Timeless GR

Grumpy said:
paddoboy



Precisely, that is the view Einstein himself held, as do I.
Click to expand...

Your propaganda won't go unnoticed with these obvious lies.

Everyone who actually has read Einsteins work, knows fine well he never considered it as anything other ''than what a clock measures'' and he is also well known for his statement saying time was an illusion. He never believed for a moment that time was fundamental... nor did Dirac for that matter... or a number of notable scientists.


Just don't lie about it ok. The facts are not on your side and so you just make them up as you go along!
 
Last edited:
Grumpy said:
Einstein himself said that any time-dependent process, no matter how irregular, suffices to DEFINE time's passage
Click to expand...
And he isn't the only one. What we use to define this "passage" of time appears to be independent of time itself. However, "any time-dependent process" being used to define the "passage of time" is obviously self referential, it says nothing about what time is or where it comes from.
So the time as dimension concept in the original GR(spacetime)is the one Uncle Albert considered to be true.
Click to expand...
Why did he say that time is an illusion? You mean he considered time as an illusory dimension? The theory has four dimensions because different observers can disagree on which of them corresponds to time?

That is what I mean when I say time is a visible dimension in spacetime every bit as valid as length, breadth and height.
Click to expand...
I disagree, I don't believe I can see time, and nor do I believe anyone else can. I can see distances though.
Time is a property of our Universe, it does not depend on events to exist. It is we who depend on events to detect and measure that time
Click to expand...
Or, time is not a global property, we "create" a flow of what we call time locally, by observing events and ordering them.
 
BlackHoley said:
Everyone who actually has read Einsteins work, knows fine well he never considered it as anything other ''than what a clock measures'' and he is also well known for his statement saying time was an illusion. He never believed for a moment that time was fundamental... nor did Dirac for that matter... or a number of notable scientists.
Click to expand...
Who cares about the word "fundamental"? Why does it matter?
 
Russ_Watters said:
Who cares about the word "fundamental"? Why does it matter?
Click to expand...

Fundamental is very important. When you want to study a system, using classical physics is fine.... if it can be applied to the system. This is where quantum mechanics comes in, reformulates classical mechanics (not because it is wrong) but because it isn't fundamental. Classical physics fails to describe the world of the small because it is doesn't represent the fundamental picture and so gives us the wrong answers.

This problem is very much the same. Newtonian time, not Einsteinian time, flows from past to future; this view of time is almost universally accepted to be wrong, which means our pretty picture of time (one which flows relative to the human being) is built from classical concepts and faulty premises about the nature of time itself. If time is not fundamental, then there is a better, dare I say it, more correct approach than the one we are using. If time is not fundamental like the equations are telling us, then we find this will also have drastic implications on the model we use to describe the universe in grand unification theories.
 
arfa brane said:
And he isn't the only one. What we use to define this "passage" of time appears to be independent of time itself. However, "any time-dependent process" being used to define the "passage of time" is obviously self referential, it says nothing about what time is or where it comes from.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised at him using self-referential answers like he did. He was the one who told me it is


''time which defines time''


He's not very good at articulating arguments never mind getting the science right.
 
BlackHoley said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...

That lame-brained reason to doubt the existence of time is pathetic.
We feel time passing through change, pure and simple.
It is as real as space, space/time, gravity, Universe, matter and energy......

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
 
paddoboy said:
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Click to expand...

Clearly we have already pointed out, the measurement of space-time, is not even a measurement about time itself. It's the same argument that a photon should experience time when it moves from one place to another... clearly time passes for us, but the photon is essentially static, no time passes for it. So the idea that somehow we can measure ''space-time'' to a degree of accuracy as to claim it somehow has been ''proven'' they are the same thing, is obviously incorrect.

No scientist can make this statement and be taken seriously.
 
When we make measurements about the displacement of heavenly bodies, we are measuring the motion of systems. In relativity, the motion to systems disappear, time becomes defined as an inertial local phenomenon, whereas universally-speaking, time is static and doesn't even exist.
 
paddoboy said:
No, that's just your egostistical driven opinion....nothing else.
Click to expand...

No, it's based on some of the most riveting physics that has been around for over 50 years. That isn't then about an opinion is it? I am talking about an already well-known established timelessness inherent in GR.
 
paddoboy said:
Well I would rather take the statements of scientists such as Thorne, far more seriously than a layman such as yourself.
Click to expand...

He's clearly in error then. No measurement can make a precision on the unity of space-time.

It's well known you can't even observe time, so how you make an objective measurement of it is unsure. Does he define this in any way? Because if he doesn't, he clearly needs to.
 
BlackHoley said:
He's clearly in error then. No measurement can make a precision on the unity of space-time.

It's well known you can't even observe time, so how you make an objective measurement of it is unsure. Does he define this in any way? Because if he doesn't, he clearly needs to.
Click to expand...

:) You must get dizzy up in that ivory tower of yours......:shrug:
 
paddoboy said:
:) You must get dizzy up in that ivory tower of yours......:shrug:
Click to expand...

So you can't answer my question? I asked you, does he define in what way measurements of space-time are made to precision? Does he define how we make measurements of time?

And does he realize that the idea of space-time probably won't work out for GR? I am actually surprised Thorne would make a suggestion as he has in his paper. But then some of these really intelligent physicists don't work from first principles. They work from Minkowski spacetime, which isn't derived from first principles.
 
By the way... I followed your link. It's not even a paper... it's a small paragraph

''Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?
No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.''

And there is no name which accompanies with it. You expect me to just accept that as valid information? I have posted well over eight papers in my OP's, and you can't even gather me a proper paper?
 
Sorry, there is a name at the very bottom,

''All answers are provided by Dr. Sten Odenwald''


... Well his picture is wrong -- he treats time as something that isn't agreed by top physicists (that time should be unified with space), all the important top physicists any way. His picture of the unification of matter, energy and space is true. That's even true in a quantum field perspective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top