On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:26:00 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > On 2/7/2014 8:54 PM, ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:41:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote: >> >> On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, 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 >> >> >> NO! If each piece of matter carried a clock along (assuming it has >> indentity) they would all read differently even where they came together >> because they would have traveled different spacetime paths to that >> meeting. That's why I suggested that for any given point you take the >> longest interval back to the CMB and call that the time-coordinate of that >> point. And if you took a set of all such points with the same coordinate >> that's a way of defining a foliation of spacetime (provided it doesn't have >> any singular stuff like black holes and cosmic strings in the way). >> >> Look at Ned Wright's UCLA tutorial online. He describes several >> different ways to define a cosmic "now" (but they don't agree with each >> other). >> >> Brent >> > > Brent I accept that already, but would plead that you are within the > relativity paradigm there, whereas the paradigm that I stated > was purely historic, in which we count two moments the same, specifically > and only where the same defined 'moment' counts back to the big bang at the > same count. I mean, in reality there's only going to be one and exactly one > same moment for each unit of energy, or not? > > > Units of energy don't have an identity. If a He atom loses an electron and > then a million years later gains an electron there's no way, even in > principle to say it's the same electron that was lost or the same ionized > He atom. And even if it were, the electron and the atoms would have > traveled different paths and so measure different time lapses between the > events. So there would be no unique "age" assignable to that atom. > Very true. But are you not there building in that the sense of a unit of energy is tied to definitions of atoms and electromagnetic effect. Which is obviously totally reasonable within best physics. But again, trying on an idea that best physics is not the full story, surely necessities looking first for ways to see things such that this new idea might be true and best physics also be true. Namely, by decoupling our working definition from all such dependencies, as a place to start? We don't need to come up with an actual definition for how a unit of energy could be defined in such a decoupled sense, only a reasonable conception that there would have to be some sense that such a definition could exist and be true. So for example, the principle that energy is never created or destroyed, if that's independly true of relativity, should be fertile ground for such a definition of a unit of energy tracing its roots back to the beginning with a standardized ideal number of ticks. Or, if there's a problem as you say, that it's false even in principle to think of energy this way, then we can switch to assuming you're absolutely correct, and move to consideration of energy itself as whole existent thing at the universal scale, having a standard and common set of ticks back to the big bang. And base that on the universal principle we already assume that energy is never created or destroyed. So that way we assemble all the ways energy could be added up, and put the addings up that come to more or less than some idealized total energy in one pile, and the addings up that workout exactly to the idealized energy in another pile. Discard the pile that adds up wrong, and treat the pile that adds up right as a candidate for the number of ticks back to the big bang, by the number of addings up in that same pile. Now I would immediately acknowledge there are going to be problems within that involving addings up that are the right value but are not legitimate or duplicate or contradict. In fact near infinitely many since for any given number of counts on that definition, the count itself can be added up slightly differently as many times as a unit of energy can be defined within that count. But the question then remains the same, and the process of dealing with it doesn't change in principle either. We would keep looking for ways to deal with the problems that keep the steer on the goal which is best efforts to see a sense, starting general, that edgar's insight can be true. So in the end, it comes down to whether there can never be any sense sense regardless of how broadly or tightly things are defined, requiring that at least one independent piece of knowledge that we do have about physics, is assumed true at the base. (i.e. the historic sense to begin does rest on our knowledge of the age of the universe being true). For example, purely as illustration, of how we might proceed with the two views of energy, in that we're seeking a sense of a single unit with a unique history to the big bang, and also a special case of that single unit that is defined as the total energy of the universe. It feasible that the fact we now have two definitions, one definite in terms of size, and one definite in terms of history, that some new possibility is before us, in which these two could somehow come converged ? Just thinking, obviously.
> > Can the distinction you raised just there, translate into, for the > history that has happened already, individual units of energy, in terms of > a single number of same defined moments since the big bang, can ever have 0 > of that same count, or 2 or more of that same moment? > > Look, I know this is potentially and very likely stepping outside what > physics tells us. But what I would argue, is that by trying on edgar's > ideas in the first place, if we're doing so in a reasonably well-motivated > sort of way, we are already doing that. So why not let's do it right. Start > by looking for how it could true most generally, which means most > universally. And apply a sensible standard, which would to look for a sense > first, that would be true independently of relativity, such that it too > could be totally true. At least as a starting point. > > > I did that. I suggested a way to define a universal "now". But it > doesn't eliminate the relativity of simultaneity, it just makes a certain > choice which is simplifying for some purposes but isn't fundamental. > > Brent > -- 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.
