Quote:
Originally Posted by Erasmus00
If it were true, Newtonian mechanics would also fail to be quantized (as you say, Newton introduced the assumption).
|
That is a pretty broad statement. Do you actually think you can prove it or is it merely an opinion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erasmus00
These theories have the same suppositions about time.
|
No, they certainly do not! Newtonian physics does not consider time to be a coordinate of the geometry. One would think that someone as versed in modern physics as yourself would be well aware of that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erasmus00
How then do you define space, other then what rulers measure?
|
Space is a little more subtle (that is why I seldom bring it up). But, since you asked, I will put it forth: my definition of “space” is that “space is a geometric representation of numeric references to the unknown ontological elements upon which one builds one's epistemological constructs (which are, of course, the source of one's expectations).
As I said, I have been told over and over again by the academic authorities that "time is what clocks measure!" My first response to that is, “Ok then, what is a clock?” I think you would be astonished with the number of times that is answered with, “the thing that measures time!” Not only is that an entirely circular definition, but it is absolutely equivalent to, “just get off my back; if you don't know what time is, you can't do physics!” Essentially the response to my comments amounts to, “we all know what we are talking about and if you can't comprehend it you're just stupid”: i.e., let's not think about it.
And the same thing goes for space; if space is what rulers measure, please define a ruler without mentioning space. Physics is just chock full of such circular reasoning. It is what I define to be a
"squirrel construct". (I intend no disrespect with that comment; it is no more than a statement of how their ideas were arrived at and I have no better procedure to suggest. I am merely solving the problem of constraining one's expectations when analyzing an extremely large set of undefined variables.)
And, speaking of relativity, I think you would benefit from reading a discourse I had with Hurkyl (who I think is a mathematician interested in relativity) on physicsforums.com (you should be aware that I was “banned forever” from posting on that forum for posting “crackpottery”). The authorities have ways of dealing with people like me.
Sorry, on reviewing that thread, I realized that there is a lot of garbage between my presentation to Hurkyl. In order to follow my presentation to him I think you would find it convenient to skip all posts except the following four:
my opening presentation to Hurkyl post #26
parametric representation of any arbitrary phenomena post #40
attaching a clock to each and every parametric path post #42 197640
continuation of post #42 post #43
Have fun -- Dick
