[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE move along a geodesic line in spacetime

motion along geodesic line also means moving at the minimum energy expenditure. But the minimum of energy is supposed to be zero but zero energy means no motion.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao motion along geodesic line also means moving at the minimum energy expenditure. But the minimum of energy is supposed to be zero but zero energy means no motion.

oo, then, there is no time without motion? and also there is no temp or heat, and there is no energy means no ability to do force, so no force, so, is there actually anything without motion existing?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE oo, then, there is no time without motion?

But if we theorize a LIM, Local Infinitesimal Motion (which cannot be detected by experiment due to the fact that this motion is sub-quantum, less than Planck length), we can use this to define a unit of time and the uncertainty of time is discussed in the thread "spinors and Pythagorean triples."

The time uncertainty is also mentioned in the following thread
http://www.toequest.com/forum/general-physics/373-wave-space-time.html

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>> Do you think that if Newton or Einstein were wrong I would be studying them in school?

I don't think it makes a difference

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion I don't think it makes a difference

you mean that Einstein and Newton don't make a difference?

[subversion]

I didn't say they don't make a difference, I said it doesn't make a difference, as in the fact that you learned something in school, it has no bearing (i.e. makes no difference) on whether the said something is "true" or not. Read what I quoted of you and you'd know what I was referring to.

[tony_fleming]

both al and isaac were correct in that they found a mathematics that WORKED in a world view that was ahead of the thinking of their day. both were bloody clever and prove how imaginative and creative we human beans are!!

Where Al (and many others today) did get it wrong was in confusing the mathematics of space-time with reality. does space time warp?? yes; but does this cause space to warp?? definitely not. black holes will come to be understood as volumes of matter much like stars except they contain nuclear matter in which GLUONS play the vital role whereas stellar masses involve PHOTONS. Space does NOT warp. the fabric of space is no different to that on earth; involved in relativity is a coordinate transformation between space-time points so light and its motion transforms at various locations in the universe, but this is NOT space, but our ability to OBSERVE that is at issue. the humble photon undergoes the transform.

this is similar to the belief by quantum field theorists that there is an uncertainty principle at work in on the fabric of reality at small domains; whereas it is a parameter of accuracy involved in a theory that uses a classical field form that ain't right at small levels like atomic domains.

in other words mathematics and reality are two different things, always were, always will be!! but uncle al is i must repeat one hell of a scientist and one helluva human bean too!! you gotta love the guy. isaac i'm not so sure about, bit too ambitious for mine, but he too was one helluva great mathematician and scientist.

[subversion]

Guille you say that Einstein took Newton's work and made it more perfect. Well if something is imperfect of being entirely true then doesn't that make it false to a certain extent??

And Tony, you clearly say that space does not warp, which is what Einstein said. In conclusion, I don't think you all voted very fairly.

[Guille]

subversion,

in a first thoughtr, yes. But everytihng, at least in my universe and way of thinking, is imperfect, that is one of my no-god arguments, that everything is perfect because everything is imperfect. (opposite works).

If we think Newton was wrong because he wasn't exact then everything is wrong.

YOU ARE WRONG, I AM WRONG, THIS COMPUTER IS WRONG, THIS POST IS WRONG, and of course, NEWTON IS WRONG.

but then einstein is wrong.

[tony_fleming]

Originally Posted by <<>> subversion, in a first thoughtr, yes. But everytihng, at least in my universe and way of thinking, is imperfect, that is one of my no-god arguments, that everything is perfect because everything is imperfect. (opposite works). If we think Newton was wrong because he wasn't exact then everything is wrong. YOU ARE WRONG, I AM WRONG, THIS COMPUTER IS WRONG, THIS POST IS WRONG, and of course, NEWTON IS WRONG. but then einstein is wrong.

well subversion we'll definitely differ about your no-god arguments, but we agree 100% about being wrong, imperfect; no TOE will get it completely right. our equations are a MODEL of reality not an identical entity. i like to think of it as another layer of the cosmic 'onion'. as scientists we work in the mathematical reality or realm; each time we make a breakthrough we keep thinking "this is it!!" but it's only another term in the eternal sequence, an infinite series towards reality. God keeps His cards up His sleeve, until He needs to play them LOL.