I'm going to take time out to talk to you all about what is the most likely correct theory of time. Today, we have made some amazing discoveries concerning time and I often feel, the public doesn't take enough notice. Some of the brightest scientists are arguing a totally non-Newtonian aspect of time, something which is good if time exists. The unsettled question at the moment, is whether time is a real artifact of the world; that's a more difficult question and you can get a better idea of why this question exists when you study General Relativity and how time features in the framework of that theory. I'll do this in periodic posts, because no doubt there will be lots to cover and certainly it is a popular subject. I'll underline the main problems I have seen today with some statements which involve a very classical view of time: One which which fleeting, linear and responsible for the order of things. Scientists no longer believe this is the case. Time is more about the geometry of space time rather than a directionality in space, or imaginary space. The future cone isn't some direct arrow you draw and point into our future, no such arrow of time exists. Nor is time linear in that sense. Consciousness and the experience of time has with it, a sense of direction, but this is a psychological arrow of time, this is not a cosmological one. We have mistaken the two for years and years, due to a mixture of bad press, bad understanding and bad science. This leads us to time being a totally subjective phenomena. We even have a biological reason we sense time, we have gene regulators inside our brains which regulates our fast and slow senses of time. If these ''boxes'' where not there, we would have absolutely no sense of time at all. So what does that say about time? Surely if time is something we normally wouldn't be able to sense without these regulators, would that not imply it isn't really something objective? I think so. Time is almost undeniably essential for consciousness and no doubt, this is why we have this perception. It is however completely subliminal with no physical indication it is real in any way in physics. There are no non-trivial time operators in physics, time isn't even an observable. The global description of time disappears completely from General Relativity yet remains in special relativity when observers are present; in other words, time is an invariant of the theory when observers are present.
I think you should have just posted in the original thread. This extra thread is the same as shouting in CAPITALS.
I don't think you understand what the word "subjective" means. The existence of blind people does not imply that light does not exist. Time is described in physics mathematically and the theories work. That is all science can offer as proof that time exists.
It actually isn't. Let me get to Russ, because I have a strong sense of ... him bullshitting us. But let's see...
Subjective is where feelings exist. If you don't know what subjective means, go look it up. No one said this. You're just a fool troll aren't you? Mathematically it isn't an integral part of General relativity and already time in physics is taking a new role. You obviously don't know shit about the subject.
Did you miss this or are you refusing to answer? So Nightshift, are you and the banned poster Trapped the same person?
Banned for what? Your inane questions yes? This is a total joke, none of you have read even a single thing posted. You've just argued inane points which are hardly worth my time. For instance, you could have asked some decent questions which actually tackle the thread - instead... I have to put up with this idiosyncratic nature of yours. I absolutely hate it. If anyone should get banned for a small attitude check, you should.
I don't need to answer to you about anything. You are actually another one who needs a small reality check about your clique troll ganging up tactics.
I think there is a level of negativity towards you because it seems you could be Trapped in 'disguise', so it would help the discourse to just answer the question: So Nightshift, are you and the banned poster Trapped the same person?
Yeah, I think you're a lying little shit to be honest. Admitting myself to either a) being someone else or b) being ''trapped'' Would not benefit me in the slightest. So no.
I will accept your appology if you answer the question: So Nightshift, are you and the banned poster Trapped the same person? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK. If you are not trapped and you have only been on this site for a short time, I cannot conceive of why you are refusing to answer no. And actually if you are trapped, since he has shown himself over and over to be dishonest, I cannot conceive of why you are refusing to answer no. Whatever... pretty odd.:shrug: edit to add: If you said you and Trapped are not the same poster I would take you on your word, I have no way of knowing either way, I am not psychic - if I was I would be posting in the 'fringe section'.
Agreed. But either way, the attitude points to a short stay, so I think this sparkler's going to burn out on its own.