Will the troll please read post #78 wherein I show that Grumpy posted an excerpt from the full interview in question that Grumpy purported to support his view whereas the full interview, and especially highlighted sections, actually were SPECULATIVE and PHILOSOPHICAL ideas and ruminations from Sean's MULTI-UNIVERSE and philosophical-only sense of 'time' pondering and NOT 'mainstream facts' about 'time' as a 'real' physically meaningful concept without the events occurring as he mentioned were necessary for that 'time' to be derived and abstracted from as the 'physical' time tool of analytical comparison convenience. Then maybe the troll will stop cluttering up the threads with his usual meaningless hypocritical posts. Thankyou troll.
I'm not cluttering, and I'm not trolling. I do though vehemently disagree with your's and Blackey's interpretation of time and reluctance to accept its obvious reality and significance with GR. http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/ But to again save repeating myself, I suggest you read post 80 again, and take up the challenge I offered. Let me give that challenge again...... 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 the troll in question is as well read on the various threads as he claims while cluttering up the relevant threads with his opinions and 'version' of philosophical-only 'time' as 'duration repetitive descriptions, he will realize that Maxila et al have pointed out that the 'physically meaningful' TIME exists only as a derivation/abstraction from events/processes, not as a fundamental 'time existing dimension' like space or a thing like energy processing in that space. Various Einstein, Penrose and others' quotes stating that 'time' is dependent on events/processing comparisons and not in itself anything but a tool of analysis, have also been posted more than once. So perhaps the troll in question would like to actually support HIS claim that 'time exists' as something in its own right and not as the derivation/abstraction which Einstein, Penrose, Sean Carroll (see post #78 again) have clearly stated was not a 'thing' in its own right....which i why they abstracted everything into the 'space-time' construct so as to give 'time' some meaning....except that an article has also been posted from wiki which clearly states that 'space-time' descriptions and coordinates have NO physical meaning in themselves, but ONLY when the events/particles are included to make the events/processes part of the 'space-time' information. So please feel free, troll, to support your wild beliefs/claims AGAINST all those mainstream statements which disagree with your beliefs/claims about 'time existing' irrespective. Go on, you talk big and often about what others need to do. Well, it has already BEEN done. Now its your turn to do more than just repeat old and tired beliefs/claim that boil down to philosophical/personal beliefs/concepts....as demonstrably has been the case from you and Grumpy (again, please see post #78). Go to it troll.
Sure I'll support them as I always have. You simply have an agenda...excess baggage. What you claim people have meant is not as you say. Secondly Sean Carroll is not the be all and end all of this...I do not believe he said what you claim, and nor do I believe he meant what you said..... And I have also watched him and listened often, and he has never claimed what you say. Your WIKI article I have called up with two other wiki articles in one of these threads. And of course just reading the wording of the WIKI you gave leads one to believe that you or Blackey may have did it yourself... Did you? Finally, calling me a troll will not further your claims, and do not really affect me at all. As I have said in the past, I'll be at the judgment of my peers here, just as you certainly will. In essence then, I have given two or three WIKI references, and a couple of papers, and a few articles from reputable scientists/cosmologists such as Kaku Greene, Smolin and I also know the same opinion his held by Thorne and Rees as well as Begalman. Oh, and of course Sten Odenwald.
If the troll in question had actually read and understood the "Hole Argument" article in WIKI and its implications, he would have learned that 'space-time' descriptions and coordinates have NO real meaning in themselves, but ONLY when the events/particles are included to give them meaning. As has been already explained by Maxila et al, to no avail against the obtuseness of troll tactics/repetition of 'beliefs' and 'philosophy versions masquerading as 'mainstream' but isn't in fact...as the following quoted wiki (from my thread) in reply to PhysBang therein clearly demonstrates.... Troll, please read carefully for once, especially that bolded and red highlighted parts of the last paragraph of the wiki quote, and then stop your trolls and baits and just plain cluttering meaningless hypocritical posts. That paragraph refutes all your 'arguments' and 'links' and 'beliefs' etc about 'space-time' being real in itself rather than just as an analytical math construct abstraction which needs events/particle etc to make it meaningful. Thanks troll.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity General relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916[1] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations. Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data. However, unanswered questions remain, the most fundamental being how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity" where it says..... Some simple, relatively uncontroversial definitions of time include "time is what clocks measure"[7][15] and "time is what keeps everything from happening at once". One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe—a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The troll in question is asked to ponder the meaning of "A Geometric Theory". Then he is again asked to read and understand properly the bolded and red highlighted parts of the last paragraph in that wiki quote in post #85. Also read post #78. Then maybe the troll in question will stop his avoiding and repetitive posting of beliefs and claims about 'space-time existing' etc which are already refuted therein and many other times before then. Thanks, obtuse and persistent repetitive cluttering troll.
In summing, despite your interpretations space, time, space/time, Universe, gravity. matter, energy are all real. 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. Sten Odenwald: If space exists, what is it? This is the single most important question in modern physics. Einstein himself said that so far as his general relativity is concerned, space ( actually space-time) and the gravitational field are the SAME THINGS. We see it as something that is empty because, in modern language, we cannot see the quantum particles called gravitons out of which it is 'manufactured'. We exist much like the raisins in a bread, surrounded by the invisible but almost palpable 'dough' of the gravitational field. In many respects there is no difference between the field that we are embedded in and the apparently solid matter out of which we are made. Even at the level of quarks, over 95 percent of the 'matter' that makes up a 100 kg person is simply locked up in the energy of the gluonic fields out of which protons are fashioned. The rest is a gift from the way quarks and electrons interact with a field called the Higgs field which permeates space. We are, really and truly, simply another form of the gravitational field of the universe, twisted by the Big Bang into a small family of unique particle states. Sten Odenwald: What is the relationship between space and time? Mathematically, and in accordance with relativity, they are in some sense interchangeable, but we do know that they form co-equal parts of a larger 'thing' called space-time, and it is only within space-time that the most complete understanding of the motion and properties of natural objects and phenomena can be rigorously understood by physicists. Space and time are to space-time what arms and legs are to humans. In some sense they are interchangeable, but you cannot understand 10,000 years of human history without including both arms and legs as part of the basic human condition. Sten Odenwald: https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a10743.html
The troll in question is reminded that no-one has disputed that energy, space, matter or gravity or universe exist. Only that 'time' is a derived' and abstract analytical convenience/tool; as Einstein and other mainstreamers have stated quite clearly. See post # 78 and #85. And also all the previous points posted by Maxila et al. All of which refute your beliefs and misunderstanding about 'time existing' in its own right as something other than a mere derived abstraction, and NOT a 'dimension' like the real space dimensions which can be traversed in both directions. It would therefore be greatly appreciated if the troll in question did not continue to clutter up the threads with his meaningless and repetitive 'philosophical' and 'personal' beliefs and claims which have already been refuted by mainstream, as posted already for the trolls' information which he is apparently incapable of absorbing. Too bad, troll.
That sounds a lot nicer than it really is. How do you solve modelling problems, where say, two theories are not consistent with each other because of time? It ticks me a little when I read paper and the authors don't fully understand the consequences of their model. You want to keep time, ok... how do you solve the time problem then? How do you make SR fully consistent with GR in the sense you want to keep ''space-time?''
I would say your "skin in the game" is to try to convince people that physics that is devoid of math is meaningful. You won't have any more luck selling that idea in a book than you are at selling it here.
Did you read posts #78 and #85? It explains what mainstream says about 'time' and 'space-time'. It refutes what the trolls have been posting from their personal beliefs and philosophical ideas about 'time existing' etc. But does it deter the trolls? Apparently not. That is why they all wait for the 'banning' of those who point out those 'inconvenient' mainstream facts as per Einstein, Sean Carroll, Penrose et al. And you can say what you like. It does not mean anything at all. I am not 'selling it here'. If I were you would have heard all about it complete. And in case you missed it, I have invented a reality-contextual axiomatic system of mathematics expressly for the Reality-contextual (not abstraction) ToE explanations. I am just posting on these subjects in the interests of fair play in discussion. It's the trolls who ignore the facts presented/quoted from mainstream, and pretend to be 'defending mainstream' when actually they are presenting their own personal beliefs and philosophical views AGAINST the mainstream facts about 'time' and 'space-time'. Read the relevant posts #78 and #85. Good luck!
I've been reading some of the material you have been posting and yes a great deal of it has contradicted what they say against the model I have proposed here.
Timelessness is as old as General Relativity itself. But then you wouldn't know this, because you're trying to tell everyone here it has nothing to do with it. You have minimal science knowledge and incapable of holding down an honest conversation on topic.
BlackHoley You keep saying that. It's still BS. Did you think if you repeated such idiocy one more time it would finally convince someone that you aren't just engaged in a personal quest for some sort of relevance? Fail. Undefined Another delusional assertion, you haven't invented a damn thing, hucksterism is as old as dirt. Until you understand Relativity, you don't understand what we do know, so you can't add anything to the conversation. Hmmm, projection. GrumpyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
