Space and Time, or Spaces and Times?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Ash, May 18, 2001.

  1. Ash Registered Member

    Pontificating: that time and space are not absolutes. time at least is a man-made concept. the concept of 'space' , as we know it, is being challenged daily. that space is not actually just space, with black holes populating our universe like potholes in the way. some so large that they appear to be just empty spaces, some so small that they trip us up in our search for the edges of our horizons.

    time, the enemy of life, is not as precise as we would like it to be. in fact, particles appearing in places at the same time, shames the whole concept of time itself, denying its very existance. the space/time variable keeps turning on its head, its very revolutions, making the layman weep. Where would we be if neither existed, or only used as a tool for measurement when needed, instead of being the backbone of every measurement we make.

    if Columbus hadnt thrown the map of a flat world out the window in his time wecould not have conceptualised all other concepts that weve discovered since. Can we not throw the space/time concepts out the window too, and saythat neither time as a singular linear concept exists, nor space as a singular 3dimensional entity, we know it. they exist when we see the smaller picture, and cannot be totally ignored, but they dont govern the big picture. like the world , which is flat for all of our purposes; the ground we stand on is flat and can be measured as such, and we were not incorrect to say that the world was flat, its just that it was and is flat on the smaller scale.

    i think that doing away with time and space as absolute concepts is possibly a psychological exercise more than anything else. if i had believed all my life that the world was flat and measured my very existance in that thread, i too would deny that it was actually a measly little ball hanging on out space by some vague force.

    similarily, time and space may well be great variables of measurement for physics as we know it, but when we look at the larger picture, these two trusted friends of science let us down. Perhaps we should do away with them or improve on their very qualities giving us several variable concepts of time and several variable concepts of space instead of just one. Doesnt QM by its inferences actually promote this? Or is it just that i was dropped in a cauldron of dodgy herbs as a baby?
    Last edited: May 18, 2001
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Javier Registered Senior Member

    Edgy subject

    This doubt thing is quite appealing,but in excess can be disturbing...

    I ll tell you my opinion:

    Descartes showed that,(cogito ergo sum and bla,bla)from an absolutely practical point of view,the only undoubtful object is the self present(food for wet1,if he doesn t keep reading...),but given the not ideal nature of existence(if we invented our world why not to be a perfect one)and the fact that the majority of the people claim to perceive very much as any other,this suggests that the external world,or exists, or if not we would have to imagine some far-out- near- zero improbable individual(the one that knows that is thinking) matrix- type world(and even from Descartes point of view,less real,for we can t perceive this world at all) concocted by some alien intelligence(each person over him/herself and no other¡¡¡)...

    Now,the fact that the "external"(as individuals and as species)world exists doesn t imply that we have an absolute view of its nature:

    The color blue,for instance,is not but a representation made by our brain as the short wave visible photons impress it,and so are the rest of the "sensations":what is perceived a friendly tap on the back by us can be felt as a hit by a squirrel,and pass unnoticed for an elephant; but,albeit coherent enough to interact effectively with the external world,are not absolute,just useful to action in a determined "frame of reference",and as our technology allows us to broad the observable horizons of the events,this equals to change the frame of reference,which is the only real value that we can have for them,and thus the amount of definitions of that object:

    But they are not arbitrary or just imaginary for two important reasons;first, that they permit us to act within that frame of reference in an effective way;second, there is an absolute container of all these points of view about that given event,and is that notwithstanding the point of view we may use to consider it,will always mantain a mathematical coherence(and hence no contradiction) with all the rest of vantage points:

    i.e., if we say that we can only observe the roundness of an orange and the flatness of the earth(from its surface),the mathematical relation between the shrinking/aumengtation of the points of view needed to flatten the observation of the orange s surface or to make visible the sphericity of earth will remain equal...

    And as all objects exist in spacetime,space and time are variable according to the situation of the observer...

    But as ANY NUMBER IS EQUALLY DISTANT TO INFINITUDE(hey,ever expanding universe=infinity upholders¡¡),this means that adding degrees of depht(or broadening) of observation,no matter how many,won t give us an absolute measure of events,and we have IMO total right to claim that the earth is flat,as long as we don t plan to behave in a scale in which another frame of reference becomes more relevant...
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2001
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page