|
A fascinating area. I would assume that gravitational wells, fields, motion and perhaps spacetime (regions or otherwise) would all need to be modeled with the proper interrelations in order to represent *time passing more slowly* in one location or reference frame than another. If the goal is to model GR then I would think that talk of time simpliciter is a shorthand for (i) some aspect of spacetime, or (ii) *time slowing* is a short-hand for some curvature or dynamicity of spacetime in relation to material entities and their motion. I would think this because doesn't GR hold that there is no time or space divorced from spacetime...so there is (in whatever sense of mind-independent existence) only spacetime. Assuming that point about GR, I've wondered for a while--and it would be relevant(if not necessary) for the conceptual and philosophical development of modeling relativistic phenomena--if (a) thinking in terms of time simpliciter without taking into account (mentally or in the symbolic model) the interrelations between "time" and "space" and "matter", and (b) if 'time' classes rather than 'spacetime' or 'space-time' classes and models just adds to the challenge and difficulties in modeling GR. This is not to say that we should not use temporal models for their practical worth, but only that perhaps some of the difficulty rests somewhere there. But I digress. Robert Rovetto On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Steve Ray <steve.ray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01) |
