Quote:
Originally Posted by NotStein  Dear RascalPuff,
I don't believe that just because a condition has not been observed means that it cannot be conceptualized, mathmatically represented, and used as a step in a deductive logic sequence. Else, we'd have to throw out most of quantum mechanics, and all of string and quantum loop theories, 'cause we can observe barely any of that! I don't believe time and motion are synonymous, either, otherwise we wouldn't have a separate word for each; and, as D.A.Peel so elegantly pointed out, when something travels at the speed of light, time 'stops'/ceases to exist, while it's obviously still moving, therefore, they are different. Which brings up two interesting things ponder:
1) If time does not exist for a photon travelling at 'C', is there any real need for there to be more than one in the entire universe? After all, it can be everywhere at once.
2) Since inflation apparently occurred faster than the speed of light, did time run backwards during inflation - meaning that by the time our universe expires, or 'crunches',or whatever, zero time will have passed?
BTW, I believe that space & motion are the '4th dimension', although I believe that using the term '4th dimension' will ultimately be proved to be a misnomer. I believe what we like to call the 4th dim. is actually better described as the 'fabric' of our universe, or in classic terms, the aether. |
String and quantum loop (for example) are not theories, because they are based on
non-metric mathematics (refer The Elegant Universe, and Castles In The Sky).
That is,
metric mathematics is obliged to reflect, accurately describe and conform to existing conditions.
On the other hand, non-metric mathematics is not bound to describe reality, it (non metric mathematics) for example, may hold out two equations - each equally accurate, while they mutually contradict each other.
Conceptualization and deductive logic, does, as you say, have a valuable place in the contemplation of physical conditiions, and the points you make to that effect are, IMO, well expressed.
Regarding your conclusion that time and motion aren't the same 'because otherwise we wouldn't have a separate word for each'... is remiss, in the fact that motion is a natural condition, and time is a man made tool for measuring that condition. Motion is a verb, while time is more noun than verb.
With these exceptions, IMO, your post is well expressed and significantly clarifies several otherwise frequently misunderstood considerations. Thanks for the alternative perspectives - on D.A. Peel's posts as well.
Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie