Those papers were not to support time. I posted them to show that sometimes crap scientific papers are also published. Like I said, it's an interpretation thingy.
You'll find you won't have a choice, because there is no room for a consistent theory of time in general relativity. If you want time, you'll need to find some way of reparameterizing the Wheeler de Witt equation... which has been done... in various different ways. None of them I feel tackle the issue correctly though.
This is beyond an interpretation paddo, timelessness is a natural mathematical consequence of general relativity, which is quite different.
Even if it were true that all people should be able to understand a concept a certain way (your way, or my way), not all people are honest. Some people hold steadfast to their religion. Nothing will change their belief in their own beliefs. So yup, "It's a losing battle."
That's only your opinion...not mine, not others here, not the mainstream. But there's always peer review if your're feeling lucky.
Of course it is mainstream... the Wheeler de Witt equation has been in the scientific record for over 50 years. It's very much accepted.... well... accepted by scientists who can even understand that depth of physics. There are still lots and lots of scientists with a very blunt understanding of relativity... outside popularized understanding.
Why publish this when it already has plenty papers supporting it? I am not offering a new idea on the plate, I am telling you how relativity works.
What you preach isn't mainstream thinking...If it wasn't for your delusions of grandeur and tall poppy syndrome, you might see that.
You contradict yourself, you said in the other thread almost all new theories will come from mainstream. Exactly what part of the work presented shows that it isn't mainstream? The Wheeler de Witt equation has been here for over 50 years... and the issue has never been resolved. I don't know how much more mainstream you can get.
My theory, which is consistent with the POV of timelessness, is connected to the speed of light being the ground state of the universe. We currently use an earth-centric or an inertial reference to define the universe. However, relativity points out that such references are relative and not absolute. In fact, the gravity of the earth is not even a good average GR time reference, to use as the reference clock of the universe. But a speed of light reference is absolute, and according to relativity, time reaches its limits at the speed of light, such that time is no longer a flow but rather a singularity. The speed of light, as the ground state of the universe, is inferred from on observation that matter net moves toward energy in our universe, not the other way around. This implies higher potential (matter) to lower potential (energy); C is ground state. If you were moving at C, the universe would appear contracted to a point and all measures of time reduced to an instant. At C, there is no need for clocks, since time is reduced to a singularity, and every and all inertial reference measuring relative time, merge. Relative to the traditions, if we assume matter and inertial is the ground state of the universe (earth), we start our clocks at the Big Bang, when matter appears in the universe. Since this initial state of matter is assumed very hot and is cooling and expanding, we assume the release of its energy and its expansion is defining the movement toward a ground state of absolute zero type matter. This POV is consistent with the expansion of the universe and even the cooling of energy via red shift. However, in the bigger picture of things, this only defines a point-instant within the C ground state, and does not take into account the entire C ground state, which theoretically exists both before and after the BB.
BlackHoley admits to his dishonesty by repeatedly returning as a sock puppet of a banned user. It takes a strange kind of dishonesty to keep pretending, year after year, to actually be talking about math and science while simply posting nonsense, lies, and bullshit. So that makes it a little more than ironic to bring up the subject of honesty will a troll who has been repeatedly permabanned for lying. Yes if I'm not mistaken, BlackHoley is trolling science in the name of religion. For people who think they can unravel math and science without an education, yes it is. Just look at the ban list. But you can still get all the math and science here you need right here, free for the asking. Plus there are plenty of classrooms, libraries, and online resources to boot. But yes, creating math and science out of thin air, just to prop up superstitions, is a losing proposition. You are absolutely right about that.
By the way Aqueous you don't seem to ever add anything to the forums... except bickering and flaming... and general trolling. I couldn't think of a more dishonest poster.
So... lol... what religion is it I am using to promote science? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I loved that comment, it was so strange and out of place. Would love if you could explain to everyone, how I do science in the name of religion... in the name of which religion did you have in mind? Hindu maybe? lol
Oh, so that's what you're about? Ya know, it would have gotten you off to a better start if you had just posted this thread, saying "here's how I think the universe works" instead of jumping into other threads that were in progress and slinging insults, without ever explaining what your position was. It would have gone a lot smoother and made you look a lot less like a dick. So, based on this video: 1. Am I correct that you are aware that his idea is not consistent with GR as is currently accepted? 2. If so, why did you claim that there is no time in GR? What you really mean is that in an alternative to GR that may or may not exist (it hasn't been developed into a theory yet), time may not be necessary. Right?
Whose flinging insults? I am teaching people about relativity, if you think that is an insult, I can't do wrong for right. ''Oh, so that's what you're about?'' Are you sure understand what you are going ''oh'' about? ''1. Am I correct that you are aware that his idea is not consistent with GR as is currently accepted? 2. If so, why did you claim that there is no time in GR? What you really mean is that in an alternative to GR that may or may not exist (it hasn't been developed into a theory yet), time may not be necessary. Right? Yeah... you didn't understand it. Or you wouldn't be asking the questions above. It is fully consistent with general relativity.
There is no time in general relativity, Barbour's approach is totally consistent, just in case you fail to understand. There just isn't a global time in relativity.
One naive question one might ask is, what is time? If time is a real tangible thing, and not just a reference variable stemming from the human imagination, I would like to see someone convert a bottle of time, into another tangible thing. Time is in so many equations that define how other tangible things work and interact. I can turn matter into energy, or momentum into heat, etc. How about converting time into energy, as a demonstration that time is a real thing? For example, we can solve for time in the kinetic energy equation. This should tell us how to interact the tangible things like mass and energy, to convert time, using an experiment. If we can't do this, than either the theory is weak or time is more of a reference variable. Time, as a reference variable, is needed because so many equations make use of it. If you got rid of time, even based on sound logic, all these same equations will need major modifications, That is a lot of work, and would make the experts, who use time, seem obsolete. It is much easier to suppress the few, than do the work or do the experiments as I propose. The C ground state creates the same practical problem, or a need to re-tool all the equations. But in both cases, it is far more powerful for predictions, since phenomena will not be reference dependent. For example, if you look at the universe from the POV of a black hole reference, it sees a different energy balance than we see on earth. Many of the earth centric theories of the universe, could not be supported from the black hole reference. All energy coming into the black hole reference, from the universe, will be blue shifted, by GR, relative to what we see on earth. This will make the universe seem hotter. The black hole reference scientists would need different theories to explain this extra heat. If we use the timeless state of C as the ground state, both earth and the black hole theory will agree. But again, this means work, while suppression is easier than the idea of starting over again.
Starting with your very first post, most of your posts have included insults and many have included little else. Your video, time 3:28: "When you develop this idea...which in the last 10 years I've been doing...it is casting doubt on Einsteinian Relativity and suggesting that the theory of gravity as described by Einstein's theory is undermining the relativity of simultenaity from within the theory." Clearly, Barbour is quite aware that the idea he is advocating goes against GR, even if you are not. And he is quite aware that his idea is not even fully developed yet.
