# Proof there is TIME as a dimension

1. Dec 26, 2003

### Mk

I want some proof there is TIME as a dimension or anything having to do with science. Time is something we humans invented to organize society and ourselves.

2. Dec 27, 2003

### Antonio Lao

Time is Motion

Time is a consequence of motion. This motion can be local or global.
Motion is also called change. Change of something. This something can be perceived as matter or energy or space. If there is no change of anything, then there is no time and also no motion, static!

In my posts on other sites of this physics forum, I have noted that time's symmetry is broken from the start for our particular universe. And this broken symmetry is associated with a concept of probability. An example of probability can be found in Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2. A lot of energy can be derived from a small amount of matter. But the probability of this event is 1/c^2 (not normalized). Conversely, a small amount of matter can be derived from a lot of energy but the probability is c^2 (again, not normalized). This says that it is more probable for energy to change into matter than for matter to change into energy.

From a holistic point of view, space have to be included into the processes of change or motion. From the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum, it can be formulated that continuous space is equal to c times energy (continuous space= cE). The reason why space is specified as continuous is because there is a complementary definition of a quantized space.

For the six probabilities to make any sense, they have to be normalized all together.

These probabalities are n powers of inverse speed (1/v)^n. Where n=6, if only matter, energy and space are considered. A simple dimensional analysis gives the unit as time/distance. It is known that distances become smaller and smaller as the spatial dimension increase. So that when n is interpreted as the space dimension of infinity, the distance is zero.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, more can be said. These are parts of my research on a Theory of Quantized Space (TQS).

3. Dec 29, 2003

### Mk

That doesn't explain anything, [zz)] .

Time doesn't exist, its what we make it. If you were out in an empty part of space floating around with nothing there except for the deep black abyss of space, how would you know wich is left and right? In and out? Up and down? The 1st dimension is what we make it, the 2nd dimension is what we make it the 3rd dimension is what we make it. The fourth dimension is what we make it. Say you had an infanant place to roam with others like you. Then you could make up left, right, up, down, in, out, ana, kata. That would help a lot, you now can say go over there and point at something directly in front of you. Or to the left right and after a while up. Now you need to organize your time. You now can say meet me under the big tree by the river when the sun is at the top of the sky. That's the best I could do at explaining it.

4. Dec 30, 2003

### Antonio Lao

Principle of Directional Invariance

I'm replying this at 5:15 A.M. , so you have to forgive me if my mind still partly in dreamland.

You are absolutely correct in saying that there is no way to tell the symmetry between left-right, up-down, foreward-backward. But these are precisely the assumptions we can make by invoking the principle of a directional invariance. I will elaborate more when I am fully awake.

With this principle, we can go a long way to describe how matter, energy and space can be described. And also gives a good explanation why we sense the existence of time in a macroscopic environment while in reality, in the microcosmos, time does not necessarily needed to formulate an equation for a theory of a quantized space. More later.

5. Dec 31, 2003

### Antonio Lao

It's 3:00 A.M., and I am more awake than I was yesterday. So I'm adding some more to what I said.

The question is still how can one explains the existence of time?

We can start from the very beginning of time. According to the Big Bang theory, at the singularity (a mathematical point as well as a physical point), time and space have no meaning (Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time).
What he meant is that all physical laws breakdown at this singularity which include the best physical theory that we have right now that of Einstein's General Relativity.

At this singularity: (not in any particular order of important) time=0, energy density=infinite, mass density=infinite, temperature=infinite, total volume=0, total length=0, total area=0. Degree of freedom is also infinite.

Degree of freedom (a very useful physical and math concept) is the potentiality of motion, ability to move, a choice of motion. To go where: here, there and everywhere.

The singularity can be viewed as an object of zero-dimension. When it starts to move, time begins. When it is at rest, there is no time. When a zero-dim object moves, it starts acquiring properties of a one-dimensional object (such as length and extension). Traditionally, its is believed that by the principle of general covariance, a one-dim object can move to become a 2-dim object. And again, by the principle of general covariance, a 2-dim object can move to become a 3-dim object. We can continue doing this general covariance of motion to infinite dmensions.

What general covariance meant is that for each motion, something is preserved. In other words, something does not change during this motion. Some theorists says it's the form of the physical equations. In this sense, Newton's equations are not general covariance because they are based on absolute space and time. Special and General Relativities are based on Minkowski's space-time. For the 1-dim objects, one of the things that remain the same during motion is the metric (geodesic, the shortest path of motion). By analogy, for the 2-dim object, there is a minimum area that remains the same during motion. For the 3-dim, a minimum volume remains the same during motion.

Going back to the motion of zero-dim (scalar in contrast to vector which is a 1-dim object) objects: If we place ourselves in the shoes of these objects, what to do? Want to move? But where? Hate to be at rest forever. Must move! Which direction to choose? Remembering the infinite degrees of freedom, the dilemma of a zero-dim object is just mind-boggling.

The other side of the coin for explaining time is that of quantum mechanics. More to come.
I'm stopping at 4:14 A.M., my proper time.

6. Jan 1, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Nevertheless the zero-dim object did move and here we are! The motion of a space-point (whose dimension is zero) has transformed to a quantized-space-point (whose dimension is one). Quantized-space-points can be transformed into continuous-space-points (whose dimension is 2) or energy (energy has dimension 3) or matter (matter has 4 dimensions: three of space and one of time).

Intrinsically, a quantized-space-point did choose a direction out of the infinite degrees of freedom. And this chosen direction gives the identity for this particular quantized-space-point. Since there are infinite number of quantized-space-points and infinite degrees of freedom, each quantized-space-point can have each own unique direction(s). Each quantized-space-point is mapped with a one-to-one (one-to-four?) correspondence to the set of degree of freedom.

From analyses, the infinity for the set of degree of freedom is four factors larger than the set of infinite quantized-space-points. In other words, each quantized-space-point must have four directions (vectors) to define itself, no more and no less. These vectors are taken from two subsets of the infinite set of degrees of freedom namely: the subset of force vectors and the subset of distance (metric) vectors. Both of these subsets are itself an infinite set of vector spaces. Within the infinite set of degrees of freedom, there is a subset of time. This subset contains only two degrees of freedom. To be continued.

7. Jan 1, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Referring back to Mk’s post of Dec-29-03 that 1-2-3-dim spaces and time are both made by humans is a correct statement from TQS’s point of view, since TQS holds the argument that only matter (humans and other inanimate objects) is four-dimensional (3 of space and 1 of time). Energy is 3-dim. Continuous space is 2-dim, quantized space is 1-dim and the true vacuum is 0-dim.

As a rule, an object of certain number of dimensions must be capable of sensing the existence of dimension up to the number allowed for that object. Matter can sense 0-dim, 1-dim, 2-dim, 3-dim and 4-dim. Energy can sense 0-dim, 1-dim, 2-dim and 3-dim. Continuous space can sense 0-dim, 1-dim and 2-dim. Quantized space can sense 0-dim and 1-dim. The true vacuum can sense only the 0-dim. This kind of sensing dimension is defined as existential dimension.

These senses can be associated with the forces of nature. The force that senses between matter and energy is the electromagnetic force. The weak force is between energy and continuous space. The strong force is between continuous space and quantized space. The gravitational force is between quantized space and the true vacuum. The mutual interactions between these forces give the multiplicity of particles in the universe. In high-energy particle physics, there are the fermions (1/2 integer spin) and the bosons (integer spin). Fermions are further divided into quarks and leptons.

It is generally accepted, that the quarks can sense the forces of strong nuclear force (color force) and the force of gravity and also affected by the weak force. The larger groupings of quarks are the hadrons. which are divided into baryons (3-quark configuration) and mesons (2-quark configuration). Mesons are considered as bosons even though they are made from fermionic quarks. The leptons can sense the weak force, the electromagnetic force and the force of gravity. The bosons are the carriers of the forces of nature. The graviton carries the force of gravity. The photon, the W+, the W- and the Z0 carry the electroweak force (combined force of weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force). The gluons carry the color force (strong force).

From the above definition of existential dimension and the interactions of the forces, the force carriers must all made of fractional existential dimensions. The average fractal dimension of the photon is 7/2. The average fractal dimension for the W+, W- and Z0 is 5/2. The average fractal dimension for the gluons is 3/2. Finally, the average fractal dimension for the graviton is ½.

What all these discussions have to do with the existence of time? If time is considered as a physical dimension, it can only be sense by matter. Energy cannot sense time. Energy is forever. Continuous space is forever and quantized space and the vacuum are both eternal. If matter is converted completely into energy (reducing 4-dim to 3-dim), then it will live forever.

In TQS, there are two directions of time. One direction is sense by matter and the other direction is sense by antimatter. We can never sense this other direction of time, unless we reduce our existential dimension from four to one and then choose to move in the other direction of time. This is the same thing as going into a black hole (cosmological singularity of spacetime).

8. Jan 7, 2004

### Antonio Lao

3D Feynman Diagram

As a follow-up on the definition of two time's directions, this is visualizable as a three-dimensional Feynman diagram.

In this 3D diagram, the time axis is broken into two pieces and then closed on itself forming a closed loop for each time direction.

These two loops can never intersect with each other for all eternity. But they always exist parallel to each other just like two parallel lines on an infinite Euclidean plane.

When this Euclidean plane transform into a hyperbolic non-Euclidean geometry, the form is that of a doubly (360 degrees) twisted Moebius strip. By splitting the strip at the middle, a link of the two time directions is created.

This link cannot be broken. Meaning that these two time directions exist side by side forever giving two reality of existence that will never meet no matter how closely spaced they are.

Both have their own zero beginning and infinite end.

Analogy: a snake swallowing its own tail.

Last edited: Jan 8, 2004
9. Jan 9, 2004

### Antonio Lao

Serial and Parallel Events

This is a copy of the one found in Time Travels.

The Nobel Laureate P.W. Bridgman commented on Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity. He said that more analyses should be given to the events of the theories rather than analytical attacks on the coordinate system used in specifying the physical events found in the theories.

Generally, events are analyzed by the use of three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate. In this discussion, events are only analyzed by the use of one time coordinate.
This method can simplify the analysis tremendously. The time coordinate is assumed to take a form of geometry similar to physical space. This is the extraction of time from the spacetime of relativity and keeping the spatial parts hidden away. In this way, one can define time as a line embedded in the following three geometries: Euclidean (planar), Riemannian (spherical) and Lobatchevskian (hyperbolic).

By parallel timed events, it is to mean that simultaneity can be defined between one event in one timeline and another event in the other timeline. But for an observer in one timeline, he or she is not capable of knowing whether these two events are simultaneous. There is no information send by photons from one to the other. These events can only be assumed to be simultaneous. And that is all one can do. Each photon of each timeline travels along each line and no reason to jump to the other line. Each line contains its own reality.

By serial events, it is to mean that simultaneity has no meaning. All events follow or lead other events. These successions of events gave true meaning to the word “timeline.”

In Euclidean geometry, two parallel timelines can be constructed. The simultaneity of two parallel events is the end points of the perpendicular distance between the lines. In theory, there are an infinite number of simultaneous events. But the following assumptions must be made that (1) the time tick-marks are the same for the lines and (2) that the line are infinitely extended in both directions. The events along one timeline are all serial events.

In Riemannian geometry, parallel events cannot be constructed. Hence simultaneity has no meaning. All events are serial. But a zero time can be defined as located at one of the poles. The other pole will be the end of time.

In Lobatchevskian geometry, many infinitely extended parallel timelines can be constructed. Each of these timeline contains serial events. But there is only one occurrence of simultaneity for these parallel events. And this happens at the same time.

10. Feb 2, 2004

### TheStatutoryApe

Though all that has been interesting to read I'd say that I am still unconvinced that time exists as anything more than human representation of relative motion through space.

11. Feb 2, 2004

### John

I have this picture of how time started that is a little simpler. I pictured pure matter, such as an electron, and concluded it was like a liquid and not a rock, because a rock needs to have a tension within it to keep it together. I could not find that tension, so I concluded pure matter was like liquid metal. You can't compress it but you can easily pull it apart, like mercury. (Physicists are being sophisticated, so they say pure matter is really an equation, a relationship to energy. That's true, but let's be more graphic.) I remembered something about a sea of matter in the Bible, and sure enough it says, In the beginning the world (universe) was formless and void and the Spirit of God flew above the waves of the abyss. That describes a huge sea of matter like liquid metal. It is finite because the Spirit of God is outside of it. The Spirit of God could jump in and swim in the sea of matter, but it was formless and void. There were no features either in the sea or above it. So time existed like you described it, no time could be measured, no left, no right. There were no landmarks. Except there was the sea of matter, and there was above the sea of matter. Those were the only two distinctions. In fact, if you went just below the surface of the sea, you could get lost and never find your way back to the surface. Maybe God is God because he discovered the place above the sea of matter, where there was the only perspective that existed.

The sea of matter could be defined as "Is", and above the sea could be defined as, "Not Is". So, let's shake things up. Let's have a huge explosion and mix Is and Not Is to the greatest extent possible. Now you have an ongoing explosion that is expanding, and consists of many Is, and they are all separated by Not Is.

This gave us perspective and allowed us to define time and position.

Last edited: Feb 2, 2004
12. Feb 8, 2004

### Antonio Lao

To TheStatutoryApe and John,

The reality of relative motion in the infinitemal domain of space is called Local Infinitesimal Motion (LIM).

This is the motion of a point (an element of infinite space itself). There are infinite number of points in the whole of vacuum. Each point is moving relative to other points. These motions are not random (chaotic) but possess a directional invariance. When one point moved, it keeps its unique direction forever. For a point to change into a different direction, it has to contend with the infinite minus one points. It needs an infinite amount of energy to do so. The loci of motion of one point formed a closed path. When we consider two points, these paths formed a link. Because of the directional invariance, all the infinitely different links can only creat two distinct links. These two distinct links can be used to hypothesize the existence of two directions of time (or space-time to be more precise).

Antonio

13. Feb 8, 2004

### John

So how do you explain the angular changes of direction of points after particle collisions? You say they are running into invisible things, but running into invisible things could explain almost anything. What if they aren't? What if they are randomly changing direction, and randomly coming into and out of existence because of how the fabric of space is constructed?

So let’s create space fabric out of a grouping of energy spheres that can be can warped slightly, and see if their paths fit our space fabric. It turns out they do.

14. Feb 8, 2004

Staff Emeritus
Because the deflections aren't random, but systematic, and assuming they are due to hitting something (such as an atomic nucleus) gives us a formula for predicting their distribution, and that formula works, in that its predictions match what is seen.

In the case of the scattering of high energy electons by partons, there is much more detailed behavior to account for ("scaling"). The parton (=quark) theory is triumphant is explaining that behavior.

If you're going to think up a replacement for physics, you'd better work in an area where the evidence isn't so thorougly stacked against you.

15. Feb 8, 2004

### John

I don't know the physics I am replacing. All I know is I started constructing things and a lot of things fit what I constructed.

When you start talking about partons and quarks, think about it, everything works according to mathematical laws. If you don't know what you are looking at, but it does the same thing every time you look at it; you can invent a new particle, come up with math to accurately describe its motion, and you still don't know what you are looking at.

If you first come up with a background, and then you see things move in strange ways -- they spiral and they have little angular changes of direction -- you notice they appear to be moving according to the background you have constructed. Then if you study the triumphant parton = quark theory to find out what it is, you might be able to say, "This describes this."

My use of the word "random" was a poor choice of words. What I meant was, they weren't going in straight lines, and they weren't going in regular curved lines, or regular spirals. They do appear to be following the background I constructed. Richard constructed the same background in a very different place from me. The background intrigues him too.

16. Feb 9, 2004

### Antonio Lao

John,

The background you are talking about is very similar to the concept of ether in the 19th century to justify the movement and propagation of electromagnetic waves. But the Michelson-Morley experiment has concluded that ether does not exist and EM waves can basically go wherever they want. EM waves are interactions between electric field and magnetic field. Maxwell's equations describe these fields accurately. Einstein use the non-existence of ether to formulate his theories of relativity.

Planck quantized the energies coming out of these fields and formulated the quantum theory. Later, Bohr, Heisenberg, Shcrodinger, Dirac, Born, Jordan, Pauli and many others formulated quantum mechanics. Later later, Fermi, Tomonaga, Schwinger, Feynman, Weinberg, and many others, developed quantum field theories, which basically the quantization of the EM fields.

The concept of field was originated by Faraday and Maxwell formalized it into a theory of electromagnetism. The rest is history. All became facts. All can be found in standard texbooks.

During these developments, scientists have discovered the strong force field, the weak force field, while Einstein alone was working on the gravitational field. So now we really have four basic fields (backgrounds, using your terminology) to worry about.

The unification of EM field and weak field is called electroweak theory. The people responsible have already won the Nobel Prize for it (Weinberg, Salam, and Glashow).

The unification of electroweak background and the strong background is called the Grand Unification Theory (GUT). And a lot of evidences have been accumulated for this. The experimental energy (Planck energy at the Planck time and Planck length) for verification of GUT is out of reach by our current technologies of accelerator designs.

The final unification is a Theory of Everything (TOE). The unification of the following:

1. The gravity background
2. The EM background
3. The weak background
4. The strong background

This is still under investigations by the best minds in the scientific world.

Antonio

17. Feb 10, 2004

### ranyart

Re: Time!!!

Time is the projection of Area and Space through the Mind of an Observer via the light that reaches him at a single point in 3-dimensional Space.

So Time needs Observers to Construct seconds..minutes..hours..days..years.
Observer dependence is Relative only to two or more observers, for instance a single Observer cannot compare his Relative reality in 3-dimensional space without another Dependant frame of reference 'Observer'.

This means that any measurement of 'Time' needs at minimum, must have TWO-OBSERVERS.

Any apparatus deemed as ' single-detector', causes paradoxical issues in frame of reference readings, there has to be 'TWO' detectors for the measurment of any quantity that relies on Time.

18. Feb 10, 2004

### John

Antonio Lao,

Thank you for a very complete explanation of what went before. I dropped out of college after three or four weeks, because it was boring. I was years away from anything that would have been interesting, and I probably would never have become involved with anything interesting. So my decision to drop out is still a good one.

Looking up what the Electroweak Theory is. My theory doesn't disagree with it. My theory holds that matter itself has size, that the original piece of matter, which we call a singularity, which made the universe was a very large sea of matter. I came to that, and then I learned the Bible agreed with me in its first paragraph. The reason I thought it has size was because it had to have size; and the reason I thought it was like liquid was because there is nothing within matter to hold it together. It had to be like water, easy to pull apart. But water does have an electrostatic force holding it together. Then, it occurred to me the weak force is the force that holds matter together, the way electrostatic attraction holds water together. I theorized that point particles are smeared along six dimensional lines, and that the matter is more concentrated at each intersection of the six-dimensional web. So that, when you get down to distances of 1/10,0000000000000000 mm, and you test the attractive force, you are pulling matter itself apart. You are measuring the weak force.

Electroweak Theory says the weak force and electro magnetism are the same because at short distances they are the same. I can give a much more complete description. In my model, which I have already worked out, the electroweak force and electromagnetism are, in fact the same at close distances.

My ideas can put all of our math and physics into pictures, if I only had formal training to go along with it. Richard Harbaugh is helping women make pies, and I am helping my girlfriend deliver newspapers. People who spend any time seriously thinking about this stuff aren’t very good at making money. But he seems to approach physics the same way I do, which is to put it into a picture that people and scientists can easily see.

And I am very good at doing this. Nothing I have come up with, that I hold as true, disagrees with any of the math or science. Richard, who has taken the same approach, is very good at writing descriptions of it. So this is a plea of behalf of both of us for a scholarship and two small private rooms at a university, and adequate food, so we can be immersed in all of the facts to mold these ideas properly, and come up with a paper, with computer simulations, and everything else needed to put my ideas into an understandable form.

My picture here, of matter being smeared in six directions, and that when you get close enough you are actually pulling matter itself apart is a very visual way of describing what the math says. The visual is actually closer to reality. Try describing a tree, only with numbers.

19. Feb 11, 2004

### Antonio Lao

John,

For further information on electroweak theory, you can try to contact one of the co-founders of this theory at

http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~weintech/weinberg.html

This is Dr. Steven Weinberg's website at the University of Texas in Austin. I did email him a couple of time but he did not reply.

Your predicament reminded me of the life of Michael Faraday (1791-1867). He is known for his pioneering experimental demonstrations in electricity and magnetism. Many people consider him to be the greatest experimentalist who ever lived. He received little more than a primary education, and at the age of 14 he was apprenticed to a bookbinder. There, while binding books and had the occasions of reading them, he became interested in the physical and chemical works of the time. After attended lectures by the famous chemist Humphry Davy, he gave Davy the notes he had made of his lectures. As a result Faraday was appointed, at the age of 21, assistant to Davy in the laboratory of the Royal Institution in London.

The same could happen to you if you describe to Dr. Weinberg how you can demonstrate the electroweak theory so that anybody can understand. Good luck!

All the best, Antonio

20. Feb 11, 2004

### John

I think the reason Stephen Hawking believes there will be no new major discovery is that human nature is such they will not listen to the voices who discover it.

What we need is something like a group of monks who are interested in pursuing theoretical physics, and give them total access to good teachers, and pursue anything they come up with that seems promising. I have several things that seem promising. They could be proven or disproven by getting to the right knowledge. My biggest question right now is: Is there clear evidence of gravity in hydrogen clouds? If I could answer that question, the implication towards my theory for how gravity works is monumental. We assume hydrogen clouds produce gravity, but looking at their shapes, they don't seem to have gravity in them. My model predicts that hydrogen clouds don't produce gravity because they have no neutrons.

21. Feb 12, 2004

### Antonio Lao

John,

There is only one equation in all of physics that talk about gravity. This is Newton's law of universal gravitation.

$$F=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r^2}$$

F is the force of gravity. G is the universal gravitational constant and has the value 6.670x10exp-8 dyne cm^2/gm^2. m1 are m2 are two masses of a two-body system of study. r is the distance between these masses.

Einstein refined this law about gravity in his general theory of relativity.

The interstellar (extrastellar? or extragalactic?) clouds of hydrogen (HI regions) detected by astronomers and astrophysicists are low density, low temperature molecular clouds of neutral hydrogen. Their mass is between 10 to 100 solar mass. Their temperature is about 100 K and their density is between 10 to 10^6 atoms/cm^3. Theorists say that these clouds are supported more by magnetic fields and less by gravity due to their mass because of the large distance between atoms. Magnetic forces are much stronger than gravity. But when the atoms get closer and closer together, their gravities do become stronger and stronger. There most likely are regions where gravity and the magnetic force are balanced. But because of the dynamic structure, this equilibrium forces are not stable. If thru billion of years passed, the probability of the atoms to coagulate becomes greater and greater until a fusion process becomes a reality, then this is the seed of giving birth to a star.

Antonio

Postscript: The equation for the magnetic force is given by the following:

$$F=q\vec{v}x\vec{B}$$

where q is the electric charge. v is the velocity of the electric charge. B is the magnetic field.

Last edited: Feb 12, 2004
22. Apr 21, 2004

### Antonio Lao

I want some proof there is TIME as a dimension or anything having to do with science. Time is something we humans invented to organize society and ourselves.

Time is equivalent to a fundamental force. If there is no fundamental force then there is no time.

The concept of this equivalence principle can give a new definition for mass. Mass is inversely proportional to the time rate of change of a varying acceleration(s), a.

$$m = \left( \frac{da}{dt} \right)^{-1}$$

and

$$\vec{a} \cdot \vec{r} = c^2$$

r is a varying distance. c is the speed of light in vacuum.

23. Apr 21, 2004

### oscar

John: Physicist PH.D and theologist Gerald L. Schroeder explains in his Genesis and the Big Bang, the beginning or "bere****" of the Universe was a super-black hole , inflationary ruach elokin episode, explaining the Hebrew word "merahefet" from a mustard seed or diminute point as Talmud explains. I wonder if Michio Kaku read about superstring theory as written in the Bible in Job 38:31 talking about the "ropes" or "strings" holding Pleiads and Orion or Job 26:7 admiting Earth hungs on "nothing" a term that makes me think in the 70% vaccum cosmos and unknown blackness. Indeed Isaiah 45:7 uses the Hebrew word "hoshek" saying the real creation ("barah" in Hebrew) was black fire or darkness and not the light which was just "formed" from something already existing, like gamma rays frequence before ultraviolet, infrared or "white" light. Yet, what Kabbalah says is the fire was in the water and water in the fire, not separated as we know in our "dimension". Something like the brothers Wacholwsky (knowing Kabbalah and Budism) tried to achieve in the special FX in Matrix. For centuries the Incas have used the Qechua word "pacha" meaning both space and time, so when I read these "modern" posts I wonder if we are really learning something new or re-checking Kant and Descartes philosophy disguised with math mask...and interpreted in many ways in spite is an exact science!

24. Apr 21, 2004

### oscar

The last part of the Hebrew word transformed into ***** is the other way to say "excrement". Sorry, I should've written "in spite of being an exact science".

25. Jun 23, 2004

### sarephina

About the Michelson-Morley experiment.... What if our equipment is not sensitive enough to pick up changes in the rate of EM propagation?

They let the light bounce around several times to exaggerate the difference if there was any, but how do we know how many times are enough?

Last edited: Jun 23, 2004