[quote=RascalPuff;31325]'north' inserted the below quote
Quote:
Whereas, space - what we have only recently learned to be inseparable from time (Yes. Minkowski was right - contrary to a popular -
'north' continued:
I disagree
space is the ROOM , allowance , for an object to exist , time has NO bearing on this ROOM allowance, or SPACE.
for the essence of Time is movement. and the essence of this movement is the actions and/or interactions between objects
time is a RESULTANT of either a cause or affect by actions and/or interactions of objects.
_____________________________
Quote:
Dear north:
In your above qualified disagreement, you use the word 'object', twice.
The definition for an object is 'some thing' (that may be seen or felt - an entity). There is no known condition of anything that does not move or contain constituents (molecules, atoms, electrons, sub atomic paricles) that do not move (Absolute zero unachieved and unobserved).
|
true
Quote:
Motion is synonymous with time; is consequently synonymous with space within which movement occurs.
Regards
-RP
|
I disagree here
motion and time could be construd as synomymous but they are not.
for really the essence of any measurement of time is based on motion of the objects themselves , whether we look at their individual atomic structure or as molecules , and as well their macro-dynamics. ( suns , planets , moons etc.)
time in and of its self plays NO bearing on the out-come of any action and/or interaction by any of these objects , micro-macro considered.
for instance without any prior knowledge of an object could you use time ALONE to say what their behaviour would be ? absolutely not.
you must first understand the actions of object it self or objects interactions with of objects.( molecules) then time comes into the equation.