The Relativity of Time

Undefined said:
No no no! You got things arse up, mate. I already said he USED the CMB map (of 2003 IIRC) in his triangulation exercise apllied to the CMB map 'features' already present in the CMB map. Look, why not just email Sean and just ask him if what he described/said/concluded in that TV documentary about that is true. Then you can go from there on your own researches. I have no more time to waste on already settled matters already on public record. Thanks, Bye, PhysBang. :)
Click to expand...

So, in your mind, doing physics involves watching interviews and not reading any scientific results?

Because that sounds mentally ill.
 
PhysBang said:
So, in your mind, doing physics involves watching interviews and not reading any scientific results?

Because that sounds mentally ill.
Click to expand...

What's wrong, you afraid that interview INFORMING everyone at large of the exercise and its conclusion is REAL, and doesn't make an iota of difference where/how it was made known to those who didn't read it in the literature? Are you an elitist 'snob' who thinks the general public has no right to be informed of people's science work/conclusions? And in this day and age of instant global communications. Tch, tch. Sounds like unhealthy ego to me. You should have that 'snob' growth in your eyes removed asap. Good luck. :)

Have you asked Sean himself for a confirmation of his exercise/conclusions by email yet? Why not? Just making troll posts here when you could be confirming it for yourself that way is so lame as to be beyond belief that you claim to be any sort of 'objective scientist'. :)
 
Undefined said:
What's wrong, you afraid that interview INFORMING everyone at large of the exercise and its conclusion is REAL, and doesn't make an iota of difference where/how it was made known to those who didn't read it in the literature? Are you an elitist 'snob' who thinks the general public has no right to be informed of people's science work/conclusions?
Click to expand...
No, I think the opposite.

You are arguing that the general public avoid the work of scientists and instead trust your poor memory about a video interview you can't even find anymore.
Have you asked Sean himself for a confirmation of his exercise/conclusions by email yet? Why not?
Click to expand...
Because Carroll has a number of research papers publicly available and a regular science blog where he has never taken a position remotely like yours. If he had such a great reversal in his position, including the desire to claim work that was not his own, then I imagine that he would at least put it on his blog before he was hospitalized.
 
PhysBang said:
No, I think the opposite.

You are arguing that the general public avoid the work of scientists and instead trust your poor memory about a video interview you can't even find anymore.

Because Carroll has a number of research papers publicly available and a regular science blog where he has never taken a position remotely like yours. If he had such a great reversal in his position, including the desire to claim work that was not his own, then I imagine that he would at least put it on his blog before he was hospitalized.
Click to expand...

Ok, seeing it's you, mate, I shall go back into my Video/TV archives and see where it was. Tomorrow. G'night. :)
 
PhysBang said:
No, I think the opposite.

You are arguing that the general public avoid the work of scientists and instead trust your poor memory about a video interview you can't even find anymore.

Because Carroll has a number of research papers publicly available and a regular science blog where he has never taken a position remotely like yours. If he had such a great reversal in his position, including the desire to claim work that was not his own, then I imagine that he would at least put it on his blog before he was hospitalized.
Click to expand...

Sean reinforces the reality of time in a recent article.
He reminds us of the second law of thermodynamics [entropy] and the arrow of time.
 
PhysBang said:
No, I think the opposite.

You are arguing that the general public avoid the work of scientists and instead trust your poor memory about a video interview you can't even find anymore.

Because Carroll has a number of research papers publicly available and a regular science blog where he has never taken a position remotely like yours. If he had such a great reversal in his position, including the desire to claim work that was not his own, then I imagine that he would at least put it on his blog before he was hospitalized.
Click to expand...

Just in case you missed this in the other thread, mate...
Undefined said:
You asked where I saw/heard Sean Carroll's work/conclusions last. I looked in my video/tv archive and could only find the following info about the TV program I saw him explain his method/result in:
WEBSITE: BBB.CO.UK/SCIENCE

COPYRIGHT: BBC MMXII (ie, 2012)


EDITOR: AIDAN LAVERTY

HORIZON: BBC PRODUCTIONS

A BBC/SCIENCE CHANNEL CO-PRODUCTION

SCIENCE DOCUMENTARY PROGRAM: COSMOLOGY

SERIES PRODUCER: NICOLA COOK

WRITTEN & DIRECTED BY: KENNY SCOTT

NARRATOR: STEVEN MACKINTOSH

TITLE: “HOW BIG IS THE UNIVERSE?”

AIRED IN AUSTRALIA ON SBS-1 TELEVISION CHANNEL, MONDAY, JAN 20, 2014, 8:34 PM, AEDST.

SEAN CARROLL
THEN AT: CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Click to expand...

Go to it and find out what he did/said for yourself, mate, and you'll see I didn't lie to you. I trust when you come back you won't be as trollish as to again try to dictate to the physics professionals and/or sciforum members what is 'acceptable' and what is 'not acceptable' in science communication in general. Cheers. :)
Click to expand...



PS: And go read my reply to your lack of due diligence before your response in the other thread, Phys. Cheers. :)
 
PhysBang said:
Does it include your apology for lying about Farsight?
Click to expand...

Seems it was you who were lying and then tried the semantics/typos distractions to avoid admitting you were trying to 'frame' Farsight. Read my reply to you in the other thread TODAY, wherein it is made obvious you didn't bother to do due diligence on Farsight's treatment of that analogy; nor on the Sean Carroll issue which you still haven't admitted you were wrong about now that I posted the info above; nor on the FULL Einstein SR 2nd Postulate complete with GR 'rider' to expressly spell out that SR 'constancy of light speed' view validity did NOT EXTEND to GR contexts.


You still flailing around for some more lies and frames and typo/semantic excuses for NOT admitting you were wrong? Only a troll would keep doing that instead of being a man and admitting his errors. Good luck with that, mate! :)
 
Undefined said:
Seems it was you who were lying and then tried the semantics/typos distractions to avoid admitting you were trying to 'frame' Farsight.
Click to expand...
Yes, I tricked you into writing exactly the opposite of what Farsight actually wrote in order to frame Farsight.

You really are daft.
 
PhysBang said:
Yes, I tricked you into writing exactly the opposite of what Farsight actually wrote in order to frame Farsight.

You really are daft.
Click to expand...

One typo, "is" for "isn't". And you use that to base the rest of your lies and framing on, ignoring that Farsight corrected that mainstream analogy with the proper clock-line meanings which the mainstream left out because the crop of MATHEMATICIANS who 'invaded Einstein's theory' didn't understand their own confused 'relativity' theory maths-turbatory fantasies?

No wonder Einstein complained:
Ever since the mathematicians have invaded my theory, I don't understand it anymore!-----Einstein
Click to expand...

Are you a mathematician who doesn't understand what Einstein actually theorized originally that was totally confused by the mathematicians afterwards, as Einstein complained about? No wonder you're totally confused as to what's real and true and what's your own fantasies! Good luck with that, Phys! :)


And are you ready to APOLOGIZE for saying I was lying when I told you about Sean Carrol's work/results conveyed in that BBC documentary in 2012 and aired here in Oz only this past January? Go on, be a man for a change and admit you are the one lying and wrong. Do it and you'll feel better, mate! Good luck. :)
 
Undefined said:
No wonder Einstein complained:

Are you a mathematician who doesn't understand what Einstein actually theorized originally that was totally confused by the mathematicians afterwards, as Einstein complained about?
Click to expand...

Peer Review raised questions that Einstein did not foresee. The general theory of relativity was not born full grown.
 
OnlyMe said:
Peer Review raised questions that Einstein did not foresee. The general theory of relativity was not born full grown.
Click to expand...

It was usurped by mathematicians and left the reality insights which Einstein originally had to inform his new take on the contradictory interpretations which existed about light/time before his work. He bemoaned that obvious trend of flight-to-fantasy mathworlds in that quoted prophetic observation of his way back then. Doesn't it even make you stop and RE-think the current paradigm when Einstein himself saw what was coming and SAID SO like that, clearly? His insights were the breakthrough, mathematicians later confusions and fantasizing math-turbations were the later REWRITES BY COMMITTEE of one confused mathematician fantasizer after another in the incestuous world of 'mathematical physicists which took over since. What a nonsensical abstractions mess that Einstein foresaw. He had the right stuff, the mathematicians just made it all confused to the point that we have STILL NOT COMPLETED the theory because they have left the reality behind all along since Einstein's initial work. The next step is BACK TO LOCAL REALITY to inform the theory straight without any remote/unreal coordinate and reciprocal perspectives overlays that are MADE MOOT by the local reality....as explained by Farsight clearly in these threads already...but it seems you and others are enamored with abstraction and so far gone to math unreality 'views' that just don't listen because you've forgotten what REALITY looks like even if it's in the form/effects of GR on the two clocks under you nose! What does it take to break the 'math-turbative interpretational thrall' you and the others are laboring under? :)

Good luck. :)
 
This is well worth reading: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044

"There exists some confusion, as evidenced in the literature, regarding the nature of the gravitational field in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. It is argued here the this confusion is a result of a change in interpretation of the gravitational field. Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with."
 
Farsight said:
This is well worth reading: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044
Click to expand...
Peter Brown... another crank?

Here's how we might tell:

1) No citations to the paper. At all. 1 exception: Farsight cites it in a blog comment. I feel sorry for the blog.
2) No other scientific papers except two similar papers. 1 exception: the name search spits out a similar name from another paper. I feel sorry for the similarly named person.

So this is a dangerous source to rely upon, especially when there are dozens if not hundreds of public scientific sources out there.

Of course, Farsight did not actually read this paper, since he cited it despite the fact that it disagrees with his position! The author writes on page 16, "In light of the above, according to [Einstein's General Relativity], space-time curvature is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the existence of gravity."

So I urge Farsight to read the paper, to take the time to learn how to follow the mathematics, and to try to come to a similar conclusion as the author.
 
PhysBang said:
Of course, Farsight did not actually read this paper, since he cited it despite the fact that it disagrees with his position!
Click to expand...

Doh! :p

The author writes on page 16, "In light of the above, according to [Einstein's General Relativity], space-time curvature is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the existence of gravity."
Click to expand...

I think the reverse is true: gravity is a necessary, but insufficient condition for stating the GR applies, since you also need a second reference frame before contraction and dilation have any meaning or applicability.

So I urge Farsight to read the paper, to take the time to learn how to follow the mathematics, and to try to come to a similar conclusion as the author.
Click to expand...

I know you won't hold your breath but your recommendation is commendable. :)
 
An FYI direct from Einstein to all those here that still 'believe' that 'spacetime' is 'real' and not just some abstract math modeling construct:

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which I shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.-----Einstein
Click to expand...

See where the whole of current Relativity (both SR and overall GR) is pure abstraction math/geo modeling? So please no more dishonest and/or misleading IN-DENIAL-OF-FACTS claims that it isn't, Ok? Thanks for your future co-operation in this matter to everyone who is reasonable and objective and not just trolling. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top