What happened in 1905 that has misled physics?
> has been more like
> science fiction, consider my two basic, thoroughly
> considered tenets of the physics to come:
>
> 1) Time does not exist! It just isn't here, there,
> or anywhere, never has been and never will.
There are many things that have no physical existence in and of
themselves. They exist as concepts or principles. But they may be useful
in helping us to understand our world nonetheless. The principle of time
is useful in giving understanding to sequentially dependent
relationships and to predict future and past events. What benefit do you
propose would come to our physics by pretending that this concept never
existed?
> 2) The Universe is infinite and "3-dimensional".
I don't think you'll get too many arguments from most people, physicists
included, about the first point of the universe being infinite. Your
second assertion that the universe is 3-dimensional is debatable. Since
dimensions are again human concepts, they are subject to our limited
ability to directly experience the actual nature of the cosmos. It could
be argued that the so-called 3d universe could be expressed in only two
dimensions. Not very useful though and too complex to work with
mathematically. Physicists find it very useful to adopt as many
dimensions as necessary under the circumstances. Or, it could be argued
that space does not exist. It too is only a concept. Having acknowledged
that viewpoint then, of what use is it?
How do you expect the revelation that there are 3 dimensions to benefit
pysics and explain things better and more usefully?
> It's time to cry, "The emporer has no clothes!"
> Myself no mathematical "physicist" nor even much
> of a mathemetician, I can only suggest these tenets
> as obvious and intuitive,
I suggest that since you admit to not being much of a mathematician that
you may not be qualified to condemn that which you know little about.
> most delighted I would be if
> the mathematicans would apply themselves to the task
> of developing a physics with these as givens to
Jack, science has already passed beyond this simplistic view centuries
ago.
> oppose the florid and bizarre ideas that evolve
> in the mathematical cosmologies which stem from
> seminal errors such as including time as a quantity or
> supposing the Universe to be finite.
Although there may be many errors in the proposed cosmologies of science
today, few actully suppose the universe to be finite. This notion of
yours that they suppose it to be so is indicative of your lack of
knowledge about those cosmologies. Many cosmologies do suppose the
amount of 'matter' in the universe to be finite but not that the
universe itself is. It is a matter of definition of the word 'universe'.
Obviously when there is talk about 'multiple universes' then the concept
of universe is one that is not so all encompassing.
Furthermore, if time were not included as a quantity our technology
would never have gotten past the dark ages. Time is indeed a quantity
since it is standardized on the relative changes in the motions of
physical objects. These physical relationships are indeed real. The
earth does spin on its axis once a day, it does revolve around the sun
just once per year. The decay of Cesium atoms does occur at a particular
rate which occurs so many times per day, etc. Do you rely on a clock in
your daily affairs? If so then I suggest you yourself find the concept
of time very useful.
Jack, that your 'tenets' are intuitive and obvious is true, to a child.
I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic, but I just don't see anything
substantial in what you wrote. Perhaps you have come to some new
realization recently and believe it to be unique. Maybe there is more to
what you are thinking but you haven't expressed it very well. Please
help us to understand why you think that adopting your viewpoint will be
productive. Tell us what problems in science this will solve and how.