On Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 3:46:17 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 5:01 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> *> do clocks in distant galaxies run objectively slower than clocks in >> our galaxy* > > > There is no objectively correct rate for a clock to tick, but it has been > experimentally checked many many times that a fast moving clock (relative > to us) ticks more slowly than a clock sitting right next to us just as > Einstein said it would. And this isn't even General Relativity, plain old > Special Relativity is all you need for that. >
*By "objective" I just meant that when the clocks are compared, the elapsed time differs between the clocks being compared, and the effect is NOT just an appearance. It's like the case of comparing an orbiting clock with a ground clock. But there's a problem IMO. Will the far away galaxy's clock, be slower than, say, the Earth's clock, from the pov of the Earth observer? But the reverse is also true, as seen from the observer in the far away galaxy. Seems like a contradiction. Each clock runs slower than the other observer's clock. I had a long discussion about this with Brent awhile ago, and he claimed that the resolution involved simultaneity, but I never resolved it. AG * > > *> You're implicitly claiming we can measure these variables in the >> NON-observable region* > > > No, I'm claiming a sphere that follows the rules of Hyperbolic Geometry, > *Doesn't a hyperbolic geometry have negative curvature? If so, this is not what is measured for our universe. AG* > as our observable universe does, could contain a unlimited number of stars > even if it's radius is finite. Granted that doesn't prove it actually does > contain an infinite number of stars, but it does show that your claim to > have proven the number of stars must be finite is incorrect. So maybe it's > finite and maybe it's infinite. > > As for the non-observable region more distant than 13.8 light years I'm > afraid it's the same story, maybe it's finite and maybe it's infinite, > and nobody has come up with a good way to tell the difference and > it's unlikely anyone ever will. > *For a hyper-spherical universe, the volume must be finite, including the non-observable region. Whatever its radius, it's contained in a larger sphere with larger radius; hence FINITE. AG * > > John K Clark > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c2f5759-7638-44b9-8172-7679b2b1d6f9%40googlegroups.com.
