Space is what allows matter to exist
If space didn't exist, we wouldn't exist either, nor any other thing in
the universe.
On 4/23/25 3:44 PM, rhertz wrote:
Space is what allows matter to exist,
Wait wait wait.. Talk about space without introducing any other physical quantity in it. Don't cheat!
Assume nothing else exists but space. Then say what space is.
As we grow, we LEARN TO ACCEPT that space is defined by myself and my surroundings.
This PERCEPTION of volume, depth, length and height IS ENRICHED BY WITH
OUR EXPERIENCE WITH OUR SURROUNDINGS. Space perception evolves year
after year since birth, until we reach mental maturity to accept that IT EXISTS because we can move through it with increasing security and
accuracy.
On 4/24/2025 10:21 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
What Richard Hertz can feel or not can feel is irrelevant to physics.
In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.
What Paul B. Andersen can feel is a moronic lie from a brainwashed
idiot.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 17:00:14 +0000, Taras Oborkin wrote:
Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/24/2025 10:21 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
What Richard Hertz can feel or not can feel is irrelevant to physics.
In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.
What Paul B. Andersen can feel is a moronic lie from a brainwashed
idiot.
you can't read. It stays 'well defined', but it's rather a global /
*_consent_*/. The time doesn't care about the consent from the monkeys.
The time is not the 'second' but work of Entropy, and rather more
precise,
the outcome of the quantum probability distribution governing my theory
/*_On_the_Divergent_Matter_of_the_Moving_Koerpers_Model_*/ which is much
bigger than Einstine.
dont believe it, watch this and prepare your sorry ass to learn more
*_Russian UAV's are supporting the offensive_*
*_on Chasov Yar and South Donetsk_*
https://bi%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/RTkCYBQI7j7Q
Apes don't give a shit about human consensus to define time. They have
their own
Committee to define time. Try to be late to a meeting with your
chimpance's group.
Also, apes (as well as many other specie), are master of Newtonian
physics for motion.
If not, discuss these two examples:
1) An orangutan can make a one-time bulls-eye hit on the face of a
stupid lady mocking at him in the zoo, throwing a turd of his own 30
meters away.
2) A tiger can compute Newton to reach a prey that is on a tree branch 4 metersA tiger can jump and turn around, but
above the ground by using the tree as a bouncing wall to jump at it and
turn around
I insist that time is an illusion, a human construct just to be used for PROFIT.
Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/24/2025 10:21 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
What Richard Hertz can feel or not can feel is irrelevant to physics.
In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.
What Paul B. Andersen can feel is a moronic lie from a brainwashed
idiot.
you can't read. It stays 'well defined',
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 0:03:16 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 21:08:06 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 4/23/25 3:44 PM, rhertz wrote:
Space is what allows matter to exist,
That's not a definition of space. that's an excuse for matter toexist.
physicalWait wait wait.. Talk about space without introducing any other
quantity in it. Don't cheat!
Indeed!
Assume nothing else exists but space. Then say what space is.
Exactly! What is SPACE?
I've been reading an old book (1999) by Brian Green, "The Elegant
Universe" where he was preaching string theory. I'm reading about Calabi-Yau spaces. Admittedly, these would be models of reality
at best, but I got to thinking: WHAT are they modeling? And that
led me to think about zero point fields. We usually mean virtual electron-positron sea, but there's a sea of each and every virtual
particle pair. And then Hertz asks the question: what is space?
Space is filled with these virtual particle pairs. So the question
is: which came first?
You don't need to descend to esoteric, unproven and barely new
Gobbledygook
that emerged from quantum physics a century ago.
You don't need to descend to esoteric, unproven and barely new
Gobbledygook
that emerged from cosmology a century ago.
You don't even need to resort to historical philosophical
arguments that emerged from astronomy about five centuries ago.
You have to ask yourself THIS: What is space FOR WHOM? For
humans or any other of the millions of specie that inhabit
Earth (not counting other places).
From the perspective of an ordinary and sane human (not a one
eye-blinded), space IS A PERCEPTION that develops spontaneously
since the time of conception.
As we grow, we LEARN TO ACCEPT that space is defined by myself
and my surroundings.
This PERCEPTION of volume, depth, length and height IS ENRICHED
BY WITH OUR EXPERIENCE WITH OUR SURROUNDINGS. Space perception
evolves year after year since birth, until we reach mental
maturity to accept that IT EXISTS because we can move through
it with increasing security and accuracy.
At a given age, when being a child, the question of what allow the
concept of space emerges naturally: we feel compelled to measure
distances, heights, etc. Then, through the modern education system, we
learn that we can measure space in many forms, through the use of
Cartesian coordinates, which is the mathematical and abstract
representation of what WE PERCEIVE: left-right, up-down,
forward-backwards.
And then we are done. If we pursuit a technical career or a hobby that involves measurements of space, we are naturally wired to accept even extremely accurate measurements of the xyz representation of space.
To fully understand the above, we should ask what is the perception of
space for other specie, like dogs, birds, cats, cows, whales, salmons,
etc.
To pretend that our DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS about what space is,
depending on our professional career, are smart and valid, is
STUPID,
because the sense of space is completely dependent on our VISUAL
SYSTEM. If you are born blind, you can't get the slightest idea
of space, unless you are a genius and was able to develop such
concept within your head, independently that you depend ON YOUR
MEMORY to recall in which way (and using our AUDITORY SYSTEM for
references and stability) you have to move using any algorithm
that you develop by yourself (counting paces, using a baton, etc.).
So, any definition of space suits for different organisms.
The problem is that only a minuscule percentage of these organisms
care to use space to measure dimensions. And that an even more
minuscule percentage of those are IDIOTS ENOUGH to accept that
motion affect dimensions of space or, worse, that gravity do that.
On 4/24/2025 7:00 PM, Taras Oborkin wrote:
Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/24/2025 10:21 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
What Richard Hertz can feel or not can feel is irrelevant to physics.
In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.
What Paul B. Andersen can feel is a moronic lie from a brainwashed
idiot.
you can't read. It stays 'well defined',
Yes I can, no it doesn't.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 1:02:23 +0000, rhertz wrote:
because the sense of space is completely dependent on our VISUAL
SYSTEM. If you are born blind, you can't get the slightest idea of
space, unless you are a genius and was able to develop such concept
within your head, independently that you depend ON YOUR MEMORY to
recall in which way (and using our AUDITORY SYSTEM for references and
stability) you have to move using any algorithm that you develop by
yourself (counting paces, using a baton, etc.).
Funny, people who are born blind must all be geniuses. What is being
ignored here is that all animals build internal models of their
environment. It's a fact of life: if they don't do it, they're not
animals.
Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/24/2025 7:00 PM, Taras Oborkin wrote:
Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/24/2025 10:21 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
What Richard Hertz can feel or not can feel is irrelevant to physics. >>>>> In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.
What Paul B. Andersen can feel is a moronic lie from a brainwashed
idiot.
you can't read. It stays 'well defined',
Yes I can, no it doesn't.
but it is,
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 1:02:23 +0000, rhertz wrote:
The problem is that only a minuscule percentage of these organisms care
to use space to measure dimensions. And that an even more minuscule
percentage of those are IDIOTS ENOUGH to accept that motion affect
dimensions of space or, worse, that gravity do that.
Right, only ADHD autistic engineers are too "smart" for that ) Such
people only think about what clobbers them when they're trying to do
their rocking back and forth. They say, "Ughh?" If it doesn't happen
On 4/23/25 7:03 PM, gharnagel wrote:
I've been reading an old book (1999) by Brian Green, "The Elegant
Universe" where he was preaching string theory. I'm reading about Calabi-Yau spaces. Admittedly, these would be models of reality
at best, but I got to thinking: WHAT are they modeling? And that
led me to think about zero point fields. We usually mean virtual electron-positron sea, but there's a sea of each and every virtual
particle pair. And then Hertz asks the question: what is space?
Space is filled with these virtual particle pairs. So the question
is: which came first?
Sorry, didn't know you'd responded to my dick.
A few questions:
1- For what audience did Green write the book?
2- Is he British or American?
3- What do you mean, saying he "was preaching" something?
As you see, my dick doesn't even want to look them up, cause
he isn't sure its worth it.
Number 2 question is for my dick to find out whether, say, if
the author wants to tell the readers someone micro-manages,
which one of the following two ways he chooses to express it:
American way: "He micromanages."
British way: "His ascendancy over everybody is quite curious:
the extent to which every officer and man feels the slightest
rebuke or praise, would have been before seeing him,
incomprehensible..."
So my dick naturally finds it prudent to know that important fact in
advance.
MY MISTAKE. WROTE THIS IN SPANISH.
Questions:
"If a tiger in free fall doesn't understand general relativity, is
gravity different for it than it was for Einstein?"
Humans aren't unique in "understanding" physics, only in formalizing it.
Does the tiger "learn" physics or is it hardwired?
If time/space are human constructs, do animals live in a "practical relativity"?
Den 25.04.2025 00:13, skrev gharnagel:
Just because we can measure it doesn't mean we understand it.
You can't 'understand' why Nature works as she does.
A theory of physics is a mathematical model of an aspect of Nature. It doesn't 'explain' anything.
The only test of a mathematical consistent theory is if it can correctly predict what will be measured in experiments.
It takes but one wrong prediction to falsify a theory.
The 'internal AI' has learned how to catch a pray or swing from tree to
tree.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 17:00:14 +0000, Taras Oborkin wrote:
Maciej Woźniak wrote:
On 4/24/2025 10:21 AM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
What Richard Hertz can feel or not can feel is irrelevant to physics.
In physics "time" is a well defined, measurable entity.
What Paul B. Andersen can feel is a moronic lie from a brainwashed
idiot.
you can't read. It stays 'well defined', but it's rather a global /
*_consent_*/. The time doesn't care about the consent from the monkeys.
The time is not the 'second' but work of Entropy, and rather more
precise,
the outcome of the quantum probability distribution governing my theory
/*_On_the_Divergent_Matter_of_the_Moving_Koerpers_Model_*/ which is much
bigger than Einstine.
dont believe it, watch this and prepare your sorry ass to learn more
*_Russian UAV's are supporting the offensive_*
*_on Chasov Yar and South Donetsk_*
https://bi%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/RTkCYBQI7j7Q
Apes don't give a shit about human consensus to define time. They have
their own
Committee to define time. Try to be late to a meeting with your
chimpance's group.
Also, apes (as well as many other specie), are master of Newtonian
physics for motion.
If not, discuss these two examples:
1) An orangutan can make a one-time bulls-eye hit on the face of a
stupid lady mocking at him in the zoo, throwing a turd of his own 30
meters away.
2) A tiger can compute Newton to reach a prey that is on a tree branch 4 meters
above the ground by using the tree as a bouncing wall to jump at it and
turn around
in midair to EXACTLY reach the prey that felt safe. I bet it timed the
action too.
It only took a fraction of a second to get his food.
gharnagel wrote:
We don't understand why
the principles exist -- at present. We may someday, but those will be
based on some other measurements that we don't understand why nature
works that way.
Who is "We"????
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 5:39:37 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:
gharnagel wrote:
We don't understand why the principles exist -- at present.
We may someday, but those will be based on some other
measurements that we don't understand why nature works that way.
Who is "We"????
I was speaking of the human race. Are you in or out?
On 4/23/25 9:51 AM, rhertz wrote:
No humans have been able to observe time or register the pass of time.
Time is an illusion, it doesn't exist.
exclusively time as a dimension.
the fourth dimension is beyond stupid.
mathematical construct of the flow of time, so theories can go beyond a
specific observation in a given instance.
If humans CAN'T OBSERVE OR FEEL TIME, which is the actual value of the
use of time as a fundamental variable?
On 4/24/25 10:34 PM, gharnagel wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 3:07:37 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
On 4/23/25 7:03 PM, gharnagel wrote:
questionI've been reading an old book (1999) by Brian Green, "The Elegant Universe" where he was preaching string theory. I'm reading about Calabi-Yau spaces. Admittedly, these would be models of reality
at best, but I got to thinking: WHAT are they modeling? And that
led me to think about zero point fields. We usually mean virtual electron-positron sea, but there's a sea of each and every virtual particle pair. And then Hertz asks the question: what is space?
Space is filled with these virtual particle pairs. So the
is: which came first?
Sorry, didn't know you'd responded to my dick.
A few questions:
1- For what audience did Green write the book?
I would say, interested amateurs.
2- Is he British or American?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene
3- What do you mean, saying he "was preaching" something?
When he wrote the book, string theory had just undergone its
third revival.
As you see, my dick doesn't even want to look them up, cause
he isn't sure its worth it.
It should have more faith. Or not.
Number 2 question is for my dick to find out whether, say, if
the author wants to tell the readers someone micro-manages,
which one of the following two ways he chooses to express it:
American way: "He micromanages."
British way: "His ascendancy over everybody is quite curious:
the extent to which every officer and man feels the slightest
rebuke or praise, would have been before seeing him,
incomprehensible..."
So my dick naturally finds it prudent to know that important fact in advance.
Ya lost me there.
Again I didn't see your followup. I think for some reason they get stuck
in Solana. Do you mess with the headers of your posts?
Did he (Green) explain the stuff clearly enough for the "interested
amateurs? Like, for instance, how Sagan did.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 494 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 36:45:41 |
| Calls: | 9,741 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,741 |
| Messages: | 6,183,534 |