So, in your mind, doing physics involves watching interviews and not reading any scientific results? Because that sounds mentally ill.
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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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'. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
Ok, seeing it's you, mate, I shall go back into my Video/TV archives and see where it was. Tomorrow. G'night. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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.
Just in case you missed this in the other thread, mate... PS: And go read my reply to your lack of due diligence before your response in the other thread, Phys. Cheers. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, I tricked you into writing exactly the opposite of what Farsight actually wrote in order to frame Farsight. You really are daft.
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: 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! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Peer Review raised questions that Einstein did not foresee. The general theory of relativity was not born full grown.
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? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Good luck. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
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."
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.
Doh! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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. I know you won't hold your breath but your recommendation is commendable. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We have no evidence that God or any other deity exists. We have plenty of evidence though that space, time, space/time, gravity, matter, energy all exist and all basically depend on one another. http://www.livescience.com/29081-time-real-illusion-smolin.html https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
An FYI direct from Einstein to all those here that still 'believe' that 'spacetime' is 'real' and not just some abstract math modeling construct: 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
