Proving time is static using the equivalence principle

No one hallucinating that they - and/or everyone who agrees with them - can 'fuck up physics'.
Space-Time is unfuckupable.
But: you can try.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And without mass and space too?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the beginning, there was only energy. There was no space... there was no time... there was no change... there was no matter certainly and almost just as certain as that, there was no notion of separation.

Now... this is called the Primordial Egg, this was original term for it, except, it isn't so much an egg, but an extremely hot and dense point with no internal dynamics. This was our universe when very young.

Space may in fact not be fundamental. This may give us an answer to entanglement, because fundamentally-speaking, objects are not separated in space or time. We are not in the fundamental epoch, we are within the low energy range, meaning we do have time, in the form of changing systems, we do have space, we do have separation, but these things are a emergent from a much more fundamental picture involving only energy.

And this is where physics can get even stranger, solutions to metric equations can give us null energy conditions. The universe may not even have an energy!

Our universe, would never have a beginning of time, wouldn't have specific boundary conditions in which we can say... yes, it call came from there! Nor could we draw an arrow in my theory because all points on the spacetime map are completely equal, remaining consistent with current cosmological theory. Time is symbolic to matter and matter is symbolic to geometry and geometry appears when the universe cools down.

Describing time is very much like treating all matter in the universe as subsystems that are changing relative to each other. This may use shape dynamics, as Barbour is proposing. I even invented a mass flow expression in which one can replace his timelessness kinematic equation which defines time for the time derivative in my expression. The idea of the expression was to allow the worldlines of particles be relative to each other in configuration space, which was defined simply by a displacement on all the particles of the system.

\(i\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}}{\partial \dot{q}}(\delta d_i) \nabla^2 \psi\)


the small displacement of your particles is given in the i-th term \((\delta d_i)\) and you replace Barbours timelessness equation into the time derivative of this equation \(\dot{q}\) and you will end up with a timeless equation which has dimensions of mass over time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The "i-th" term as opposed to what?

 

the i-th particle, so to have a meaningful energy, you need a graph with adjacent edges in a space configured with three systems. This has another name, it's called triangulation. For instance, in graphical tensor notation, Fotini Markopoulou explains that \(A(G)\) are adjacent vertices and \(E(G)\) are the sets of edges found in the configuration space of these particles. To find the energy in our graph, you use the expectation equation

\(E(G) = <\psi |H| \psi>\)


So energy also is tied to this relativistic description of configuration space. If you play with the lengths between the systems of this space, you end up with uncertainties because Heisenberg Uncertainty can be found in a geometric Cauchy Schwarz inequality law and this might be a clue to how to treat the universe when it first came into existence. The reason why, is because the geometric Cauchy Schwarz inequality states that you can deal with triangles in spacetime on the fundamental level, and their sides reveal an uncertainty relationship - \(a\) must be less than or equal to \(b + c\), \(b\) less than or equal to \(a + c\), and \(c\) must be less than or equal to \(a + b\).

 

Hey Nightshift AKA Reiku, I'm curious. How in the fuck do you get away with all the sockpuppets? Does no one report you? I'm not going to, maybe no one else does either. You should get an award for proliferation...

 

That is not what the BB says...That is rubbish....
We don't know what was at the beginning other then a singularity.
Then for some unknown reason out of that singularity evolved space, time and the energy that went with it [at that stage most likely the Superforce] or what we see today as the four fundamental forces, combined into one.
When space evolved, just as naturally, so to did time.

 

That's one mathematical facet of General relativity, but we generally think of the BB has a very hot, very dense, point. There was no space between objects, nor was there any change. Yes, it really was a point (singular region of not), where there was no space between energy particles.

 

Again, singularity or not (there are singular free theories), but regardless of whether there is one or not, yes, space and time appears as it expands; what's more fundamental in this chronology of events? The very pure state of the universe at the beginning was devoid of space and time and you clearly seem to recognize this.

 

Nightshift, yes paddoboy does seem to recognize some of it - reference Post #131 of the "The Relativity of Time" thread : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141040-The-Relativity-of-Time/page7

When I honestly attempted to "walk him by the hand through it" - this was the beginning of his response :

I have been following along - since the OP - and caution you that you can end up getting a "ban", simply by replying to "Trolls".

So far everything you have Posted, has been Grok'd by me - but then again I am NOT "Playing the part" of one of the Members of the Inquisition against Bruno so many centuries ago!

Carry on with presenting your position.
Just ignore the "Torquemada" posers and wannabes, "Don't feed them"!!!

 

Wrong wrong wrong again...The first instant is unknown.....according to the overwhelmingly supported BB theory.
In fact it could well be space and time, in a quantum condition we are not familiar with...or as I like to say, space and time, as we DON'T know them.

 

You agreeing??? So?? A gathering of the clan!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As I said to bruce just then, as the clan gathers, they need to realise, that they are not changing anything....This forum is limited...it isn't the bastion of mainstream science and peer review.
This is the only outlet that unsupported alternative ideas have...Unless they have the validity to undergo peer review...which obviously they don't.

The mainstream position remains as is, the text books apply the correct interpretation, and science continues to progress with the theoretical support of the BB/Inflationary model, and SR and GR.

 

paddoboy, you do realize that the "stance" or "position" that you are representing, is the same "stance" and "position" that the Vatican Inquisition took in it's persecution and prosecution of individuals such as Giordano (or Filippo) Bruno and Galileo Galilei - you do realize that - do you not?

 

Agreeing? Yes...with Nightshift!

As I pointed out to Nightshift - you do seem to recognize "some of it"!

But, when you Post:

Well...as you would probably phrase it - you "obviously" do not fully understand it!

 

I dunno.

I think those math thingies are missing some terms, Nightshift. It's all very very bewildering. Like that one with a bunch of squiggly lines but no equals sign. I mean, those squiggles can represent many different thingies, I think.

And that one with an equals sign but both those scary alligator mouths. It's making my head spin.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's you dmoe who doesn't understand....
The BB/Inflationary theory says nothing about the origin of the Universe.
It is a theory about the evolution of the Universe/space/time from a hot dense state which inhabited a singularity.

But I'll stand back for a minute, and let you tell me where the singularity came from, why the singularity banged, and how did it bang.
Over to you pumpkin pie!

 

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of light elements, and the formation of galaxies—are derived from these and other observations. As the distance between galaxies increases today, in the past galaxies were closer together. The consequence of this is that the characteristics of the universe can be calculated in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures,[12][13][14] while large particle accelerators replicate such conditions, resulting in confirmation and refinement of the details of the Big Bang model.


The earliest instant of the Big Bang expansion is still an area of open investigation. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


Nearly word for word as I told you the other day dmoe...
Take note carefully of the second paragraph...read slowly, read carefully, so as to not misunderstand, which are the beginnings of most of your troubles.

 

At best what Nightshift proposes is just another interpretation, at worst, it is just plain wrong.
What he says invalidates the BB theory.

 

My theory doesn't ''invalidate'' the BB. That just tells me you don't understand it.