Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Zwing]

Another bare assertion.

You love that phrase. Since you yourself, have not rendered proof of the reality of “spacetime” within this context, your assertions, themselves, remain bare, no? I think that you have digested and incorporated into your belief system that which was fed to you in “Physics 102” without thinking critically about it. Physicists can be said to work within an imaginary/theoretical context, which is why they often appear to have their heads in the clouds. Einstein is the perfect example.

 

[We Never Know]

So the fact that we can actually measure the curvature shows that it does have a 'physical basis'.

Time has a physical basis?

It can't be seen
It can't be felt
It can't be weighed
It can't be smelled
It can't be etc..

It can be measured(clocks) but even that measurement isn't measuring physical time.

 

[ratiocinator]

Theoretical models, of which “spacetime” is an example, do not always provide solid epistemological grounds for understanding reality because they often include faulty premises.

How would you know?

You love that phrase. Since you yourself, have not rendered proof of the reality of “spacetime” within this context, your assertions, themselves, remain bare, no?

No. There is no proof but there is evidence. Namely that the model that uses space-time makes accurate predictions.

This really isn't difficult. Some guy just thinking about stuff and coming up with what they happen to think is reasonable or credible has nothing but an opinion. Science constructs testable models, and, if they pass the tests, then has objective evidence that the model is 'good', i.e. that it does actually match what is 'out there'. There are no 100% guarantees (proof) because models can change in the light of new evidence but evidence is better than opinion and bare, dogmatic assertion.

 

[viole]

Time has a physical basis?

It can't be seen
It can't be felt
It can't be weighed
It can't be smelled
It can't be etc..

It can be measured(clocks) but even that measurement isn't measuring physical time.

Like space, right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zwing]

Like space, right?

Space can be measured physically: length, volume….

 

[viole]

Space can be measured physically: length, volume….

Like time. Seconds, etc.

I am sure that you can make sense of how old you are.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zwing]

Like time. Seconds, etc.

I am sure that you can make sense of how old you are.

Ciao

- viole

You are talking about dimension, physical extent, not space. Time is the correlative of dimension which is different from space. Once our universe has ended…after the last gigantic black hole has swallowed the few remaining black holes and then self-imploded due to the massive gravitation, and all matter (at least in the vicinity of space which our universe occupies) has ceased to exist, all that will be left is empty space. Within that context, both dimension and time will be meaningless concepts, because both depend upon matter for their reason. All that will exist is space which, as far as we know, is infinite…an endless void. “Dimension” describes something, some object; “space” simply describes nullity…a/the “void”.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This hints at what I am saying. “Space” and “time” are quale of an utterly different nature. They may have a relation, but cannot be said to be constituents of any real thing in nature.

Would you please point to a real thing as a real thing? Or point to nature? You are doing the fallacy of concreteness.

 

[ratiocinator]

Time is the correlative of dimension which is different from space. Once our universe has ended…after the last gigantic black hole has swallowed the few remaining black holes and then self-imploded due to the massive gravitation, and all matter (at least in the vicinity of space which our universe occupies) has ceased to exist, all that will be left is empty space.

Humm, science really not your strong suit eh?

Black holes don't implode (they've already done that to the maximum extent possible in order to be black holes in the first place), they evaporate (Hawking radiation). Quantum field theory tells us that empty space isn't a thing.

“Dimension” describes something, some object; “space” simply describes nullity…a/the “void”.

The confusion continues. No 'space', even if it was possible to be empty, still has properties. Dimensionality being one of them, so even idealised space has a number of dimensions. It also has geometry and topology. The same is true of space-time.

 

[Zwing]

Scientists are too poor…finance is the better option.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Scientists are too poor…finance is the better option.

Got any evidence for that? Get used to that one. You made a claim. Now deliver the evidence.

 

[Zwing]

Got any evidence for that? Get used to that one. You made a claim. Now deliver the evidence.

Ray Dalio is wealthier than Einstein ever could be.

 

[Polymath257]

As is the assertion that there is a thing in the universe called “time”. It works theoretically, but so doesn’t the argument 0.999…=1, which is obviously invalid.

That you see this as obviously invalid only does you don't know what the symbols mean.

Once it is understood, it is actually obviously valid.

This type of disagreement highlights the distinction between theory and fact. Theories are based upon all types of premises, and the invalidity of some of those is ignored by mathematicians and scientists if their contribution supports the theoretical framework in question. Not saying that is a bad thing… it is useful, but we are behooved to be mindful of the inconsistencies which exist.

It is usually a good idea to understand what you are talking about before talking about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ray Dalio is wealthier than Einstein ever could be.

Yeah, but how is that better?

 

[Zwing]

Yeah, but how is that better?

Positions one to have more authority over others, and to pass that to one’s descendants,

 

[Polymath257]

Theoretical models, of which “spacetime” is an example, do not always provide solid epistemological grounds for understanding reality because they often include faulty premises.

Which is more a problem for epistemology than it is for the theoretical models.

A great deal of philosophy is bunk.

 

[Polymath257]

Positions one to have more authority over others, and to pass that to one’s descendants,

Having money does not convey authority.

 

[Polymath257]

Time has a physical basis?

It can't be seen
It can't be felt
It can't be weighed
It can't be smelled
It can't be etc..

It can be measured(clocks) but even that measurement isn't measuring physical time.

And the same things can all be said about neutrinos. And yet they are undeniably physical.

For that matter, the same things can be said about radio waves, ultrasound, gamma rays, and many other very physical things.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Positions one to have more authority over others, and to pass that to one’s descendants,

Yeah, that is a first person evaluation of what matters. I asked for evidence. Not what matters to you.

 

[We Never Know]

And the same things can all be said about neutrinos. And yet they are undeniably physical.

For that matter, the same things can be said about radio waves, ultrasound, gamma rays, and many other very physical things.

Ghosts, ghouls, and gods too