On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:28:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:16:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> > Ghibbsa, >>> > >>> > Let me clarify my previous answer a little. >>> > >>> > P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe >>> though it >>> > doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to >>> > dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which the p-time >>> radial >>> > dimension of the hyperspherical universe extends. That extension >>> actually >>> > is or produces or generates the 'flow' of p-time. >>> > >>> >>> I take it you predict that space has positive curvature (Omega > 1)? >>> >>> Note that evidence appears to contradict this, and is widely >>> considered to be the hard evidence killing Tipler's Omega point idea. >>> >>> Or do you conceive of some method to compute this rate from a negative >>> curvature? >>> >>> Furthermore, does your theory impose an embedding dimension for the >>> spacetime manifold? Because the rate at which the radial dimension >>> extends is crucially dependent on the embedding dimension. >>> >>> Note that General Relativity does not require a Euclidean embedding >>> space. >>> >>> > So p-time runs at the same intrinsic rate and provides the processor >>> cycles >>> > of all the computations that produce the current information state of >>> the >>> > universe. Part of the results of those computations are the different >>> > relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe. >>> > >>> > Hope that makes it a little clearer.... >>> > >>> >>> Not much. How do you connect the clock speed of your hypothetical >>> computer with the curvature of spacetime? >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Hi Russell, I've been scratching around for ways to assemble Edgar's case >> at its strongest, in terms of relativity, without actually adding anything >> of my own (i.e. what he has said, just restated). >> >> I know this requires a stretch, maybe too far, of what you can do with a >> frame in relativity. But here goes one possibility. >> >> Purely in the sense of how many moments there has been since the big >> bang, allowing that every piece of energy in the universe (appropriately >> nodding at dark energy) has its own unbroken history back to it. By >> whatever measure of a 'moment' we like, shouldn't they all be resolvable in >> terms of their history to the same number of moments SAVE for some 'edge' >> right at the furthest extent where history is the longest time, where we >> allow that relativistic and other inbalances are yet to resolve? >> >> In purely that sense, can we not then say that whatever isn't yet >> resolved, that being the subjective now due to relativity among other >> reasons, can be regarded as resolved at least relatively speaking to some >> future time when 13.7B years was a long time a go? >> >> What sense could relativity be outrageously stretched to call that common >> history on those terms, a kind of, single frame between units of moments >> all the same? What is different between different units of energy at >> particular numbers of same defined moments since the big bang, that they >> are not? >> Ways >> > > p.s. it's clear that between any arbitrarily chosen pair of bits of > energy there's a whole universe of ways to be different relative to one > another. But assuming there is a sense the universe has a single age in > some sense that is true, and that that then looks like a wafer > thin symmetrical bubble the big bang at the centre, then it seems > reasonable that all such differences cancel out when the whole bubble is > taken together. Therefore being no different than any more conventional > definition of a frame in that sense at least. Is there some extra sense, > then, that doesn't reasonably cancel out, that this isn't by whatever gross > stretch, a frame, or some reasonable metaphor for a parallel? > p.p.s. the rationale for this in context of seeking a strongest sense of his argument, is that although fair enough he himself choose to state things first and foremost as deriving from things like the sense people on Andromeda share this moment, and two twins share this moment and so on. The fact is, his argument is actually for a sense there is a universal shared moment, and we would have to allow he hasn't worked out the niggly details of exactly how that pans out between specific pairs of frames, and indeed in terms of relativity theory at all. The first question is surely, is a sense that we can agree that a universe common moment can be true at the scale of the universal. That hopefully can be stated in some sense of relativity, but more importantly, can be stated in some sense that is true independently of whatever relativity has to say.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
