If by any chance, you are both having pansy fits over the notation \(U\), \(V\) are the same you morons.
Ahh good, I was hoping you'd find it before I had to explain it to him. Funnier for you to find it yourself. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Orly? Could someone please post that pic of an owl twisting his head upside down. I'm posting from a phone and can't... Nightshift, thanks for this. Made my day.
Don't you understand it describes a Langrangian, are both of you so moronic? You may see V or U, both mean the same thing. Just like how you can write it \(T - V\) is also the same thing.
OK, so with that bit of fun out of the way, we have this corrected: We can indeed verify that it is dimensionally correct, yielding time=time when you do the dimensional analysis. That's right, it isnt just on the left, it is the only thing on the right as well (as it must be for it to be valid). So what's the big wup here? Time hasn't been removed at all: in fact time is the only thing produced!
You're correct, we do get time back. Except this is Machian time, which is an illusion. It's created by measuring the relative change of events; there are some neat qualities we get from this, for instance, in Machian relativity, not only does change only exist, but the changes depend on triangulation, the emergence of geometrogenesis. Now consider for a moment, what this means about time from a strictly geometrogenesis point of view. In geometrogenesis, ''clocks'' as defined by Einsteins special relativity, is defined by moving matter. Matter in geometrogenesis only appears late in the low energy epoch of the universe. Before this, strictly speaking in relativity, since radiation doesn't experience a time dilation, before this time actually can't exist. The geometry of the universe very early on did not exist, instead, the order of events becomes unclear and time can no longer hold any providence; in the sense at least, physics has led us to. This doesn't mean a new theory of time cannot exist, but if we stop and think about the equations which predicts these things, such as the Wheeler de Witt equation which describes the General version of timelessness, the equations could be indicating at a wonderful universe indeed. There may not be such a thing as a beginning of time, for instance. Hawking has already done similar things, like getting rid of real time at the big bang by describing it totally in imaginary terms. Imaginary time simply rids the universe of a specific beginning because of the orientation in which you are looking at the space. Time is a problem in physics, it's misnomer for an experience. It's taken as a real phenomenon, but really, if we look at it, we find that not all physicists are happy about the thought of spacetime being fundamental, at least the time part of it anyway. We know this because of the references I provided before in which Barbour held a toll amongst his fellow scientists. Again, I'll let on to the nice little discovery that if there is no universal time, only the local experience of it, then we can have a universe which doesn't conserve energy and it would seem, how much energy it will quantum leap in the future is uncertain.
No I don't want stagnation in science, and my many posts supporting the possible future of humanity travelling to the stars, and time travel possibilities invalidates your very silly claim. I just recognise gobbldydook nonsense posts for what they are...gobbldydook nonsense. But yeah, sure I still listen to Elvis, as well as Buddy Holly, Johnny O'Keefe, Jerry lee-Lewis, Col Joye and many other old rockers...great musical style and one that will never die. I also listen to Nana Mouskouri and Sara Brightman........So???? In essence, what I'm trying to tell you, is that the vast majority of your posts are gobblydook and nonsense. And that is fact.
... But time isn't an integral phenomenon of the world. It's integral to our experience of the world. There is a level of entropy associated to consciousness in which brings about our experience of the change of events. There is no true direction in time: It's only that our brains have adjusted to understand a direction to the order of change, which is something we often call the psychological arrow of time. This does of course, give way to our experience of a larger self governed we think by time. But time appears to be purely biological and psychological rather than an object fact. Those who claim time must exist because they believe things cannot happen without it, are not basing these conclusions on empirical facts, only on superficial observations they subjectively make about the world around them. There are no reasons to think there is such a concept of time outside of the human experience of it. There are no reasons in physics to think that time has a real physical application: It has no non-trivial operator, it isn't even an observable! In physics, the first founders noted the importance of describing fundamental properties of systems in the terms of observables which was mathematically described using Hermitian matrices. Time has no such place in physics.
And do you have any evidence time exists? Physics doesn't really have a convincing answer to why time should exist in the universe, though... biology can give a perfectly valid and sound scientific reason why we sense any time at all!
Sure, I've given it many times...read the threads....and Albert also agrees it's real, along with Kaku, Carroll, Tegmark, De-Grasse Tyson and many others. The fact that time is not absolute along with space supports its reality.
Um...did you forget your own claim? You claimed you could remove time. It seems now that you acknowledge that you can't. I guess that explains why you didn't do the simple, childsplay act of removing time from d=s*t like I asked. You can call it whatever you want, if if has no impact on the physics, then it hasn't changed anything. More to the point, you didn't say you could change its name or description, you said you could remove it. Clocks. ...and the fact that every basic equation or concept that utilizes time in any way works. Time itself. Speed. Kinetic energy . Momentum. Acceleration. Jerk. Once again, I'll agree with you: if time doesn't exist, then it really should be childsplay to remove it from these concepts and have them still work. Since you can't do that, your claim that time doesn't exist is empty. You may as well claim you can sprout wings and fly: Until you do it, no one will believe you. True: nor length, nor gravity, nor anything else. Science doesn't deal with "why" questions, so that's really not a useful thing to say.
Really? The fact that I can measure it tells me it's natural phenomena. Philosophical interpretations of 'time' are interesting but will make no difference how the science is conducted. Trying to find a way to eliminate 'time' from derivations is asinine. Is that what you're trying to do? You think you're on the cutting edge when in fact you fell over the precipice long ago.
It's like talking to people who have no brains. Even Einstein knew this one and I thought most who claim to know physics just accepted it, but clocks measure time and clocks are man made machines. Yes... Einstein was the one who said clocks measure time. We measure time through the use of clocks. Doesn't mean it is a real thing and when you wrap your head round this you will grow up a little.
Yep, again the typical cry of the troubled alternative pusher...everyone else has it wrong except me. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" http://everythingforever.com/einstein.htm Albert Einstein and the Fabric of Time Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes: Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence." """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
That makes no sense. The fact that clocks measure time is what makes it real. The fact that we can measure anything is what makes that thing real (length, mass, speed, wavelength, etc.)! It would appear that you don't know the current (or any past, for that matter) state of physics as well as you think you do. Here's a couple of things that should clue you in that what you are saying isn't accepted/mainstream physics: 1. The people you cite aren't mainstream physicists. 2. The papers you cite aren't peer reviewed and/or published. (those two are kinda mirrors of each other)
