What is nothingness?

[ratiocinator]

What is the scientific definition of time?
Time, a measured or measurable period, a continuum that lacks spatial dimensions.

You still can't have a measurement unless there is something that is being measured.

still not a force or substance

Nobody said it was.

it's just in your head

Not according to the evidence. You can stamp your foot as hard as you like, the evidence isn't going away.

The best description we have comes from general relativity:

"General relativity is a metric theory of gravitation. At its core are Einstein's equations, which describe the relation between the geometry of a four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold representing spacetime, and the energy–momentum contained in that spacetime."
[my emphasis]​

From: General relativity - Wikipedia

There is copious evidence that general relativity is a very good model of space-time and gravity.

 

[Stevicus]

Stubbornly ignoring evidence does not make it go away.

Should we believe all the accumulated evidence that supports special and general relativity and hence the reality of space-time, or some random guy on a message board who shows no sign of even understanding the point?

I guess it's more a matter of practical demonstration. At least when it comes to space, we can demonstrate and measure our ability to traverse a certain distance at a certain rate of speed in any direction we wish: Up, Down, North, South, East, or West. We can walk at 5 mph, or drive at 50 mph, or fly at 500 mph. We can do this at any time, with the tools and technology presently available. We could even go into space, albeit somewhat hobbled and severely limited.

With time, that still has yet to demonstrated. Time is a one-way path which goes at the same rate no matter what we do. We can't stop in time; we can't go back in time. We can't go forward in time any faster than we are currently. No one has invented a "time machine" - not yet, anyway.

There are some cultures where the shortest unit of time is a day, or they might make note of the Moon's phases or the changing of the seasons. They won't necessarily think in terms of numbering years or keeping calendars or clocks with hours, minutes, and seconds. These are things that our culture chose to do, but not every culture did that because they didn't feel the need to do so.

 

[Thief]

You still can't have a measurement unless there is something that is being measured.

and movement would be the item measured

and WHEN ….NOTHING.....is moving

no measure

no time

 

[ratiocinator]

and movement would be the item measured

Movement is a change of position over a period of time.

What's more, we know from relativity, and the evidence for it, that although different observers will not generally agree about how far something has travelled or how long it took, they will agree on the space-time interval between the event at which it started and the event at which it stopped - thus demonstrating that space and time are not separate and that different observers are assigning different directions through space-time as their ideas of space and time.

The evidence says you are wrong - no matter how many times you make the same baseless assertions.

 

[Thief]

Movement is a change of position over a period of time.

yep......distance divided by the tick tock of a man made clock

 

[Terry Sampson]

The distance between me, myself, and I.

 

[ratiocinator]

yep......distance divided by the tick tock of a man made clock

Each tick and tock separated by (space-)time - otherwise, they'd all happen at once.

As I said, your baseless assertions don't matter a jot against the evidence for relativity and hence the reality of space-time - all of which, I note, you are studiously ignoring.

 

[ratiocinator]

With time, that still has yet to demonstrated. Time is a one-way path which goes at the same rate no matter what we do.

Strictly speaking, it doesn't. Obviously for all practical human purposes it does, but its rate is relative both to motion and to gravitational effects. That's why the clocks on the GPS satellites need to be adjusted for relativity. See: Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life

 

[Thief]

Each tick and tock separated by (space-)time - otherwise, they'd all happen at once.

As I said, your baseless assertions don't matter a jot against the evidence for relativity and hence the reality of space-time - all of which, I note, you are studiously ignoring.

I like Albert....
I have the book

but all the calculations are just that

measurement

 

[Thief]

and btw....Albert continued working the numbers until he died

and someone did ask....What are you working on now?
he replied..
I'm trying to catch God in the act

I understand

Albert was seeking the power of creation

 

[ratiocinator]

I like Albert....
I have the book

Perhaps you should read it.

but all the calculations are just that

measurement

Measurements we have aplenty, and they all confirm the model of relativity - which uses space-time.

It's like the whole of the modern scientific method has just passed you by.

This is how we find out about the world these days. We build models that make certain assumptions and we test them against experiments and observations until we get the closest fit possible. In the case of relativity, all of its predictions that we have been able to test have confirmed it.

Regarding space-time as a real part of the world demonstrably gives us an accurate picture, whereas your oft repeated, and rather nonsensical, assertions appear to have no basis whatsoever.

 

[Thief]

Perhaps you should read it.



Measurements we have aplenty, and they all confirm the model of relativity - which uses space-time.

It's like the whole of the modern scientific method has just passed you by.

This is how we find out about the world these days. We build models that make certain assumptions and we test them against experiments and observations until we get the closest fit possible. In the case of relativity, all of its predictions that we have been able to test have confirmed it.

Regarding space-time as a real part of the world demonstrably gives us an accurate picture, whereas your oft repeated, and rather nonsensical, assertions appear to have no basis whatsoever.

this thread is about.....nothing

put THAT in your petri and shake it

 

[shunyadragon]

this thread is about.....nothing

put THAT in your petri and shake it

You cannot put nothing in the petri dish, Even if it is empty it does not contain nothing.

 

[shunyadragon]

and btw....Albert continued working the numbers until he died

and someone did ask....What are you working on now?
he replied..
I'm trying to catch God in the act

I understand

Albert was seeking the power of creation

No you do not understand. Taking Einstein out of context to justify what you believe is unethical.

Einstein did not believe in God, and used the term used the metaphorically.

 

[shunyadragon]

I like Albert....
I have the book;m

Read it instead of using it as door stop.

but all the calculations are just that

measurement

No.

 

[Thief]

Read it instead of using it as door stop.



No.

too much assumption on your part

back to nothing

 

[Thief]

No you do not understand. Taking Einstein out of context to justify what you believe is unethical.

Einstein did not believe in God, and used the term used the metaphorically.

and to the end
he kept working

and someone did ask.....What are you working on now?

"I'm trying to catch God....in the act"

I get it
and apparently.....you don't

 

[shunyadragon]

too much assumption on your part

back to nothing

No assumptions needed. By the facts you are misrepresenting Einstein's writings, science and beliefs, big time, and it is unethical and dishonest, simply by what Einstein wrote in his books and letters.

 

[Thief]

yeah yeah....

back to nothing

 

[shunyadragon]

and to the end
he kept working

and someone did ask.....What are you working on now?

"I'm trying to catch God....in the act"

I get it
and apparently.....you don't

No you do not understand. Taking Einstein out of context to justify what you believe is unethical.

Einstein did not believe in God, and used the term used the metaphorically.

No assumptions needed. By the facts you are misrepresenting Einstein's writings, science and beliefs, big time, and it is unethical and dishonest, simply by what Einstein wrote in his books and letters.

You deviated away from the topic by dishonestly misrepresenting Einstein. It is up to you to get back onto the topic and I will respond.