Gravity-time and Gravity-space.
===…
We speak the word “time” without concrete scientific definition.
Therefore our knowledge about “time” is foggy.
But if we say “gravity-time” then the fog is disappeared because
for us there isn’t another “time” expect the “gravity-time”.
We don’t use light- travel- time
( so- called 1Astronomical Unit) in our daily life.
==…
The same “fog” is with the word “space”.
For us there isn’t another “space” expect the “gravity- space”.
We don’t use another spaces in our daily life.
==…
The conceptions “time” and “space” are property of Gravity.
Without gravity there isn’t “time”, there isn’t “space”.
===…
The discussion about “time” and “space” without Gravity is tautology.
===…
Time ≡ the measure of relative change.
Light-time sounds interesting. A universal constant which provides the rate time passes by it’s speed, and the rate of time-decay by the distance between spatial positions and from the beginning of the universe.
Where; Time ≡ the measure of relative change, as james said, i would think that gravity is a proportion of but not the entire set of changes.
The measure of relative change in all observers [particles], denotes the decay and the speed of light the progress of time then? Except that the relativistic positions X QM’s indeterminate nature X the refresh rate of universe, shows the basis of time as not being of light/relativity/particles. These things are projections and not the projector of the hologram.
As ‘something’ denotes the speed of light, but time is not specifically peculiar to light, then the speed of ‘time’ [space?] denotes the speed of light.
Ergo time is something?
The Quantum Fabric of Space-Time
“The smoothly warped space-time landscape that Einstein described is like
a painting by Salvador Dalí — seamless, unbroken, geometric.
But the quantum particles that occupy this space are more like something
from Georges Seurat: pointillist, discrete, described by probabilities.
At their core, the two descriptions contradict each other.”
quantamagazine.org/20150424 … ls-er-epr/
==.
The modern philosophy of physics is like an abstract art.
Abstract art is what happened when painters stopped looking at reality
of nature and expressed their own psychological feeling of it.
In this way physicists stopped looking at reality of nature and create
mathematical theories only for the sake of theories and then they say
“nature is paradoxical” and blame the nature in intricate complication.
Abstract cleverness of mind only separates the thinker from the nature of reality,
===…
Exactly. And more significantly, it allows for separation of the chosen “educated” from the unchosen, “uneducated” (of the storyline).
Or, it is trying to understand our reality rather than what is right in front of us ~ because you cant keep seeing what’s in front of you as you will always arrive at the limits of that.
I cant envision a picture of the whole of reality without that having abstract elements, and neither can anyone else.
The world isn’t made of lego, and relativity and quantum theory only contradict in theory. That they can both be shown to be true means they are not false even if they contradict one another, it just means we haven’t found a unified way to describe the phenomenon. …and that’s because the answer will be even more abstract.
Because there is no concrete scientific definition.
No. And I would not call it “gravity-time”, because it is not the gravity or at least not the gravity alone which “dictates” the time. Let us call this time just “physical time” or “cosmological time”.
In our daily life we also do not use the “gravity-time”. In our daily life we use the “geocentric time” (b.t.w: this “geocentric time” would still be the “cosmological time”, if the science did not prescribe another “cosmological time”, namely the “gravity-time”).
No. And I would not call it “gravity-space”, because it is not the gravity or at least not the gravity alone which “dictates” the space. Let us call this space just “physical space” or “cosmological space”.
In our daily life we use the “geocentric space” (b.t.w: this “geocentric space” would still be the “cosmological space”, if the science did not prescribe another “cosmological space”, namely the “gravity-space”).
No.
That is not true.
No.