What post? The difference between you and I is I wouldn't do that since I'm not a lying sock puppet of myself. Quantum gravity isn't relativity theory. GR has a very specific domain of applicability and as I guessed you wouldn't realize that, would you? You'd claim that research associated with quantum gravity somehow is research on GR. GR makes no predictions about quantum natural phenomena. None.
Look, it's really quite simple. You trust in relativity yes? And you believe surely, we have the right kind of picture using gravity, that it really is about the vacuum geometry. I also trust you are reasonably happy with our quantization methods. Then I ask you, what part of this makes you think that the Wheeler de Witt equation, (the quantized form of general relativity) can not be relativistic? The equation describing timelessness was rooted from first principles of relativity, I'm sorry Bruce, but you grossly don't understand this. GR does and has made predictions about gravity and in a quantized form since the 1960's. You are choosing not to listen and so I am going to ignore you now.
The Wheeler de Witt equation appears not to be excepted, so why are you so fanatically pushing it? The following appears where you got your maths from for the other thread also...... So do you understand it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–DeWitt_equation...... where it says..... The Wheeler–DeWitt equation[1] is an attempt to mathematically meld the ideas of quantum mechanics and general relativity, a step toward a theory of quantum gravity. In this approach, time plays no role in the equation, leading to the problem of time.[2] More specifically, the equation describes the quantum version of the Hamiltonian constraint using metric variables. Its commutation relations with the Diffeomorphism constraints generate the Bergmann-Komar "group" (which is the Diffeomorphism group on-shell, but differs off-shell). much more at the link..... """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" A reasonable "ATTEMPT" is the best one could say I suppose.
It depends, on camps of physics. I think saying it isn't accepted is a bit harsh, the equation is very much accepted in physics. That isn't mean't to mean all physicists agree with it, but Barbour makes a good point, a lot of physicists are actually still stuck in many Newtonian ways of thought, time actually being one of the most afflicted area's because of this. As far as equations go, there are many physicists who take it seriously, I don't need to push a thing.
In reality a clock doesn't measure time, it generates periodic events, like a ruler has uniformly spaced marks.It is a device defined as a standard, enabling the user to perform measurements. A quality clock can be regulated, but if its rate is adjusted + or -, it doesn't produce more or less time.
Accepted, excepted...Thank you, my mistake.....too much haste, not enough time! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The rest of your post is quite pleasingly noted.
The periodic events you speak of are only those we use as they align with the near apparent regularity of the motions of cosmic bodies. The measuring and passing of time, is compared to those cosmic bodies movements.
I'm not agreeing with you....I just find it refreshing that you agree that it is debatable. At least you have in this instant, distanced yourself from the hard line anti mainstream attitude that is prevalent here.
The latest standard of time, the second, is based on n wave lengths of light of a specific frequency. 'time' to update!
If 'time' is a nebulous intangible entity that flows for everyone, why in the twins scenario does the wandering twin return to the same place simultaneously, yet is younger than the other?
A year is still a year, and the time it takes the Earth to make an orbit of Sol...A month is still the time it takes the Moon to orbit the Earth and make one complete axial revolution.....
Time dilation. Here....." """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/Twins where it says..... In Einstein's special theory of relativity, there is no such thing as "time" in the singular. Time passes differently for different observers, depending on the observers' motion. The prime example is that of the two hypothetical twins: One of them stays at home, on Earth. The other journeys into space in an ultra-fast rocket, nearly as fast as the speed of light, before returning home: Afterwards, when the twins are reunited on Earth, the travelling twin is markedly younger, compared to her stay-at-home sibling. The exact age difference depends on the details of the journey. For example, it could be that, aboard the space-ship, two years of flight-time have passed - on-board clocks and calendars show that two years have elapsed, and both spaceship and travelling twin have aged by exactly that amoung of time. On Earth, however, a whopping 30 years have passed between the spaceship's departure and its return. Just like all other humans on the planet, the twin on Earth has aged by 30 years during that time. Seeing the two (ex?) twins side by side, the difference is striking. So far, so strange, but undoubtedly real. Space-travel with speeds close to that of light may be unfathomably far beyond the reach of current technology. But sending elementary particles on round trips in a particle accelerator at 99.99999 percent of light speed is routine. The result is in precise agreement with the predictions of special relativity - the "inner clock" of such a travelling particle runs much slower than that of a particle of the same species that remains at rest (cf. the page The relativity of space and time in the section Special Relativity of Elementary Einstein). Turning the tables? The reason the case of the travelling twins is also known as the "twin problem" or even the "twin paradox" is the following. From the point of view of the twin on Earth, one can explain the age difference by appealing to time dilation, a basic concept of special relativity. It involves an observer (more precisely: an inertial observer), for instance an observer that lives on a space station floating through empty space. For such an observer, special relativity predicts the following: For any moving clock, that observer will come to the conclusion that it is running slower than his own. Whether it is a clock on another space station floating past or a clock on an engine-driven rocket, in the time it takes for a second to elapse on the observer's own clocks, less than a second will have elapsed on the moving clock. This slowdown is true not only for clocks, but for everything that happens on the moving space station or in the flying rocket. All processes taking place on these moving objects will appear slowed down for our observer. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Really dmoe [such an apt handle] your campaign is not going to get you anywhere. In fact, as I have reminded you [as has even a mod in the scientific method thread] your obsession is really quite childish and silly.
A clock generates nothing. It simply measures periods of time. Time still exists without clocks. Time would still exist without matter. Time would still exist without the Universe expanding [as per Einstein's static model] Time would even exist if the Universe/space/time started to collapse. Time exists...There's nothing we can do about it.
... and time is a measure of change. If the clock measures time it needs to be changing. There is no time, only change. Time is a concept while change is reality.
The same reason that space existed at one time without matter. And we know space and time are interwoven don't we. Why do you need matter to have time?
