« on: 08/11/2020 11:41:26 »
I would guess at Echinocorys Sp. but it's a long time since I dabbled in that sort of thing.
The following users thanked this post: chris
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
There is no pre-exist,
Time is what separates sequential events. If there are no sequential events, the concept of time is meaningless.Agreed. Would you consider it correct to interpret this as implying that time has no independent existence?
If there were no events before the BB, time did not pre-exist the events that occurred thereafter.
This is a philosophical topic and probably belongs in Just-Chat rather than physics.
As far as I know, it isn't wrong to discuss time on the other side of the big bang event,
… since it is not necessarily ordered there, the word 'before' or the tense 'would have had to' may not be applicable.
For time to have been created, to come into existence, there would have to be a time when there wasn't time, which is self-contradictory
But that doesn't mean that , if there's someone exactly a mile away, I can only see the tip of their nose and their toes.
Note that the everday concept of touch (i.e the hard boundaries of two objects exist at the same location) makes no sense at the atomic level because atoms don't have hard boundaries. Atoms are not really solid spheres. They are fuzzy quantum probability clouds filled with electrons spread out into waving cloud-like shapes called "orbitals".
Is the concept of an absolute, approachable but unattainable 0 any less ridiculous?
"Infinite" is not a number…..
Virtual photons mediate action at a distance and come into play for instance when one magnet or electrically charged body attracts another hence they must have a non zero lifetime else their speed would be infinite
A virtual particle mediates an interaction. Presumably, this interaction occurs in time, but is often described as being “instantaneous”. This must involve looking at the concept of instantaneous speed. When the speed of an object is changing constantly, its instantaneous speed is its speed at a particular instant in time. This “instant” is a dimensionless point on a time-line. It is part of the scenario of time, but does not include the concept of duration.
PS - freefallin still doesn't sound rite 2 mee!
I have been brainwashed since childhud 2 attribute fallin = goin down...
Freely Floating seems just rite, but den again...
Ain't ne1 elses prob, juz mine.
Richard Wolfson, “Simply Einstein”, uses the term “free-float” rather than free fall; the meaning is the same, but as he is writing for lay people, he considers it aids visualisation in the case of objects that are not obviously “falling”.
......better minds than anyone of us conclude that flat space defines an infinite universe. Either way, you seem to have missed my points JD. I think I'll have to agree with Pete about things here. When ever I hear someone use the term: "it seems to me", that usually means they are not bright enough to understand or they simply refuse to consider the facts. Which ever case is true concerning this debate is something we will all have to decide at the personal level.
Whether material space is infinite or whether nothingness is infinite, the fact is, that infinity is inescapable