On Jul 7, 10:43 pm, Mark Earnest <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 7, 9:40 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? > > > 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/ > > Space is the Final Frontier, > > and Time is the ticking of a clock.
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.
