RE: Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated.

2007-01-21 Thread Jesse Mazer

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 Duff’s 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

2007-01-21 Thread Jason


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

2007-01-21 Thread John Mikes
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