For the guy in movie it took 80 days. The same distance for an orbiter is about an hour and a half. Gee you must be wrong.
It was just an exercise to make it simple. The reality is quantum physics, and relativity to space, which would have been harder to explain. This is where you get a constant with gravity, so all things are equal. This is where you get the atomic clocks.
It's pretty funny. He thinks changing units changes the science. The level of ignorance would be astounding if I was a 'rookie' to reading crank nonsense. BTW that's even worse than the proclaimed expert on GR not understanding dimensional analysis. Dimensional analysis a big mystery to pseudo physicists. Doctors of Conceptual Physics. LOL. The guys who think reading a text on a scientific model ruins you for any further 'imaginative thinking'. LOL.
Ok, you also should learn how to be concise and answer a yes/no question with a yes/no answer. Clearly, my answer here is yes. Yes, your point is all about words and not about math. But since math is the language of physics, your discussion has no impact on physics. It does not demonstrate that time is unnecessary. Science is not stagnating, in fact it is progressing about as fast as it ever has. What we want is for science to remain useful and keep producing correct answers.
Well if all I'm doing is changing time for distance, and you say I haven't changed anything, why do we have 2 things that are the same? Why do we have time, and distance if you say I didn't change anything? You seem to be agreeing with me, and saying that time was already distance when I used the sun distance, and then saying that distance is time I didn't change anything. But up above that post you were all saying that I was wrong to think that time was distance. I think you have all lost the plot. How is the past a distance? If I didn't change anything then I can see the past... where is it?
No, that's not right. You haven't changed time for distance, you've measured a time interval (elapsed time) using a spatial distance interval. We're both talking about measuring time, you just don't realize that you are talking about measuring time. Similarly, you could use an hourglass and a balance scale to measure time with mass, but that doesn't make time and mass interchangeable, it just means you can create a way to measure time using mass. Similarly, you can use time and speed as a measure of distance (light-year), but that doesn't mean distance is unnecessary either. No, what I said was that a time interval is similar to a distance interval. The intervals are similar concepts applied to different dimensions. That's more gibberish. The past is not a distance. The amount of time between now and a specific time in the past is an interval similar to a distance. The rest is just gobbldygook.
Everything after the first sentence is nonsense. Yes, math is a tool - a language, actually - created by humans. It was created as a way to describe reality. And it is used because it describes reality much better than words. Saying that a car is moving at "60 mi/hr" is much more descriptive and useful than saying it is moving "fast", for example. That's nonsense too. You don't understand how basic math works. The definition of time does not change, just the ways of measuring it do. Worse, if you solve any equation for time, you'll just end up with time. Everything on the other side cancels-out. For example: d=s*t t=d/s t=d/(d/t) t=t Or with units: mi = mi/hr*hr hr = mi/(mi/hr) hr = hr Try it with momentum: p=m*v kg*m/sec = kg*m/sec sec = sec
No I didn't measure a time interval. I measured the present using distance. Then the present changed, and I measured it again. You are adding time to it. All I am doing is saying that the present changes. I'm not measuring two time intervals. I am measuring a distance, I am altering the present by moving it in the X/Y/Z, and then measuring another distance. I'm not saying that the present doesn't move. It loops physics in a cyclic manner. But its a loop that spins, and the physics get mixed together. Some locations have bigger loops than other locations. But all of the loops are intertwined by locality. You are always local to a present loop. The difference is that its 3D, and you seem to be missing that. 3D with interconnected loops of cause, and effect. I can't see anything missing from a 3D model to require a 4D model. What's missing?
[sigh] See the equation d=s*t? That thing that you measured - where would you put it in that equation? This is why you are trying to avoid doing the math.
I think you better hold your tongue, for I cannot speak about anyone else, but when I talk I seldom get anything wrong. I am not a nut, just someone who knows his physics! Which makes you more of the nut... for coming in here and protesting about something, not knowing the deeper finer points of the discussion. You should take notice like Russ has and a little patience.
Ok.... so Russ wanted to know about the mathematics of the new ''timeless'' theories of physics, as I noted, Julian Barbour said ''removing time is childsplay,'' ...Indeed, if it is I should be able to talk about to Russ. Which is what my next post intends to do.
I must say this all seems pretty ridiculous to me. But, just out of curiosity, how can you have any concept of CHANGE, or of CAUSE AND EFFECT, if you deny time?
I am not avoiding the maths, I am avoiding the Big Bang model, and using a steady state model with a cyclic propagation of energy. Energy is always transformed into something else, you can't add it, and you can't take it away, so you can't stop it. Speed is in the fact that you can't stop energy. You can build it in 3D. The distance travelled in a strobe effect is speed. Relativity is physics. So speed using Planck lengths can be 1 planck length, 2 planck lengths 3 planck lengths, you are accelerating, and it is a strobe, and action at a distance allows travel to any point in space, so speed is distance. Time = distance in a 3D model. By saying that energy transforms into something else you are saying that the present transforms. That's why I said "Work out how to move through a grain structure of Planck material." Basically use something like a Newtons cradle. You can swing 1 ball, 2 balls, 3 balls. But it is a bit more complicated than a Newton's Cradle. You have to contain the energy, and you can't swing balls, because you have a minimum distance. Energy is transformed into something else. But it works in 3D. By saying that energy is transformed into something else you are saying that the present changes. I can account for all of the physics, and all of the relativity.
There are highly theoretically deep reasons to believe that time doesn't exist, it goes right back to Machian relativity and the early pioneers who realized that it should be the relative configurations in the universe which defies time: These shapes of the universe do not occur at instants of time, they define instants of time itself \(t \in R\). Julian says, the universe is ''like bee's swarming in nothing.'' In fact relativity as we know it today says similar things about time, the General Relativistic interpretation says we are like bee's frozen time, smeared over a past, present and future which are all happening simultaneously. Julian does manage to describe his relativistic Machian change dynamics in the way of Group theory and Fibre Bundle configurations. We won't look at that, we will look at some basic kinematic equations which have been created by Barbour to attempt a simpified pictured. Aside from Julian making historical reasons and sometimes appealing to authority, such as Dirac who inclined to believe space and time where not truly fundamentally a four dimensional property. However, Julian does make it clear that for relativity to make sense in his picture of things, time is removed from the metric. Julian concentrated on some classical equations and asks, what do you have to do to remove time? A simple square root removes time in his equations, funnily... he removes the time, shuffles it to one side to describe dynamical change in completely observable terminologies ''just the way physics should be'' he said. \(dt: = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_a m_a dx^{bm}_{a} \cdot dx^{bm}_{a}}{2(E - V)}}\) This is how you remove time - when I showed this on another forum one time, someone said to me, ''but you haven't removed time, it's still on the left hand side.'' I just slapped my face. Yes, we have time on the LHS but it is a dummy rediscription, on the right we have dynamics which can sufficiently describe a system without the need of time. This was the whole point of Julian's work, to show you that time is not necessery to describe dynamic changes in systems. He can and has been doing to it successfully for years and would never have came down this route if it wasn't for his... extreme knowledge of relativity. So as far as time is concerned in classical dynamic equations, removing time is childsplay, it's just a square root in his equations. Of course, he has wrote much much more. But the point of this was to show Russ, it's not that hard at all to remove time from our equations. http://www.platonia.com/barbour_emergence_of_time.pdf
It's easy to deny ''time'' and still have change and cause and effect. Julian Barbour has mathematically proven this.
Good! If mass were negative it works better. You have to get all energy moving towards lower energy states, and cycle the whole thing back to the beginning. That requires negative mass. And that's why we have to measure the Earth as an empty bucket full of gravity, and not Earth Mass.
You want to explain time so you are going to have to get asteroids moving towards the Earth. You need the Gravity physics. I can build the 3D model of it all.
Yes, you need gravity, more specifically, you need geometry to discuss time, hopefully that part is obvious. And so hopefully, I will get this forum to soon understand how important this subject is, not only is geometry needed to translate our usual understanding, but in the view that time doesn't exist in the early stages of our universe can only be apparent when you wind the universes clock back to it's very few first ''instants.'' What do we find? We find that time isn't actually around, nor is any concept of geometry. We are often told that the universe began as a point... if we take this seriously, then we cannot implicate time as we usually do with our four dimensional metric. Instead we find that the universe was timeless... it may be difficult to secure a beginning to the universe which doesn't treat time fundamentally.
This sounds like someone disappearing up his own arse to me. Unless it can be explained in words, that is.
