Doctordick:
Quote:
|
PS before one can talk about space time one needs a good self consistent definition of both "space" and "time"; something totally lacking in this thread.
|
From post #3:
Quote:
|
"If space is actually the emptiness in which all observable phenomena take place, being nothing in and of itself, then the mystery of gravity (how it works) remains a mystery without the assertion that this "fabric" is indeed *something real* as in my reference to "The Emporerer's New Clothes."
|
I went on to define and elaborate on my meaning for "space" literally dozens of times in this thread.
From post #5:
Quote:
|
"I am asking for answers to the properties of spacetime as an actual medium, *if* "it" is actually more than a juxtaposition of "space" as emptiness and "time" as measured event duration.
|
(Bold emphasis just added.)
Subsequently I practically beat "time" to death with my criticism of its ubiquitous reification.
My "time piece" i've bumped most often is this answer to "What is Time?"
Quote:
"Two answers to consider simultaneously...
One:
It is the *concept/measure* of event duration, like
A: one rotation of earth (day and standardized divisions thereof... hours, minutes, seconds... nanoseconds)
B: one earth orbit around sun (measured three different ways giving three technically different *spans of time*)
C: the great cycle of the precession of the equinox
D: a complete "bang/crunch" cycle, if my favorite comology is true...
...You get the idea.
Two: Now, the present is always present, not sliced into units of time in the real world/cosmos. As I've said many times, future is not yet real and present and past is not still real and present, and there is no "time" between future and past. Therefore "time" is not a natural reality in the strict ontological sense of what is real.
So, "spans of time", as above are as real as we make them. There is no cosmic counter clicking at every complete earth rotation, year, etc. Yet we can "be on time" to work by common consensus on the convention, time. and we can plug in "time" as a component of velocity and calculate and execute a round trip to the moon.
It is also conventional to call "time" the fourth dimension added to the obvious spacial three which describe volume. Then we can avoid having two airplanes at the same coordinates in air-space at the same time. A very useful convention.
But it doesn't expand and contract as an actual entity of any kind... See Two above. "
|
It has become obvious that you don't listen to anything I say, but this is ridiculous.
Also, wherever I disagree with you, you claim that I have not sufficiently "thought things through." (Good grief!)
And when I challenge you to critique my point by point criticisms of relativity vs the parts I acknowledge as valid... twice now since your first potshot, you totally ignore the challenges and just take another sniper shot. This is not constructive dialogue.
Btw, Have you even bothered to read the piece on "The Ontology and Cosmology of Non-Euclidean Geometry" which Ive bumped and quoted from many times? It far surpasses your critique presented here in both breadth and depth on the Euclidean vs non_Euclidean issue.
Then there was my link on in-depth ontology. Did you read it? How about my last critical reply to AnssiH.
You just keep shooting from the hip without any response to any of the above.
Very poor aim, doc. And you haven't even located the target.
Michael
