Craig, I agree with your idea in one sense, that actually space and clock time are just computational relationships between events, specifically the dimensional aspects of those events, rather than the actual physical background to events that is usually assumed.
In my book on Reality, I point out the reasons why it's more reasonable to assume that spaceclocktime is something that arises out of elemental computational events in discrete fragments, rather than existing as a fixed, pre-existing background to events. The advantage of this approach is that it enables a conceptual unification of quantum theory and GR; immediately resolves all quantum paradoxes (which are paradoxical only with respect to the fixed, pre-existing background space mistakenly assumed); and provides a clear explanation of the source and necessity of quantum randomness. Strangely no one here seems interested in how this happens, even to criticize it! Edgar On Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:35:32 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:22:50 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >> >> Russell, >> >> No, the proper understanding is that gravitation and curved space are >> EQUIVALENT. Both are produced by the presence of mass-energy (and stress). >> > > I would say that gravity and curved space are metaphorical rather than > literal. The literal phenomenon is that the inertial frame of sensible > external relations is what is being curved. It is literally the experience > of stress - of seriousness and realism which is seen from the outside as > exaggerated irreversibility and inevitability. Mass-energy is the public > token which represents sensory-motive. Space/density is the dual of mass, > time/duration is the dual of energy. > > Mass-energy doesn't produce anything except externalized reflections of > phenomenal experiences. Gravitation and curved space describe the back end > of the sensory-motor (not motive because its externalized) relations which > are interphenomenal, automatic, and unattended on all frames but the > primordial one. > > Craig > > >> >> You say "Motion through curved space appears as acceleration in a flat >> tangent space." >> >> Are you saying then that acceleration from a rising elevator is "motion >> through curved space"? >> >> That was my original question but I don't know what your answer is from >> your post.. >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:41:09 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:22:18AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>> > All, >>> > >>> > By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to >>> gravitation. >>> > >>> > Gravitation curves space. >>> >>> No - curved space generates the phenomena of gravitation. >>> >>> It is sometimes said that "matter curves space". >>> >>> > >>> > So doesn't this mean acceleration should also curve space? If not, why >>> not? >>> > >>> >>> Motion through curved space appears as acceleration in a flat tangent >>> space. >>> >>> > If not, doesn't that violate the Equivalence Principle? >>> >>> >>> No. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) >>> Principal, High Performance Coders >>> Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au >>> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >> -- 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.
