On 2/7/2014 8:54 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:41:13 AM UTC, Brent wrote: On 2/7/2014 8:16 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> 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 momentsNO! 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). BrentBrent 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?
Units of energy don't have an identity. If a He atom loses an electron and then a million years later gains an electron there's no way, even in principle to say it's the same electron that was lost or the same ionized He atom. And even if it were, the electron and the atoms would have traveled different paths and so measure different time lapses between the events. So there would be no unique "age" assignable to that atom.
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.
I did that. I suggested a way to define a universal "now". But it doesn't eliminate the relativity of simultaneity, it just makes a certain choice which is simplifying for some purposes but isn't fundamental.
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]. 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.
