 'we' have 'our' model
stories, perhaps that's all 'we' can handle. What is anything in
'itself'? More mystery.
BTW, I resent the shallow understanding
with which 'we' seem to be stuck.
In the meanwhile, 'higher'
dimensional measurements and considerations are very interesting.
Even negative results, such as the 'recent' studies of gravity over
millimeter distances. Some of the 'space' studies are 'higher'
dimension oriented. String theory, though surprisingly productive,
remains very non intuitive.
Sam Wormley
> 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".
Michael C
Immortalist,
I think a moment in time is a certain configuration of the
universe. Now, it's not enough to just know where the atoms in the
universe are located in that "moment in time". You'd have to include
things like momentum and the directions they are "currently" moving.
Now, does this definition still allow time to be the fourth
dimension? Well, if a moment in time is a configuration of the
universe, then it seems that knowing what moment in time the universe
is currently at would be enough to describe everything, length, width
and height and then some of all the objects in it. Is time an all
inclusive dimension - does dimension simply mean piece of information
about an object? If you know what time it is, would you know the
length, width, height and locatons (and anything else) of all the
universe's objects?
Michael C
Michael C
>
> - Show quoted text -
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. To travel to a certain moment in time, you'd
have to change the configuration of the universe to that "moment in
time". Doing this seems quite difficult if the configuration you want
to move to is quite different from the current one. You could focus
on a very local area of the universe and change the configuration
there. In doing so, you may be able to travel to (change to) a time
(configuration) that is sufficient for your purposes.
Michael C
Mark Earnest
Space is the Final Frontier,
and Time is the ticking of a clock.
Easy enough?
Giga2
I think one fundamental aspect of Einstein's idea of spacetime is that
it is a single 'thing'.
Michael Helland
> 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.
Michael Helland
Newton said that relative time is the ticking of the clock.
And relative space is the reading of a ruler.
For some reason (possibly the writing of Einstein) the definition of
time is easily recited but the proper analogy to space is a bit of
head scratcher.
Michael Gordge
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.
MG
harald
> 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.
"Existence in their own right"? First of all they are human concepts,
based on physical phenomena. See for example, "The evolution of space
and time" of Paul Langevin (translation is still work-in-progress):
http://searcher88.wikispaces.com/Langevin1911
> 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?
See the article above.
Harald
bert
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
Pat Flannery
> 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
Neil Gerace
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so." -- Ford Prefect
Androcles
"John Stafford" <nh...@droffats.net> wrote in message
news:89KdnbrTYeRge6jR...@supernews.com...
| In article
| <icydnd_xBbsKT6jR...@posted.northdakotatelephone>,
| pair of glasses, but that would be a sequel and they didn't do them then.
|
| Back to the subject: What is a light year? I think it is a year that has
| more taste, is less filling.
|
Phooey - A light beer has less taste and is more filling.
Pat Flannery
> That goofy librarian could have rummaged about the earth for another
> pair of glasses, but that would be a sequel and they didn't do them then.
You probably don't have really bad vision like I do (and his glasses
made his look far worse than mine in that episode) I've spent half an
hour looking around the inside of my apartment for my misplaced glasses
before I could locate which particular blur was them. :-)
> Back to the subject: What is a light year? I think it is a year that has
> more taste, is less filling.
I'd say a light year was 1752, when 11 days were dropped from the year
to get the calender back into adjustment with the sky:
http://www.cslib.org/CalendarChange.htm
Pat
Androcles
| In article <6NlZn.103683$We4.41427@hurricane>,
| The waiter asks for drink orders, and the Bud boy says, "I'll have a
| Budweiser, and naturally the Pabst person orders a Pabst. "And what will
| you have, Sir", the waiter asks the Guinness guy, who replies, "Just
| water, please."
|
| "What?!" the other two exclaim, "Aren't you going to have a drink?"
|
| Guinness guy answer, "Well, if you chaps aren't going to drink beer,
| then neither will I."
|
Sounds like Stephen Hawking, he turned down a beer when it was MY shout.
No sane Englishman would ever commit such a sin. Perhaps it was the
thought of falling into the black hole of a pint of Theakston's Olde
Peculier
that upset him.
http://www.theakstons.co.uk/
Pat Flannery
> So the presidents of Guinness, Budweiser and Pabst go to lunch together.
> The waiter asks for drink orders, and the Bud boy says, "I'll have a
> Budweiser, and naturally the Pabst person orders a Pabst. "And what will
> you have, Sir", the waiter asks the Guinness guy, who replies, "Just
> water, please."
>
> "What?!" the other two exclaim, "Aren't you going to have a drink?"
>
> Guinness guy answer, "Well, if you chaps aren't going to drink beer,
> then neither will I."
Shar, and if that not be the truth of the matter too.
Pat
Sam Wormley
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.
Sam Wormley
> 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".
Sam Wormley
Scientific idea live with the support of empirical data.
Sam Wormley
Perhaps a better statement: Scientific idea live that fit
current observations, are not contradicted by an observation
and make fruitful predictions.
spudnik
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
Immortalist
> On Jul 8, 1:00 am, Michael C <michaelcochr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 7, 10:40 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> > > 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.
>
> > > 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?
>
>
> > I think a moment in time is a certain configuration of the
> > universe. Now, it's not enough to just know where the atoms in the
> > universe are located in that "moment in time".
To simulate or better yet emulate the events in complete, say for use
to be at this moment, the "sequence of events and interactions" would
be paramount. In evolution the eye has evolve numerous time
independently, by a "convergence" upon a possible form & morphology,
could all that we experience be a particular stretch or forms and
morphologies? So I agree with you that we can probably even resurrect
any sequence in history, without being able to control the sensitive
dependence upon initial conditions (butterfly effect) but still it
will be a -different- collection of events. Even though we are just "a
collection of events" and we can exist any time a series of clones
believes it is me or you, this does not eliminate the strong
possibility that there are discrete times when me or you can happen.
AndyK was just talking about a similar concept;
Panexperientialism or panprotopsychism are related concepts. Alfred
North Whitehead incorporated a scientific worldview into the
development of his philosophical system similar to Einstein’s Theory
of Relativity. His ideas were a significant development of the idea of
panpsychism, also known as panexperientialism, due to Whitehead’s
emphasis on experience, though the term itself was first applied to
Whitehead's philosophy by David Ray Griffin many years later.
Process philosophy suggests that
fundamental elements of the universe
are ((occasions)) of experience, which
can be collected into groups creating
something as complex as a human being.
This experience is not consciousness;
there is no mind-body duality under this
system as mind is seen as a very developed
kind of experience.
Whitehead was not a subjective idealist and, while his philosophy
resembles the concept of monads first proposed by Leibniz, Whitehead’s
occasions of experience are interrelated with every other occasion of
experience that has ever occurred. He embraced panentheism with God
encompassing all occasions of experience, transcending them. Whitehead
believed that the occasions of experience are the smallest element in
the universe—even smaller than subatomic particles.
-------------------
Imagine a library which contained all possible books which could
possibly be written with 26 or more letters, numbers or markings
For every sensible line of straightforward statement in the readable
books there are leagues of senseless cacophonies, verbal jumbles and
incoherence. Nonsense is normal in the this hypothetical Library. The
reasonable (and even humble and pure coherence) would be an almost
miraculous exception.
Nearly all the books are full of random letters. One book might be
made up of the letters MCV, perversely repeated from the first line to
the last. Another (very much consulted, by the way) is a mere
labyrinth of letters, but the next-to-the last page says Oh time thy
pyramids.
All the books, no matter how diverse they might be, are made up of the
same elements: the space, the period, the comma, the twenty-two
letters of the alphabet. He also alleged a fact which travelers have
confirmed: In the vast Library there are no two identical books. From
these two incontrovertible premises he deduced that the Library is
total and that its shelves register all the possible combinations of
the twenty-odd orthographical symbols (a number which, though
extremely vast, is not infinite).
So, in other words, any book you could possibly write, in any
language, could be found (theoretically) in the library. It contains
all past and future books! Everything: the minutely detailed history
of the future, the archangels' autobiographies, the faithful catalogue
of the Library, thousands and thousands of false catalogues, the
demonstration of the fallacy of the true catalogue, the Gnostic gospel
of the Basilides, the commentary on that gospel, the commentary on the
commentary on that gospel, the true story of your death, the
translation of every book in all languages, the interpolations of
every book in all books.
All possible books exist in this library of form.
Re-arranged from OutOfControlKevinKelly;
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch14-a.html
http://www.kk.org/books/index.php
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0201483408/
> > You'd have to include
> > things like momentum and the directions they are "currently" moving.
> > Now, does this definition still allow time to be the fourth
> > dimension? Well, if a moment in time is a configuration of the
> > universe, then it seems that knowing what moment in time the universe
> > is currently at would be enough to describe everything, length, width
> > and height and then some of all the objects in it. Is time an all
> > inclusive dimension - does dimension simply mean piece of information
> > about an object? If you know what time it is, would you know the
> > length, width, height and locatons (and anything else) of all the
> > universe's objects?
>
> > Michael C- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> 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. To travel to a certain moment in time, you'd
> have to change the configuration of the universe to that "moment in
> time". Doing this seems quite difficult if the configuration you want
> to move to is quite different from the current one. You could focus
> on a very local area of the universe and change the configuration
> there. In doing so, you may be able to travel to (change to) a time
> (configuration) that is sufficient for your purposes.
>
> Michael C
GSS
> On Jul 8, 4:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@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.
>
> "Existence in their own right"? First of all they are human concepts,
> based on physical phenomena. See for example, "The evolution of space
> and time" of Paul Langevin (translation is still work-in-progress): >http://searcher88.wikispaces.com/Langevin1911
>
continuous changes with the 'passage' of time. We can only depict the
history or record of such changes (or make predictions of some
futuristic changes) with the aid of a four dimensional space-time
manifold as a mathematical model. Spacetime is not a physical entity.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/chapter8.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
Introduction. Most followers of Relativity theories consider the
spacetime continuum to be a physical entity which can even be deformed
and curved. This misconception is quite deep rooted in the
metaphysical eternalist viewpoint of existence in contrast to the
logical presentist viewpoint. As per the eternalist viewpoint, a so-
called material object in a spacetime world is a continuous series of
spacetime events, each of which exists eternally as a distinct part of
the world. There is no distinction between the past, present and
future. We may refer to it as a block view of spacetime. As per the
presentist viewpoint, the present moment is different from the past
and future and that physical entities exist only in the present. The
physical phenomenon does not exist in the past and the future regions
of time. The foundations of General Theory of Relativity (GR) are
critically dependent on the integrity of the notion of spacetime
continuum. Actually, spacetime is just a mathematical notion which has
no physical existence.
The Coordinate Space. The association of the set of points P on
coordinate line X with the set of real numbers x, constitutes a
coordinate system of the one-dimensional space, once the notion of
certain unit length has been defined. The one-to-one correspondence of
ordered pairs of numbers with the set of points in the plane X^1X^2 is
the coordinate system of the 2D space consisting of points in the
plane. Similarly, with a predefined notion of unit length, an
essential feature of 3D space is the concept of one-to-one
correspondence of points in space with the ordered sets of real
numbers. The predefined notion of unit length or scale for different
coordinate axes constitutes the metric of space for quantifying the
notion of distance and the position measurements of the sets of points
in this coordinate space.
We define a space (or manifold) of N dimensions as any set of objects
that can be placed in a one-to-one correspondence with the ordered
sets of N numbers x^1, x^2,..., x^N. Any particular one-to-one
association of the points with the ordered sets of numbers is called a
coordinate system and the numbers x^1, x^2, ...., x^N are termed the
coordinates of points. In all coordinate spaces that are metricized,
we associate the notion of unit length along all coordinate axes and a
metric tensor gij with each coordinate system. All essential metric
properties of a metricized space are completely determined by this
tensor.
GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
Michael Helland
I couldn't agree more.
Errol
> On Jul 7, 10:40 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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/
>
> Immortalist,
>
> I think a moment in time is a certain configuration of the
> universe. Now, it's not enough to just know where the atoms in the
> things like momentum and the directions they are "currently" moving.
> Now, does this definition still allow time to be the fourth
> dimension? Well, if a moment in time is a configuration of the
> universe, then it seems that knowing what moment in time the universe
> is currently at would be enough to describe everything, length, width
> and height and then some of all the objects in it. Is time an all
> inclusive dimension - does dimension simply mean piece of information
> about an object? If you know what time it is, would you know the
> length, width, height and locatons (and anything else) of all the
> universe's objects?
>
> Michael C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think that each configuration of the universe along the space-time
continuum is an act of observation by the universe of itself (whether
by human observation or interactions of particles). This particle
interaction helps explain the explicable state of twinned particles at
a distance as well. Eternity might separate observations, but it is
unnoticed by sentient consciousnesses such as humans.
John Stafford
<28fd67e0-84b3-4a72...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Errol <vs.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that each configuration of the universe along the space-time
> continuum is an act of observation by the universe of itself (whether
> by human observation or interactions of particles). This particle
> interaction helps explain the explicable state of twinned particles at
> a distance as well. Eternity might separate observations, but it is
> unnoticed by sentient consciousnesses such as humans.
Excellent. And human consciousness is the universe is experiencing its
creation through one of its created.
Michael Gordge
> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Jul 8, 11:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >What are space and time?
> >> What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> >made mind dependent concept.
>
> Hogwash.
How much were ewe paid to say that?
MG
Errol
And the tax he paid on that gratuity is all being spent by guvvmint
MIB holding a gun to his head while they concoct Global warming
conspiracies, I suppose?
jmfbahciv
Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Jul 9, 12:51 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> >On Jul 8, 11:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@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?
>
You still have no ability to learn. Space and time are
the things you use to avoid getting hit by a semi truck.
/BAH
Tim Golden BandTech.com
>>
Nice perspective Michael. I work on an alternative theory built around
polysign numbers:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned
which do provide arithmetic support for spacetime, with unidirectional
time. What I like about your perspective is that the configuration
should be a fundamental perspective. In that it claims to isolate time
and space, then what should we make of including an objects velocity
within the configuration? If it was to be fundamental, then it should
not have values containing references to itself. Here is an opening that
could prove to be useful. Most of physics makes use of position, first
derivative, and second derivative. Why stop there?
Space and time comprise four dimensions in modern theory. Well, I can
falsify that. More important is the progression itself, and if there
were an overlap with the calculus that makes modern physics tick then
all the better. Why? Because polysign are capable of providing that
breakpoint, which is most clearly exposed via product behavior. Still,
the idea that the higher dimensions (and higher derivatives) could still
play a part is present. This is nearby to conservation theory and the
law that is in play is very much about conservation of distance, and
breaking with that conservation principle under some operation; the
arithmetic product.
Weyl titled one of his books Space-Time-Matter though he never did open
up to a new possible philosophy at this level of unification. Instead he
built support for relativity theory by building up dizzying accounts of
the math, and attempting to cripple criticism of relativity, which we
may come back to see as a weak perspective, for the hope of a new
opening is going to be via careful criticism of the existing theories.
Relativity is actually a first instance of a structured spacetime. The
metric itself exposes this, all the while claiming to fit the tensor
structure. Well, this is a lie. The isotropic stance must take in time
on the same footing as space if the tensor is to hold. This is not the
case, therefor the math is not actually tensor math. It is a
pseudotensor form. What we should take as truth is that spacetime is
structured. The polysign progression I believe is the next form that
humans will work with. It even provides room within the progression for
10D (plus 0D time) at T5
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5
out a few places beyond the T3 spacetime support
P1 P2 P3 .
Though I have not found a natural breakpoint at T5 in terms of
arithmetic behavior, the T3 breakpoint is loud and clear.
This approach may be quite a grandiose shuffle, yet there are numerous
overlaps with existing theory, including electromagnetic behavior within
spacetime itself. The antisymmetric tensor happens to share the same
format as the polysign progression, though the new form has the
redundancy removed, and has added structure to the geometry itself,
which is as it should be if electromagnetic behaviors are truly built
into spacetime itself.
The polysign numbers provide a new construction of the real number, and
much more, for within the same rule set we can have unidirectional zero
dimensional time, the complex numbers, and the higher dimensional forms
as well, all algebraically well behaved. If we have gotten the real
number wrong then what else could we have misconstrued along the way?
The human mind, no matter how strong, is caught within the mimicry
effect that allows the propagation of information, and so to break free
and find a better answer is challenging for us. I have only half of an
answer, but it is quite a pretty half. I hope someone else can fill in
the rest, but I still try myself.
- Tim
ka...@nventure.com
> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Jul 8, 11:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >What are space and time?
>
> >made mind dependent concept.
>
> Hogwash.
>
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
How right you are.
I have seen this subject of time and space, or sometimes
just time, or other times just space come and just sort
of fade away countless times on this newsgroup in the last
20 or so years.
A lot of very brilliant people, much smarter than any
contributing to this newsgroup have tried to understand
time and space for a very long time without success.
So it should be obvious that no one, no philosopher,
scientist, lay thinker, or whoever understands time or
space.
So it can safely be said that mainline science does not
understand time or space. Period!
D. Y. Kadoshima
Michael Gordge
> So it can safely be said that mainline science does not
> understand time or space. Period!
What is it about time that you do not understand?
MG
Michael Gordge
Hey fuckwit, why are ewe calling AGW a conspiracy when its just a
hoax, no different in principle or in origin to the god hoax, both
fictions began inside a person's head.
MG
ka...@nventure.com
There are many that are smart, and many that are not.
There are fewer that are very smart and only a very few
that are exceptionally smart -
and some of these exceptionally smart state that they
do not understand time and/or space.
Then there are those that are so dumb that they
think they are smart -
and do understand time.
D.Y.K.
Zerkon
> 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. Hamlyn
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521286905/
There are two 'things' here. The first is change, the second is the
application of numbers to change or time. Einstein showed numbers.
Time being change by digits, the more direct question is what is change?
I think future generations, if coping drug free, are going to put numbers
in a more realistic perspective. We have gone ga-ga over them since the
late 1800's and have assumed way too much with them.
Anyway imo now, the property of change is potential, it's state is non-
duration. Space is an arbitrary assignment relative to specific objects,
objects big and small that are still being discovered with each new scope.
Wordsmith
> 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/
Sounds like, to Einstein, space and time are made of rubber.
W : )
Wordsmith
> it is a single 'thing'.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
As an organic totality, yes, but scientists and
philosophers love to pick 'em apart.
W : )
Wordsmith
> > dimension.
>
> 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 ; )
spudnik
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
Immortalist
> On Jul 8, 11:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What are space and time?
>
>
> made mind dependent concept.
>
Is that a human theory, that matter exists necessarily or that
something being necessary makes it an irrefutable fact? You cannot
have it both ways. Your proposing at least two separate arguments at
once disguised as one argument. What your leaving out is a
justification for the theory of necessity.
I will only allow you to claim that it might be the case that "Space
is matter, it exists regardless of man's mind, time is a man made mind
dependent concept" but it is not determinable either way by the human
mind dumb ass.
> MG
Michael Gordge
> 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
spudnik
> ... 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
ka...@nventure.com
> On Jul 11, 4:54 pm, "k...@nventure.com" <k...@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.
Michael Gordge
> 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
Michael Gordge
> On Jul 8, 2:01 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 11:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@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
OwlHoot
> What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> 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
Tim Golden BandTech.com
wrote:
> Michael C wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 10:40 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@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?
This question of Immortalist's is really important to me. We admit
that c, the velocity of light is attributed to spacetime itself. In
particular it is broken down as
c = e0 / u0
which are electric and magnetic permeabilities of space itself.
Already this admits that the behaviors of electromagnetism are built
into spacetime.
Maxwell's equations have been built upon an isotropic space
assumption, yet they expose that structural qualities exist in that
magnetic phenomena form closed loops, whereas electrical phenomena are
more radiant in nature. The two are related as when we consider
F = q V x B,
or the right hand rule of solenoids, and so forth. But at Maxwell's
time the charge was allowed to be a raw charge, with no inherent
magnetic moment. Then along came electron spin, in some ways a very
Maxwellian behavior, yet one which denies the fundamental simplicity
of q, the electron's charge.
The fact that an individual particle does have its own little
reference axis denies the isotropic assumption. There are even simpler
ways to falsify the isotropic assumption. What is the meaning of
isotropic? 'The same in all directions' is generally accepted as the
simplest wording, meaning that there is no preferred direction. If at
the particulate level this is falsified, we might still recover some
semblance of 'isotropism' since we are conglomerates of these tiny
particles, and so we have sort of a greyed out version, particularly
at high ambient temperature.
One can still ask:
"Is space the same in all directions?"
To me the answer is clearly negative, for if I look left and see a
chair, then look right and see a door, I have already a simple
falsication of the isotropic stance. The mathematician may insist on
emptying the space of all material, but this then is not physics. If I
were to look about and see absolutely nothing, or absolutely the same
thing in all directions then I would be in an isotropic space. Since
this is not what I observe then I am not in an isotropic space. This
is such a fundamental flaw within physics that I fear there is little
hope in overturning the status quo.
It may be true that this perspective relies upon a unification of
spacetime with the materials in spacetime, but even just the spacetime
construction itself contains a structure that the tensor is not
actually capable of accomodating. And so even before we unite the
material to spacetime we have a break in the theory which unites space
with time. Time after all is unidirectional, unlike space. Relativity
theory relies upon an assymetrical metric that denies the tensor's
stance of isotropic behavior, for one of the coordinates stands out
like a sore thumb. Now we see time being discussed as an open problem.
Well, I have the answer, but it doesn't seem to be very convincing to
many people. What can I do but keep puttimg up the mimicry problem?
Humans are capable of practicing false belief systems, even
mathematicians and physicists. It is particularly the requirement of
mimicry atop mimicry's inherent existence within the social human
which may be closing off fundamental openings to the mind. To break
free at the lowest levels of assumption is a challenge to the
accomplished; the straight A's who fought their way to the top as top
mimics. They will not be strong enough to break out of the box, and so
it is for someone like me to point the way. The problems must be
approached as open problems from the most fundamental of levels, for
down in the fundamentals is where we are missing something. This puts
us back in time, and the credit which we give ourselves and the great
contributors is invalid. Without giving yourself enough credit to
falsify you cannot give yourself any credit to procede. This is the
mimic's trap. The human struggle is worth contemplating at this level.
It is a trap for all, including myself, for if I stray too far then my
language becomes my own, which no other will understand. I cannot then
seek out falsification except from myself, which is critical under the
paradigm that I work from.
We are prisoners of spacetime. The prison is outfitted nicely. Still,
we will procede to seek out its walls, test their strength, and
adventure on. The tension between construction and destruction will
become deeper for the future human. It is already deep enough in our
generation. Tolerance is on the rise. It is time to take deeper risks.
Why? Because the existent system is flawed. We should always seek
improvement, and so the conservative paradigm falls flat on its face.
Progressionally, there are branchings that will compete for truth
status, and I present one such basis in the polysign numbers. The only
criterion for a pure math as truth is a physical correspondence.
Emergent spacetime is at hand and it requires a rewrite of existing
theory, both mathematics and physics.
- Tim
Tim Golden BandTech.com
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
spudnik
just don't leave a time-tunnel in the vicinity
of your grandfather, if he is still alive, because
he might configure what you "were about" to do, and
hi to the future to prevent you, or the past
to give a condom to your dad.
"Granpa, it was going to be an accident ... I mean...."
"But, Dad, we're Catholic!"
> Scientific concensus today isn't your great grandaddy's scientific
thus&so:
grammar is just a part of the three Rs,
the minimum you have to know, to be a literate slave --
and what some so-called Republicans call, "the basics,"
to impart learning-disorders amongst the rabble's youth.
thus&so:
first of all, bloodletting has some current back-up ... or,
at least, leeches are pretty useful in surgery. secondly,
someone "above" made some statement about graphs (that is,
quantification) in the harder sciences (although it seems that
the soft ones use tons of statistical algorithms), and I'd like
to cite the NYTimes weatherpage as a source of subliminal
justification
for the algorithms of the GCMers.
the more qualitative aspect of that page,
is the daliy vignettes on various things about weather --
n'est, mesoclimate. my random reading of this shows that
cold records are at least as common as hot records,
whereby goes my primary (nonquant) take on the phrase,
global warming. just say,
the climate, she a-changin', and rest easy!
> errors as blood letting "scientists" is ridiculous.
--Rep. Waxman's "new" cap&trade, same as his circa '91?...
Is the House Banking Bill, before Senate, cap&trade?...
les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
Day Brown
The speed of light is the frame rate.
Planck's constant refers to the pixel size.
Absolute zero is black. I dunno what the maximum intensity is, but
prolly related to the maximum frequency of vibration.
Michael Gordge
Which says nothing of the meaning of space and time. To avoid a semi
truck you can also use legs, feet, speed, roller skates, etc. so you
need to distinguish between space and roller skates. When ewe can
explain the differences between space and time and roller skates, you
may then on the path to thinking.
MG
Huang
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no difference between space and time. Any percieved
distinction is just an illusion. They are the same.
You can argue the same thing about length and area if you really
wanted to, see : space filling Peano curves. Is it a length ? Is it an
area ? It is some type of wierd hybrid.
Time and length can both be regarded as being probabilistic, and
anyone who does not believe me probably eats his own boogers.
jmfbahciv
ARe you people on drugs?
/BAH
Tim Golden BandTech.com
> To begin to imagine time, it helps to consider it evidence of
> information in the formal sense. Information acts upon other
> information. Time might just be the consequence of the exchange of
> information that we observe as entropy.
Whether one accepts the unification of space and time then becomes an
issue. This is the beauty of polysign: it presents a unidirectional
zero dimensional algebra that has been overlooked, just beneath the
real number. The real number is consistent within polysign as P2, or
the two-signed numbers. The one-signed numbers P1 match time's seeming
paradox. They are near to claims of nonexistent time since they have a
zero dimensional geometry. But this then does allow the spacetime
paradign to take deeper meaning. Time is not a real number. The real
number is bidirectional. Time is unidirectional. The whole system of
cartesian thinking is wrong because it relies upon the real number as
fundamental. The real number is not fundamental. Magnitude and sign
are more fundamental concepts. This is the marriage of continuous and
discrete that we work alot with in physics. The pure math of polysign
has been overlooked. Emergent spacetime with unidirectional time sits
there waiting for someone with the capability to generate a theory
that takes us into a new age. It will hopefully be a simpler and less
conflicted system than modern physics. There are plenty of dynamics in
the math as can be seen here:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/MagnitudeSweep/index.html
- Tim
- Tim
Michael Gordge
How about between cat and ant? fucking idiot
MG
Tim Golden BandTech.com
Hi Day. It seems you like discrete systems. It's a nice point that
intensity can go two ways: toward higher frequency and toward higher
density. I don't believe there is any theoretical maximum intensity of
light established yet. Nor is there a maxiumum frequency. I do feel
open to there being some surprises that we've overlooked.
I was swimming the other day, and paddled up a vertical current with
my hand and found one distinct stationary wave of a very small height.
When I stopped paddling and the water slowed down the stationary wave
came in, and closed to a point. It is quite pretty and I tried it
again and again with success. It is a strikingly discrete process
occuring on what seems to be a continuum. I have no idea how to
explain it, but I suppose someone must have documented it before. Then
too, some discoveries like this may still be overlooked. There are
many pretty effects on still water that seem to have discrete
structure; Microripples and so forth.
Just as math can transform some systems from one domain to another
there may be parallel theories. Still, depending on the transformation
side effects can be important, no different than they are in software.
This is information theory. If we shuffle the isotropic stance as I
suggest then I believe that the system can hold up. A structured
spacetime does not necessarily deny taking relative reference frames.
In this arena the problems are quite open, but it is easy to me to
falsify the isotropic assumption of relativity theory. The same
fundamental problem exists when people start discussing time reversal
physics. We observe no freedom to traverse time, either forward or
backward, and anyone who insists that they can place a coffee mug
cleanly within a 4D spacetime tensor is eating food that is unfit for
human consumption. We need only rotate the x axis of the existing
reference frame to the t axis to observe the incoherent construction.
The tensor is by definition consistent with such rotations, and if we
step back to 3D space we see that it does work coherently. Clearly
time is somehow different than the other spatial dimensions. Therefor
the tensor construction is not sensible. The Minkowski metric was sold
to us, and this does paint the level of human ability in the topic.
Does each of us truly assess the validity of this theory, or do we
simply attempt to gulp it down, because it is professed? Here the
human social condition does enter into science directly, and
unfortunately the human does not hold up under such scrutiny. So it is
that we are apes, and as righteous as it is for us to attempt
understanding, and as bright as some of the greats have been, they and
we are so limited. The practice of construction from an open place
will lead to a better generation of physicists and mathematicians.
This means declaring the problems open early, and studying the
weaknesses of the existing system as much as measuring a child's
ability to mimic it. The grade A mimics rule for now.
- Tim
John Stafford
<467063a3-956d-4305...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
"Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 3:15 pm, John Stafford <n...@droffats.net> wrote:
> > To begin to imagine time, it helps to consider it evidence of
> > information in the formal sense. Information acts upon other
> > information. Time might just be the consequence of the exchange of
> > information that we observe as entropy.
>
> Whether one accepts the unification of space and time then becomes an
> issue. This is the beauty of polysign: it presents a unidirectional
> zero dimensional algebra that has been overlooked, just beneath the
> real number. The real number is consistent within polysign as P2, or
> the two-signed numbers. The one-signed numbers P1 match time's seeming
> paradox. They are near to claims of nonexistent time since they have a
> zero dimensional geometry. But this then does allow the spacetime
> paradign to take deeper meaning. Time is not a real number. The real
> number is bidirectional. Time is unidirectional. [...]
Indeed, polysign is beautiful and heartening, but we disagree upon the
introduction of directionality _at this point_ of the discussion/view.
Can we be certain that entropy is not reversible in special cases? Are
special cases perhaps key to a breakthrough in our maths and
understanding?
I enjoy your posts. Thanks for being here.
spudnik
he's not on drugs; language ... or. perhaps,
the minor miracle of polysignosis.
--les ducs d'oil!
http://tarpley.net
--forsooth, the Queen of the quadrivium!
http://wlym.com
Huang
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, speaking for myself we ar not on drugs.
I reiterate: Time and length can both be regarded as being
probabilistic.
And I believe that I can demonstrate a reasonable justification for
that position. No drugs, no alcohol.
Huang
Your approach toward this debate reminds me of the way that my dog
licks it's own crotch to clean herself.
ka...@nventure.com
OMG - you're dumber than dumb.
So I say dumb does not apply in your case, but that IDIOT
is more appropriate.
I stated that no one understands time - this includes me.
So how can I possibly tell you "what I mean by time"?
Furthermore - where did you ever get the stupid idea that
there must be 'parts' to time that you mention in your prior
posts?
With the exception of the posts by Fred J. McCall, jmfbahciv,
and me, all the posts in this thread about time are just BS
wild ass guesses, without a bit of logic or any empircal
proof that is a requirement of true physics.
So if I tried to give you 'what I mean by time', this would
be just conjecture, and fall into the same category as all
the other BS posts about time on this thread.
However, your posts do positively and empirically prove that:
1. You are an IDIOT.
2. You have absolutely no concept of physics.
3. That Einstein was right when he stated:
There may be 2 things that infinite.
The 1st is the universe.
The 2nd is the human capacity for stupidity.
And I (i.e., Einstein) am not sure of the 1st.
D.Y.K.
jmfbahciv
Please don't insult the real idiots. They have more sense than
these posters. I call it abject stupidity, which is being
stupid on purpose and being proud of it. Not only proud
but demanding the _right_ to remain stupid and have people
honor them.
Tim Golden BandTech.com
> In article
> <467063a3-956d-4305-95f9-c226c1547...@t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Within polysign there is room for accumulation within any of the
domains.
I'm not a firm believer in entropy from a thermodynamic point of view
because I am not a believer in the thermodynamic interpretation as
vibrating atoms. But you use an informational paradigm. I am all for
the informational approach, but accept that the situation is
ultimately noncomputable, since the quantity of information is so
large.
For instance, if we were to measure the gravitational pull at your
position and find that it alters when I jump a foot over here then we
would be consistent with theory. I admit that this figure is a very
small dither, but informationally speaking the law of gravitation of
the earth is built as an accumulation of its parts, and this
accumulation is an act of summation within the integral. This is
likewise true of all of matter, and even going relativistic on
Newtonian gravity will not change this.
Somehow we have to admit that much of our attempts at physics require
washing out the small perturbations, and it works well. They do wash
out, but we have no hope of computing them either. Is this tied into
the informational approach? I think so, somehow, but I haven't stated
it very clearly. Still, to answer your question I suppose that
accumulation is fundamental, which is to say that superposition is
fundamental, and that its inverse is not necessary within the
fundamentals since it can be defined in terms of superposition, just
as subtraction is not a fundamental activity since we can declare it
based upon a reversal of addition:
2 + 1 = 3 . (P2)
We do see structures forming within the accumulation, so the
interpretation that all must go into a blender and come out less
structured is observably false. This may physically have something to
do with cooling, so the thermodynamics does seem to be nearby, but I
don't accept the modern form as final. We operate in a region of space
that is at a triple point, colloidally speaking. We breath gas, our
bones are solid, and our blood is liquid. There are other regions of
space where this is not possible, and we would be inanimate due to
being frozen solid, or completely gaseous to the point of the disorder
that seems so close by to your focus. When solids form there are
structured results. Sometimes pure crystals do form. Isn't the sole
instance of a diamond formation evidence enough against entropy? Or do
I have to treat this like the man jumping a foot off the ground?
- Tim
Michael Gordge
> I stated that no one understands time - this includes me.
Why do you keep repeating your stupidity?
> So how can I possibly tell you "what I mean by time"?
Nope, wrong question,
How the fuck can you state that no one understands time - when you say
that you do not understand time?
By your own silly self contradicting statement you have no fucking
idea whether or not any one understands time.
MG
Michael Gordge
What fucking debate? There is nothing so far from your side but non-
sensical arbitrary Kantian regurgitations.
MG
Huang
My views on time and length are very different than these others who
claim that it is inherently incomprehensible or whatever they are
claiming. I believe that time and length may be regarded as having
probabilistic aspects, that modelling them as such is one of several
valid approaches. And I think that I can defend the claim, but (most
likely) nobody here would care to listen. I've posted my derivations
on numerous occasions.
I would agree that this other gentleman's view that "time is simply
misunderstood" is a bit flaccid. Time is understood perfectly well,
however in my view there is more than one valid way to understand it.
There are multiple understandings of it which are equivalent IMO.
Paul A. Suhler
PD
> What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
> 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/
From a physics perspective, "things" are identified by their
properties, where said properties are regulated, described, or
predictable according to certain systematic regularities called
physical laws.
It isn't really necessary to try to drop things into categories of
things in order to do that. Categories usually end up being broken
most easily in our deepening understanding of nature. Categories that
we think are mutually exclusive and/or exhaustive frequently end up
being neither. For example, it is tempting to call an electron a
particle, or to call it a wave, where we take those two things to be
mutually incompatible categories and into which the electron MUST fall
somewhere. This turns out to be a bad idea. However, it is perfectly
acceptable to describe an electron by its *properties*, especially
properties like electric charge, spin, parity, momentum, and so on,
which are of interest because of their role in physical laws.
By this description, space and time are physical entities because they
have properties in their own right, and those properties are of
interest in physical laws.
PD
Androcles
"Paul A. Suhler" <suh...@pollux.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:i1prju$a95$1...@pollux.usc.edu...
| Where and when would you like the answer?
|
Here and now, please.
glird
> From a physics perspective, "things" are identified by their
> properties, where said properties are regulated, described, or
> predictable according to certain systematic regularities called
> physical laws.
> It isn't really necessary to try to drop things into categories of
> things in order to do that. Categories usually end up being broken
> most easily in our deepening understanding of nature. Categories that
> we think are mutually exclusive and/or exhaustive frequently end up
> being neither. For example, it is tempting to call an electron a
> particle, or to call it a wave, where we take those two things to be
> mutually incompatible categories and into which the electron MUST fall
> somewhere. This turns out to be a bad idea.
Yeup.
> However, it is perfectly
> acceptable to describe an electron by its *properties*, especially
> properties like electric charge, spin, parity, momentum, and so on,
> which are of interest because of their role in physical laws.
Regardless of their role in the mathematical equations that are
called "physical laws", what IS an electric "charge"; the electron has
no "spin"; in what way and with what does an electron have "parity";
and momentum (mv) requires an electron to have mass=weight in any g-
field.
> By this description, space and time are physical entities because they
> have properties in their own right, and those properties are of
> interest in physical laws.
Independently of anything in it, what are the "properties" of space?
Independently of the mathematical properties of clocks, what is "time"
and what are its physical properties?
glird
Michael Gordge
> So if I tried to give you 'what I mean bytime', this would
> be just conjecture, and fall into the same category as all
> the other BS posts abouttimeon this thread.
But you said "no one, (including you) understands time" - and now you
are saying that you and every one else understands time as bulls'
shit.
And you have the audacity to call people "idiots"?
MG
Michael Gordge
> My views ontimeand length are very different than these others who
> claim that it is inherently incomprehensible or whatever they are
> claiming. I believe thattimeand length may be regarded as having
> probabilistic aspects, that modelling them as such is one of several
> valid approaches. And I think that I can defend the claim, but (most
> likely) nobody here would care to listen. I've posted my derivations
> on numerous occasions.
>
> I would agree that this other gentleman's view that "timeis simply
> misunderstood" is a bit flaccid.Timeis understood perfectly well,
> however in my view there is more than one valid way to understand it.
> There are multiple understandings of it which are equivalent IMO.
And how does any of that nonsensical meaningless Kantian garbage not
remind you of your dog licking its nuts and arse just before it licks
your face?
MG
Huang
Must admit I got a good laugh from that one - I dont even have a
comeback
Zinnic
Try "Oh! F... off!" Now that's repartee (he will understand)!
mat...@gmail.com
> On Jul 8, 2:19 pm, harald <h...@swissonline.ch> wrote:> On Jul 8, 4:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@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.
>
> > based on physical phenomena. See for example, "The evolution of space
> > and time" of Paul Langevin (translation is still work-in-progress): >http://searcher88.wikispaces.com/Langevin1911
>
> Our universe exists in a three dimensional space, and experiences
> continuous changes with the 'passage' of time. We can only depict the
> history or record of such changes (or make predictions of some
> futuristic changes) with the aid of a four dimensional space-time
> manifold as a mathematical model. Spacetime is not a physical entity.https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_fil...
>
> Introduction. Most followers of Relativity theories consider the
> spacetime continuum to be a physical entity which can even be deformed
> and curved. This misconception is quite deep rooted in the
> metaphysical eternalist viewpoint of existence in contrast to the
> logical presentist viewpoint. As per the eternalist viewpoint, a so-
> called material object in a spacetime world is a continuous series of
> spacetime events, each of which exists eternally as a distinct part of
> the world. There is no distinction between the past, present and
> future. We may refer to it as a block view of spacetime. As per the
> presentist viewpoint, the present moment is different from the past
> and future and that physical entities exist only in the present. The
> physical phenomenon does not exist in the past and the future regions
> of time. The foundations of General Theory of Relativity (GR) are
> critically dependent on the integrity of the notion of spacetime
> continuum. Actually, spacetime is just a mathematical notion which has
> no physical existence.
>
> The Coordinate Space. The association of the set of points P on
> coordinate line X with the set of real numbers x, constitutes a
> coordinate system of the one-dimensional space, once the notion of
> certain unit length has been defined. The one-to-one correspondence of
> ordered pairs of numbers with the set of points in the plane X^1X^2 is
> the coordinate system of the 2D space consisting of points in the
> plane. Similarly, with a predefined notion of unit length, an
> essential feature of 3D space is the concept of one-to-one
> correspondence of points in space with the ordered sets of real
> numbers. The predefined notion of unit length or scale for different
> coordinate axes constitutes the metric of space for quantifying the
> notion of distance and the position measurements of the sets of points
> in this coordinate space.
>
> We define a space (or manifold) of N dimensions as any set of objects
> that can be placed in a one-to-one correspondence with the ordered
> sets of N numbers x^1, x^2,..., x^N. Any particular one-to-one
> association of the points with the ordered sets of numbers is called a
> coordinate system and the numbers x^1, x^2, ...., x^N are termed the
> coordinates of points. In all coordinate spaces that are metricized,
> we associate the notion of unit length along all coordinate axes and a
> metric tensor gij with each coordinate system. All essential metric
> properties of a metricized space are completely determined by this
> tensor.
>
> GSShttp://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
The physical space is not the geometrical space and this is not the
algebric space.
The philosphical space transcend this.A philosophical space thinking
can think that
the space is the other;s field and this is in his relation.The spacial
thinking is from the agent's
from the resolver's point of view and this is the system for his
completion and this is for his egalization
with other.This is from his default,from his morphologicals defaults'
point of view.
The real space is not with our objective space identical relations.
This is the other system.
Go to the group"the resolvatism-a philosophy"for a resolvatist space
philosphy.!
The science give the necesairies conditions for the possibiles actions
and the knowledge
give the structures of this conditions from the resolver' objective
point of view.
The space is absolute and the time is not absolute,it is a consequence
of infinite(?) sequence
finite events.
Huang
>
> > > > What sort of things are they if they are things?
>
Space and time are indeed things. They are not abstractions or merely
instruments neccessitated by physical laws, they are the substance of
which everything consists.
Space and time are indeed tangible substance, no different than any
other substance. They are the most fundamental substance, everything
is composed of space and time and all of chemistry and physics should
be constructible based on the bending of these things.
The strange thing about space and time is that it is very much like
fundamental particles in the sense that a particle, say an electron
may be regarded as being particle or wave. Space has some of these
same properties and that is why it is poorly understood IMO. Some
people argue it is continuous. Other argue it is discrete. It has
properties of both, and yet continuous and discrete seem incompatible
kind of like wave/particle aspects.
The truth is that you can correctly model particles as being waves or
particles. And you can correctly model space as being continuous or
discrete. Both views are correct. The difficulty lies in resolving
that and making it rigorous with the tools that you have been given,
and unfortunately those tools are insufficient to model such a thing.
If space is discretized - I ask - discretized BY WHAT ??? The only way
to chop or demark a chunk of space which exists, is to place cuts into
it which are nonexistent. That is the only way to chop up the
existent. You chop it up into segments by inserting segments which are
nonexistent - that is the only way.
To do that you must be able to grasp triviality, order, disorder, and
conservation......all in a very new way. No scientist today has been
trained to think like that and most wold reject the approach. But it
does not matter whether someone likes it or not. If you can produce
accurate models which are consistent with observations in the lab then
you have a useful model.
It is very straightforward to model this way, yes you have tools which
are not math, but are consistent with math, and equally as valid as
mathematics though they be not math.
Huang
The fact that particles have this strange wave/particle duality is a
direct result of the fact that such particles are composed of
spacetime and spacetime alone. These strange wave/particle attributes
are INHERITED from their mother material - spacetime. And that is why
you have these strange effects in the first place.
Modern physics and mathematics has FAILED to construct a spacetime
which is possessing of such properties, and that is why any
signifigant theoretical progress pretty much ends with Einstein who
fathomed order, disorder and causality, but never quite conquered it.
I dont blame him for keeping his mouth shut. After his death they
confiscated his brain, and if he would have made such radical
propositions they probably would have removed it from him while still
alive.
So - to math and physics I do hereby present you with your F, which I
assign to you for failing mankind in this manner and preserving the
ignorance.
Michael Gordge
None of that Kantian garabge says anything about the meaning of space
or time, i.e. how do you distinguish time from elephant, space from
bottle.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> - Show quoted text -
If asked to distinguish a cat from a cabbage, you would probably say
things like "the cabbage doesn't shit in lounge" or "a cat's shit
stinks", or the cat's got three legs because the dog ate one and the
cabbage's got no legs etc. If challenged to distinguish between an ant
and an elephant, you'd probably point out a difference in size between
the ant's and elephant's penis etc etc, your next challenge, which you
have obviously never before given any thought to before, is to explain
how would you distinguish time from egg.
MG
Huang
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's pretty obvious that we distinguish these things by their
macroscopic shapes, sizes, etc. If you cant distinguish between those
things then I would say you've probably got some mental problems.
On the atomic level the only distinction between different kinds of
atoms or other particles is the probability distributions which best
describe them, which can take a variety of forms in complete agreement
with what I said above.
None of this has anything to do with Kant. I think that you've mis-
dosed yourself. Check the label for proper dosing instructions and try
not to overdo it.
Michael Gordge
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your ideas have everything to do with Kant, your mission is to explain
the differences between time and dog, in the same way you could
between dog and ant.
MG
Huang
Kant never said anything about Existential Indeterminacy, nor did he
say it was equivalent to an existential dichotomy, equivalent in the
sense of relativity. I dont think Kant ever said that.
What exactly do you want me to do .... solve the Schrodinger Wave
Equation for a dog and compare it to that of an insect ? Do you think
there is enough collective computing power on this planet to solve
such a thing ?
Michael Gordge
> What exactly do you want me to do ....
Still waiting for you to give time its very own identity, the law of
identity, each entity has its very own identity that seperates it from
any other entity.
You claiming that something can not exist without space or time, or
that everything exists with space and time, says absolutely NOTHING
about the meaning of space OR time.
MG
Huang
>
> - Show quoted text -
My view of spacetime is more aligned with Einstein than Kant. But
there are a few exceptions. Einstein was concerned with the
equivalence of motions in different reference frames, but he failed to
connect all of the dots. He did not assert that the reason for this
equivalence was fundamentally rooted in spacetime, whereas I would say
that it is. To Einstein, motion is something which occurs in space and
the equivalence of motions in different refernce frames is a property
of motion itself, and not the space in which that motion is occuring.
In my view spacetime is an absolute fundamental thing. All objects
which exist are not [1] merely floating in space, they are [2]
composed of it, and further that [1] and [2] are equivalent in the
sense of Einstein.
He never made that claim, but I would.
If you say that Existential Indeterminacy is equivalent to Existential
Dichotomy, (equivalent in the sense of Einstein), then GR follows as a
corollary.
Einstein never said that, neither did Kant. But it's true - in my view
- and it meshes pretty nicely with QM too so I'm gonna go pick my ass
and you have a nice day.
Michael Gordge
> There is no difference between space and time.
Anyone who believes that probably eats his own snot.
MG