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.