On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:19:12 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > I'm not sure you can distinguish a "unit of energy". These can be changed > from one for to another. Suppose an atom with an "age" (since it emerged > from the big bang) of 12Gy absorbs a photon with an "age" of 10Gy (although > a CMBR photon would presumably have an age of 400,000 years since no time > elapses for photons!) ... what's the age of the excited atom that results? > I suppose the most consistent way to answer that from the perspective I'm throwing out, would be to ask whether that clearly legitimate question is at a level of complexity we can reasonable hope to address, before having first finding a way to set things up at a much more generic level. It's at least arguable it isn't a reasonable expectation, the same way it wouldn't have been reasonable to solve so precisely for the generic principles in play by considering a car-crash with no basic theoretical framework for isolated laws to begin with. By 'basic' I obviously mean in a totally gratuitous extreme of the generic as already indicated!
> > > On 8 February 2014 17:54, <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? 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. >> >>> >>> >>> -- >> 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- 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.
