Just shows what you know then. There are some successful semi-classical models.
I hope I don't have to explain this as well to you. I can't take half of you posters seriously. Half of you have no idea what you are talking about.
Timeless GR
- Thread starter BlackHoley
- Start date
Just shows what you know then. There are some successful semi-classical models.
I hope I don't have to explain this as well to you. I can't take half of you posters seriously. Half of you have no idea what you are talking about.
BlackHoley
When all but you think you are a crank, a mirror is where you will find the cause. You've not succeeded in explaining anything so far, I'm not expecting that situation to improve, though the average IQ would probably rise once you leave. At the least it would reduce the confusion you sow, remarkably.
Grumpy
When all but you think you are a crank, a mirror is where you will find the cause. You've not succeeded in explaining anything so far, I'm not expecting that situation to improve, though the average IQ would probably rise once you leave. At the least it would reduce the confusion you sow, remarkably.
Grumpy
BlackHoley
When all but you think you are a crank, a mirror is where you will find the cause. You've not succeeded in explaining anything so far, I'm not expecting that situation to improve, though the average IQ would probably rise once you leave. At the least it would reduce the confusion you sow remarkably.
Grumpy
Given you have no better knowledge of physics than Russ and that you, Russ and a select few others constantly troll threads just to find arguments, none of us can take you seriously either. At times you're even worse than Russ. You just make stuff up so it contradicts a poster and half the time it is said out of utter ignorance about physics.
Just like classical vs quantum comment made by Russ above. It's made out of ignorance and nothing more.
Obviously, all the made up stuff you speak of is actually in the book you will release and the ToE other alternative nuts have. I mean, all we have is your word that these things will happen, and taking into account the extreme self gratutitious remarks you each pour on yourselves, I see those claims as the ones that are made up.
And of course even more evidence highlights the nonsense that you and your friend continually bludgeon this forum with, in the fact that in this thread alone, you answered yourself 8 times before anyone took your bait.
It's quite obvious who has the better knowledge of physics and GR, and even more obvious as to who is interpreting it correctly. And that interpretation is certainly not the unsupported notions like the speed of light is not constant, or that time does not exist....
I'm absolutely sick of all the lengthy sanctimonious unsupported, and misinterpreted unreviewed crap that people expect to pass as science.
Those that support this stuff, I just have one question to be answered....
No convoluted bullshit, no extended rants, just answer the question.
Should not take anymore than one or two sentences...If you have an answer!
Those that support this stuff, I just have one question to be answered....
No convoluted bullshit, no extended rants, just answer the question.
Should not take anymore than one or two sentences...If you have an answer!
Again, for the third time.....
Please show me a realm where time doesn't exist, or alternatively show me a realm where space does not exist.....show me a realm where space/time does not exist.
If this question cannot be answered logically and with satisfaction, then we can virtually close these threads that have wrongly and stupidly assumed that time does not exist in the framework of GR.
In fact the whole silly assumption ranks with other related threads that just as wrongly, assume that the speed of light is not constant.
Finally the fact that the cosmological theories such as BB/Inflation, SR and GR, all interact with each other, with such grace, simplicity and beauty, that they are in all reality with firm foundations, and are responsible for how far cosmology has come in just a 100 short years or so.
Please show me a realm where time doesn't exist, or alternatively show me a realm where space does not exist.....show me a realm where space/time does not exist.
If this question cannot be answered logically and with satisfaction, then we can virtually close these threads that have wrongly and stupidly assumed that time does not exist in the framework of GR.
In fact the whole silly assumption ranks with other related threads that just as wrongly, assume that the speed of light is not constant.
Finally the fact that the cosmological theories such as BB/Inflation, SR and GR, all interact with each other, with such grace, simplicity and beauty, that they are in all reality with firm foundations, and are responsible for how far cosmology has come in just a 100 short years or so.
Will the troll please stop making 'cheap shot' posts to BlackHoley who cannot reply or defend while he is on suspension?
And when Blackholey returns, it might be a good thing if you the troll could acquaint yourself with the posts already made quoting mainstream Einstein, Penrose and Sean Carroll (even Grumpy's own link!) where 'time' and 'space-time' are clearly explained as being unreal and abstractions from real things and events which require said real things/events (processing energy-space features) in order to make any sense out of 'time' and 'space-time' descriptions, coordinates in equally abstract and unreal math/geometry analytical constructs.
That way you wouldn't come across so 'trolly' and 'in denial' etc etc as usual because you don't acknowledge or address directly the posted mainstream info that has already proven your stance as unreal and philosophical only, not meaningfully physical.
Other than that, admin advises not to feed the troll, so....
And when Blackholey returns, it might be a good thing if you the troll could acquaint yourself with the posts already made quoting mainstream Einstein, Penrose and Sean Carroll (even Grumpy's own link!) where 'time' and 'space-time' are clearly explained as being unreal and abstractions from real things and events which require said real things/events (processing energy-space features) in order to make any sense out of 'time' and 'space-time' descriptions, coordinates in equally abstract and unreal math/geometry analytical constructs.
That way you wouldn't come across so 'trolly' and 'in denial' etc etc as usual because you don't acknowledge or address directly the posted mainstream info that has already proven your stance as unreal and philosophical only, not meaningfully physical.
Other than that, admin advises not to feed the troll, so....
He wasn't the only one pushing this timeless GR rubbish.
Easy. Any mathematical 'realm' does not contain or refer to space or time. Physical theories do refer to these, and physical theories happen to be mathematical, such as Einstein's.paddoboy said:
Einstein, btw, assumes that both space and time exist a priori, he doesn't try to define what they are in his 1905 paper. Instead, he defines a way to precisely measure time, without really even defining what "measurement" means.
So, if it's true that Einstein uses the terms "space" and "time" in his theory without defining them (instead assuming both can be measured and everyone understands what that means), does that mean the theory is some kind of proof that both "really" exist? Or would that be a kind of inverted logic?
What about the more general question: are there any theories that define what space and time are, or do all the useful ones only assume that both exist, and that we can "measure" them? Since the theories are mathematical, what reasons do they provide for the existence, physically, of space or time, and what difference does it make if they have none?
Last edited:
Ho arfa....Mathematics is said to be the language of physics, and in that respect, just like the many thoughts, good and bad, that we all probably have, are abstract.
The concept of space and time is though in my opinion quite different.
Albert did not say "Time is an illusion"...he said "Time is an illusion: albeit a stubborn one.
I'm sure he was inferring that putting a finger on what time exactly is, was rather difficult.
Likewise, he also said "Imagination is more Important than knowledge" In a similar way, I don't believe he meant that as exactly as put...rather that Imagination is not to be disregarded and is on an equal footing with knowledge, going hand in hand with it to progress science and humanity.
Space is what separates everything we see...It's what exists between you and me now.
Time is what stops everything from happening together....It's what existed between when I posted my last post and this one. OK, accepted, they are rather simplistic descriptions but still fit the bill.Occam's razor if you will.
All SR/GR did [and the BB] was bring into focus, the reality of these former concepts that may have once been thought of as just abstractions. The fact that space can be measured to be twisting and warping, the fact that we have no Universal now, all in my opinion point to the reality of both.
I also certainly read the Sean Carroll link from undefined, and supplied one of my own, and I do not see that what he says even remotely supports the non existence of these entities...In fact, the opposite is true.
How what he said could be twisted and misconstrued into other meanings, suggest in my opinion, that those two that do propose that, have an agenda and excess baggage that act as blinkers.
Finally the first six or seven replies to the OP were by the person initiated this thread as well as other similar threads, indicating that agenda.
That along with the original blanket statement that time does not exist in GR, being watered down somewhat to 'global time does not exist point to some sort of agenda and fanatical need to draw attention to the controversy created.
Similar false misleading arguments were put in the "speed of light is not constant" thread.
Clever but not true
How does observation prove that time exists ?
river
Well, babies don't know how to type or read. So we know that time has passed for you because you have learned how to do both those things. Your development from a baby is a perfectly acceptable clock according to Einstein and your growth occupied some time marked by that development. Or are you still a baby?
Grumpy
Well, babies don't know how to type or read. So we know that time has passed for you because you have learned how to do both those things. Your development from a baby is a perfectly acceptable clock according to Einstein and your growth occupied some time marked by that development. Or are you still a baby?
Grumpy
river
Well, babies don't know how to type or read. So we know that time has passed for you because you have learned how to do both those things. Your development from a baby is a perfectly acceptable clock according to Einstein and your growth occupied some time marked by that development. Or are you still a baby?
Grumpy
Why do babies develop ?