Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

" ... different sized holes. Does that make more sense?"

Of course not. And I am very disappointed that it makes sense to you. The energy potential is unequal at the initial condition.

"What have you found ( if any from NASA ) on the rate of decay due to SR ..."

It's been known for many years that muons, in the form of high energy cosmic particles, live longer than muons at Earth level.

"Among items that are not concrete and real are mere mathematical objects."

Is that intended to answer my question of what you mean by "concrete and real"?

" ... explain how the path of least action implies/requires/assumes all events exist in some time dimension."

Haven't you read any of those links I posted?

"I suppose it is just my naive realism to assume the creation of one event is a function of the energy released by the dissolution of prior events."

An "event" in physics is a measured phenomenon; one can't measure something called "creation." Creation is of measure zero, a singularity, an initial condition. A continuous measurement function that integrates the action on a time interval t_0 --> t_1, is, to quote Susskind and Hrabovsky again, " ... not an ordinary function of a few variables. It depends on an infinity of variables: All the coordinates at every instant of time."

"Usually referred to as causation."

By whom, besides you'm?

Tom,

We are not assuming the work of deities here. If I make breakfast, I have to break a few eggs. The prior form of those eggs ceases to exist. Maybe that's too naive for you, but my interest is how physics actually functions in this reality we inhabit.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

"It's been known for many years that muons, in the form of high energy cosmic particles, live longer than muons at Earth level."

Possibly because they have a slower clock rate, therefore they persist longer, while the faster ones fade into the past faster.

Regards,

John M

Except that,

Tom is saying the faster moving ones (higher energy = faster) age more slowly.

Regards,

Jonathan

"If I make breakfast, I have to break a few eggs. The prior form of those eggs ceases to exist."

Not the energy, however, which is conserved. Form is not foundational.

Yep. Thanks, Jonathan.

John, you should realize that you are trying to do science by Aristotle's logic, long debunked.

I should have said Aristotle's naive physics. His formal logical system is still one of the largest gems in the crown of human intellect.

Vladimir,

Any comment on my old essay? Just checking with you since not too many

people around here address problem with this approach or angle i.e.

ontology, metaphysics ... the basic source of our experiences..

Thanks,

Marcel,

Jonathan,

The faster ones have a slower clock rate, a la relativity, since the combination of external motion and internal activity can't exceed C, so internal activity, ie. clock rate, has to slow.

If you have read the above exchange, then you might have noticed it was only Tom who directly correlates energy with clock rate;

"two spring powered clocks with equal potential energy tick at the same rate. Man, are you ever confused."

As it is, if the faster moving one simply has more energy, then it has more resources to access, in order to persist. You might say there is more sand in it. Though momentum might not be a factor, other than slowing the internal rate.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

YES!!!!! The energy is conserved, not the form! That is because energy PERSISTS!!!!! It is what constitutes presence/present! Time is the effect of it creating and dissolving form!!! Thus these forms go from potential to actual(present) to residual(setting boundaries for subsequent form, as the energy propagates through these forms.

Wow. Was that just a slip, or did you mean to agree?

Regards,

John M

Jonathan,

Think of energy as amplitude and clock rate as frequency. Related, but definitely not the same.

In my original description, I very clearly stated that with two clocks with equal energy, the one with the faster clock rate will burn out quicker and so recede into the past faster.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman,

"Think of energy as amplitude and clock rate as frequency. Related, but definitely not the same."

So if a moving muon had a heartbeat (oscillation) and all muons had a lifetime consisting of a billion heartbeats (like tortoises & hummingbirds) if you somehow slow the muon's heartbeat (divert the energy of oscillation to the energy of velocity) then the muon will naturally "live" longer......

is that close to what you're suggesting ?

Objects can get heat from internal energy, by gravity compression, for example, or nuclear or chemical reaction, of from outside.

"Where does an object gain the energy to heat up, except from outside its original volume?"

"You stare out into space at night and a proper appreciation for what is being perceived has to include the enormity of space, yet for time all we can perceive is that which is present and the process of change. All else are conclusions drawn from information contained within the state of the present."

Likewise, you stare out into the past since all that we see is the enormity of the past as proper time. The local changes occur in our local time and we perceive both past proper time and local action time. Space is a convenient and useful artifice of consciousness that allows us to nicely keep track of the two time dimensions and their phase as spatial displacements among other objects as landmarks or reference points.

Points, lines, planes, and volumes are very nice representations of space as well as our number system and geometry. These are simply useful tools and can literally be just about anything that we want them to be for the task at hand: predicting action. You seem to argue a lot about the nature of space, but space is just what we make of it, no more, no less.

And now you argue about the nature of time. I particularly enjoy the "block time" definition of time. Defining time as time seems to resolve issues for people, but for me, time is still just time. Likewise, matter is matter and action is action...these are the next things to argue about.

Space, though, you do not have to argue about since space is only what we imagine is matter action in time. Time is what clock's measure. Why? Because the universe is a clock full of clocks. Each action comprises moments of matter to make objects. Each object is an action composed of moments of matter...and each clock is an action composed of ticks as moments of matter.

Honestly, Julian Barbour did a nice essay on least action...get it...action and that action explained time from the moment of matter in the action, a test particle. By using big words and an elaborate story, Barbour ended up saying that time is what clocks measure.

From the beginning John,

When comparing X-rays to visible light, they are said to have higher energy. That is; when comparing the impact photon for photon, x-rays have much more penetrating power - while gamma rays and cosmic rays have more still.

In the example Tom cited, he was saying that muons going near the speed of light last longer than the ones standing still. That is; when muons move extremely fast, they have a higher energy and obtain great penetrating power.

They are, in fact, a component of cosmic rays - since that term is a general one representing various types of near light speed sub-atomic particles, and other sources of extremely high energy like very high energy photons.

All the Best,

Jonathan

And the translated point is..

If high energy muons are those moving near the speed of light, and those are the ones with a longer lifetime, that that demonstrates the time dilation effect of Relativity. I think that's what Tom was trying to point out. Tom was explicitly saying that the particles with very high kinetic energy were moving near the speed of light and appear to be aging more slowly.

All the Best,

Jonathan