thomas malloy wrote: > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > >> OrionWorks wrote: >> >> >>> On a more serious note, >>> >>> What are the prevailing arguments in regards to determining the >>> smallest "slice" of time? >>> >>> It's only "bound" waves which are quantized. >>> >>> So, an electron traveling along the X axis can apparently be found at >>> any location on the axis -- 3, 2.5, pi, whatever. It can apparently >>> > > My late friend, and some time physics tutor, Frank Meyer, who used to be > president of the organization promoting Reciprocity, was fond of saying, > "time is not a dimension, it is a continuum."
A "continuum" means something which is continuous, without gaps. In particular, in math and physics, the phrase "the continuum" is often used to refer to something specific: The real numbers. Unlike the rationals, the reals have no gaps. For time to be "a continuum", it must be expressible as a simple real number. In fact, that's just the Newtonian concept of time. So, the statement "time is a continuum, not a dimension" is just another way of saying "I reject special relativity". In SR, of course, time isn't a simple real scalar (aka a "continuum"). I kinda figured that's what "reciprocity physics" was all about; it has that look to it. > Some one posted a website > with photos showing Bosivert Gaps. Frank said that they were in keeping > with his understanding of physics, reality is discontinuous. >
