Re: Time

aristarchusinexile · Post by **aristarchusinexile** » Sun Jul 12, 2009 8:11 pm

harry wrote:G'day Aris

Topic quality is nice to have.

How do you get it?

Loco, answering for Aris, says: "Hit and miss, Harry. What 'quality' is, though, is like beauty: "in the eye of the beholder" perhaps, although there must be a universal constant, which might need revision as often as the Cosmological Constant. And that reminds me, how can they call the Cosmological Constant a Constant when it's been revised so many times? Science is fickle?

harry · Post by **harry** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:34 am

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

Sometimes the eye of the beholder is not science.

The Cosmological Constant a Constant will be again redefined.

Within 3 years we should get better reading after the NEW large telescope has been placed in space.

aristarchusinexile · Post by **aristarchusinexile** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:07 pm

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

Sometimes the eye of the beholder is not science.

And which beholder is to classify what is science? Answer .. the Power Structure of course .. and as power can and does often corrupt through vanity and error, the power structure should be abandoned in favour of free speech.
Even a mother crocodile eating a human being looks beautiful to the offspring of the crocodile, particularly beautiful at that moment as nourishment for the offspring is involved.

apodman · Post by **apodman** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:27 pm

moderator ban this troll

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 2:33 pm

harry wrote:The Cosmological Constant a Constant will be again redefined.

The Cosmological constant has not been redefined in the past, and seems unlikely to be redefined in the future. What has changed is our understanding of the value of this constant- hardly surprising since it is very difficult to measure accurately. This is no different than what happened with many other physical constants, such as the speed of light.

Loco · Post by **Loco** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:45 pm

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzz

I came across this paper and I thought it was worth sharing. I'm not trying to prove a point or agree with the paper.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.3520
Time is not the problem

Authors: Olaf Dreyer
(Submitted on 22 Apr 2009)

Abstract: Attempts to quantize general relativity encounter an odd problem. The Hamiltonian that normally generates time evolution vanishes in the case of general relativity as a result of diffeomorphism invariance. The theory seems to be saying that time does not exist. The most obvious feature of our world, namely that time seems to progress and that the world changes accordingly becomes a problem in this presumably fundamental theory. This is called the problem of time. In this essay we argue that this problem is the result of an unphysical idealization. We are caught in this "problem of time" trap because we took a wrong turn in the early days of relativity by permanently including a split of geometry and matter into our physical theories. We show that another possibility exists that circumvents the problem of time and also sheds new light on other problems like the cosmological constant problem and the horizon problem in early universe cosmology.

So non-locality must happen on the quantum level, of course.