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 SAVE for some 'edge' right at the furthest extent where history is the longest time, where we allow that relativistic and other inbalances are yet to resolve? In purely that sense, can we not then say that whatever isn't yet resolved, that being the subjective now due to relativity among other reasons, can be regarded as resolved at least relatively speaking to some future time when 13.7B years was a long time a go? What sense could relativity be outrageously stretched to call that common history on those terms, a kind of, single frame between units of moments all the same? What is different between different units of energy at particular numbers of same defined moments since the big bang, that they are not? Ways
-- 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.
