Nothing ever exists... ? - Page 6

CONTEST : IPL 2024 Prediction Game

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 6 years ago

#51

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

GR wasn't given by Newton. Might comes as a huge shock to you. I am not sure that this is the best place to learn science.

Why are you talking about GR? If anything, your "quip" should have said, "SR (special relativity) wasn't given by Newton". Einstein dealt with space-time in special relativity, not in general relativity. GR was all about gravitation.

Also, Birdie was right about you being all about Newtonian physics. This is what Newton's Principia says - "laws of motion require time to have some specific features. Simultaneity is an absolute concept and time brings an order to the events occurring in space. No matter when or where an event occurs, classical physics assumes that you can objectively say whether it happens before, after or simultaneously with any other event in the universe. In addition, Classical Time must also be continuous to define velocities and accelerations"

That's exactly what you were saying too all along. And so far, you mentioned nothing from Einstein's theories, other than one sentence where you asked me a question pertaining to a frame of reference.

BTW, since you are all about learning, what do you know about Wheeler-DeWitt equation? If you don't know, could you learn and explain what it states in a couple of sentences? I promise, it has to do with time, or lack thereof.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 6 years ago

#52

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

That's up to you but if you think classical mechanics is the only science there is, then you do have a steep learning curve. For the record, quantum mechanics more accurately describes reality than classical mechanics.

They do have spacetime in QM though, and Lorentz Transformation can still be applied there.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

No no no. To a photon, there is no frame of reference because there is no frame where it is at rest. At light speed, time goes to 0.So does length. That has nothing to do with humans or our minds.

I am talking about inertial frame of things having a rest mass. Light will travel at c for them. And it will take "time" to cover a distance.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Which part of circular definitions are you not understanding? For the last time, you can't take a variable out of the equation and still describe the equation in its original form. If you can't understand that much, please don't engage me again in a discussion.

You again avoid the explanation. Of course you can't give it in the original form, since original form has time and you refute its existence. That's why I asked you to describe it in another terms, one which doesn't use time. Describe motion to me without using time. You still haven't done that. Forget the definition that involves time. Give me a new one, one which doesn't need time.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 6 years ago

#53

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

You again avoid the explanation. Of course you can't give it in the original form, since original form has time and you refute its existence. That's why I asked you to describe it in another terms, one which doesn't use time. Describe motion to me without using time. You still haven't done that. Forget the definition that involves time. Give me a new one, one which doesn't need time.

You are asking illogical questions. Just because we use a variable in an equation to balance it, doesn't make the variables real or physical.

Consider the mass - energy equivalence equation: E=mc² . Just because the c² is needed to balance the equation, doesn't make the c² a real / physical entity.

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 6 years ago

#54

By the way, denying time of a real existence is not the same as denying the need for usage of time in equations or for that matter denying the need for time in understanding everyday events. Of course we need it. Doesn't make it real however.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 6 years ago

#55

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Why are you talking about GR? If anything, your "quip" should have said, "SR (special relativity) wasn't given by Newton". Einstein dealt with space-time in special relativity, not in general relativity. GR was all about gravitation.

GR is a generalized version of SR itself.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Also, Birdie was right about you being all about Newtonian physics. This is what Newton's Principia says - "laws of motion require time to have some specific features. Simultaneity is an absolute concept and time brings an order to the events occurring in space. No matter when or where an event occurs, classical physics assumes that you can objectively say whether it happens before, after or simultaneously with any other event in the universe. In addition, Classical Time must also be continuous to define velocities and accelerations"

That's exactly what you were saying too all along. And so far, you mentioned nothing from Einstein's theories, other than one sentence where you asked me a question pertaining to a frame of reference.

Again there is no need to bring Newtonian physics in here. GR has the concept of spacetime. Unless you were able to work that out too from it?

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

BTW, since you are all about learning, what do you know about Wheeler-DeWitt equation? If you don't know, could you learn and explain what it states in a couple of sentences? I promise, it has to do with time, or lack thereof.

I don't claim to understand the whole math, but I read a bit on it. Go on.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 6 years ago

#56

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

You are asking illogical questions. Just because we use a variable in an equation to balance it, doesn't make the variables real or physical.

Consider the mass - energy equivalence equation: E=mc² . Just because the c² is needed to balance the equation, doesn't make the c² a real / physical entity.

It's not illogical. Barring the exponent, the dimensions involved are mass, distance, and time. Which exist.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 6 years ago

#57

Originally posted by: K.Universe.
By the way, denying time of a real existence is not the same as denying the need for usage of time in equations or for that matter denying the need for time in understanding everyday events. Of course we need it. Doesn't make it real however.

And I don't think we are still at the stage where we can make the claim that time isn't real.

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 6 years ago

#58

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

GR is a generalized version of SR itself. GR has the concept of spacetime. Unless you were able to work that out too from it?

I don't want to stretch this too much but you bungled and later tried to cover it up. GR is all about gravitation and talks about how space-time is curved / bent due to mass. We were not talking about any of that at all prior to you bringing up GR. It was all about light (photons) and time.

I don't claim to understand the whole math, but I read a bit on it. Go on.

I am afraid if I do elucidate on the Wheeler - DeWitt principle, it will still be refuted by another 8th grade concept about how speed equals distance / time and hence time exists! No offense! Seems like an exercise in futility at this point.

It's not illogical. Barring the exponent, the dimensions involved are mass, distance, and time. Which exist.

The original points I made still stand. Variables in math equations may or may not have a physical existence. I gave an analogy as well. You can't submit equations as valid proof that variables used in those equations have a physical existence. You can continue to counter but I am not going to reply to those counters moving forward.

Quote

Freethinker112

@Freethinker112

IF-Sizzlerz

Posted: 6 years ago

#59

You stress upon things that don't matter, like me saying spacetime is a part of GR, which is well accepted. There was no "bungle". You don't make your argument, and instead resort to personal attacks. And you still haven't provided the framework I asked for. I agree, this is futile. I will head out.

Quote

@K.Universe.

IF-Dazzler

Posted: 6 years ago

#60

On the contrary, I went against my nature not to make personal attacks or indulge in name calling, thus far.

Stick around and don't be so anal retentive about one single math equation involving time.

If anything, we can prove that math exists more so than time, in nature. Pretty much all matter is nothing but math because ultimately a particle when not observed is a wave and a wave is nothing but a math equation.

Quote

1 ... 4 5 6 7 8