Proving time is static using the equivalence principle

Oh, I didn't know. Dirac, must've been real good to able to write nonsense.

It gives me hope that an imaginary-particle detector has found evidence for your theory thus far. I know it took awhile to find neutrinos, but I still haven't heard anything about \(\sqrt{-1}\) particles.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Beer, mathematics isn't ''nonsense'' as you put it, symbols have well defined meanings and limits. The notation side of things... well Dirac just found a way to write vectors in a very conventional sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The puppet just won't die

Let the record reflect that Nightshift aka Reiku claims that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

does not equal one.



And since you fixed the OP 10 minutes after I corrected you, Reiku, all of your argument is moot. No one cares about your dishonest excuses.

There is no work here. You cut and pasted from another source and invented what you think is a novel explanation for df(t)/dx = 0. Therefore there is nothing to despair. All the criticism being heaped on you is purely self-inflicted.

You wouldn't know the difference between an esoteric detail and a standard equation if it hit you over the head with a high school diploma.

No, you can only plagiarize when you have enough common sense to accurately copy the author's work. You can't even do that much. And of course you are lying about the link. You gave no link to Sarfatti's nutty "paper" until after I corrected you, and esp. after Capt Bork pressed you about the implausibility of what you wrote. But of course honesty isn't the policy of the sock puppet of a known banned troll so who cares? No one cares about your moronic attempts to insinuate metaphysics and/or religious fundamentalism into the science forum. The mere fact that Beer has you pathetically groping for stupid answers has already tolled the bell for you. You're a just a useless windbag with nothing insightful to offer since you 're still stuck where you left off, in the 7th grade.

Said the umpteenth sock puppet of the permabanned user Reiku.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe I'm just too naive.

However, I've got my own work to do, and Mathematica wants me to define variables accurately and doesn't recognize symbols with an equals sign absent as an equation. Can you believe that!

 

No, mathematics is not nonsense, unless it is raped and distorted by your many examples.

 

Thanks for that Aqueous Id

 

Hmmm, questions at post 89 still not answered......
I'll post them again in case my mate missed them......

The BB is a theory of Universal evolution of space and time from a hot dense state we call a singularity. It says nothing about the origin of that singularity.

If you doubt that then tell me
[1] What existed between t=0 and t=10-43 seconds? .....
[2] Where did the Singularity come from? ....
[3] What made it go bang?
[4] How did it go bang?

 

Don't worry about troubling your head with answering the above dmoe....
They are trick questions...they have no answers.....we know naught, zilch, nothing, about the moment of the BB [t=0] or anything following up to t=10-43 seconds.


"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541

So, the origin of mass in the Universe and the Universe itself is quite speculative at this point. If you are interested, you can read Alan Guth's book "The Inflationary Universe", page 271-276. You can also read Hawking's "A brief history of time: From the Big Bang to black holes" page 136.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

 

...

Games!

 

Dear Nightshift:

Scanned this entire thread up to here (Just after Post # 109 - I would say this is Post # 110, but for my incompetence with numbers).

Couldn't find what I'd seen you mention in earlier Posts in your thread here - in passing you've 'mentioned' LaGrange, but you don't dwell on or capitalize that surname long enough to establish a real knowledge and/or understanding of it. Will you please briefly explain what you intend by including LaGrange phenomena as you practice its subjection in this thread? Of course like all other phenomenological considerations the existential dynamic far precedes the human invention referring to it. Would you please briefly explain what you intend to establish when you use this term? I am after all, among many other sensory and cerebral modalities, here to learn. I suppose the description of LaGrange contingencies as an 'existential phenomena' could be disagreed with. Perhaps you could start from there?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes......and of course to show you that in actual fact, the BB is not really about the origin of the Universe.
It's about how space and time evolved from a singularity.

You see in your incredible attention to detail, you have failed to grasp, that many experts in all disciplines including cosmology, use simplistic terminology and phrases in explaining the BB to lay people.
For example: Even the term BB is a misnomer....one applied by Hoyle in an unsuccessful attempt at derision. It just happened to stick.

So when you hear an astronomer/cosmologist talk about the BB being the origin of everything, you can pull them up and say, "Hey, what do we know about that singularity?" or, "ÖK, what made the BB go bang? "
You need not mention my name either. You can take all the credit.
I allow that out of the goodness of my big heart.

 

Games...magnanimous games!

 

Actually I believe our problem here is that they don't cancel. Theoretically they should as 1-(a set of variables) should render the same answer and cancel. But if we were to try and cancel terms we find.

\( 1- \frac{2Gm}{C^{2}r} = \frac{C^{2}r}{2Gm}\)

which is like dividing 1/4 over 1/4. You just end up with 1/8.

 

So...Beaconator, have you just proven :the square of 4 is 8 ? (NOT 16 !!??) : or that .25 x .25 = .125 ? (NOT .0625 !!??)

So...Beaconator, would you please show the "math" you used?

 

Guys.

 

They don't. And it's not anyone else's problem except Aqueuous, who doesn't know the first thing about the equation. It only cancels to 1 when there is a zero z. z is what measures the shift, can be positive or negative.

 

The Langrangian you mean? \(\mathcal{L}\)

Or if you really mean LaGrange, could you tell me what part you are talking about?

 

\( \frac{\frac{1}{4}}{\frac{1}{4}}=0\)

\( {\frac{1}{4}}={\frac{4}{1}}\)

When you cross multiply you can get either 1/8 or 8/1. This is why only 1/1 is considered equal, not why percents don't always add up to fractions.

 

Dear Nightshift:

Thank you for the capital L logo/symbol for LaGrange.

I mean the spatial/gravitational/metric center of the issue of LaGrange.

 

Not really sure what you are talking about, but the expression

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

Is totally generic, it's a prediction of one way of going about it. There's no doubt may be better ways.