On Jul 17, 6:22 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > On Jul 18, 12:58 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 17, 9:35 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - 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- Hide quoted text - > > - 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.