|
|
Re: What are space and time?
Posted:
Jul 17, 2010 7:54 PM
|
|
On Jul 18, 8:34 am, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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
|
|
