Chasing the black holes of the ocean

"In my own, naive view of time, energy, being dynamic, creates change and time is a measure and effect of change. So in order to reverse time, you have to reverse the momentum of the energy. This would require rather more energy, to stop the momentum and them to reverse it. Of course theorists know it is all just information and you can just push a few keys on the computer....What do I know."

That's the key question for us all -- what do I know?

Let's take your first statement -- " ... time is a measure and effect of change." Which is it -- a measure or an effect? It can't be both at the same time. In the former, as you say, " ... you have to reverse the momentum of the energy. This would require rather more energy ..." because that is how the measure process on a fundamental, microscopic, scale works. In principle, that act of measurement alters the trajectory of the particle being measured -- and thus changes the trajectory of time.

If time is an effect of change, its trajectory is continuous, and because of that fact, the trajectory is reversible. It's easy to see this on the macroscale, when the laws of physics for -- say, a planetary orbit -- work the same in forward or reverse. What Paul Borill realized (and which I too concluded in my 2007 ICCS paper) is that if time is identical to information, what we measure does not affect the trajectory of classical time reversibility: "The absurd idea is that reality is timeless inside entangled systems, i.e., it continually evolves and cycles through its recurrence, defined by the available number of states. This symmetry can however be broken at the macroscopic level by an observer preparing the system for measurement, triggering causality to select a direction for information and energy to flow."

In other words, preparation of the state vector is a choice of the experimenter's direction, not necessarily the choice of nature's direction. Joy Christian's framework takes the same tack.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

And he outside the box looks on and smiles.

Banesh Hoffmann:

"In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Fred Dithier's post identifies the falsification your apparent assertion that the unproven interpretations confounding SR's proven postulates are 'fact';

"The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth."

"The path to truth is thinner than a razor's edge."

- W. Somerset Maugham, The Razor's Edge

In science we're supposed to study, understand and objectively test and try to falsify theory independently of our beliefs. I do that as a fundamental. You've only shown so far that you do not. Are you able?

Peter

": from or out of nothing "

It was your claim of Einstein's lack of precedence to which I was referring;"

You believe that your brain-mind -- and Einstein's are "nothing?" In fact, though, there was no precedent for special relativity. My statement ...

"Einstein developed relativity from no patterns of activity except those he created mathematically in his mind."

... is simply true.

"Mostly I spend my time working with animals and while those lacking formal education lack organizational structure, sometimes the result is they are more environmentally attuned than those utterly wrapped up in the patterns being juggled in their own minds. I go out into a world of beings who seem to be rushing towards environmental suicide, with little more concern than often the most narrow interests, to re-enforce their own mental shells and I'm supposed to respect the intellectual rigor of those who can't figure out why time is a vector? Rigor mortis comes to mind."

John, it's of no consequence to me, whom you respect or not, or why.

I expect that your interests, as well as mine, are just as narrow as those whom you condemn. The point of a rational society is to mold contrastingly narrow interests into a cooperative enterprise whose sum is greater than its parts. The objective knowledge that science produces helps facilitate that shared wealth of social well being.

One has a personal choice of whether to dive into it with rigor, or let rigor mortis take its course.

Best,

Tom

Oh give it up, Peter. The box smiles back at you.

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Euclid was correct: A point is something that doesn't have parts. In other words, it is indivisible. Something (1) every part of which (2) has parts is endlessly divisible because after a division any resulting part (2) may be identified with (1). It behaves like Cantor's dust.

Tom: "And if you want to say that physics lives in a different, superior, world than mathematics -- an atom has parts. Is it endlessly divisible?"

My sentence was incomplete. Something every part of which has parts is a continuum.

While the idea of atoms meant a tomos = not divisible, the example shows that mathematical models do not necessarily correspond to physical reality.

E.: ""A point has a different quality. It has measure zero.""

Tom: "A measure is a quantity, not a quality.

In contrast to G. Cantor, I see the measure exactly zero and the measure infinitum absolutum qualities rather than quantities. That's why they are to be treated with care.

There are many more mathematical objects than a point, of measure zero."

There are no truly physical objects of measure zero.

Best,

Eckard

"There are no truly physical objects of measure zero."

Is the horizon a physical object?

Peter,

Obviously a vector is not physical. Eastw,west,north, south are not physical, but concepts. By treating time as a scalar, it is reduced to a measure that expands or contracts. Which is more due to the nature of math, then of time. The deepwr reality of time is that sequential flow from one event to the next, not whether the intervals between events can vary. Yet all the focus is on that essentially minor aspect of time. Anyone with more than one clock, or has ever been both bored and exited can appreciate that measures of time are somwhat subjective.

Writing on the phone, so keeping it short.

Regards,

John m

Tom,

Time is a word. Why cant it be both measure and effect? Interval is measure. Passage is effect.

Any act of measurement is simply another event. It is part of the process of time, both marking an interval and consequence of passage.

Laws may work both directions, but is that afunction of the nature of the concept of law, or the actual physical dynamic being described? Laws model reality. Inertia is also a law and it would seem to seriously work against the idea of reversing the trajectory of a planet.

Regards,

John m

Tom,

As ive argued before, intuition is the minds scaler, as opposed to linear, rationalization process. There were obviously quite a lot of ideas stewing in Einteins mind, when he came up with sr. That it didnt come together linearly doesnt mean it had no precedent.

Regards,

Jm

No, the horizon is not a physical object and as an effect of subjective perception, it is also fuzzy. Just like the present.

"Time is a word. Why cant it be both measure and effect?"

For the reasons that you yourself gave. You may be comfortable living with your contradictions, but that means abandoning logic altogether, which you appear to have successfully done.

Best,

Tom

"As ive argued before, intuition is the minds scaler, as opposed to linear, rationalization process. There were obviously quite a lot of ideas stewing in Einteins mind, when he came up with sr. That it didnt come together linearly doesnt mean it had no precedent."

There is a difference between being rational and rationalizing. If you think Einstein's reasoning was rationalization, you insult his rationalism (which, like Spinoza's, was supreme).

If you think there is historical precedent for special relativity on which Einstein built his theory -- what is it?

Best,

Tom

" ... the horizon is not a physical object, but an effect of subjective perception."

So the horizon you perceive isn't necessarily the horizon I perceive?

Justify your answer.

I can't find a source for it, but Hilbert is reputed to have something like, "Some people have a mental horizon of measure zero, which they call their point of view."

I meant "of radius zero."

I guess I was hung up on my dialog with Eckard.

Right now im at prince georges equestrian center and the physical horizon line consists of tents and trees, against hazy sky.

In response to a prior comment, the fact im not obessively focused on a particular topic has been an economic and social negative, but one ive considered and willingly accepted. On a personal level, the patoffon a betterphycic appreciation for the broad aspects and very fact of life on this planet is worth it. This is not to put myself above others, because the opportunities were fairly unique to my situation. What im referring to is a deep sense of what might in smaller situations be referred to as the madness of crowds. That people enmass will start behaving in ways that would be considered irresponsible if being commited by an individual.

Regards,

John m

Tom,

So is it measure or effect?(yes, part of spacetime, which is derived from the measure, but does measurement give you grey hair?)

So Einstein wasnt trying to solve a problem and prior concepts were not a factor? If you say so.

Regards,

John m

" ... part of spacetime, which is derived from the measure, but does measurement give you grey hair?)"

Is that a koan?

"So Einstein wasnt trying to solve a problem and prior concepts were not a factor? If you say so."

I *didn't* say so. You said so. And still no information on what those "prior concepts" were?

Best,

Tom

Tom,

Im afraid my knowledge of detail is not up to your standard. As i recall his primary insight was the speed of light being the only viable constant, so he built it up from and around that. Spacetime was an idea that had been floating around. Apperently some give edgar allen poe credit for first proposing it, though i tried reading that essay once and thought herion might have been involved. All the mathematical history, ill have to refer to eckard, peter or james on. Oh wait, i could ask you!

regards,

John m