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?
On 8 February 2014 17:54, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:41:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > >> On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, [email protected] 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 [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. > -- 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.
