>>4295974I want to talk about this because, while dumb and mathematically incoherrent (I actually don't know enough maths to know this for sure), it was remarkably spot one, which has me interested in physics. This is actually interesting because I did not know about geometry this way. I saw a speech from Barbour about time and immediately thought that you could define the shape of the space by looking at particles pairs. You says time isn't a dimension, which vastly simplifies even SR, which I know from HS. Given a configuration of particles, you define time to be the necessary symettries leading up to your given configuration (I think this is what he meant). Anyways, the idea was that in this 3D environment, you could just look at a pair of particles you knew existed like electron/positron and draw the shortest line through them if that was possible (I knew enough to know there are special cases where you'd have many lines). You don't need to actually draw it in space. Since space in unbounded and finite, the line would eventually loop, but it might make elaborate shapes, less than the 3-manifold, before it did. By doing this you could define the space you live in.
This was remarkably dumb and remarkably close to actual maths, which I don't remember reading, and I normally remember what I read.
Anyways, I am semi-braggin my idiotic idea was close to real maths. Deal with it.
