Hmm, you have a beginning, and you have a clock. You should look into the steady state model, you are not helping your case. The steady state model was something that Einstein was looking at, and it is infinite. No beginning, no end.. so no time.
And then we can find some really interesting things, such as energy and time translation of the universe. Normally in an energy-conserving universe, you should be able to translate it's total energy with it's global time description. But because General Relativity says the universe doesn't have time, we won't be able to make any such translations and therefore the question of whether the universe conserves energy will remain an open debate.
This isn't a steady state model in any way near the sense Hoyle proposed it. This is a theory about the metric of the universe. Hoyle proposed the universe simply is and always had existed without a big bang. We don't remove the big bang from this model, we remove the time which is different.
None of that has any bearing on what we are discussing unless you can do the math. So at this point I guess all I can say is: Math or STFU!
What you have written isn't dimensionally consistent: You can't do E-V because they have different dimensions! The fact that you are keeping time on the left side is not a triviality here: it means that everything on the right must be able to cancel to a time dimension, yielding (for example) sec = sec (as in the example I provided). In order to remove time, you need to remove it from both sides of the equation and still have the equation be useful. Who is this guy you are quoting - it doesn't seem like he understands the basics of math either! [Edit] Oh, I see: he's got a physics PhD but has never worked as a professional physicist. He's a crackpot. Crackpot-play is a bit different from child's play, but along the same lines I guess.
No, he's worked in the field most of his life, working in key problems with physicists during the height of quantum mechanics. Your lack of knowing about him or his history, doesn't change a single fact he knows what he is talking about. Wiki should no doubt have an entire description of him and I am 100% certain it won't portray him in a negative light.
Time appears in many equations. Time appears in velocity, momentum, acceleration to name a few. If we solve each equation for time, they are not the same solution, yet each phenomena uses the same clock. This shows that no one equation, solved for time, can fully expresses time because time has other solutions. Or it can imply time is manmade and therefore it can violate common sense if we want it too. To resolve this problem, in a scientific way based on logic over convention, I defined the term time potential to signify time as an integral phenomena, that can be approximated as a summation of effects; sum all the equations solved for time. Time potential is woven into a wide range of equations that describe physical reality, with each equation part of its many natures. This is more of a right brain integral physics, whereas the traditions is more 2-D differential left brain physics. Both can work but the 3-d approach is far more encompassing. These two approaches, to time, are connected to the two sides of the brain and how they process data differently. The right brain is spatial and integral. As an example of the right brain integrating data, it allows the westerner to see the oriental features that are common to billions of people. You can pick out any oriental person and know this commonality. The right brain integrates all the data to find the area under the curve common to all the points. In the case of time, it finds what is common across all the equations by integrating these; under the curve of all the equation points. The left brain is differential. Instead of processing the area under the entire curves of equation, it focuses on the slope at specific points; specific equation. This approach has no problem, if time solves differently for each equation, since it is only concerned with that point. But if you see the oriental (common features across the spectrum of differences), this is not enough.
So you don't think there is a problem with saying E-V? Really? So what gives, have you have redefined these variables or something?
Are you saying you believe you can subtract quantities with different units? Anyway, did you write that equation or did he? I don't see it in what you linked.
I'll say what I said to Russ, neither of you have a clue what you are talking about. It comes from the Jabobi action and through a series of derivations, you reach the equation he gives. It's quite simple really, the Jacobi action is \(A = 2 \int \sqrt{E - U} \sqrt{\bar{T}}\ d \lambda\) \(\lambda\) labels points on trial curves and \(\bar{T} = \sum \frac{M_i}{2} \frac{X_i}{d\lambda} \cdot \frac{X_i}{d\lambda}\) But if you had any patience I would have got to all this. There is even more than this but I don't have the time at the moment.
Yet wiki also fails to mention that whilst he hasn't worked officially, that he hasn't exactly left physics side over the years. You'll find in fact over the years he has continued to publish a number of papers in reputable journals and not necessarily independently either: often a clear hall mark of crack pots is when they work outside the assistance of his peers, which it seems Barbour hasn't done and has in fact been an integral part of the work made for quantum loop gravity theories. So yes, I'd say that while he hasn't held an official job, he remained creatively active within the community and continues to forward these Machian principles in lectures across the country.
I think you are missing the point, it's clear neither you or Russ can make any comments on the authenticity of the equation that removes time because you are totally ignorant about what it means. I knew that Russ had no idea what he was talking about from the very first line of his dribble.
All of that was clearly intended as a distraction. The equation either works or doesn't, regardless of where/how you got it. And clearly it doesn't. It's like you're trying to sell me a car that has no tires. I can see with a quick glance that it doesn't work, but you throw a thermodynamics book at me to try to prove that it does. So while it is obviously pretty silly to call inventing a completely new way to do physics "childs play", you aren't completely wrong in that recognizing your errors is pretty easy: Dimensional analysis is taught in 8th or 9th grade introductory science classes, so anyone with even the most basic grasp of how math is used in science should be able to recognize with just a quick glance why that equation doesn't work.
So you say. But I would still like to know what site you got this from: Do you think you could answer my question?
