"tadchem" wrote in message
...

"T Wake" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Its an epedemic. And we can't contain it.


What is?

The 'epidemic' is the proliferation of stupid posters who strip all
contextual cues from their replies and who use pronouns without referents
so
that rational people haven't got a clue what the morons are going on
about.


Fair one. I agree that is reaching epidemic proportions and there is very
little we can do to contain it :-)

Hubble constant.
16 BLY away stars go away at c.
Thats the edge of the VISIBLE universe.
Outside the visible universe stars go away faster than c with respect
to our center of our universe. But its universe has the same laws w do
and a photon is c .
Dark Energy is spacetime is 0 wavelength at c. The photon will pass
you at 0 wavelenth at c.
The only empty space is where a partical at c in orbit of atoms takes
up space wile at c.
Thats mass and more motion is more empty space more low .
.................................................. .......
Gravity is the shape of the atom wile all its parts orbit the center of
G , an eliptical orbit has a center of mass and a center of gravity.
F is the distance from the center of gravity to the center of mass.

On 18 Aug 2005 10:11:08 -0700, "Randy Poe"
wrote:

Nature does what it does.

Amd Poe does what he does, which is to kiss as many asses as possible.
ahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

Louis Savain

Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm

DARTH VADER wrote:
What exactly is space time ?

The totality of all events; "event" defined as a primitive, the same
way "point" is a primitive in ordinary 3-dimensional geometry,
representing something that has a specific location at a specific
instant.

A "point" of 3-D geometry is actually temporal -- comprising a stream
of events that are considered to be "at the same place". Since "same
place" is relative, the general concept comprises not just "static"
points, but ALL continuous streams of events (i.e., all motions).

Most human languages recognize this equivalence at a fundamental level
in some fashion or another; some go further an explictly equate the
concepts. For instance, in Japanese, the term for to "be at", to "go
to" or to "come from" are all represented by the same word -- whose
meaning is simply that of continuation of existence.

Why cant we travell ...

"Travelling" and "moving" are temporal notions. It doesn't make sense
to talk about travelling through spacetime, itself; since the totality
of all events is timeless. In what "time" would you travel through
spacetime? You don't have yet another time running around for "moving"
in spacetime. It's changeless and timeless. It's 3-D spaces (more
accurately, layerings of spacetime into sequences of 3-D 'snapshots')
that "move" in time; not spacetime, itself.

Even there, the notion is not automatically a given. A 3+1 dimensional
spacetime does not automatically admit any notion of "motion" or
"change" globally in the sense of having a layering into 3-D spaces. A
special property -- called "global hyperbolicity" is required for that
to be the case. If a spacetime is not globally hyperbolic (e.g. one
way for it to fail to be globally hyperbolic is if there exists a
stream of events that ends up where and when it starts -- a 'time
travel' loop), then the spacetime is not globally hyperbolic, there is
no layering of it into 3-D spaces, and there is no notion of "change"
or things "moving" in time -- except locally.

Quantum theory requires a notion of time as change (i.e. a spacetime
where 3-D snapshots "move" in time); so there is fundamental problems
even defining what a quantum theory is supposed to be in a spacetime
that is not globally hyperbolic. In contrast, relativity essentially
rejects any notion of spacetime as "space moving in time", and rejects
the notion of there being any such thing as "change" itself --
particularly since it allows for spacetimes that are not globally
hyperbolic.

Hi Sam Definition of spacetime. A union of space and time originally
emerging from SR. Can be viewed as the "fabric" out of which the
universe is fashioned,it constitutes the dynamic arena within which the
events of the universe take place. I'm laughing because for the first
time I let myself be a parrot. Those words are not mind,as you very well
know. Good words.but natually not as good as mine. Beert

wrote:
Most human languages recognize this equivalence at a fundamental level
in some fashion or another; some go further an explictly equate the
concepts. For instance, in Japanese, the term for to "be at", to "go
to" or to "come from" are all represented by the same word -- whose
meaning is simply that of continuation of existence.

Er, "be at" would be ...ni aru (inanimate) or ...ni iru (animate); "go to"
would be ...e iku; "come from" would be ...kara kuru. Yes, there's also
....ni irassharu, ...e irassharu, ...kara irassharu, but irassharu is a
special-purpose verb; it doesn't reflect the basic notion of coming and
going and being in Japanese.

And even if your claim were true, as it undoubtedly is of some languages,
why does it matter? If you were arguing for Cartesian dualism, would it make
sense to cite the iru/aru distinction? All that it would demonstrate is that
people are psychologically predisposed to a dualistic view of the world,
which would if anything weaken your argument.

-- Ben