Space time is reality Pseudo

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by chinglu, Oct 19, 2013.

  1. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,553
    Minkowski space is continuous if time is continuous, surely?

    Otherwise, why is the 'axis' of the nullcone the time axis? Where is the discontinuity?

    Oh, crap, of course, it's in chinglu's brain.

    And about that metric: if Minkowski space isn't a metric space then it cannot have timelike or spacelike 'objects' defined in it. This must be a contradiction since SR is a working theory.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    This is not true.

    If you consider only light flashes, the Minkowski distance formula is always 0 on light rays. So, you do not have the delta/epsilon definition of continuity.

    You can find places where continuity is valid in Minkowski. But, any reasonable person would say the space of nature is everywhere continuous.

    That fails in Minkowski space when considering only light rays relative to their origin.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    Ummmm, it certainly is true as illustrated at....

    http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MinkowskiSpace.html



    Minkowski space is a four-dimensional space possessing a Minkowski metric
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Where are the evidence that the time exists?
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    Why would time not exist?
    It's been quite a long time since the BB, about 13.8 billion years.
    If there was no time, everything would happen together....the BB would have occurred a split second ago.
     
  9. Does BB or time have a counter?
    Where wears that number (13.8 billion years)?
    For me that you invented that number.

    Accept it. There is no evidence.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846

    The CMBR at 2.7 K is plenty of evidence and of course the observed expansion of the Universe/space/time, along with all the recent data from WMAP.

    And that is accepted widely in the scientific community.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    And just for you victorespinoza, to help you along with basic cosmological knowledge, the figure of 13.8 billion years, has been recently refined, from a previous figure of 13.7 billion years, due to more precise readings from WMAP.
     
  12. They saw the time?
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    Now you are just being silly.
    Do you know what science is?
    Do you know what scientific data is and how it is gathered?
    Do you know how the scientific methodology works?
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    Obviously the age of the Universe is calculated by measuring the expansion rate extrapolating back to the BB.....similar to how crime detectives can trace the origin of a bullet from the holes in a wall and the angles etc of those holes.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2013
  15. I refuté the time of the theory of relativity. Saying that "Albert Einstein never saw the time".

    Nobel Laureates wrote me telling me that deserve me the Nobel Prize, but I am not graduated in physics.

    They also confessed to me that for decades already knew that Albert Einstein was wrong. And I was right. etc. etc. etc.

    Scientists know secret things. How this.
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846


    PML!!!


    Yeah sure matey......


    [I think we have another live one here!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    You're the one that encourged it, dolt. You two are probably related !
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    Fair dinkum honey, you're like a girl with no pants! PML@ the frustration, bitterness,and dummy spitting

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    Paddoboy ..

    Irresepctive, it will not falsify what I have posted.

    And THAT, folks, is Paddoboy.

    ROFLMAO !!!
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    As explained in the other thread,
    You and/or your kindred soul friend will not and have not falsified SR/GR....
    That is here for all to see.
    That does not mean that it theoretically cannot ever be falsified. A contrary observation tomorrow will do that.
    But I will bet my house that it won't happen.
    Now continue on the floor, doing what you do best, and leave science to those that appreciate it instead of chasing me all over the place. It cannot be any good for your heart.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    Just for our confused and bitter friend:



    Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument truthness of which proves the statement in question to be false. (In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Science must be falsifiable.[1]

    For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.[2]

    wiki:
     
  22. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Show me the metric along any point on a light beam to the origin.

    Keep in mind d(x,y) = 0 iff x = y is true in a metric space.

    So, your article is false. That is because for any point x on a light beam, d(x,0) = 0, yet x != 0. So, it is not a metric space.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,846
    That's OK...This is pseudoscience afterall......
    And what are you going to do with your proposal now?
    Why not contact "mathworld/wolfram.com and inform them of their grave error?
     

Share This Page