What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 44
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
That's what I'm saying: "time" is a PROPERTY of space to propagate perturbation at a CONTINUOUS rate. The fact that "...the course of processes..." has its "...duration..." - and is a consequence of the END RATE of the propagation of change.
... Space and time are inextricably linked.
And how could it be otherwise, if a PROPERTY is always with its 'host'. I haven't heard of a 'property' ever being caught alone :-)
Instantaneous interactions?! Ha ha...
I've had enough of the official science stories about the Earth on three whales; about the Sun's rotation around the Earth; about the origin of species from Darwin; about the "Big Bang" of who knows what and where, etc., etc. And themselves - still crawling through the air on primitive jet engines and, with self-loathing, showing the public, as the greatest achievement, dumb-headed robots barely able to stand on their feet.
You have cited the behaviour of MACROSYSTEMS in the absence of information about them from a level where the point in question is as much smaller than an electron as the Earth is smaller than the solar system. Macrosystems at such a level as your "particles in plasma" are not suitable for our topic. Time lives in much more fundamental levels of distance.
Namely instantaneous ones. And those have already been officially registered. And will be discovered yet.
By the way: our (un)scientists listen to space for e/m waves, carrying informative signal from other civilizations. And for some reason none of them even think that using our e/m form of communication at such distances is simply unrealistic. It's like waiting for a messenger from Tsar-Gorokh. What if the fuck, got lost and is still going?)
Believe me - there are and will be discovered interactions, if not instantaneous, then exceeding "s".
Any change in a system begins when a finite external force is applied to it. Under the action of an external force, the system moves to a new steady state and acquires a new form with the lowest internal energy or entropy. All these spatial changes (searching for the right form) occur in time. If everything was instantaneous, there would be no need for time. Space would not need time, but we know that it is not so. Space and time are inextricably linked.
You have been taught physics written by Hans Christian Andersen from eighth grade onwards.
Respectfully.
They are instantaneous. And those are already officially registered. And will be discovered again.
By the way: our (under-)scientists are listening to space for e/m waves carrying informative signal from other civilizations. And for some reason none of them even think that using our e/m form of communication at such distances is simply unrealistic. It's like waiting for a messenger from Tsar-Gorokh. What if the fuck, got lost and is still going?)
Believe me - there are and will be open interactions, if not instantaneous, then exceeding "s".
So, I think there was a mention of experiments with instantaneous movement of light in absorption zones, I think, in "Fitzgeralds and turrets...".
Well, not exactly in absorption zones, but in space between particles (or atoms), but it is not proved yet, so it is a hypothesis. The author of NF is a clever person, but with his "cockroaches" and dogmatism.
I am sincerely grateful to him. Thanks to him I understood it and many other things.
Well, not exactly in absorption zones, but in space between particles (or atoms), but it is not proved yet, so it is a hypothesis. The author of NF is a clever person, but with his "cockroaches" and dogmatism.
I am sincerely grateful to him. Thanks to him, I understood this and many other things.
О! I see you're building academics there?! :-))
I don't know what we're getting at, it's a lot of reading.
I won't talk about the incorrectness of the question itself.
but if we believe the latest hypotheses about the origin of the universe, supposing that time arose with space at the moment of the big bang, it means that time will have a similar form to space
by the form of space/time to understand - the form of a conditional object, the boundary of which, in the model of the expanding universe, can be characterized by the front boundary of the particles generated by the big bang
however it must be remembered that in local parts of this space/time, its current characteristics depend on the matter density and velocity.
I don't know what we're getting at, it's a lot of reading.
I won't talk about the incorrectness of the question itself.
but if we believe the latest hypotheses about the origin of the Universe, supposing that time arose with space at the moment of the Big Bang, it means that time will have a similar form to space
by the form of space/time to understand - the form of a conditional object, the boundary of which, in the model of the expanding universe, can be characterized by the front boundary of the particles generated by the big bang
however it must be remembered that in local parts of this space/time, its current characteristics depend on the matter density and velocity.
So... what did it explode, anyway?
Or, as Piglet said, "I wonder what it is... ...boom?"...