1.0   An event is an interval

    Perhaps the most ludicrous definition of the word point, actually a reverse definition, is the infamous
    event of General Relativity. Hawking defines an event as ‘a point in space-time,’ (pp. 23, 184). I believe
    that this has to be the most absurd notion concocted yet by the community of mathematical physicists.
    On the one hand, Hawking says that an event is ‘something that takes place,’ (p. 22). On the other, he
    talks about ‘the positions of events and the distances between them.’ (p. 18) Hawking is no longer
    equating a point with static dots, positions, or locations. He has now elevated a frozen object known
    as a point to a dynamic interaction. Only a mathematician can explain how the object chair is also the
    verb to jump. Some relativists are so bold that they flaunt their ignorance publicly by actually drawing
    a rounded point which represents the famous event.

    However, if we understand the word interaction correctly, it involves two distinct objects and a before
    and after: two frames in the Universal Film. Everyone and their mothers gives dynamic examples for
    the word event, so there can be no margin for doubt:

    Hawking: “a pulse of light” (p. 24) [1]

    Hawking again: “What happens at such events …For example, if the sun
       were to cease to shine at this very moment”  (p. 27, Fig. 2.5)  [1]

    Heidmann: “a car collision.” (p. 66)   [2]

    Weyl: “a flash of a spark.” (p. 149)  [3]

    Wikipedia: “the explosion of a star or the single beat of a drum.”  [4]

    The idiots of Mathematics attempt to pass off an infinitesimal interval for what is conceptually a cross-
    section of time: an instant:

    “ Every space-time event that is strictly localized…occurs at a definite
      space-time point or world-point, ‘here-now’.” (p. 149)  [3]

    “ In Physics and in Science in general, an event may be contrasted with
      a process, which occurs across intervals, not just at a point on a timeline.” [5]

      [You don’t say!]

    The stupid morons of relativity believe that a pulse, a collision, a flash, an explosion, and a single beat
    occupy a single frame in the cosmic movie!

    Let me make this as clear as a whistle: a pulse, a collision, a flash, an explosion, or a single beat
    occupy at least two. In fact, those defining the word ‘process’ define it as an event:

    “ In science, a process is any method (or event) that results in a transformation”  [6]

    In Physics and in Science, all verbs – occurrence, event, process, mechanism, movement,
    displacement, vector – require a minimum of two Cosmic Movie frames.

    Hence, the relativistic definition mistakenly equates the noun point with what for the purposes of
    Physics is a verb (event). Hawking integrates these ‘occurrences’ and ‘happenings’ to arrive at the
    unlikely sphere in which he says he lives and which he calls space-time. These examples of point-like
    events clearly demonstrate that relativists in their tiny minds equate an event with a location. Perhaps
    Weyl and Hawking have short attention spans. There is no event in the history of motion that ever took
    less than two locations (read points) to occur. This includes the ’infinitesimal’ events they are alluding
    to.


    2.0   An interval is not an instant

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the U.S. Government’s official
    timekeeper. It is staffed by an army of well-paid mathematicians who mostly do measurement and
    standards research. If the folks at the NIST don’t know what time is, then nobody does.

    According to the NIST, the definition of time is:

    “ The designation of an instant on a selected time scale” [7]
     
    So then, what is a time scale?

    “ An agreed upon system for keeping time” [7]

    [Time is an instant on a time scale and a time scale is a system for keeping time.
     Great!]

    Obviously, the experts' circular definition will not help us in Physics and it need not be addressed
    further, except to say that perhaps the people at the NIST should spend less time on measurements
    and more on brainstorming definitions. The mathematicians at the NIST would do well if they begin
    by learning the scientific method.

    Not all appears to be lost, however, because the NIST also identifies time with the word instant. Is
    time a synonym of instant?

    Most dictionaries define the word instant as a brief period of time and equate it with the word moment.
    Again we end up with a set of circular definitions: time is an instant, where an instant is a moment,
    which in turn is an infinitesimal interval of time. Great! What have we learned? I will deal with interval
    in the next section. Meanwhile, let’s put the words instant and moment in their proper contexts and
    differentiate them from interval. Time is by any definition a dynamic concept and involves memory.
    An instant, on the other hand, is conceptually static and observer-less. If time is a movie, an instant is
    a photograph: timeless (Fig. 1). An instant comprises but one frame in the universal movie and is
    conceptually a cross-section of 'time' (Fig. 2). This image consists solely of static objects. An instant is
    synonymous with existence: all objects at a fixed location with respect to each other. Using relativistic
    lingo, location is conceptually a cross-section of time whereas an event requires an interval of time.
    Hence, time is irreconcilable with the notion of instant. An instant is not a when, but a where. The
    mathematicians may want to make their interval as infinitesimal as they can imagine, but it will never
    amount to an instant. The term instant of time is an oxymoron. It has an irrational meaning similar to
    ‘static motion’ or ‘dynamic location.’
Hawking's event point
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist



Fig. 1   An instant is not a when. An instant is a where.
Uuumm. Dr. Luke?
Is it possible to
split an event in
two?
Relativists confuse the  word  ' instant'
with the term ‘infinitesimal interval.’  For
the purposes of science, infinitesimal is
an adjective and can only be applied in
the context of structure. Nevertheless,
irrespective of how 'infinitesimal'
relativists wish to make their interval, it
will always occupy two or more frames
in the cosmic movie (as shown by the
different locations of the cylinder at left).
From a conceptual point of view, an
instant is a snapshot, a static image. An
instant has nothing to do with time and
all to do with location.
Fig. 2

Instant versus interval

In the context of time, an instant
is conceptually static whereas
interval is conceptually dynamic.
For example, an instant is to
'exist' what an interval is to alive
or dead. These notions have a
bearing on Schrödinger's Cat
analogy.
A crash happens at a
point. It occurs so
fast that it happens
in an instant.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008