The universe?

Hello Procop

“Space time” is a curious man made wank.

You are right, the space time concept is based on time being a dimension akin to length, width and breadth.

This is really just a carry over from the earth centre of the universe days, though. Means nothing.

Time requires motion to exist. Length, width and breadth don’t.

Regards
leeaus
 
RE: leeaus

Time requires motion to exist. Length, width and breadth don’t.
Click to expand...

It can be the other way round.

Eg. there is a sizeless point. (It is also unmoving). Now if I put this sizeless point into a stretch of time of say 10 minutes then in the space time model we get a line of some size (eg. 10 cm long). The point and its history of 10 minutes will create the line (in the way that the line will stretch between the point 10 minutes ago and now) You need only the point and time to get the line. (The point is the same and didn't move) Space is then "a history" of time in such model. Why not?
 
Hello Procop

Your 10 minutes of time requires motion to exist is the hot spot.

Not big on size less points either. A contradiction of terms. A point must have size. Otherwise it is not a point.

Regards
leeaus
 
RE leeaus

Not big on size less points either. A contradiction of terms. A point must have size. Otherwise it is not a point.
Click to expand...

The point gets its size (better say identity the point being sizeles) from its surronding - itself being sizeless is not a problem for a point. eg you have square of some size and you put diagonal lines into the corners to get four triangles in it if you paint the inside of the triangles red, black, yellow and blue then you get a lot of sizeless geometric material, (lines, a point in the middle) the border eg. between black and yellow fields is a line of no breadth, and in the middle of the square where the colors meet is the (sizeless) point.

The point in timespace model has the size on similair basis. (Starts time(space) in nothingness)

Time moves. If you watch it in different time-movement- frequence you see the point as a line (therefore it is called <i>time</i>space) (but such model needs an observer, some will have a problem with that...)
 
Last edited:
<i>Not big on size less points either. A contradiction of terms. A point must have size. Otherwise it is not a point. </i>

This is completely opposite to the way mathematicians use the term "point". If something has a size, it is not a mathematical point.

Of course, that's fairly typical of leeaus's definitions.
 
Hello Procop

As JR says, mathematicians need to deviate from reality in places to cover up for logical flaws in other places. I.E a mathematicians logical flaws concering zero and infinity.

What both you and JR are getting at is understood, though.

However once you allow that sort of falsity to creep into your logic you start saying things like the centre of a geometric shape is a size less point.

In reality there is never a point that is equidistant from all points of any geometric shape. Any point equidistant from all sides of a geometric shape has size. Thus there is obvious reason to be not big on size less points.

Or you draw on colour. Place a red block against and blue block. There is always geometric distance between the two colours. Or the blocks are chemically bonded and there is a merging of colours.

Regards
Leeaus
 
this thread is closed some 2 years or so but I would like to respond.
By my opinion that there has only been few smart people posting here in the thread. The most impressive to me is leeaus with his very correct answers all the time. But some people just can not see some things and never will.

OF COURSE infinitive lines or anything infinitive IN space does NOT exist. At least not when something concrete like a linke or "the universe" is described. Infinitive space or infinitive time does exist, but if you describe some context or line for instance, it does not exist in real life. Just like negative numbers do not really exist in real life like they exist in mathematics. Just some simple question...suppose an infinitive line exists...what would be after that infinitive line? well nothing because the line would be infinitive..but...can it be there is NOTHING after something????

I will not start explaining like leeaus tried to...its like i said some people just can not see some (in this case quite simple!) things and never will.
 
Hmm... I'm tempted to check to see whether wilfred is a sock puppet for a certain leeaus.

Cynical bastard, aren't I?
 
Wilfred, welcome to sciforums.

@James R to save you the footwork: wilfred asked me to recommend him an "interesting" forum; I posted him the link :"The universe" (where a stunning idea was intruduced (and killed)) as a sample of what sciforums's like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top