Re: SpaceTime

On 06/02/2024 08:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 06/01/2024 11:18 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.06.2024 o 22:46, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 06/01/2024 01:37 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 01.06.2024 o 21:53, Ross Finlayson pisze:

On 06/01/2024 10:48 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

W dniu 31.05.2024 o 06:25, Tom Roberts pisze:

On 5/30/24 12:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Spacetime is simply what exists, [...]

>
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics,
at a
fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything
you
write.
>
Spacetime is a MODEL of spatial-temporal relationships observed in
the
real world.

>
No, NOT AT ALL! You REALLY do not understand very basic physics,
at a
fundamental level that distorts all your 'thinking' and everything
you
write.
Spacetime is a MODEL  of spatial-temporal relationships
gedanken/fabricated by some religious maniacs, like yourself.
>
>

>
Space-Time is a perfectly good idea of a

>
>
Measured its goodness? Or just sure it
must be perfectly good because you're
sooooooo best?
>
>
>
continuous manifold of

Euclidean space

>
>
A lie, of course, your idiot guru has rejected
Euclidean math as it didn't want to fit his
madness.
>

>
Einstein didn't, he entertained different coordinate settings
and that tensors connect them, then though he at some point
in his expressed opinion said silly things about simultaneity,
later his expressed opinion included a clock hypothesis and
a "the time", where he introduces the "spacial" for the "special"
contra the "spatial" with respect to "t".

>
The mumble of the idiot was not even consistent.
And, yes, later on, in his GR shit, his madness
reached the point when he rejected basic [Euclidean]
math - because it didn't want to fit his postulates.
>

>
Well, the point is that he took it back, and that the
"spacial for SR" and "spatial for GR" reflects that
"SR is local" then as with regards to GR, nowhere is
there yet the Euclidean and torsion to the highly-nonlinear
to the free rotational frames, that rotating frames are
independent. So, people who think that curved space-time
involves discontinuity anywhere have the wrong idea,
when it's only descriptive about the geodesy, which
is connected everywhere, all the time, since forever.
>
That Einstein was a model aggrandizer has that then
Einstein matured, and developed a philosophy of what
to him was a model physicist (who shuts up and computes)
and a model philosopher (of physics, for the principled
and theoretical).
>
So, Einstein matured, and his later works about what
"Einstein's" theory is, is, that he put GR in front
and made SR local and made it one theory Relativity
instead of two theories, then his key concern upon
which he focussed, was, the centrally symmetric and
the "Einstein's bridge", that formulaically, effects
a brief notation of the rotational to the linear or
vice-versa, as part of his studied goal of "Newton's
zero-eth laws", out of his philosophy, at least a
simple formula "Einstein's bridge", for his model physicist,
then he wrote that there wasn't enough mathematics for
his model physicist for super-classical wave mechanics,
continuous, and he wasn't sure how it could be that
shut-up-and-compute could be educated to be anything
more than stuck in linear approximations.
>
So, Einstein being a "grandiose hedge" sort of won out
from his being a "model aggrandizer", yet, most aggrandizing
sorts don't know the difference and so their opinion equals zero.
>
>
>

>
It's kind of like Dirac, also, for whom, most people's only
idea of a non-standard function that's ever admitted into
the curriculum is Dirac's delta the unit impulse function,
that's a spike at the origin of infinite height and
infinitesimal width and that's integrable and has integral 1.
>
Dirac said something like "I'm not sure when mathematics
will be strong enough for continuum mechanics that physics
needs, yet, also I'm not sure when the mathematicians and
physicists will have enough intuition and formalism to
effectively relay continuum mechanics and super-classical
wave mechanics to model philosophers and model physicists",
along those lines, or something like "weak".
>
>
The laws of motion don't have defined the higher orders
of acceleration, all the infinitely-many of them. So, that's
something that mathematics owes physics, along with the
continuum mechanics of infinities and infinitesimals,
the at least three definitions of continuous domains
the line-reals field-reals signal-reals, the at least
three law(s) of large numbers reflecting those definitions
of continuity which result continuum limits, and so on.
>
>
So, SpaceTime is a great idea, it's great like geometry
and continuity, it's great like atomism, it's great
like macrocosm, it's great. If people get it wrong
it's not its fault.
>
>