On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:19:12 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > 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? > I suppose the most consistent way to answer that from the perspective I'm throwing out, would be to ask whether that clearly legitimate question is at a level of complexity we can reasonable hope to address, before having first finding a way to set things up at a much more generic level. It's at least arguable it isn't a reasonable expectation, the same way it wouldn't have been reasonable to solve so precisely for the generic principles in play by considering a car-crash with no basic theoretical framework for isolated laws to begin with. By 'basic' I obviously mean in a totally gratuitous extreme of the generic as already indicated!
> > > On 8 February 2014 17:54, <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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] <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.
