Russ' comments about the time problem

''BlackHoley cited the problem of time along with GR because he simply doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.''



Russ, I have been talking about the problem of time for about 10 years... but just recently here. Since then, I've educated people on the problem of time.

Now can you tell me, what this above is meant to mean, or how is it truthful in any way? Do you know enough about the time problem? Obviously not... because you are saying I cite the problem ''along with GR''.... yes this is true. But then you go onto say ''simply because he doesn't understand it.''


The statement couldn't be more wrong! How has this got nothing to do with GR? You get the time problem by quantizing the field equations of GR to find timelessness!

You shouldn't be allowed to talk about subjects here if you're just going to lie about knowledge. You can't have the time problem and not talk about GR, they are the same thing! Just like how it is clear you had not a clue that classical and non-classical models can make semi-classical models. You just though classical and quantum where always out of range with each other. Thank god people like me can spot these things or you'd be teaching them all bad science. Maybe you would like to elaborate on it for me, in case any of that can be disputed?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why don't you go back and get the rest of the post and respond to it? Or is blather all you are about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I'd mine quoted just to get you out of context, you'd have a point. This comment was made by you... oh half an hour ago or something. I want you to justify it with your excellent knowledge on the subject; because I know you don't know the first thing about the time problem. You didn't have a clue about it only a few weeks ago. Try reading about 10 years worth of information on the subject then come back to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did justify it. That's why I suggested you respond to it.

You seem to be coming unglued... maybe you should take a break?

 

With some real science please, not mumbo jumbo you've decided to string together with some non-educated lies thrown in the mix? You either understand how the time problem enters physics, or you don't. Based on your responses, it's clear you don't.

 

Fair enough. I'm not in second grade: I'm not going to play the is not/is to game with you. If you want to respond to what I said, fine, if not that's OK too.

You should know though that starting a thread just to attack someone is generally not well received here. If you had some content to discuss, it would look better for you.

 

Good because it isn't a game. I'm serious about this, I want you to show me why anything you said in that statement is any way truthful?

This isn't a game, it's about whether you can back your claims or not. Clearly you can't. I just wanted to make sure of this so in the future when you start making accusations about things I say about the nature of time, I can link people to your failure to back up your claims.

 

Hey, you attacked me pal, I created this thread to see if you can back your statements. This has nothing to do with ''attacking'' you. It's about you putting up and backing up your claims... that is always expected on internet forums. When you make a statement, be sure you can back it up. If not, don't complain about being attacked.

 

Okay kids, break it up...

BlackHoley, if you are serious about this, why not propose a Formal Debate with Russ over it? There is an entire subsection of the forum dedicated to that, in which it would be you and him making your claim and providing evidence.

I would suggest you take a look here and decide if that would be an agreeable route.

 

There's nothing formal here to debate. Blackholey didn't like something I said, but for whatever reason, he won't actually respond to it. It's bizarre. It's just a side-show.

 

Hence why I propose a formal debate - it would allow the two of you to go blow for blow on-fact and on-topic as per the rules of a formal debate, where any attempt at simple evasion will be taken as conceding the point, and takes the context of the person out of the argument and leaves just the facts... or at least, that is how it should work

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You see what I am talking about Kitt, he's trolling me.

He said something, I quoted it and challenged him to back it up with some real science. Now he's claiming I haven't responded to it.

What he means, I haven't responded to it all... that's because I have taken away the rubbish he was talking about and asking him to present some real science to back up the claim that I specifically quoted.


...and he won't, because he can't.

 

What topic would we debate?

 

You're right, it's not much of a topic. You said the time problem, in a roundabout way had nothing to do with GR and claimed I was wrong for saying this. Yet... I can cite dozens of papers which tells you clearly that quantization of GR leads to timelessness.

That's about as much topic as there would be because it would instantly find what you said in error.

 

And not just an error... I'm sure it was just a blatant attempt to downplay my assertions about time. So you lied and made up something because it would contradict what I am saying. But all the science contradicts you so it's backfired.

 

That would be up to you and BlackHoley to decide

So... propose a succinct topic on what you would want to debate

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually, that's not quite true. I'm reasonably sure he took this to a separate thread to make it easier to ignore the context of my post. But I'm not even going to justify that by copying and pasting the rest of it here. If he wanted to respond, there's no reason for him to not have.

 

Why don't you quickly repeat that context for us so we can quickly scrutinize it?

 

seriously, let's nip this in the bud right here and now. Show us what context you could have possibly meant in the OP? Because I have been more than clear you are wrong even suggesting that GR and timelessness isn't the same problem. The time problem is rooted from GR and your statement I quoted is in total contradiction to this.


I don't know, let's see how good you can back-track and restate things as though you never meant it.

 

Don't look now, but you just conceded the point by goalpost shifting it. If you recognized when you first brought it up that "the problem of time" is a quantum gravity issue, you shouldn't have said it was a GR issue.