Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
That Was Not Really A "Yes Or No" Question, You Obviously Agree

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Michael W. Pearson on January 5, 2005 00:45:10 UTC

Hi W

1)So why did you bring up Socrates? How does that tie in?

2) On a note related to what you're discussing this week at the Misc. or "general" forum (http://www.astronomy.net/forums/general)

and using the Wayback Machine:
Just over a year ago,
Wandaqueen quoted Mike at
http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/31165.shtml
Mike: "space is independent of coordinate system and hence not measurable"
and then
Wandaqueen, giving the conventional view but not carefully choosing words, replied:
"Space is of course measurable using any coordinate system you like. The point is that an assumption in both General Relativity and Loop Quantum Gravity is that spacetime does not depend on the particular coordinate system you use."

What you're measuring is your map of space, not space itself. That is not semantics. It is a reality check that should occur periodically.
We have lots of time if you want to dispute that statement.
I think if you read that whole thread, you might wonder if Wandaqueen and Secretary are quite polite. In that thread, Wandaqueen avoided answering three questions (seen again below) by having Secretary, also anonymous, bust in.

at http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/31164.shtml
Wandaqueen wrote: That leaves open the question of whether time ia a real dimension or just a representation. Time certainly exists but it may not be a dimension."
Two of the questions were:
(Mike replied):
(snip)... Now, what do you think is precisely the difference between a "real dimension" and "just a representation?" What substance does a "real dimension" have which is not also then double-defined as also being a specific form of matter or energy?

Wanda wrote:
"LQG has further solidified the real existence of space by proving that it is quantized and independent of coordinate system. That is, the spin network that underlies space and time do not have apriori location in space. Location is derived from the network, as well as time."
Mike replied (the other question)
Please trot out the clear definition of "spin network?"
Reasonable question? I think so. What's Wandaqueen's reasonable answer?

Warmly,
MWP
P.S.3) We don't know if you have more than one ID on this forum. We know I do, but not secret like yours.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins