I challenge the world , bring it on!

[Curious George]

No they are not interchangeable. In the beginning there was nothing Δk0= t where Δ is change and k is any given point of space and t is time.

As I already explained, that does not make sense.

 

[Axe Elf]

You are mistaken. What science really says is that
a) Every event E that happens (say an atomic decay) has a spatial coordinate (x,y,z) where it happens and a time coordinate (t) of when it happens relative to an observer O measuring that event.
b) Before Einstein, it was believed that the spatial coordinates of an event are independent from the time coordinate of the same event, as measured by various observers.
c) But Einstein discovered that the coordinates are related. Thus if observer O measures the event E to be happening at (x,y,z,t) and if a different observer O' measures the same event E to be happening at (x',y',z',t') then we must have the relation below to be true:-
c^2*t^2 - (x^2 + y^2 + z^2) = c^2*t'^2 - (x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2)

That's it. That is what is meant when we say spatial and time coordinates of an event are related to each other.

Questions?

Dude... lol

This guy doesn't understand begging the question; and you expect him to buy this?

 

[james blunt]

You are mistaken. What science really says is that
a) Every event E that happens (say an atomic decay) has a spatial coordinate (x,y,z) where it happens and a time coordinate (t) of when it happens relative to an observer O measuring that event.
b) Before Einstein, it was believed that the spatial coordinates of an event are independent from the time coordinate of the same event, as measured by various observers.
c) But Einstein discovered that the coordinates are related. Thus if observer O measures the event E to be happening at (x,y,z,t) and if a different observer O' measures the same event E to be happening at (x',y',z',t') then we must have the relation below to be true:-
c^2*t^2 - (x^2 + y^2 + z^2) = c^2*t'^2 - (x'^2 + y'^2 + z'^2)

That's it. That is what is meant when we say spatial and time coordinates of an event are related to each other.

Questions?

No questions, it is all very well you explaining what science says, however I am telling you it is subjective and wrong and not even rational thinking. Now I have to be careful what I say to you, because I noticed you are a moderator and I do not know what your stance is on cognitive control, in which you may ban me if I don't agree with you if you are enforcing cognitive control .

I will ask you to please keep an open mind and remain totally unbiased.

I am not sure why you have brought simultaneity into this as it as no bearing in the discussion thus far.

The simple question in challenge one - Provide proof of space -time ?

Any given point of space has 0 dimensions, time is a dimension,

Any given volume of points still has no time dimension

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

She is so hot zero dimensional points. We are getting married.... ... I work in 3D for Pete's sake. You clearly do not understand 3d space. View attachment 21129

You made that? Well done!

 

[james blunt]

As I already explained, that does not make sense.

What do you mean that does not make sense? It is really basic math .

The beginning of time equals a change of space . delta K = t

Perfect sense.

 

[Axe Elf]

Any given point of space has 0 dimensions, time is a dimension,

Any given volume of points still has no time dimension

Wait, this may be the source of your basic misunderstanding...

You do realize that a "point" is not a real thing, right--that a "point" does not exist in the real world (it exists only as a geometrical construct)?

You're acting like you could go gather up a buttload of points, put them in a bag, and presto, the bag would still be empty!

But I admit defeat in advance; I am no match for your superior intellect and skill.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you have any science or do you just wish to keep nagging at me?

If I believed you had any kind of scientific knowledge I might be interested in a formal response but there is almost zero evidence that you know what you are talking about. Therefore, logically speaking, a response is not warranted.

 

[james blunt]

Wait, this may be the source of your basic misunderstanding...

You do realize that a "point" is not a real thing, right--that a "point" does not exist in the real world (it exists only as a geometrical construct)?

You're acting like you could go gather up a buttload of points, put them in a bag, and presto, the bag would still be empty!

But I admit defeat in advance; I am no match for your superior intellect and skill.

A point exists in the real world, but I am not wasting my time explaining to you when you are not really interested in the truth.

 

[james blunt]

If I believed you had any kind of scientific knowledge I might be interested in a formal response but there is almost zero evidence that you know what you are talking about. Therefore, logically speaking, a response is not warranted.

Yeah yeah, you keep passing it off because your answer has to agree unless you are going to openly lie in Gods forum.

 

[Axe Elf]

If I believed you had any kind of scientific knowledge I might be interested in a formal response but there is almost zero evidence that you know what you are talking about. Therefore, logically speaking, a response is not warranted.

And any response I might make to your response is most definitely unwarranted. Heck, I'm not even IN this. But logic has been formally suspended for the infinite duration of this thread, which is really no time at all, so I really don't have any leg to stand on.

 

[sayak83]

No questions, it is all very well you explaining what science says, however I am telling you it is subjective and wrong and not even rational thinking. Now I have to be careful what I say to you, because I noticed you are a moderator and I do not know what your stance is on cognitive control, in which you may ban me if I don't agree with you if you are enforcing cognitive control .

I will ask you to please keep an open mind and remain totally unbiased.

I am not sure why you have brought simultaneity into this as it as no bearing in the discussion thus far.

The simple question in challenge one - Provide proof of space -time ?

Any given point of space has 0 dimensions, time is a dimension,

Any given volume of points still has no time dimension

I have no idea what you are talking about. The relational identity between event coordinates I wrote above is what is meant by space-time interdependency in science. Nothing else. We don't actually believe whatever you think we believe.

 

[Axe Elf]

A point exists in the real world, but I am not wasting my time explaining to you when you are not really interested in the truth.

See? I just KNEW that your understanding would be beyond my understanding... or at least beyond your ability to explain it in a way that I could understand it... whichever.

 

[Axe Elf]

A point exists in the real world, but I am not wasting my time explaining to you when you are not really interested in the truth.

When you can bring me a big bag of points, then I will concede the point. Until then, I consider your denial of reality absolutely pointless.

 

[james blunt]

We don't actually believe whatever you think we believe.

If you are saying whatever, you cannot know what I think you believe, I don't think you believe anything as such, science believes that time and space are interwoven and time is dependent to space. They have been telling me for many years

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativisticeffects such as why different observers perceive where and when events occur.

Spacetime - Wikipedia

To put it simply, what single dimension of time, there isn't one?

 

[james blunt]

When you can bring me a big bag of points, then I will concede the point. Until then, I consider your denial of reality absolutely pointless.

Do you have an empty cup or glass in front of you? It is full of geometrical points .

 

[Axe Elf]

Do you have an empty cup or glass in front of you? It is full of geometrical points .

Wait, did you say an empty glass, or a full glass?

Please clarify, so that my imagination of your scenario can be as accurate as possible.

 

[Axe Elf]

Don't forget my challenge folks!

I'll be back in the morning to see if anyone has made a rational point that Sustainer acknowledges, or if trying is but a fool's errand.

 

[james blunt]

Wait, did you say an empty glass, or a full glass?

Please clarify, so that my imagination of your scenario can be as accurate as possible.

Empty of liquid, ignore the air that fills the glass and the energy that you cannot see in the glass.

Also try this experiment it is proper cool.


Place the ''empty'' glass on a flat surface in front of you, notice the space in the glass


Move the glass to the right or the left

Notice it is now a new space in your glass.

 

[sayak83]

If you are saying whatever, you cannot know what I think you believe, I don't think you believe anything as such, science believes that time and space are interwoven and time is dependent to space. They have been telling me for many years

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativisticeffects such as why different observers perceive where and when events occur.

Spacetime - Wikipedia

To put it simply, what single dimension of time, there isn't one?

The language has confused you. For scientists space is simply the distance measured by scales between two events and time is simply the interval between two events measured by a clock. Space and Time are interwoven simply means that the scale measurements and the clock measurements are related by the equation I quoted earlier. That's all it is and that's all it ever was.

 

[james blunt]

The language has confused you. For scientists space is simply the distance measured by scales between two events and time is simply the interval between two events measured by a clock. Space and Time are interwoven simply means that the scale measurements and the clock measurements are related by the equation I quoted earlier. That's all it is and that's all it ever was.

You would think so, you seem to understand it better than science, you do realise science thinks space itself is expanding?

Space-time affects the Caesium atom ?

You say it correctly but I do not think you understand what science says. I have had countless bans for saying space-time is not time and space is not expanding.

Do you agree space does not age?

Do you agree that space cannot be displaced?


Do you agree that space itself has no time and time is the elements that occupy space?


Time is a period of existence for something?