Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #529458 > unrolled thread

Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-01 05:40 +1100
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-10-31 18:47 +0000
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 15:45 +1100
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 11:58 -0700
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:58 -0500
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 21:54 -0700
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:52 -0600
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 10:14 -0500
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 10:32 -0800
              Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:02 -0600
                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:13 -0800
                  Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:24 -0600
                    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:34 -0800
                      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:43 -0600
                        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 11:55 -0800
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 14:51 -0500
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-01 16:12 +1100
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 07:57 -0600
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-01 10:03 -0500
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Wayne Olmstead <wayols@eclipseevenet.org> - 2015-11-01 15:08 +0000
          Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-02 04:44 +1100
            Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:05 -0600
              Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-11-02 08:16 +1100
                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 13:32 -0800
                Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 19:28 -0600
                  Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 01:51 +1100
                    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 09:07 -0600
                      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 06:58 +1100
                        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 14:09 -0600
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj) - 2015-10-31 19:52 +0000
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-01 22:36 -0800
      Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) - 2015-11-03 01:52 +1100
        Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-02 08:59 -0800
    Re: Some Facts about Space, Time and Infinity "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 22:46 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#529718

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:57:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote:
>> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number
>> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside
>> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even
>> exist.
>
>
>  What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
>  it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
>  there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
>  spinning make little sense.

You are raving mad! ....and very confused...Probably a C- student like all
Einsten worshipers. It is the direction of spin that has no reference. Rotation
itself is absolute. 
This is off topic anyway.

Space is not a 'spatial interval'. It is a void that has no 'size'.  If at any
instant a particular sphere encloses an entire universe, there is nothing to
prevent objects from moving outside that sphere and enlarging that universe.

It is not impossible that other universes might exist, entirely enclosed in
spheres that are separated from each other by a length (a spatial interval).

Space, being entirely mathematical, can accommodate any number of separated
objects.  Even your Big Bang theory requires something like this. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529737

On 11/1/15 11:44 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:57:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote:
>>> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number
>>> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside
>>> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even
>>> exist.
>>
>>
>>   What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
>>   it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
>>   there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
>>   spinning make little sense.
>
> You are raving mad! ....and very confused...Probably a C- student like all
> Einsten worshipers. It is the direction of spin that has no reference. Rotation
> itself is absolute.
> This is off topic anyway.
>
> Space is not a 'spatial interval'. It is a void that has no 'size'.  If at any
> instant a particular sphere encloses an entire universe, there is nothing to
> prevent objects from moving outside that sphere and enlarging that universe.
>
> It is not impossible that other universes might exist, entirely enclosed in
> spheres that are separated from each other by a length (a spatial interval).
>
> Space, being entirely mathematical, can accommodate any number of separated
> objects.  Even your Big Bang theory requires something like this.
>

   Ralph, imagine that the *only objects in the whole universe* were a
   number1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship.

   What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
   it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
   there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
   spinning make little sense.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529767

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:05:32 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/15 11:44 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 07:57:04 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/1/15 12:12 AM, HGW wrote:
>>>> For instance, imagine that the only objects in the whole universe were a number
>>>> 1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship. What lies outside
>>>> the sphere containing the rods is of no interest and in effect does not even
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>   What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
>>>   it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
>>>   there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
>>>   spinning make little sense.
>>
>> You are raving mad! ....and very confused...Probably a C- student like all
>> Einsten worshipers. It is the direction of spin that has no reference. Rotation
>> itself is absolute.
>> This is off topic anyway.
>>
>> Space is not a 'spatial interval'. It is a void that has no 'size'.  If at any
>> instant a particular sphere encloses an entire universe, there is nothing to
>> prevent objects from moving outside that sphere and enlarging that universe.
>>
>> It is not impossible that other universes might exist, entirely enclosed in
>> spheres that are separated from each other by a length (a spatial interval).
>>
>> Space, being entirely mathematical, can accommodate any number of separated
>> objects.  Even your Big Bang theory requires something like this.
>>
>
>   Ralph, imagine that the *only objects in the whole universe* were a
>   number1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship.
>
>   What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
>   it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
>   there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
>   spinning make little sense.

This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are
gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap.

Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
much bigger than I previously thought.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529774

On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 1:17:13 PM UTC-8, HGW wrote:
> 
> This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are
> gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap.
> 


Please don't be disrespecting Einstein, as he was one of the 
best theoretical physicists of the 20'th century, and sowed a 
framework for modern notation and usual realizations in modern 
physics, among for example Pauli, Dirac, and a host of other 
theoretical physicists of the early to mid 20'th century.  
Besides this he was also a humanitarian.

Einstein's "blunder" is a foothold for the conciliation of 
a mathematical physics, and a purely mathematical physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529824

On 11/1/15 3:16 PM, HGW wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:05:32 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>    Ralph, imagine that the *only objects in the whole universe* were a
>>    number1 metre rods, arranged in some kind of fixed 3D relationship.
>>
>>    What happens to this geometric arrangement of meter sticks as you spin
>>    it faster and faster without limit. An A+ student will point out that
>>    there is no reference to measure rotation. And that the concept of
>>    spinning make little sense.

>
> This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are
> gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap.
>
> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
> much bigger than I previously thought.
>


   But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in
   some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute
   rotation, Ralph.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529904

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:28:48 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/15 3:16 PM, HGW wrote:

>>
>> This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are
>> gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap.
>>
>> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
>> much bigger than I previously thought.
>>
>
>
>   But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in
>   some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute
>   rotation, Ralph.

That is nonsense. For things to rotate, a force must be applied to them.
otherwise they will continue in straight lines. It the whole system of rods was
rotating, it would soon fly apart.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529913

On 11/2/15 8:51 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:28:48 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/1/15 3:16 PM, HGW wrote:
>
>>>
>>> This post reveals how little you know about basic physics. No wonder you are
>>> gullible enough to accept Einstein's crap.
>>>
>>> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
>>> much bigger than I previously thought.
>>>
>>
>>
>>    But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in
>>    some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute
>>    rotation, Ralph.
>
> That is nonsense. For things to rotate, a force must be applied to them.
> otherwise they will continue in straight lines. It the whole system of rods was
> rotating, it would soon fly apart.
>

   Lots of contradictions in your statements, Ralph!



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529988

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:07:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/2/15 8:51 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>>>>
>>>> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
>>>> much bigger than I previously thought.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in
>>>    some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute
>>>    rotation, Henry.
>>
>> That is nonsense. For things to rotate, a force must be applied to them.
>> otherwise they will continue in straight lines. It the whole system of rods was
>> rotating, it would soon fly apart.
>>
>
>   Lots of contradictions in your statements, Henry!

But you can't say what they are?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529992

On 11/2/15 1:58 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:07:47 -0600, Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/15 8:51 AM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rotation is absolute and can be sensed very easily. You are a big moron Wormey.
>>>>> much bigger than I previously thought.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     But if the who universe consists of number1 metre rods, arranged in
>>>>     some kind of fixed 3D relationship... then there is no absolute
>>>>     rotation, Henry.
>>>
>>> That is nonsense. For things to rotate, a force must be applied to them.
>>> otherwise they will continue in straight lines. It the whole system of rods was
>>> rotating, it would soon fly apart.
>>>
>>
>>    Lots of contradictions in your statements, Henry!
>
> But you can't say what they are?
>


   The only kind of motion that can be detected without reference to
   external objects that define a reference frame, is rotation. However,
   that require all the momentum-energy of the universe and you, Ralph
   just proposed a universe with only your meter sticks.

   Rotation is meaningless without the universe as we know it.




-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529485

In article
<jgu93bd0ogku4nmjiubfd3dvdic7g2p2cu@4ax.com>, 
hw@.. posted:
> 
> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those
> objects are defined in terms of spatial intervals and
> their movements in time intervals. All the space and time
> intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We
> cannot mentally understand how any such interval can
> extend to infinity and we know of none that does. 
> 
> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have
> beginnings and ends in the physical sense, we wrongly
> deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME and
> SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings
> and ends when in fact they are only mathematical scales. 
>  
> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is
> based entirely on intervals, we misconceive the space
> dimension itself to be an interval when, in fact, it is
> just a convenience used to define inter-relationships
> between spatial intervals.   
> 
> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space
> and time is therefore shown to be just a psychological
> misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more relevance
> to space or time that it does, for instance, to the
> colour red. It is only meaningful with regard to
> dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world all
> intervals must be finite by definition. 

Just because you yourself do not know or understand some
things does not mean that they are unknowable. Another
person may know or understand what you don't, and vice
versa.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529880

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> 
> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in
> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space
> and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot
> mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of
> none that does.
> 
> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in
> the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME
> and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in
> fact they are only mathematical scales.
> 
> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on
> intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in
> fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between
> spatial intervals.
> 
> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore
> shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more
> relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is
> only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world
> all intervals must be finite by definition.
> 
> 



Infinity is a movie with no ending but it is still in film production.


The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529905

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 22:36:20 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>> 
>> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in
>> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space
>> and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot
>> mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of
>> none that does.
>> 
>> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in
>> the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME
>> and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in
>> fact they are only mathematical scales.
>> 
>> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on
>> intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in
>> fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between
>> spatial intervals.
>> 
>> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore
>> shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more
>> relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is
>> only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world
>> all intervals must be finite by definition.
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>Infinity is a movie with no ending but it is still in film production.

Infinity is a mathematical concept and so is space.
>
>
>The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529942

Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 22:36:20 -0800, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> >>
> >> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in
> >> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space
> >> and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot
> >> mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of
> >> none that does.
> >>
> >> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in
> >> the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME
> >> and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in
> >> fact they are only mathematical scales.
> >>
> >> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on
> >> intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in
> >> fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between
> >> spatial intervals.
> >>
> >> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore
> >> shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more
> >> relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is
> >> only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world
> >> all intervals must be finite by definition.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >Infinity is a movie with no ending but it is still in film production.
> 
> Infinity is a mathematical concept and so is space.
> >
> >
> >The Starmaker


space is a concept??? I never heard that.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#529883

On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:42:04 PM UTC+2, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> Humans are surrounded by objects that often move. Those objects are defined in
> terms of spatial intervals and their movements in time intervals. All the space
> and time intervals we experience have a beginning and an end. We cannot
> mentally understand how any such interval can extend to infinity and we know of
> none that does. 
> 
> Because we observe that INTERVALS of time and space have beginnings and ends in
> the physical sense, we wrongly deduce that the basic dimensions we know as TIME
> and SPACE should themselves also possess physical beginnings and ends when in
> fact they are only mathematical scales.  
> 
> In other words, because our knowledge of the universe is based entirely on
> intervals, we misconceive the space dimension itself to be an interval when, in
> fact, it is just a convenience used to define inter-relationships between
> spatial intervals.   
> 
> The mystery of the apparent infinite nature of both space and time is therefore
> shown to be just a psychological misconception. The word 'infinite' has no more
> relevance to space or time that it does, for instance, to the colour red. It is
> only meaningful with regard to dimensional INTERVALS and in the physical world
> all intervals must be finite by definition.

========================
no need for too many abstract  in  obliging words :

just tell us some of your your bottom line:


IS CURVED SPACE TIME  -CURVED OR
IS IT A BULLSHIT IDEA ???
2

are in space parts  that are completely empty !!!

TIA
Y.Porat
================================

tia
y.pORAT
===========================

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web