🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 27, 12:00 pm, tantal <6fre3hu8e...@fireman.net> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 9:49 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > > Michael Helland wrote:
>
> > > > Newton defined time and the space in the Principia as having both
> > > > absolute and relative natures.
>
> > > >http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/NewtonScholium...
>
> > > > Einstein fully understood and accepted both the absolute and relative
> > > > natures of space and time.
>
> > >    No--Actually Einstein showed that neither time for space are rigid and
> > >    absolute... that that both are malleable.
>
> > Newton thought that absolute space and time was mathematical.
>
> !? modeled? so what?
>
> > Einstein showed that relative space and time was mathematical.
>
> so?
>
> > But both Einstein and Newton acknowledged space and time had both
> > absolute and relative natures.
>
> as difrent from what?


As different from each other.

Absolute time is to be contrasted with relative time.

In Chapter 9 of Relativity, Einstein eluded to Newton's definition of
absolute time in the Principia:

"Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always
tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an
absolute significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state of
motion of the body of reference."

And then Einstein goes on to modify them, but not radically. He only
asserts that the mathematical laws of physics as they are currently
written

"But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the
most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this
assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of
light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section
VII) disappears."

In Chapter 8 he of course gives the famous definition of time, "Under
these conditions we understand by the 'time' of an event the reading
(position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is in the
immediate vicinity (in space) of the event" which is in agreement with
Newton's definition of relative time as a measurement based on motion.


> > But to have an understanding of the universe as deep as Newton or
> > Einstein requires a more complex notion of space and time than the
> > common and naive notion of a single nature.
>
> complex numbers?

Not quite.