this is nonsense.
Lorentz transformations says that the distance between emitter and absorber falls to zero and the interval between emission and absorption also fall to zero
How can the decision in the present influence something in the past without signaling the past?
How can the decision in the present influence something in the past without signaling the past?
There's something intrinsically odd going on in this area. It's possible that retrocausality is required for any consistent formulation of an interpretation of QM, and if this is so, perhaps the author is right and we should just include it and move on.
How can the decision in the present influence something in the past without signaling the past?
In the same way as entanglement.
@antialias, the interpretations all *have to be* equivalent in terms of what they say we'll actually see in an experiment.
By "the same way as entanglement" you mean "predicted mathematically and later demonstrated but not actually explained"
QM information - which cannot be used for classical information transmission - can.
...The periodicity of time dimension...A dimension is periodic? I don't think time is a dimension anyway. It is a relationship between observed motions. Which observations of course are uncertain, meaning retrocausality would naturally appear as a result of the uncertainty principle.
So are you saying that a QM (not classical) signal is sent from present to past, determining the later results that sent the QM signal back (a perfectly legit yet counterintuitive and extraordinary stable loop)? Isn't that sending a signal to the past, albeit a QM signal? IOW, the article's disclaimer that retrocausality doesn't send a signal to the past simply disclaims a classical signal, not a QM signal?
Hmmmm, I think the QM they describe is all the same QM. There are multiple different mathematical descriptions of it, but these descriptions are all complementary; one of the most important mathematical proofs in physics showed that Heisenberg's matrix mechanics is equivalent to Schroedinger's wave equations.@antialias, the interpretations all *have to be* equivalent in terms of what they say we'll actually see in an experiment.I don't think they have to be, because there may be an (as yet unthought of) experiment that could delineate between the various interpretations. Only if there is no possible experiment then they must be equivalent. (i.e. in that case it must be possible to mathematically transform each interpretation into another. From the above article I think the gist is that this is still an open issue)
Reality: Charge is never created or destroyed.Really. I was thinking maybe lightening? Or leptogenesis?
I don't think time is a dimension anyway.
Time is NOT a dimension
Somebody here obviously never heard that time is generally considered a "space" dimension, so exchanging /action at a/ distance through space for distance through time doesn't realy "gain" anithing.
This is why I don't think there will ever be an experiment that can single out one particular interpretation.
...This model also naturally explains, why time has a direction (arrow) like any other entropy density gradient - whereas the space hasn't.Not so sure, @Dingbone. Space only expands, apparently, which may be why we see the time arrow as we do. @emc*2 Sorry about those anti-science speculations, whatever they might be.
...our Universe is shrinking instead by its gravity and whole the notion of Universe expansion and contraction is just wavelength dependent effect centered around wavelength of CMB radiation (~ 1.063 mm).Ergo the big bang is a myth, along with leptogenesis and baryogenesis? Just checking. @emc*2 Would you have some feeling of anti-science speculation coming on?
...our Universe is shrinking instead by its gravity...Well @Dingbone I can understand your misconceptions about gravity. I don't know of any real good peer-reviewed references to just what gravity is, with the possible exception of entropic gravity (probably not peer-reviewed either). So let's start with the expansion of spacetime. I know it's counter-intuitive but it seems there are several of these kinds of ideas being blandished around here.
I was more thinking along the lines of when we get to a theory of quantum garvity. There has to be some addition to the theory that will change it (probably in a very subtle way as the rest of it works so well). Maybe then one of the interpretations will make a little more 'sense' than the others.I think that's possible but unlikely. The thing about quantum gravity is, since we haven't needed it so far it's only important in the limit of extremely high energies/short distances. I don't think that will affect quantum effects like entanglement.
but you're right, if the various formulations can really be already turned into one another then there's currently no 'favorite' way of looking at it and it just boils down to a matter of taste.Actually, more a matter of utility. I think when we get better at understanding this, we'll find an overarching interpretation that makes use of all the others. But we've got a lot of math to do between now and then.
Time is NOT a dimension
Well established science proves time is a dimension. Post your peer-reviewed science that disproves that time is a dimension. Or don't post those anti-science speculations in this science site
Thought we were talking about physics, not belief, and philosophy.You're the one talking about philosophy. Provide accepted peer reviewed papers if you argue otherwise.
@dingbat, there isn't any "stationary space" in cosmology or SRT. This is known as the "strawman fallacy," where you make up arguments for your opposition and oppose what they never said. Not to mention, SRT doesn't describe all spacetime, only that which is not changing due to the cosmological constant.Careful. Your response to Dingbone is parroting increasingly questionable 'interpretations' from maths/geom theoretical Relativity abstract construct, not reality as such irrespective of scientist's analytical/interpretational 'abstract constructs' developed for 'blind calculation/prediction' of 'observable effects' rather than providing actual physical explanations of 'effective mechanisms' causing those effects observed/analyzed via our abstract construct 'tools'.
@RC, no chance I'm going to respond to your typical FUD.That's your loss not mine, mate. :) You have done this too often; ignoring/evading/insulting etc, and hence missing out on scientific/logical enlightenment in areas/issues where you sorely needed it, because you either were not up to date or just parroting flawed beliefs rather than actual real science/comprehension based on reality not assumptions from incomplete theory/interpretations re observed reality. But that is your choice: One can take a horse to water but one can't make it drink. Another saying also comes to mind: Casting pearls before swine. Either way, it's become your and that 'gangs' signature MO; in lieu of fairminded and objective science/logic discourse as demanded by the true scientific method principles, all of which your above 'response' just betrayed because your ego is stronger than your curiosity to know/learn irrespective of person/source. Too bad.
Get over it.
Your response to Dingbone is parroting increasingly questionable 'interpretations' from maths/geom theoretical Relativity abstract construct, not reality as such irrespective of scientist's analytical/interpretational 'abstract constructs' developed for 'blind calculation/prediction' of 'observable effects' rather than providing actual physical explanations of 'effective mechanisms' causing those effects observed/analyzed via our abstract construct 'tools'.
...SRT doesn't describe all spacetime, only that which is not changing due to the cosmological constant.Which, as I understand, does change. Like about 10% or so as you go back in time. Sorry I don't have a precise peer-reviewed link on hand right now. So what is it about the cosmological constant that affects the speed of light? Since that's what SRT uses to describe spacetime. Is it the expansion rate or the energy density of spacetime? Or are the two equivalent? Which raises an important distinction between space and spacetime - namely the possible dependence of spatial characteristics on time.
Ummmm, that's GRT if you're talking about spacetime changing. SRT applies in flat spacetime, no acceleration no gravity. As far as we can tell the effects of gravity on QM are minimal to nonexistent on the distance and time scales of low energy QM, so it's an excellent approximation of reality as we see it on the surface of the Earth in our labs....SRT doesn't describe all spacetime, only that which is not changing due to the cosmological constant.Which, as I understand, does change.
...SRT doesn't describe all spacetime, only that which is not changing due to the cosmological constant.Which, as I understand, does change.
Ummmm, that's GRT if you're talking about spacetime changing.Well I was but now considering the possibility that GRT applies to the distribution of energy density in spacetime, not the actual structure of spacetime.
SRT applies in flat spacetime, no acceleration no gravity.Which, as I understand, is flat overall within 1%.
As far as we can tell the effects of gravity on QM are minimal to nonexistent on the distance and time scales of low energy QM, so it's an excellent approximation of reality as we see it on the surface of the Earth in our labs.No problem here as far as I can see.
Well I was but now considering the possibility that GRT applies to the distribution of energy density in spacetime, not the actual structure of spacetime.Spacetime tells mass/energy how to move; mass/energy tells spacetime how to curve. That's what the Einstein Field Equations tell us. Quite unambiguously, too.
Which, as I understand, is flat overall within 1%.It's flat enough that we can't measure it except over tens of millions of light years, except for gravity. This is not something that affects QM.
Looks like the troll/mod/mafia caught up with you again. How did that happen, eh?What are you driveling about now, Ira?
You misunderstand me, and what I have been pointing out for years now, mate; probably because you've been influenced by that 'gang' bot-downvoting/censoring attempts which affect what one 'sees' due to filter settings.Your response to Dingbone is parroting increasingly questionable 'interpretations' from maths/geom theoretical Relativity abstract construct, not reality as such irrespective of scientist's analytical/interpretational 'abstract constructs' developed for 'blind calculation/prediction' of 'observable effects' rather than providing actual physical explanations of 'effective mechanisms' causing those effects observed/analyzed via our abstract construct 'tools'.Please post the peer-reviewed articles that increasingly disprove relativity as conflicting with reality through experiment.
so will spend a few precious minutes more on you.
Don't leave out the part about "correct all along",Seems like that readily and oft-demonstrated bit of reality has finally sunk in, Ira. There may be hope for you yet. :)
Einstein's Relativity is an abstract construct, hence INCOMPLETE and hence misleading as to interpretations of reality ([...] Newton's Gravity was incomplete [...]).
Simple to imagine. YES. Need in the Future influences the past. We go to school when parents are still living for the sake of future. We do many things for the sake of future. Ex: Driving to work place to work! We have not yet done certain things, though. We have left vast areas of sand in deserts UNUSED. Find some Cheap Glue, Spray over at a mass scale, scoop up the cake, ship and use it in the future. More of the Hills are already felled to the ground. Leaving out Colarado mountains etc., Blast Away all Hills with Dynamite, so that when need arises, all stones can be put to use.
Simple to imagine. YES. Need in the Future influences the past.If we need to do shopping, We go the Mall. If you need to eat, We go to the Restaurant. Funny, Right ? It is like that Dead OR Alive Cat inside that Box.
Spacetime tells mass/energy how to move;More specifically, energy density gradients in spacetime tells mass/energy how to move.
mass/energy tells spacetime how to curve.Right as long as you keep that curve symmetrical. Not sure how you would do that though. Best to say quantized mass/energy stretches or twists the energy density of spacetime. Hope that helps. Hope against all odds, I suppose. But hope springs eternal, I heard somewhere.
What do these people whose brains are broken get out of spamming the comments of this science blog?depends upon the person, but the typical troll simply wants attention and to piss someone off
No, spacetime itself does. Things move along geodesics. When spacetime is curved, things move along the curve. It's called "gravity." I don't know what you mean by "energy density gradients" here; energy is something that exists in and of itself, separate from spacetime, and vice versa.Spacetime tells mass/energy how to move;More specifically, energy density gradients in spacetime tells mass/energy how to move.
Why?mass/energy tells spacetime how to curve.Right as long as you keep that curve symmetrical.
Not sure how you would do that though.There is no "doer;" it simply is.
Best to say quantized mass/energy stretches or twists the energy density of spacetime.Best to say mass and energy curve spacetime and leave it at that.
energy is something that exists in and of itself, separate from spacetime, and vice versa.Black magic physics?
@EmceeSquaredWhat do these people whose brains are broken get out of spamming the comments of this science blog?depends upon the person, but the typical troll simply wants attention and to piss someone off
[...]
with certain other types its about ideology and belief
[...]
you can't teach them reality without destroying their current reality (which is a delusion wrapped in faith based proselytizing)
they gain "points" in their deluded minds for standing against the tide
How do we get Phys.org to get its own hands out of its pockets and fight?there is only one way to address this with a company: it must affect their bottom line ($$)
since when is your IQ higher than your arsehole?
Of course it's incomplete. Nobody says it's complete.Glad we agree on that too. A good point for all here to keep in mind; to hopefully minimize 'attacks' by some here who 'still believe' mainstream theory is 'automatically' the 'exemplar of correctness' in order to label all (even correct) alternatives as 'crank'.
QM might be the bridge to it.In case you haven't noticed, I've been doing that "bridging" with my reality-based ToE/Maths work/insights.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem [GIT]That applies ONLY to abstract constructs. My ToE/Maths based on objective REALITY, which is COMPLETE, not subject to [GIT]. Ok? :)
The experiment I proposed does not distinguish a wave vs. particle requirement. It proposes interference that occurs during Exp #1 causes by Exp#2 via retrocausial quantum means. If Exp #2 can interfere with Exp#1 in the past we have a proof of retrocausality.For starters, I reviewed that Wikipedia page and it's not very good. Yes, in one sense there is a "wave vs. particle" aspect to the DCQE, but it's quite esoteric and this makes the explanation difficult to follow. In that sense, in fact, your proposed experiment *does* distinguish waves and particles, but I'm not going to waste everyone's time explaining how when I can just explain the DCQE and let it go at that.
Glad we agree re abstract constructs.
That applies ONLY to abstract constructs. My ToE/Maths based on objective REALITY, which is COMPLETE, not subject to [GIT]. Ok? :)
A good point for all here to keep in mind; to hopefully minimize 'attacks' by some here who 'still believe' mainstream theory is 'automatically' the 'exemplar of correctness' in order to label all (even correct) alternatives as 'crank'. QM might be the bridge to it.In case you haven't noticed, I've been doing that "bridging" with my reality-based ToE/Maths work/insights. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem [GIT]That applies ONLY to abstract constructs. My ToE/Maths based on objective REALITY, which is COMPLETE, not subject to [GIT].
- And I AM working to publish my COMPLETE reality-based ToE/Maths WORK for FORMAL peer review, IN TOTO. Got that straight?
The ignore button, and I am sure you have probably heard this before.
I appreciate your effort [...]. I post these thanks and platitudes because that really pisses them off.
The ignore button@Hat
Can't write a paper that discredits all papers; However, I can state an axiom; but, I think it has already been done.
Hyperfuzzy: Can't write a paper that discredits all papers; However, I can state an axiom; but, I think it has already been done.
EMC^2 thinks one needs to be recognized and published. I get this.
However, it is not a necessity for proof, or a comment.
So statements that can be shown to be necessary and sufficient, are the ones worth applying.
Hyperfuzzy:EMC^2 thinks one needs to be recognized and published. I get this.
However, it is not a necessity for proof, or a comment.
So statements that can be shown to be necessary and sufficient, are the ones worth applying.
Wrong. one does not need to be recognized and published, if one doesn't care about 1> their own ego gratification or 2> other people distinguishing one's research from the oceans of meaningless drivel.
Publication in a peer-reviewed journal isn't important to anyone else except so we can tell the difference between meaningless drivel and valid results.
It's an intractable load of work to disprove mountains of drivel even with trivial disproofs. The burden of proof is on the person making the statement.
You are ignoring that same message clearly explained to you over and over. It's perfectly clear that you are posting solely to gratify your own ego. You're masturbating in public.
QED
EMC^2 thinks one needs to be recognized and published. I get this.@hyper
However, it is not a necessity for proof, or a comment
having an opinion is great
but having an opinion, regardless of your education level, means you have an opinion - not science
I think that these meta discussions of the value of peer review and the nature of valid science are very important and interesting.If you're into valid science, whatever you think that is, topics of this type might not be your thing. I'll go for plausibility. Stick to peer reviewed science and you're assured to be how far behind the latest? I'd rather be seeking fresh ideas as long they're plausible.
If you're into valid science, whatever you think that is, topics of this type might not be your thing. I'll go for plausibility. Stick to peer reviewed science and you're assured to be how far behind the latest? I'd rather be seeking fresh ideas as long they're plausible.
I have considered this and I think that there is no experiment that can be performed that can differentiate between retrocausality and entanglement; in fact, I think they are the same thing. One is spacelike entanglement; the other is timelike entanglement. Because relativity changes space into time and vice versa, I think that for different observers, entanglement is spacelike for some observers and timelike for others, just like simultaneity is and for the same reasons.
OBTW plausibility doesn't include fairy dust physics.
@Emcee, I think we have a different view of time.
Time is different from space in that it has a different geometric relation to the space dimensions than they have to one another; but it is not intrinsically different because we can see the Lorentz Transform turn space into time and vice versa in SRT as I pointed out above.
Da Schneib:Hmmmm, I think this is equivalent to standard relativity. Here's why:@Emcee, I think we have a different view of time.Perhaps we do. My view of time is informed by the work of Garnet Ord and other mathematical physicists who demonstrated that time's dimension is non-integer, therefore a fractal, therefore demonstrating scale relativity:
https://en.wikipe...lativity
It's not well known, but it's peer reviewed, and revolutionary. One insight is that since the time axis is not of scale "1", the energy to move one unit in that axis differs depending the direction, which would result in least-energy action along a time arrow. This is markedly different than dynamics along spatial dimensions.Actually it's quite obvious because the time axis is hyperbolic.
I just easily proved that you are a complete lunatic, attacking science for being "abstract constructs" while praising your own *abstract constructs*.All you've "proven" is your obtuseness and/or dishonesty, EmcS; because you ignored the following part of my post...
Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to ABSTRACT axiomatic constructs, but NOT to the REALITY ITSELF. Hence my work in a STRICTLY REALITY-based postulates/axioms construct for modeling that reality (something which conventional UNREAL axioms/postulates ABSTRACT theory/maths constructs have been INCAPABLE of for 100 YEARS)....which clearly points to the COMPLETE MODELING CAPACITY of my REALITY-based postulates/axioms, as compared to the INCOMPLETENESS INEVITABILITY of the UNREAL (metaphysical/philosophical) postulates/axioms of existing theory/maths. Latter's INCAPACITY to COMPLETELY 'model' REALITY entities/processes starkly demonstrated by incompleteness despite a CENTURY of latter.
Don't bother us with your mad science. When you've been published in a peer-reviewed journal, then come back to enlighten us all with your innovations. While you're gone we'll labor in ignorance without really caring.Now you presume to tell members of PO to NOT discuss the science here? You are obviously following that 'gangs' MO, in trolling, censoring, burying and otherwise sabotaging discussion, for your own ego-tripping and emotional/subjective 'needs' to control/attack others. Why do it? You are missing out on many correct insights that way (which is what has happened to that 'gang' for years now). Don't be the same as them, mate. They ignored and evaded and insulted while being incorrect all along and me correct all along.
@RC, you're sunk, man. @Emcee just showed you lying again: you claimed your abstract system isn't abstract. In fact he got you twice: he also showed you're claiming you either have math that isn't subject to Godel incompleteness, or math that isn't supported by the Principia Mathematica by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. Dude this is fifty to a hundred year old math. What barber college did you go to, the Fred Flintstone academy? Boneheads'R'Us? The School of Hard Knocks? For that matter, where did you go to grade school, because in every country on Earth they start teaching this stuff when you're about eight.You're living in your own world, DS. If you HAD read MY responses, you would have noted EmceeSquared had the wrong end of the stick. But you just read what you wanted to read, and just assumed he was correct when he was demonstrably not. You betray scientific method, DS.
Go learn some math before you make yourself look any more risible.
That is the very definition of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Congratulations, your fundamental ideology of science is a fallacy.So you're into fairy dust physics? I didn't know. Or maybe you could come up with another fallacy. Make that the fairy dust fallacy?
Time is different from space in that it has a different geometric relation to the space dimensions than they have to one another;Well, yes. Time is related geometrically to all the space dimensions simultaneously.
Hat1208:You're being 'groomed' with blandishments by that bot-voting troll 'gang', EmcS! They don't care about science, only their gang control/sabotage of sites. Want proof? Go to my feedback page, and see where they downvote my Climate Change posts against deniers/trolls. Would YOU have downvoted my Climate Change posts like that? Can YOU discern anything in my posts which deserved '1' from Captain Stumpy and Uncle Ira trolls? See? They don't care about science! Take care to identify ALL the trolls, mate. Good luck. :)The ignore button, and I am sure you have probably heard this before.Yes, but that doesn't stop the larger scale undermining of science and its public confidence. Some of these trolls are paid, by oil/gas/nuke corps and their PR ilkI appreciate your effort.... I post these thanks and platitudes because that really pisses them off.Thanks for saying so. Nothing like killing a few minutes while calling trolls what they are.
You're living in your own world, DS. If you HAD read MY responses, you would have noted EmceeSquared had the wrong end of the stick. But you just read what you wanted to read, and just assumed he was correct when he was demonstrably not. You betray scientific method, DS.
You're being 'groomed' with blandishments by that bot-voting troll 'gang', EmcS! They don't care about science, only their gang control/sabotage of sites.
time's dimension is non-integer, therefore a fractal, therefore demonstrating scale relativity:Time is a fractional relationship (like a ratio) between different motions. Does a fraction have a dimension? More fairy tale physics? OBTW note if we were all traveling in the same direction at the same speed and nothing else changed there would be no time because there is no change in spatial configurations, i.e., all points in spacetime are equivalent because their relationship with other points never changes.
So you're into fairy dust physics? I didn't know. Or maybe you could come up with another fallacy. Make that the fairy dust fallacy?
No. That's your own construction on what I've been pointing out. :)You're living in your own world, DS. If you HAD read MY responses, you would have noted EmceeSquared had the wrong end of the stick. But you just read what you wanted to read, and just assumed he was correct when he was demonstrably not. You betray scientific method, DS.You claimed your work is not abstract, and also claimed it was abstract. While attacking all science as abstract. There's no wrong end of that stick. That stick is you're a pathological liar.
No. That's your own construction on what I've been pointing out.
That applies ONLY to abstract constructs. My ToE/Maths based on objective REALITY, which is COMPLETE, not subject to [GIT].
As a result, if you rotate a vector with respect to the time axis, its length changes. This is what makes it a fractal dimension.
Captain Stumpy and Uncle Ira trollspart of science is being able to actually prove yourself with evidence
The space dimensions are all related geometrically to one another too; I don't think you're quite getting this. The difference is the space dimensions are all related to one another circularly; the time dimension is related to them all hyperbolically. That's what makes time different. It's the relationship, not the character of the dimension itself.Time is different from space in that it has a different geometric relation to the space dimensions than they have to one another;Well, yes. Time is related geometrically to all the space dimensions simultaneously.
Da Schneib:No, see, the whole point of fractals is they describe fractional dimensions; that is, dimensions where distances are scale-invariant. You have to describe time that way because if you increase your velocity (which is a rotation in 3+1 spacetime) the length of the vector doesn't vary linearly as the rotation angle; however, if you change your 3-space rotation, the length of the vector does vary linearly as the rotation angle. IOW, the space dimensions are all related in the same way geometrically, but the time dimension is related to all of them differently. This is the reason Ord's observation is pertinent.As a result, if you rotate a vector with respect to the time axis, its length changes. This is what makes it a fractal dimension.Well, that's another way that the time dimension is different from spatial dimensions. It seems like that could be exploited by an experiment to distinguish between them.
@RC, seriously man, you're sorrier than a broke dick dog. If you think that recommends you to anyone but other trolls, you're dumber than a bag of hammers. Why anyone would bother to ever read anything you write is a complete mystery, unless they're reading it for laughs. Pull your buttocks off your shoulders and join the human race.You're still in denial, mate. Your (long time) problem, not mine. Get better soon. :)
@Da Schneib.@RC, seriously man, you're sorrier than a broke dick dog. If you think that recommends you to anyone but other trolls, you're dumber than a bag of hammers. Why anyone would bother to ever read anything you write is a complete mystery, unless they're reading it for laughs. Pull your buttocks off your shoulders and join the human race.You're still in denial, mate. Your (long time) problem, not mine. Get better soon. :)
Go to my feedback page, and see where they downvote my Climate Change posts against deniers/trolls. Would YOU have downvoted my Climate Change posts like that?
Can YOU discern anything in my posts which deserved '1' from and Uncle Ira trolls? See?
Such discussion based on unreal maths/geom jargon, relations/equations has NOT WORKED for a century in completing the theory. Look/Go beyond such, to Reality. :)
Please concentrate. It's subtle.Such discussion based on unreal maths/geom jargon, relations/equations has NOT WORKED for a century in completing the theory. Look/Go beyond such, to Reality.Your own work is, as you confessed, math that's derived from reality - just as any other description of reality must necessarily be. You are nothing but a pathological liar. And when confronted with a list of your accumulated lies, you just lie about it.
time's dimension is non-integer, therefore a fractal, therefore demonstrating scale relativity:Time is a fractional relationship (like a ratio) between different motions. Does a fraction have a dimension? More fairy tale physics?
OBTW note if we were all traveling in the same direction at the same speed and nothing else changed there would be no time because there is no change in spatial configurations
, i.e., all points in spacetime are equivalent because their relationship with other points never changes.they aren't either...
Did you mean - fractal?Not really but whatever it is isn't a dimension.
OBTW note if we were all traveling in the same direction at the same speed and nothing else changed there would be no time because there is no change in spatial configurationsBut - we're not, so....So we have time to think about it.
i.e., all points in spacetime are equivalent because their relationship with other points never changes.they aren't either...Again, giving us time to think about it.OBTW - I go away for a few days and return to find RC continues to waste thread space by diverting discussions to all about him and his vast store of "knowledge"...Good point.
Some things DO never change...:-)
Did you mean - fractal?Not really but whatever it is it isn't a dimension.
But - we're not, so....So we have time to think about it.
they aren't either...Again, giving us time to think about it.
OBTW - I go away for a few days and return to find RC continues to waste thread space by diverting discussions to all about him and his vast store of "knowledge"...Good point.
Some things DO never change...:-)
I go away for a few days and return to find RC continues to waste thread space by diverting discussions to all about him and his vast store of "knowledge"...Your absence did not improve your comprehension skills, mate. I already pointed out that I respond to attacks by posters who are incorrect while they insult me who has been correct all along. Would you not defend against such trolls, Whyde? :)
Some things DO never change...:-)
@Whyde.I go away for a few days and return to find RC continues to waste thread space by diverting discussions to all about him and his vast store of "knowledge"...Your absence did not improve your comprehension skills, mate. I already pointed out that I respond to attacks by posters who are incorrect while they insult me who has been correct all along. Would you not defend against such trolls, Whyde? :)
Some things DO never change...:-)
And anyway, Whyde, I started out pointing to the flaws in THEIR parroted assumptions/interpretations. That's SCIENCE DISCOURSE, Whyde, not just blowing my own 'knowledge' horn.
RealityIt is this sort of self-deluded arrogance in your responses, and making claims not supported by the facts, that got the Bicep2 'team' into such strife (were you one of that 'team'?). Anyhow, if yours is 'the new norm' substitute for 'dispassionate scientific objectivity', no wonder 'peer review' was corrupted for so long. Penrose/Steinhardt/Other mainstream researchers doing REAL OBJECTIVE science are calling you out, EmcS. :)@Whyde.Your absence did not improve your comprehension skills, mate. I already pointed out that I respond to attacks by posters who are incorrect while they insult me who has been correct all along. Would you not defend against such trolls, Whyde? :)You're a pathological liar, and an idiot to boot, as has been exhaustively proved in this thread.
And anyway, Whyde, I started out pointing to the flaws in THEIR parroted assumptions/interpretations. That's SCIENCE DISCOURSE, Whyde, not just blowing my own 'knowledge' horn.
It is this sort of self-deluded arrogance in your responses, and making claims not supported by the facts, that got the Bicep2 'team' into such strife (were you one of that 'team'?)
Oh come on, mate. You're in denial. :)It is this sort of self-deluded arrogance in your responses, and making claims not supported by the facts, that got the Bicep2 'team' into such strife (were you one of that 'team'?)No. It's dispassionate facts. You just think it's something else because you're a pathological liar. It's pathological. Get a doctor to help you with it. In the meantime you're just jabbering lunacy, like your BICEP2 hobby horse that shows you've also got a persecution complex.
The way you go on, like a lunatic, is what makes you a MAD PSEUDOSCIENTIST. Seek help. Elsewhere, where you won't bother people just talking about science.
Go read your own posts for the last week.See the emotionality and insults which drip from them? You're being about as 'dispassionate' as Climate Change deniers delude themselves THEY are! Or about as 'objective' as Bicep2 'team' claimed THEY were! Calling ME "liar" because I'm correct is just silly. :)
I'm reviewing Ord's (and others') publications (after quite a few years) to see if there's more to the fractal dimension than just a hyperbolic scale. I think the fractality does mean that it costs more energy to move backwards in time than forwards, which is categorically different than simply a hyperbolic scale, with implications that would distinguish movement in time from movement in space by experiment.This is a popular pastime; in the end what you're speculating on are the Sakharov Criteria. I've been down this road a fair way myself. Ever since they found the CP anomaly in the neutral kaon decays, there has been a hint of an outside chance that there is such an imbalance between the two limbs of the hyperbolic curve of time.
...You're very close to becoming irrelevant and being put on ignore. I'm willing to correct you when (not if) you stray from real physics, but this kind of arrogance doesn't impress me and looks a lot like trolling.Putting on ignore - great idea for the unhappy campers. Keeps them from getting carried away when somebody below their pay grade or otherwise unqualified comes up with something plausible.
You are so NOT dispassionate that you probably don't realize you are making rationalizations to excuse your patently obvious personal emotional/insulting tactics and biases which explains why you ignore the point that I've been correct all along and you/gang incorrect.Go read your own posts for the last week.See the emotionality and insults which drip from them? You're being about as 'dispassionate' as Climate Change deniers delude themselves THEY are! Or about as 'objective' as Bicep2 'team' claimed THEY were! Calling ME "liar" because I'm correct is just silly.Oh, *I* am not dispassionate. The facts are dispassionate.
You go on about how mainstream science is broken because it's just "abstract constructs". Then you go on about your superior science, "maths based on" reality - just like the science you attack (except yours is pseudoscience anyway, not even actual science).You strawman/misconstrue on purpose. Try being objective/dispassionate. :)
You strawman/misconstrue on purpose. Try being objective/dispassionate.
RealityCheck:See? You DON'T WANT to comprehend; you pretend to ask for info while in the same breath PREsume that info is not forthcoming and/or incorrect, your emotional/subjective biases/blinkers denying it before you even get/understand it. See your problem, mate? That's not the way to learn science; that's using tactics/insults to 'win' arguments in denial. Not good, EcS.You strawman/misconstrue on purpose. Try being objective/dispassionate.
Oh, right - tell me more about your maths based on reality that aren't an abstract construct but are instead reality itself. Tell me more about your maths that aren't subject to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem because they're not maths, they're the actual direct reality, not an abstract construct.
No, don't. You are objectively an argle-bargler who confuses your bellybutton lint for the ultimate concrete reality, then accuses everyone else of ganging up on you when they aren't as deluded as you are.
... while in the same breath PREsume that info is not forthcoming and/or incorrectnope
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll samYou're still in denial, and still insulting. What created such poisonous lying character in you, CS? Get better soon. :)
nope
sorry
he isn't making a presumption in this case
you have yet to be able to produce any maths in any form to check, let alone produce proofs of said maths for validation
more to the point, you claim that your maths are based on reality but that is also impossible considering:
1- https://en.oxford...hematics
2- you can't produce evidence that your maths describe any reality
3- you have claimed your maths are different than current math (in this case, applied math, as in physics), but you can't prove it with results or proofs
considering your history (6,904 with no 4 fatal flaws), you have no intention of producing mathematical anything
it's why you can't even link proof of your claims about 4 fatal flaws: it doesn't exist
it's a delusion only you believe in
You're still in denial, and still insultingit's not insulting if it's factual
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll samNo further need to, CS; you have been self-demonstrating your poisonous lying denying bot-voting trolling character via your posts for years now. Even your 'mates' have tired of your malice, CS. Get better.
it's not insulting if it's factual
you're still incapable of producing evidence for your claims, contrary to the scientific principle you claim to adhere to
if you can prove i'm lying, then link it here: show everyone where you've posted the 4 fatal flaws of BICEP2
while you are at it, please show where you've posted your maths and proofs that can be checked
by all means, demonstrate to the english speaking world that i'm a liar
it's called a "no contest" argument: if you can provide the evidence i will have to capitulate to the facts
however, the reciprocal is also true: if you can't provide the evidence it's validation of my established facts
i'll wait...
https://www.youtu...2di5phM0
No further need tothank you for validating me
@idiot chronic lying pseudoscience troll samBeen there; done that, CS; but you just ignored/denied away, as is your well-honed MO. Your denial is so strong that you even delude yourself that your malicious, undignified, unscientific nastiness is a "win-win"! The forum can see your malicious, undignified and unscientific MO in the feedback pages where you and your bot-voting 'twin' self-demonstrate your malice and character self-destruction. Get better soon, CS.
thank you for validating me
you cannot provide links because they do not exist ...on PO or any other site you've been banned from
this is validating what i've been saying for 6,906 posts
thanks for that epic win
PS- feel free to continue your denigration, but unless you can provide evidence, nothing you say will be able to make up for this epic failure of yours
and i'll likely ignore it because i don't need to prove you are a failure
you just did that for me
win-win!
@EmceeSquared.your maths based on reality that aren't an abstract construct but are instead reality itself. Tell me more about your maths that aren't subject to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem because they're not maths, they're the actual direct reality, not an abstract construct.See? You DON'T WANT to comprehend; you pretend to ask for info while in the same breath PREsume that info is not forthcoming and/or incorrect
That's not pretending to ask for info - that's MOCKING YOU for spouting obvious nonsense. It's a rhetorical question about nonsense.That's even worse! Your pre-conclusionary biases/emotional 'needs', make you unfit to assess anything dispassionately/objectively. You're not fully informed, yet presume to 'mock' what you do not know/do not understand properly; as you keep kneejerking instead of thinking clearly and researching fairly to ascertain ALL the facts that have been posted over years! I have been correct all along; you are in denial, EcS. Rethink it. :)
The proof: Instead of telling me how your obvious nonsense is really logical, you just whine about my closed mind. If you'd posted something meaningful you'd have made a point. Instead you proved mine.
Of course I don't want to "comprehend" your obvious nonsense. Because it's obvious nonsense. You're an argle-bargler, pathologically incapable of seeing that you're spouting nothing but gibberish.
Your pre-conclusionary biases/emotional 'needs', make you unfit to assess anything dispassionately/objectively.
Your posts 'dripping' with such, EcS.Your pre-conclusionary biases/emotional 'needs', make you unfit to assess anything dispassionately/objectivelyMy "needs" are not "pre-conclusionary", "biases" or "emotional".
I need *coherence*.Objectivity first. Achieve that and you're on the way to achieving consistency.
When you tell the world your maths are better than peer reviewed science because your maths are direct reality instead of science's abstract concepts, but your maths are "based on reality" therefore *abstract concepts*, you're incoherent. There's more, as I've mentioned several times, but that's enough.No. I have posted explanations/examples. You seem to not have understood or missed their import, because you are patently not objective/dispassionate, and hence biased to 'believe' I cannot be correct. But mainstream is increasingly confirming me correct (as many here who previously attacked me are slowly coming to realize). :)
Back to reality, retro-causality is impossible! It's "over" already before you apply a cause, no words can make it true!Actually, that is the most succinct summation of reality 'event flow' that I have seen here so far. And it brings the UN-reality of the above article author's QM 'retrocausality' premise into stark relief. Well observed, Hyper, on both counts. :)
@Hyperfuzzy.Back to reality, retro-causality is impossible! It's "over" already before you apply a cause, no words can make it true!Actually, that is the most succinct summation of reality 'event flow' that I have seen here so far. And it brings the UN-reality of the above article author's QM 'retrocausality' premise into stark relief. Well observed, Hyper, on both counts. :)
@EmceeSquared.I need *coherence*.Objectivity first. Achieve that and you're on the way to achieving consistency.
No, you broken fool, I need *coherence* when people tell me things. You are *incoherent*. Your maths that are not an abstract construct, that's *incoherent*. You have posted no explanations of that because incoherence like that is *inexplicable*.
It's not up to me to achieve coherence, because everything I've posted has been coherent. It's up to you to be coherent. It's evidently impossible for you. Because you're a mad pseudoscientist.
It's consistency with reality that is THE goal of objective/dispassionate science/discourse. YOU 'labeling' me/my correct consistent explanations/examples "incoherent" just highlights your incapacity to listen/comprehend objectively/dispassionately. If you had spent as much effort on being objective/dispassionate as you do on biased/emotional kneejerking insults, you might have learned a lot by now, EcS. Too bad.No, you broken fool, I need *coherence* when people tell me things. You are *incoherent*. Your maths that are not an abstract construct, that's *incoherent*. You have posted no explanations of that because incoherence like that is *inexplicable*.It's not up to me to achieve coherence, because everything I've posted has been coherent. It's up to you to be coherent. It's evidently impossible for you. Because you're a mad pseudoscientist.I need *coherence*.Objectivity first. Achieve that and you're on the way to achieving consistency.
@EmceeSquared.Your maths that are not an abstract construct, that's *incoherent*.YOU 'labeling' me/my correct consistent explanations/examples "incoherent" just highlights your incapacity to listen/comprehend objectively/dispassionately.
climate change denier is a political label, not scientific and those using it are not true scientists. There are scientists on both sides of the question of what, and to what degree, human activity is the root cause of our claimate on our planet. My position is that we are incredibly arrogant to assume we humans cause or control huricanes. This second conversation = relative causational effects. And, no, I am not a scientist.
This link is really interesting, at least to me. Although the article doesn't suggest it, It helps me understand the concept of how God works, knowing what will happen before it does, retro causing everything to begin with.
climate change denier is a political label, not scientifictrue
It helps me understand the concept of how God workshow does a factual evidence based scientific paper that can be replicated help you understand how a magical invisible being that can't be proven to exist except through an intentionally misrepresented author book that plagiarized other cultures mythos?
how He knows everything before it happenshuh
no, I am not a scientist.yes, we can tell
...My position is that we are incredibly arrogant to assume we humans cause or control huricanes.Does your pc or whatever have a spell checker? You really don't have to be a scientist to figure out how to use it. Anyway we don't cause hurricanes but that's no reason why we should make them worse than necessary. Every molecule of pollutants put into the atmosphere does that as I understand the science. Why make life harder than necessary?
God is not purported to be science so of course there is no journal to reference. I just think its cool, but don't see the need for insults.
Our vehemence says more about us than those we project it on to. Nope, no peer reviews on that, just an opinion based on personal observation, and I may be totally wrong. But thanks for responding.
I am not a creationistand how do you justify this according to your faith?
but I believe God is responsible for selective differentiation discover by Darwinand again, i refer you to the following: http://strangenot...rus1.jpg
but don't see the need for insultsyet you chose to specifically share your religious beliefs in a scientific topic?
Our vehemence sayswhen you intentionally disrupt a topic of science with pseudoscience or belief, it is considered in poor manners
I'orry for coming on too strong. Your personal metaphysics are your own business[sic]
I don't know what else to say, except thanks MC. It's just only when we are respectful of one another do we see what we can agree on that we can accomplish together, which is what we need.
just a joke
...I'll pray for you
So don't stone me.
I don't think it makes sense for me to stick around here much--it is, or isn't, a scientific phenomenon, retro causality, though pretty murkily so. Can it ever be completely accepted by physicists?
It seemed kind of out there to me
IntelligentDesign was already taken.
To me, my internal debate-- and this is just me, and not an analysis of any specifc science-- is if it is science fitting into theology, or theology fitting into science. It kills me when Christians have to hold onto things that are, as someone said earlier, as silly as the earth being flat. I want to thank you for the chance to discuss this, and I apologize to those who prefer it kept scientific.
i disagree
when it is publicly shared in a science thread then it is presented for a reason, regardless if that reason is known to the poster or not (like a subconscious need for approval)
it's disruptive and it's hostile to the topic as it's diametrically opposed to the topic
In REALITY all maths are abstract constructs, abstracted from reality. Maths are not themselves reality, they are a description of realityI'll try again one last time, mate. There is real model and then there is unreal model. The difference is whether the 'abstraction' (via axioms/concepts) into maths/geom terms/construct is based on REAL things or UNREAL things. I gave examples where unreal things infest current maths; eg, 'dimensionless point' etc which leads to undefined/unreal 'results/interpretations' brick walls of nonsense (like above article's premise) when attempting to model the universal reality. In my recent discussion with ZergSurfer/Da Schneib I gave an example of how current maths/geom 'abstractions based on unreal axioms/concepts is constitutionally incapable of modeling the real universe. And over years I have posted here/elsewhere other examples/arguments which go to that issue of deficiencies in current maths/geom 'abstractions'. Ok? :)
the discussions are just a colloquial conversation. Someone mentioning it ...doesn't necessarily deserve slammingi'm not so sure
Hey Stumpy (what is that referring to anyway?)nickname given to me by my fellow firefighters because i was squared off from working out all the time
What was the intent of their conversation?that is called news (NBC)
My only *intent* wasthe science *is* interesting - so why drag a deity of unknown origin and plagiarized history into it?
Slamming is neither scientific or professional, not to mention, of course, decent or niceintroducing religion into a science discourse is neither scientific nor professional, not to mention, of course, decent or nice
You might want to stick to hard science, rather than speculating on what you know not of nor the ability to graspand what makes you think i don't grasp the subtleties of religious fanaticism or the psychological indicators you've displayed, like your need for attention and your overly defensive posture because you were caught?
Trading insults will get you nowhere, scientifically or in lifeactually, you're wrong
Start with Ancient Hieroglyphics and the presence of God before money. Note the delusion of those who were first to enter Egypt. God lived and was a man!
Retrocausality is a subject for science: statements about it can be tested and proved wrong (or not proved wrong, eligible for further testing). The scientists this article reports on made and tested scientific statements. This discussion has challenges that either disprove scientific statements, or just raise substantial doubt.In the sense it is used here, in QM, @Emcee, it's not at all clear that retrocausality can be disproven. This is because of Bell's Theorem. Bell's Theorem shows that quantum reality cannot be both local and realistic; that is, either nonlocal (i.e. superluminal, though not capable of transmitting information superluminally) interactions, or the reality of the Born Rule (i.e. superposition of a state is a real state, not just a mathematical conundrum), must be true. Both of these are flat impossible for classical states; they only hold true of quantum states.
Back to reality, retro-causality is impossible! It's "over" already before you apply a cause, no words can make it true!
In the sense it is used here, in QM, @Emcee, it's not at all clear that retrocausality can be disproven. [...] Bell's Theorem shows that quantum reality cannot be both local and realistic
I don't think based on Bell's Theorem, the outcomes of Bell tests, and the outcomes of other experiments that both show locality is preserved, and realism is preserved, but not in the same experiment, that there remains any uncertainty in stating that it will not be possible to distinguish between retrocausality and its lack, since experiments can always be interpreted either way.
I don't see the possibility of clever experiments ruled out for retrocausality.Or, for what might appear to be retrocausality inside the uncertainty principle. I don't think causality has any physical meaning inside the UP but if you go ahead and test for it anyway you should find either causality or retrocausality at roughly the same frequency. You would do just as well to flip a coin.
either retrocausality or nonlocality can lead to a valid interpretation shows an important difference between classical and quantum logic.
RobertKarlStonjek
Jul 5, 2017Thus in the photon's world, the two photons are in physical contact at the time one of them is detected, at some distance by the measure of non-light-speed observers.
Why is special relativity routinely ignored and even absurd theories conjured up to explain what should have been obvious even 112 years ago?