I'm also an old nerd, and I disagree with both you and Barbour, but agree with other old nerds such as Thorne. Well since you do agree with me that the question of time is debatable, I could also refer to your views as crap, and Barbour's views also. But what I do have on my side is that despite Professor Barbour's opinion, and with all due respect to him, the mainstream position does seem to view time as real.
There are many issues to be resolved for sure, Paddo. That is why I posted Prof. Carlip's critique of Barbour's paper regarding the arrow of time: I will pass your thoughts along to Prof. Barbour.
As is generally the case, your opinion, is taken with a grain of salt. Oh, and Farsight, I have issued you with a challenge over your stupid denigration of Hawking and Thorne, and gives you the chance to list your own achievements. See it at post 625.
Just found a nice little video by Fraser Cain on Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/ Interesting and in my opinion factual comment at 2:45 seconds, re energy, matter, space, and time, being all aspects of the same thing. Which to me suggests that if any of them are seen as real, then all must be viewed as real. I suppose I'll need to brace myself though for Farsight's usual derision of what Fraser says as "popscience" or similar comment. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wait a minute! He has me on Ignore! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Perhaps you have not read CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) And time along with it. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
OK, maybe Julian Barbour does have some credentials http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/news/does-time-exist-perimeter-s-public-lecture-june-6 Still was a public lecture though and no textbooks seem to have been rewritten regarding time not being the fourth dimension.
Yes. YOUR VIEW of what their POV is; but I note you do not quote them saying either (1) Time is essential for describing what we can and do observe." and you will not be able to as here (again) is the MATHEMATICAL PROOF than no reference to time is needed for a complete description of all understood processes of the universe: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/what-is-time.143040/page-2#post-3243118 That link is to post 28 - thread could and should have closed then, but many BELIEVE that can not be correct, yet can find no error in the PROOF. (When I posted that proof, I did not know that Mach had done the same 100+ years earlier and no one in 100+ years has found any error in his either.) OR (2)That time, the "t" commonly fund in equations of physics, has some properties, is not as Newton said his "t" in equations was. Just a "mathematical absolute" variable or parameter which can NOT be sensed. I.e. Please QUOTE any of Sagan, Thorne, Smolin, Carroll, Kaku, and Hawking saying either of (1) or (2) above; if you can not, then you (at worst) are just putting words in their mouths (expressing your opinion); or you are just (at best) misunderstanding their POV. SUMMARY: You need to give clear, REFERENCED, quotes, stating (1) & (2) or tell which it is (misunderstanding or putting words in their mouths) My POV and that of most Ph.D. in physics, I think, is that we are using "t" in the equations of physics as a great convenience because then you do not need to couple the phenomena you are discussing to any SPECIFICE other; but in fact the "t" is ALWAYS given by some other phenomena - the motion in a device we call a "clock" usually, but in earlier years, the earth's rotation (the day or subdivisions of it like 1/24 or 1/(24x60) etc. which we called "an hour" or a "minute" etc.) Even non- cyclic movement were used - standard candles were mainly illumination standards but their burn rate was a "clock" too. Newton's POV of what to use in his equations was what we now call "sidereal time" as he knew well that the day was NOT a regular (uniform rate) approximation to his "not sensible" absolute mathematical time - not as good an approximation as "astronomical time" was. PS - just as an, I hope, interesting item, you measured the "candle power" of a light source with a "standard candle" relatively close to a piece of paper with an oil spot in it. On the other side further away was the lamp be calibrated. We still speak of the candle power of light sources. When the light transmitted thru the oil spot was seen to be same from either side, then the inverse square law let you compute the lamp/s candle power.
Nice one again tashja. Thank the good professor for his post, will you. Like any reasonable learned men, he does seem to agree that the subject is still debatable. A damn pity we are not able to get Farsight, the Farsight that had the temerity to denigrate Hawking and Thorne, to at least admit to that. His statements, "However, the member has Newton, Minkowski and perhaps Einstein on his side" and "Also he says that we have "probably not yet" solved the problem of the arrow of time. We are working on it and "not yet" definitely does not imply we will not" supports my first statement. We, all of us could learn a lot.....Although Farsight will remain as fixed, and as stubborn, and as egocentric, and as arrogant as he has always. A pity really. I mean at times he does show some promise...certainly more promise then chinglu and constant-theorist. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks again.
In my many posts both in this thread and the time travel thread, I have given links to all those you mentioned, Sagan, Thorne, Smolin, Carroll, maybe not Hawking, many times. In all those links, all four support the notion of time being real and also that the laws of physics do not forbid it.
No, my view that the general mainstream support time and its reality..... And their mainstream view that time is real and that the laws of physics and GR do not forbid it. Again, those links have been posted here and the time travel thread many times.
And Ernst Mach died in the same year General Relativity got published. If Ernst Mach was correct, surely (x,y,z,t) would not be in textbooks. "Most Ph D physicists agree"? Billy, please shut up. You are totally ambiguous and pigheaded. It's like you are pissing on anyone wanting to get an education; your words can make people puke. Like an idealistic politician just finding out how much corruption there is - well, I guess it's best to see the world as it is so I'm not taking off guard in the future. You can't describe the coordinates of an event.
IMHO, this statement, while not incorrect, seems somewhat misleading to me. Your assertion is that the Laws of Physics do not forbid Time. To me this presents a dichotomy. IMO, time is not a physical thing and not subject to laws of physics. I see tme more as a result of restrictions (inherent in the laws of physics) placed on physical functions, not on time. To me, the statement can only assert that: "the laws of physics do not forbid but do restrict the occurrence of physical events". This physical restriction prevents physical events from happening in the same spatial coordinate, and forces them to take place in a different spatial coordinate. This process is causal to the emergence of temporal coordinates (measured as time) as an essential by-product of physical change in spatial coordinates. This is why I previously proposed that time is a result of the restrictive permissiveness of physical expression in reality. Example: "light". While a photon is permitted to travel at extremely high speeds, it's speed is restricted to "c", this restrictive constancy allows us to use it as a standard of measurement of length and duration. Note that more massive objects have greater physical restrictions and cannot travel @ c, regardless of time. Therefore it takes a massive object more time (duration) to move from one spatial coordinate to another. If time itself was a permissive condition, why would a massive object be forbidden to travel @ c ? It is due to the conditional permissiveness of physical space, not a conditional permissiveness (law) of time. please do not see this as argumentative for argument sake. There are multitudes of physical laws apart from time, but hard as I try, I cannot come up with a single equation of "temporal law" apart from physics. If there is such a thing, I would be grateful if anyone can direct me to it..
Firstly Write4U, let me say that you have the right to argue for whatever you believe fits reality the closest and makes the most sense. That to me is simply Time does exist, the same as space exists, spacetime exists, gravity exists, and matter energy exist. In fact IMO to recognise one as real, is to recognise all as real, or vice-versa. Secondly, it is not my assertion that the laws of physics and GR do not forbid time travel.......That to the best of my knowledge is accepted fact agreed to by all reputable experts I have linked to. If anyone has a problem with that then let them give a link with the evidence that the current laws do forbid it. Note I said time travel, not as you said time.....Irrespective to accept that possibility, is to accept the same possibility that time is real. At least that's the way I see it. Even the good professor Barbour, did not really argue against my claims. He did say in tashja's post 812.... Prof. Barbour: I doubt if your forum member and I will be able to agree. To state something, no matter how many times, does not necessarily make it correct. However, the member has Newton, Minkowski and perhaps Einstein on his side. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" In essence, and imo, he is saying that I do have strong arguments, that he just doesn't go along with, the same as his arguments have not convinced me. I'm sure he realises that no side in this debate, has 100% faitre complei certainty on their side. But it does appear to me that the majority of mainstream do accept time, and time travel as real in different senses, while at the same time, an open question still.
