Oh give it up, Peter. The box smiles back at you.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Euclid was correct: A point is something that doesn't have parts. In other words, it is indivisible. Something (1) every part of which (2) has parts is endlessly divisible because after a division any resulting part (2) may be identified with (1). It behaves like Cantor's dust.

Tom: "And if you want to say that physics lives in a different, superior, world than mathematics -- an atom has parts. Is it endlessly divisible?"

My sentence was incomplete. Something every part of which has parts is a continuum.

While the idea of atoms meant a tomos = not divisible, the example shows that mathematical models do not necessarily correspond to physical reality.

E.: ""A point has a different quality. It has measure zero.""

Tom: "A measure is a quantity, not a quality.

In contrast to G. Cantor, I see the measure exactly zero and the measure infinitum absolutum qualities rather than quantities. That's why they are to be treated with care.

There are many more mathematical objects than a point, of measure zero."

There are no truly physical objects of measure zero.

Best,

Eckard

"There are no truly physical objects of measure zero."

Is the horizon a physical object?

Peter,

Obviously a vector is not physical. Eastw,west,north, south are not physical, but concepts. By treating time as a scalar, it is reduced to a measure that expands or contracts. Which is more due to the nature of math, then of time. The deepwr reality of time is that sequential flow from one event to the next, not whether the intervals between events can vary. Yet all the focus is on that essentially minor aspect of time. Anyone with more than one clock, or has ever been both bored and exited can appreciate that measures of time are somwhat subjective.

Writing on the phone, so keeping it short.

Regards,

John m

Tom,

Time is a word. Why cant it be both measure and effect? Interval is measure. Passage is effect.

Any act of measurement is simply another event. It is part of the process of time, both marking an interval and consequence of passage.

Laws may work both directions, but is that afunction of the nature of the concept of law, or the actual physical dynamic being described? Laws model reality. Inertia is also a law and it would seem to seriously work against the idea of reversing the trajectory of a planet.

Regards,

John m

Tom,

As ive argued before, intuition is the minds scaler, as opposed to linear, rationalization process. There were obviously quite a lot of ideas stewing in Einteins mind, when he came up with sr. That it didnt come together linearly doesnt mean it had no precedent.

Regards,

Jm

No, the horizon is not a physical object and as an effect of subjective perception, it is also fuzzy. Just like the present.

Putting this in the right thread,

No, the horizon is not a physical object, but an effect of subjective perception. As such, it is also fuzzy, as an actual physical phenomena, not just mathematical concept. Just as the present is physically fuzzy and not clearly distinguishable from past and future.

"Time is a word. Why cant it be both measure and effect?"

For the reasons that you yourself gave. You may be comfortable living with your contradictions, but that means abandoning logic altogether, which you appear to have successfully done.

Best,

Tom

"As ive argued before, intuition is the minds scaler, as opposed to linear, rationalization process. There were obviously quite a lot of ideas stewing in Einteins mind, when he came up with sr. That it didnt come together linearly doesnt mean it had no precedent."

There is a difference between being rational and rationalizing. If you think Einstein's reasoning was rationalization, you insult his rationalism (which, like Spinoza's, was supreme).

If you think there is historical precedent for special relativity on which Einstein built his theory -- what is it?

Best,

Tom

" ... the horizon is not a physical object, but an effect of subjective perception."

So the horizon you perceive isn't necessarily the horizon I perceive?

Justify your answer.

I can't find a source for it, but Hilbert is reputed to have something like, "Some people have a mental horizon of measure zero, which they call their point of view."

I meant "of radius zero."

I guess I was hung up on my dialog with Eckard.

Right now im at prince georges equestrian center and the physical horizon line consists of tents and trees, against hazy sky.

In response to a prior comment, the fact im not obessively focused on a particular topic has been an economic and social negative, but one ive considered and willingly accepted. On a personal level, the patoffon a betterphycic appreciation for the broad aspects and very fact of life on this planet is worth it. This is not to put myself above others, because the opportunities were fairly unique to my situation. What im referring to is a deep sense of what might in smaller situations be referred to as the madness of crowds. That people enmass will start behaving in ways that would be considered irresponsible if being commited by an individual.

Regards,

John m

Tom,

So is it measure or effect?(yes, part of spacetime, which is derived from the measure, but does measurement give you grey hair?)

So Einstein wasnt trying to solve a problem and prior concepts were not a factor? If you say so.

Regards,

John m

" ... part of spacetime, which is derived from the measure, but does measurement give you grey hair?)"

Is that a koan?

"So Einstein wasnt trying to solve a problem and prior concepts were not a factor? If you say so."

I *didn't* say so. You said so. And still no information on what those "prior concepts" were?

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Im afraid my knowledge of detail is not up to your standard. As i recall his primary insight was the speed of light being the only viable constant, so he built it up from and around that. Spacetime was an idea that had been floating around. Apperently some give edgar allen poe credit for first proposing it, though i tried reading that essay once and thought herion might have been involved. All the mathematical history, ill have to refer to eckard, peter or james on. Oh wait, i could ask you!

regards,

John m

"That people enmass will start behaving in ways that would be considered irresponsible if being commited by an individual."

Have you read Eric Hoffer? His essays had a great influence on my youth.

Tom,

The True Believer.

Not only does it stick a pin in a lot of old bubbles, but is still there, testing any new ones.

Regards,

John M