Richard, I've already answered this same questions on multiple occasions.
There isn't any direct mathematical relationship so far as I can see though we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the universe. P-time is prior to measure because it is the presence of the logical space in which mathematical relationships are computed. There are plenty of things that don't have mathematical relationships that are VERY real. Consciousness is another example. Feynman was wrong! But everything is logical because it reality must be logical to be computed... Edgar On Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:50:40 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote: > > Edgar, > > Please specify the mathematical relationship between p-time and coordinate > time. > Richard > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Dear Ghibbsa, >> >> Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious >> fact that the twins DO share a common p-time present moment with different >> clock times. >> >> OK, so it is agreed that there is a shared LOCAL p-time present moment, >> but, as you note, we still need to prove there is a common universal p-time >> present moment. >> >> The argument that demonstrates that is simple, clear and convincing. >> >> 1. The twins share a common p-time present moment BEFORE one starts his >> trip. >> 2. The twins share a common p-time present moment AFTER they meet up >> again after the trip. >> 3. DURING the trip each twin is always continually in his own local >> p-time present moment. >> 4. Local p-time flows continuously for both twins DURING the trip from >> the time they part to the time they meet up again. There are no gaps in >> either Twin's p-times. >> 5. Therefore the other twin must ALWAYS be doing something in his p-time >> present moment at the same time the other twin is also doing something in >> his, because there is no time that each twin is not existing in their local >> present moment. And that must be a one to one relationship, that is there >> is always one and only one p-time present moment shared by the parted twins. >> 6. Therefore there must be a common universal p-time present moment in >> which every observer in the entire universe is currently doing something. >> We may or may not be able to compute or measure what clock times correspond >> to that shared common present moment but all observers will be doing >> something in that common present moment. Just because some observers are >> out there in various strong relativistic conditions doesn't mean they >> aren't actually doing something at every moment of their existence. >> Obviously they will always be doing something, no matter what their >> relativistic situation, and they will obviously always be doing it in their >> p-time present moment, which we have proved must have a one to one >> correspondence with the p-time present moment of all other observers, no >> matter what their clock times are. >> >> 7. This theory also allows us to have the necessary common background >> present moment in which and only in which different clock time differences >> can be compared by observers and relativity can work. The p-time present >> moment is an absolutely necessary background for relativity to function >> internal to. Without a common universal background present moment it would >> be impossible TO COMPARE relativistic clock time results. Where or when >> could different clock time results be compared if the different observers >> were actually IN (at) those different clock times. >> 8. It also provides the necessary mechanism for the universal processor >> cycles that drive all of computational reality, and in which relativity and >> clock times among every thing else is computed. The p-time present moment >> exists first, and all clock times are computed WITHIN IT. >> 9. Also in spite of what others here argue, SR itself requires there to >> be a common present moment because it says everything is traveling at the >> speed of light (actually the speed of time) in spacetime. For that to be >> true everything simply MUST BE at one and only one location in time, and >> that location is the common universal present moment of p-time. >> 10. The theory also provides a simple, elegant and consistent >> cosmological geometry in which the actual real extant universe is the >> SURFACE of a 4-dimensional hypersphere in which the surface is the >> 3-dimensions of space in the present moment, and the radial dimension back >> to the big bang is the radial p-time dimension. However the actual real >> universe is only the surface because the past radial dimension is the now >> NON-existent computational trace of the past which no longer exists. >> >> One could say the universe is the surface of a 4-dimensional soap bubble, >> and that our most fundamental experience of our lives, our existence in a >> common present moment is in fact the direct experience of the most >> fundamental phenomenon of the universe, namely the continual extension of >> the radial p-time dimension of our universe, in which the universe >> continually recomputes its current state of existence as that p-time >> extension provides the happening, the motive force in the form of processor >> cycles to do so. >> >> The p-time present moment theory results in a simple, convincing, >> beautiful, elegant TOE (only part of which I've explained) which is in >> solid accord with the most fundamental observation of our existence, that >> of a present moment in which we exist and in which all happening and >> reality occurs. >> >> The argument is clear, simple and convincing, and it is the ONLY theory >> consistent with the basic experience of our existence from birth to death, >> that of living in a present moment, that we now know is common and >> universal across the entire universe. >> >> This common present moment is the ONLY locus of reality in which >> everything that is real and actual exists. Only the common universal >> present moment exists. The past is simply the now nonexistent previous >> computational trace of the present, and the future doesn't exist at all. >> >> >> Edgar >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:11:45 PM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:17:56 AM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>> >>>> Brent, >>>> >>>> But the twins DO AGREE on whose clock ran slower. >>>> >>>> So I don't see your point if you use the twins as evidence... >>>> >>>> Edgar >>>> >>> >>> It may be a bad idea stepping in here, because I would rate my knowledge >>> of Relativity about 'average to poor layperson'. >>> >>> But hey, if the experts aren't hitting your buttons, why not give the >>> naïve a go? The experts will hopefully tell me if what I say is wrong. >>> >>> OK, so look, let's grant that when the twins arrive back at the same >>> location, you are absolutely correct they share a p-time at least local to >>> where they are, on the grounds they have different clock-times, yet still >>> share the same moment. >>> >>> The question now is what other than that common termination location, >>> if anything, is necessary for p-time to be more than a phenomenon local to >>> where the twins meet up again, in fact be universal? >>> >>> Specifically, is there anything you can think of about the respective >>> end-to-end journey of each twin, that would either have to be present for >>> p-time to be universal, or have to not be present? >>> >>> I'm interested to hear your views, but will offer a candidate effect >>> that I think must be near the boiler plate of what relativity theory says. >>> >>> If one twin travels extremely fast - I don't know how near, but a lot >>> nearer the speed of light than the other twin. Do they not both have to >>> experience the same like-for-like p-time at all points in their respective >>> journeys? >>> >>> But Relativity says something like, the twin going very fast, might >>> experience a passage of one week, correspondingly ageing one week, his >>> clock reading one week elapsed. While the other twin moving slow, might >>> experience a passage of 10 years, correspondingly ageing 10 years, his >>> clock reading 10 years elapsed. >>> >>> Can we allow that the slow moving twin just stands still waiting for the >>> fast moving twin to return? Not important but if that's acceptable it makes >>> everything that little bit more simple. >>> >>> Either way, their respective journey's terminate back at the same >>> location and time, such that they shake hands. We are supposing your p-time >>> theory is correct at that location and time, for the reason you offer, >>> which is the very different clock times, yet same place and time all the >>> same. >>> >>> What are the senses in which p-time existed at all points for both >>> twins? And what are the senses the twins experienced time very differently? >>> >>> One sense they experience a common p-time could be that both twins agree >>> 10 years had passed on Earth, if say Earth was where their respective >>> journey's began and terminated. From that we might say that the fast moving >>> twin, and the standing still twin both experienced each instant of that 10 >>> years in p-time. Just the fast moving twin zoomed through instants much >>> more rapidly. If you agree this is a way p-time is universal, then we shall >>> suppose you are correct here also, and consider implications of that. >>> >>> If they both experience each next instant of p-time, exactly >>> synchronized, just one whizzing through while the other going through at >>> the normal rate. Isn't the implication that their different experiences of >>> the passage of time is non-fundamental, the fundamental being that p-time >>> was synchronized and universal in every respect throughout? >>> >>> In which case, isn't the implication of that, the twin traveling much >>> faster who thinks he experiences just a week, actually ages 10 years, given >>> that each instant of p-time is universal and constant and synchronized? >>> Thus both twins arrive at the same location, with different clock-times >>> representing the different experiences, but p-time ultimately governing >>> everything as both twins having aged 10 years? >>> >>> Otherwise, what sense is p-time universal? How can the twins experience >>> a synchronized p-time throughout their journeys if one twin not only >>> experiences one week not 10 years, but ages one week too? Surely the >>> implication is that they did not experience every same instant of p-time. >>> Or if they did, only in some non-fundamental sense? >>> >>> Or, if they don't have to experience a synchronized p-time each instant >>> of their different journeys, what sense is p-time universal? If only the >>> sense of where they meet, that's not universal, it's local. If someone >>> stands still, while someone else goes in a big loop back to that position, >>> it's pretty intuitive that they will meet up at the same place and time. >>> This regardless of what laws of space and time are true? >>> >>> Sorry for the long windedness. And also, if I've missed the point or >>> misconceived something. I would appreciate that being pointed out if >>> possible though. >>> >>> On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:27:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/27/2014 7:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote: >>>>> > Jesse, >>>>> > >>>>> > First this doesn't have anything to do with present moment theory, >>>>> only with standard >>>>> > physics. >>>>> > >>>>> > 2nd, hopefully it's just a matter of you using different semantics >>>>> than me as to what is >>>>> > meant by absolute and relative. I'll explain once more. >>>>> > >>>>> > In the case of time dilation effects caused by gravitation or >>>>> acceleration the effects >>>>> > are absolute in the sense that both observers agree on them. Take 2 >>>>> observers A in a >>>>> > gravitational well and B not. In this case B observes A's clock >>>>> SLOW, and A observes B's >>>>> > clock rate SPEED up. They AGREE as to this effect. >>>>> >>>>> They can't agree on that. They can only agree via signals the their >>>>> clocks *appear* to >>>>> run at different rates. Just like the twins in the SR twin paradox. >>>>> >>>>> > AND the clock time difference PERSISTS after A and B meet up >>>>> afterwards when their >>>>> > clocks are again running at the same rate. Therefore in my >>>>> terminology it is an absolute >>>>> > effect. It is a real and actual effect, that both observers agree >>>>> upon. This is well >>>>> > understood and confirmed because it's used in GPS calculation >>>>> corrections all the time. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it's real that they have traveled through different intervals of >>>>> spacetime - just >>>>> like the twins in the twin paradox. >>>>> >>>>> You seem determined to ignore the basic principle of GR, it is a >>>>> *geometric theory of >>>>> spacetime* Geometry doesn't make clocks change speed. >>>>> >>>>> 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
