I would agree with your idea here if you made one change: replace the
single abstract computing space for all of space-time and replace it with
an abstract computing space for each point of space-time. The *one*
computation becomes an *infinite number* of disjoint computations. There
are also an infinite number of different computations possible for each
point for space time! Consider programs that are written in disjoint
languages, i.e. that have no trivial translation between them or a common
compiler. How many different computations can generate a simulation of the
same physical system? More than one!
This can be proven, I think, by rewriting A.A. Markov's diffeomorphism
theorem into a weaker form. Something like: There does not exist a general
algorithm that can decide in finite time whether or not a smooth
diffeomorphism exists between any pair of 4-manifolds.
OTOH, there do exist finite approximations of computations of clocks
that can be defined in finite hypervolumes of space-time. This gives us the
illusion of a present moment that is percievable at each point of
space-time, but it is not one that can be arbitrarily extended to cover all
of the manifold. Computation thus cannot be extendible over the entire
manifold and thus there cannot be a global present moment that can be
The point is that GR requires an infinite number of infinitesimal
space-times that are "patched together" into a space-time manifold in order
to make its predictions (including the equivalence principle). Since a
physical clock cannot be defined *in* a infinitesimal space-time
hypervolume (specifically the local neighborhood or "ball" of every point
in the space-time manifold), there is no way of globally ordering the
"present moments" that would be said to exist at each point.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> Yes I do have an explanation for how GR effects are computed. Thanks for
> asking. It's refreshing to just have someone ask a question about my
> theories rather than jumping to attack them. Much appreciated...
> The processor cycles for all computations are provided by P-time (clock
> time doesn't exist yet as it is going to be computed along with all other
> information states). Thus all computations occur simultaneously and
> continually in a non-dimensional abstract computational space as p-time
> The results of these computations is the information states of everything
> in the universe including all relativistic effects. The way this works to
> automatically get GR effects is simply to use the pure numeric information
> of the mass-energy particle property as the relative SCALE of the
> dimensionality of spacetime as it is computed. The effect of this is to
> automatically dilate (curve) spacetime around mass-energy concentrations
> and this produces the correct GR effects of curved spacetime.
> Imagine the usual GR rubber sheet model where the curvature of the rubber
> sheet is caused not by a weight sitting on it, but by a dilation of the
> spacetime grids around a central grid full of mass-energy.
> This mechanism automatically produces all the effects of GR from the
> fundamental computations as spacetime is dimensionalized by those
> computations. The slowing of time with acceleration comes by comparing the
> length and duration of motion of an object along the slope of the dilation
> to the number of orthogonal grids it crosses as it moves.
> If this is not clear let me know.
> On Thursday, January 16, 2014 11:52:39 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>> Do you have an explanation for why reality time computes fewer moments
>> for someone accelerating than someone at rest?
>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 9:09 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>> Whoa, back up a little. This is the argument that proves every INDIVIDUAL
>> observer has his OWN present moment time. You are trying to extend it to a
>> cosmic universal time which this argument doesn't address. That's the
>> second argument you referenced.
>> This argument demonstrates that for every INDIVIDUAL observer SR requires
>> that since he continually moves at c through spactime, that he MUST be at
>> one and only one point in time (and of course in space as well), and thus
>> there is a privileged present moment in which every observer exists, and
>> since he is continually moving through time at c he will experience an
>> arrow of time in the direction of his movement.
>> Once that is agreed we can go on to the 2nd argument to prove that these
>> are universal across all observers....
>> So can we agree on that?
>> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 9:19:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>> On 1/15/2014 4:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> Both DO follow if you understand the argument. Why do you think they
>> don't follow?
>> Well the first one is true, if you take time to mean a global coordinate
>> time. But then it's just saying every event can be labelled with a time
>> coordinate. All that takes is that the label be monotonic and continuous
>> along each world line. It' saying that 'everything can get a time label'.
>> But it doesn't say anything about how the label on one worldline relates to
>> labels on a different world line.
>> The SR requirement that the speed of light be the same in all inertial
>> frames then implies that the labeling along one line *cannot* be uniquely
>> extended to other lines, but must vary according to their relative velocity.
>> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:27:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>> On 1/15/2014 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>> Bravo! Someone actually registered some of my arguments, though I would
>> state them slightly differently.
>> The argument in question, that everyone except Brent seems to have
>> missed, is simple.
>> SR requires that everything moves at the speed of light through
>> spacetime. This is NOT just "a useful myth", it's a very important
>> fundamental principle of reality (I call it the STc Principle).
>> It's a commonplace in relativity texts.
>> This is true of all motions in all frames. It's a universal absolute
>> Now the fact that everything continually moves at the speed of light
>> through spacetime absolutely requires that everything actually moves and
>> continually moves through just TIME at the speed of light in one direction
>> in their own frame. This movement requires there to be an arrow of time,
>> Not exactly. It requires that there be a time-axis, but it doesn't say
>> anything about which way the arrow points. It only implies that bodies
>> cannot move spacelike (because when they get up to c they've used all their
>> speed to move through space and none to move through time).
>> and this principle is the source of the arrow of time and gives the
>> arrow of time a firm physical
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Stephen Paul King
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.