Multiverse Cosmologies?

[lpetrich]

Weirdly enough, Farsight is half-right here. Einstein used similar reasoning about just letting clocks do what they will to define an arbitrary reference frame in GR. But then this leads to the need to have generally covariant formulations for physical laws and Farsight clearly does not understand this.

Those clocks measure their "proper time", which is an object's internal time. It's different from external "coordinate time".

[newolder]

Weirdly enough, Farsight is half-right here. Einstein used similar reasoning about just letting clocks do what they will to define an arbitrary reference frame in GR. But then this leads to the need to have generally covariant formulations for physical laws and Farsight clearly does not understand this.

Those clocks measure their "proper time", which is an object's internal time. It's different from external "coordinate time".

… and since (suitably selected) coordinate time, t, may have a range of ± infinity, we can tentatively conclude that GR will probably survive intact, any quantum bounces or twisted leaps as dt → 0, whether the approach is from above or below. Phew! Are we back on topic, yet?

[Farsight]

You still use the concept of time, but you shed the bit that says you can travel through it. There's no evidence for that. None whatsover. it's just a figure of speech.

Farsight, no wonder you can't get published in reputable journals. The concept of space-time trajectories is an important part of relativity. It's considering such trajectories that the concept of light cones was devised. Haven't you ever heard of light cones?

Of course I have, you daft mathematical quack. Now take me out into the back garden, point up to the clear night sky, and show me a light cone.

Do you get it yet? You don't move through spacetime. You can't because it takes time to move, and the time is already in there. You can't move through a block universe. You can't move through Minkowski spacetime. Jesus H Christ, how much simpler can I make it?

Weirdly enough, Farsight is half-right here. Einstein used similar reasoning about just letting clocks do what they will to define an arbitrary reference frame in GR. But then this leads to the need to have generally covariant formulations for physical laws and Farsight clearly does not understand this.

I'm not half right, I'm wholly right. A clock clocks up motion. Einstein gave us the equations of motion. Physical laws aren't laws, they're just a description of how things are, a set of rules drawn from the available evidence. And there is no evidence for a multiverse.

[lpetrich]

The concept of space-time trajectories is an important part of relativity. It's considering such trajectories that the concept of light cones was devised. Haven't you ever heard of light cones?

Of course I have, you daft mathematical quack. Now take me out into the back garden, point up to the clear night sky, and show me a light cone.

After you show me some gravity

Do you get it yet? You don't move through spacetime. You can't because it takes time to move, and the time is already in there. You can't move through a block universe. You can't move through Minkowski spacetime. Jesus H Christ, how much simpler can I make it?

Takes time to move? That's a serious misunderstanding of the nature of motion through spacetime. One doesn't need an "extra" time to move through it.

What we directly experience leads to what philosophers call the "A theory of time", that there's a well-defined past, present, and future.

But from an overall viewpoint, especially with relativity, one ends up considering a "B theory of time", in which all times exist together in some sense.

[Farsight]

After you show me some gravity

Here's my pen on my desk. I lift my pen. I let go. It doesn't stay there, it falls down. Do it with a million pens at different locations and they all fall down. They gravitate towards the centre. That's gravity.

Taes time to move? That's a serious misunderstanding of the nature of motion through spacetime. One doesn't need an "extra" time to move through it.

You move through space, not through spacetime. And it's a serious misunderstanding to think you do. This is so simple lpetrich, why can't you understand it? Why won't you read Nasty Little truth About Spacetime Physics? Why do you forever dismiss anything that doesn't fit your conviction? Including scientific evidence.

What we directly experience leads to what philosophers call the "A theory of time", that there's a well-defined past, present, and future. But from an overall viewpoint, especially with relativity, one ends up considering a "B theory of time", in which all times exist together in some sense.

Consider the B theory all you like, the block-universe abstraction isn't the dynamical reality that we actually see. Hold your hands up a metre apart. You can see the gap, the space, between them. Waggle your hands. You see motion. You don't see spacetime. Or lightcones, or worldlines, or a block universe. You see space and motion through it, and we derive the time dimension from that motion. But we don't literally move through time, and we don't move through spacetime either. The motion is through space.

How you can dismiss this whilst clinging to multiverse garbage absolutely beats me.

[ChildInAZoo]

After you show me some gravity

Here's my pen on my desk. I lift my pen. I let go. It doesn't stay there, it falls down. Do it with a million pens at different locations and they all fall down. They gravitate towards the centre. That's gravity.

But that's an inference. You are inferring something that you cannot see. Just like we infer time.

Taes time to move? That's a serious misunderstanding of the nature of motion through spacetime. One doesn't need an "extra" time to move through it.

You move through space, not through spacetime. And it's a serious misunderstanding to think you do. This is so simple lpetrich, why can't you understand it? Why won't you read Nasty Little truth About Spacetime Physics? Why do you forever dismiss anything that doesn't fit your conviction? Including scientific evidence.

He dismisses your bogus claims because every introductory textbook covers this matter and explains it very concisely. You should read them and learn the science.

[Farsight]

No, he dismisses patent scientific evidence whilst believing in crackpot garbage like the multiverse for which there is NO scientific evidence. And please, don't try the bible-thumping tactic with me. We don't move through spacetime. Clocks clock up motion, that motion is through space, and we derive the time dimension from that motion through space.

[lpetrich]

No, he dismisses patent scientific evidence

Farsight, you know very well that I haven't dismissed even the tiniest speck of it. In fact, you've chosen to ignore such scientific data as
e+e- -> (various particles)
cross sections.

Consider the value of the electron's magnetic-dipole moment.

Mainstream physics: Observed value agrees within 10-11 of the value calculated with QED and with the help of other measurements.
Farsight physics: No theoretical value.

In short:
Mainstream physics: 1
Farsight physics: 0

whilst believing in crackpot garbage like the multiverse for which there is NO scientific evidence.

Which seems to be the case for every new theory except Farsight's.

And please, don't try the bible-thumping tactic with me. We don't move through spacetime.

Yes we do, and I can quote Einstein himself about how space and time form a space-time continuum. Farsight, I shouldn't have to do that, but since you are a big believer in quote mining, it's important to point out parts of your ore bodies of quotes that you have chosen to ignore.

[ChildInAZoo]

No, he dismisses patent scientific evidence whilst believing in crackpot garbage like the multiverse for which there is NO scientific evidence. And please, don't try the bible-thumping tactic with me. We don't move through spacetime. Clocks clock up motion, that motion is through space, and we derive the time dimension from that motion through space.

How do you know these things, Pope Farsight, when you have never read through and introductory textbook on relativity theory? Did the universe itself simply beam the knowledge into your brain?

[Farsight]

Yes we do, and I can quote Einstein himself about how space and time form a space-time continuum. Farsight, I shouldn't have to do that, but since you are a big believer in quote mining, it's important to point out parts of your ore bodies of quotes that you have chosen to ignore.

No, we don't move through spacetime. And I've repeatedly referred you to page 31 of The Meaning of Relativity where Einstein says "The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space co-ordinates with the time co-ordinate". But you continue to ignore it.

How do you know these things, Pope Farsight, when you have never read through and introductory textbook on relativity theory? Did the universe itself simply beam the knowledge into your brain?

You're becoming ever more absurd. Of course I've read relativity textbooks. And I know that clocks clock up motion because it's observable empirical fact. The scientific evidence is there. If you beg to differ, show me a clock that doesn't. But you won't. All you'll do is continue to disregard patent evidence and thump your textbook bible.

[ChildInAZoo]

Look, we know that you have not read these textbooks because you obviously cannot do the mathematics and you have huge gaps in your education on this subject. Just give in and admit that you need help. Get a tutor in the mathematics and work through it. This is a much better investment of your time that self-publishing faith-based claims.

[lpetrich]

And I've repeatedly referred you to page 31 of The Meaning of Relativity where Einstein says "The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space co-ordinates with the time co-ordinate". But you continue to ignore it.

That's if one chooses a coordinate system with 4 orthogonal directions, 1 timelike and 3 spacelike. It's always possible to do that in SR, and locally in GR, but globally in GR is another story.

How do you know these things, Pope Farsight, when you have never read through and introductory textbook on relativity theory? Did the universe itself simply beam the knowledge into your brain?

You're becoming ever more absurd. Of course I've read relativity textbooks. And I know that clocks clock up motion because it's observable empirical fact. The scientific evidence is there. If you beg to differ, show me a clock that doesn't. But you won't. All you'll do is continue to disregard patent evidence and thump your textbook bible.

How Farsight proposes to define "motion" without referring to time I haven't been able to figure out.

[Farsight]

And I've repeatedly referred you to page 31 of The Meaning of Relativity where Einstein says "The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space co-ordinates with the time co-ordinate". But you continue to ignore it.

That's if one chooses a coordinate system with 4 orthogonal directions, 1 timelike and 3 spacelike. It's always possible to do that in SR, and locally in GR, but globally in GR is another story.

Don't duck and dive, lpetrich. That's Einstein telling you that space and time are not equivalent, just like I have. Now accept it.

How Farsight proposes to define "motion" without referring to time I haven't been able to figure out.

You don't define it, you see it. Hold your hands up a metre apart, and the gap between them is a space. You can see It. Waggle your hands. That's motion. Again you can see it. You can see space and motion through it, but you can't see time flowing or any travel through time. Now go and read Time Explained and understand the primacy of space motion and how we derive the time dimension from this before you say any more about your second time dimension.

[lpetrich]

That's Einstein telling you that space and time are not equivalent, just like I have. Now accept it.

Pure quote mining. He then explains that both space and time are parts of a space-time continuum. Their outward difference is essentially the difference between spacelike and timelike directions.

Yes, in relativity, space-time coordinates are essentially arbitrary; they need not have orthogonal directions or even be spacelike or timelike. However, the coordinates are related to observable distances and times by way of the space-time metric, a sort of generalization of Pythagoras's theorem. Farsight, I'd worked with general relativity in my graduate years, so I know something about the subject.

How Farsight proposes to define "motion" without referring to time I haven't been able to figure out.

You don't define it, you see it. Hold your hands up a metre apart, and the gap between them is a space. You can see It.

You don't really see your hands. You interpret your perceptions as hands.

Waggle your hands. That's motion. Again you can see it. You can see space and motion through it, but you can't see time flowing or any travel through time.

You use your memory and time perception to conclude that motion is happening.

Now go and read Time Explained and understand the primacy of space motion and how we derive the time dimension from this before you say any more about your second time dimension.

I have, and it's just plain wrong. Farsight, your method of argumentation could easily "prove" that

• Atoms do not exist and matter is continuous
• Electrons and other elementary particles do not exist either
• Rainbows and clouds are solid objects
• Continents do not drift
• The Sun moves around the Earth
• The stars are fixed onto a sphere that surrounds the Earth
• The Earth is flat

My consideration of multiple time dimensions is a what-if sort of thing. What if spacetime had more than one time direction? Would there be a well-defined direction of time?

[Farsight]

You're away with the fairies, lpetrich. You believe in garbage for which there is no evidence, you dismiss the evidence in front of your eyes, and you defend your stance with flat-earth accusations and other such nonsense.