RE: Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated.
The speed of light is only C locally in general relativity. The equivalence principle says that local observations of a freely-falling observer in a gravitational field will look just like local observations of an inertial observer in the flat spacetime of special relativity. Local means in a small region of spacetime--each observer has to only make measurements in their immediate region of space for a small period of time for the equivalence to work, and it only works precisely in the limit as the region of spacetime in which each makes their measurements becomes arbitrarily small. So, in the context of general relativity, if you have a global coordinate system which covers a large region of curved spacetime, like Schwarzschild coordinates around a black hole, then it is perfectly possible that the coordinate speed of light will be different from C (it is also true in special relativity that if you use a non-inertial coordinate system, i.e. one in which observers at rest in that coordinate system are accelerating and experiencing G-forces as a consequence, then the coordinate speed of light can be different from C here as well). But even though light exactly at the event horizon would be at rest in Schwarzschild coordinates (and note that you have no obligation to use Schwarzschild coordinates when analyzing a black hole, you could use some other global coordinate system where the event horizon is not at rest), from the local perspective of a freefalling observer, the light will still be measured to move at C as the observer falls through the event horizon and passes next to the light beam. Also, if you imagine a series of buoys closer and closer to the event horizon, which use rockets to maintain a constant Schwarzchild distance from the BH, then an observer falling in will see each successive buoy flying past him at closer to C, with the measured speed of the buoy approaching C in the limit as the buoy's distance from the horizon approaches 0. Jesse Mazer From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: everything-list@googlegroups.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated. Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 07:37:08 -0800 Conjecture: Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated. Notion: If the Speed of Light is not just a fixed constant but a fixed maxima, then, if Newton's 3 Laws of Inertia are to be maintained, especially regarding 'equal opposite' ... the current depiction of blackholes being able to constrain photons 100% infers that any random photon moving directly outward from the center-locus of a singularity can only be kept from forward linear motion by a force not just equal to, but necessarily greater than, its vector moment - presumed to be C. If only just '-C', then Probability would require blackholes be never 'black', but accumulatively brilliant white - unless - 'C' is out-maximummed. Or, the model has an error - and the dynamics of light restriction/containment are of a wholly different nature than currently presumed. Comments? Jamie Rose Ceptual Institute _ Get Hilary Duffs homepage with her photos, music, and more. http://celebrities.live.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: What about when multiple equally valid OM's exist? I don't agree that they are all perceived. If I am to be duplicated and one of the copies tortured, I am worried, because this is subjectively equivalent to expecting torture with 1/2 probability. Post-duplication, I can only experience being one of the copies, and if I am not the one who is tortured, I am relieved, although I feel sorry for the other copy in the same way I might feel sory about anyone else who is suffering (maybe a bit more, given our shared past). This is no more than a description of how our psychology as beings who feel themselves to be embedded in linear time works. Arguments that this does not reflect the reality of the situation, that it does not make sense to consider I might become either copy prior to the duplication but only one copy after the duplication, do not change the way my brain forces me to feel about it. Lee Corbin on this list has argued that I should consider both copies as selves at all times, and perhaps we would evolve to think this way in a world where duplication was commonplace, but our brains aren't wired that way at present. In saying you disagree that duplicate OM's perspectives are perceived, I take it that you mean their collective divergent experiences are not integrated in a consistent memory, not that they would be non-conscious zombies. If this was your point, I agree. However, I see a difference of opinion in how we understand the probabilities. Whereas you say prior to the duplication and torture, one has a 1/2 probability of being tortured and 1/2 probability of being spared, I see it as one having a 100% probability of being tortured AND a 100% probability of being spared, as both experiences occur with 100% certainty. The probability that an observer-moment sampled from both perspectives post-duplication will remember being tortured would be 1/2. Our brains may not be wired for experiencing total empathy for others who are suffering, but this is a result of evolutionary psychology. Perhaps a species whose brains were wired this way would be maximally moral, as they would be intolerant to any suffering and would operate at great risk to themselves to aid other individuals. Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Meaning of Life
Dear Bruno, I read with joy your long and detailed 'teaching' reply (Hungarian slogan: like a mother to her imbecil child) and understood a lot (or so I think). I am not entusiastic about a sign-language (gesticulated or written) instead of words, because I did not familiarize myself into its 'underwstanding' understanding. About your warning (Uri Geller's fork): I abhor 'righteous' conclusions based on actual half-information and always leave open a slot for things to be learned (discovered) later. In my 7+ decades of watching the world around me (7 in science) I saw changes that made me a ~ for firm conclusions. I am not for including the unknowable, but nobody taught about DNA when I first learned biochemical compounds or irreversible thermodynamics when I first learned Carnot.- And the Moon was for the poets. Computer was a slide-rule. We had a phone (please, Mam, connect me to Mr Brown) and I had a radio in 1927 - it spoke(!) through an earphone 2 hours a day.Hallo Radio Budapest, Hence my belief in further surprises.I experienced all kinds of belief systems changing around me, in science, art, politics, economy, so the latest is not so impressive either. Thanks again for your kind explanations - and am ready for Wi Fi. John On 1/19/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear John, Le 17-janv.-07, ŕ 18:11, John M a écrit : Dear Bruno, may I ask you to spell out your B and D? in your: Let D = the proposition God exists, ~ = NOT, B = believes. Where I think I cannot substitute your ~ for the =NOT - or, if the entire line is meaning ONE idea,that B believes both the affirmative and the negatory. Also: the difference between ~BD and ~B~D? In this paragraph you should interpret B by believes or by the subject believes. And D is an abbreviation of God exists (careful! in other context D is an abbreviation of ~B~, that is the subject does not believe in the negation of . Example: B(it rains) = the subject believes it rains. BD = the subject believes that God exists. the tilde symbol ~represents the classical negation. A logician will write~(it rains) for saying that it does not rain. So we recover the four modal negation cases already known by Aristotle (as the aristotelian square): BD = the subject believes that God exists B(~D) = the subject believes that God does not exist ~BD = the subject does not believe that God exists ~B~D = the subject does not believe that God does not exist. We have: BD is true for the so-called believer (in God) B(~D) is true for the atheist (he is a believer: he believes that God does not exist) ~BD is true for a (consistent) atheist or for an agnostic ~B~D is true for a (consistent) believer or for an agnostic. To characterize an agnostic, you have to say that both ~BD and ~B~D are true for him. He does neither believe in God, nor in the inexistence of God. If you replace God by Santa-Klaus, or by Primary matter you get the corresponding notion of believer, atheist, agnostic relatively to Santa Klaus existence or Matter existence ... I have the feeling that we both are on the same ground in our nonexistent beliefs and I expressed that also as being an agnostic, rather than the atheist (who needs a god-concept (incl. matter, for that matter) to DENY.) We agree on this, and I think we even agree that we agree on this :) It is contrary to the German common usage of gottlos(same in my language) - but we try to step further than the conventional common historically used vocabulary. Yes. Br: I do neither believe in the inexistence of God, nor in the inexistence of Matter. I wait for more data. I took a more straightforward stance when a 'believer' challenged me to prove: there is NO god, I said I can disprove only if he proved the existence. This is the quasi-definitive proof that you are a lobian machine ... in case, you accept to interpret arithmetically Plotinus' ONE by truth. Lobian machine can disprove any attempt to define truth ... (this is mainly a consequence of Tarski theorem) Another (redface) ignorance of mine: it seems that your Wi and Fi references appeared in the parts more technical than I could consciously absorb, so I am at a loss. It is not very difficult. According to Norman Samish it looks too much technical for the list, but I am not sure. In general those who have some problem with the technical stuff have just some lack of elementary modern math. I will have to come back on the Wi and the Fi, if people are interested in the real stuff Computable must mean more than Turing emulable (R.Rosen) since the unrestricted totality is not available in toto for this later concept. total computable means more than turing emulable (partially computable). Let us not enter in the technics right now, but keep insisting :-) Br asked: You seem quite sure about that. How do you know? Why couldn'it be that *you* find