Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Dirt strikes again with inferior interpretation of the subject of
spacetime scatterrly grapped from various sources he has (google,
yahoo, pub, playground, etc.)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with Einstein.
A wordline is just a way of describing the path of an object by
giving its place as a function of time.
Example:
{ x = 0
{ y = v0 cos(pi/3) t
{ z = v0 sin(pi/3) t - 1/2 g t^2
are the parametric equations of the wordline of a bullet, shot in the
y-direction with initial speed v0, tilted to an angle of 60 degrees
and where the acceleration due to gravity is given by g.

This was what you were supposed to provide as an answer in high school
but of course you failed and the answers stuck to your mind.


The start of the bullet at time t=0 is given has (x,y,z) = (0,0,0),
So in the coordinate system that we have chosen, this event in
spacetimes gets the coordinates (t,x,y,z) = (0,0,0,0).

Look at the contradiction impecile Moortel. First you declare an event
IN spacetime.

This way the past, present and future of an idealized point-object
is described by its worldline.

The set of all possible events happening at all places and at all
possible times is called spacetime.


But you said impecile, that the EVENT happened in spacetime before.
Now, you come again and spew that spacetime is the set of events.

Now, if you do not understand this is a big problem, I mean the problem
you are having, and it needs immediate treatment, I of course
understand why. hahahahahahaha....

Since in this spacetime one needs 4 numbers to describe events,
we call it 4-dimensional.

Hello crank.


None of this has anything to do with relativity or with Einstein.
This could be lesson 1 in every elementary physics course.

A lesson that obviously you did not have.

[snip]

Listen impecile: your apparent effort to convince people that you know
something, other than copy and paste is obvious. So I will give you a
little lesson now:

Spacetime, defined as the set of all {possible} spatiotemoral relations
of bodies in motion was an idea first put forward by Leibniz. It is
problematic, because the use of the word {possible} raises serious
questions. as Sklar points out in this celebrated book on spacetime,
which you have not read, otherwise you would not have posted this crap.


Besides the use of the word "possible", there are other serious
problems in your definition of spacetime which I will not go into
because you are not in a mental state to be enlightened yet. These
problem, prompted Newton assert that spacetime is not a set of events
but an arena of some sort, where the events take place and it exists
independently of the events. This is a much more reasonable explanation
but it fails verification ( at least till now).

Paranoid Einstein, having obviously misunderstood Newton and Leibniz,
went ahead ande invented the block universe where the concept of a
"possible event" does not apply any more because all events are
eternal. Thus, using paranoia as a tool, offered a ridiculus answer to
a very difficult problem known from the time of the Eleatics (c. 550
BC) (does this name ring a bell to you impecile?).

For physicists, spacetime is a math concept that helps them develop
models and nothing more. But anyone who uses the word spacetime,
anywhere, in any text, without making an explicit note that this is a
pure math concept, is calling on metaphysics.

Mike





Dirk Vdm