Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Lyle,

If you convert its energy to momentum, it would have a much shorter lifespan, much as a fast and loose lifestyle might well result in not lasting a billion heartbeats. Energy lost is radiated away.

Regards,

John M

Steve,

It could also be argued that when you stare out into space, you see the residual effects of past time. Much as walking through Rome, you see the residual effect of past eras, but there are not the peoples from those eras milling about. Just as the light from a star ten lightyears away, arrives at the same time as a light from a star twenty lightyears away. Those stars are currently radiating energy which will have to physically travel the required distance and do it as physical presence, since there is no time dimension at the speed of light.

While space has no physical properties, or defining structure, so it can be easy to dismissed, but this lack of physicality means there is nothing to define, limit or warp it, so the only qualities left are neutrality and infinity.

Jonathan,

So that means the faster muon has much more energy, like a bullet fired from a gun has much more energy than one just sitting there.

Sorry this is quick, due to having to rush..

Regards,

John M

Jonathan,

To further clarify; If you have two objects of equal density, one has significantly greater velocity and the measure of duration is penetration, then it would constitute two clocks with unequal stores of energy, kinetic in this case, while frequency declines over the course of penetration. So yes, the one with greater velocity would "live" longer.

As for Tom's response, that was to a comment I made to Peter, explicitly changing the topic from quantum effects, to basic mechanical ones, in order to simplify the argument that time is a measure and effect of change, not some underlaying dimension for it.

As I keep arguing, by reducing time to measures of duration, physics simply codifies our perception of time as a vector from past to future events, since as individual points of perception, we experience it as a sequence of events, rather than the actual cause, which is this process of change forming and dissolving these events, thus it being they which go from future/potential, to actual/present, to past/residual. Keep in mind that potential necessarily precedes actual.

Duration doesn't transcend the present, but is the state of the present between and during the occurrence of events.

Tomorrow becomes yesterday due to change, not traveling the flow of time from yesterday to tomorrow.

Regards,

John M

" ... I very clearly stated that with two clocks with equal energy, the one with the faster clock rate ..."

And you are very clearly wrong. The physics of synchronized spring powered clocks is identical to two objects in simultaneous free fall in a gravity field. They fall (or tick) at the same rate.

Jonathan,

If you want, read Tom's most recent comment, from last night, in the subthread above(starting Oct 15), where he, I suspect inadvertently, argues my own proposition that energy is conserved, ie. persists, while form, ie. inFORMation, is transient. So the present being the state of the energy, while time is an effect of the changing form.

Regards,

John m

"... the faster muon has much more energy, like a bullet fired from a gun has much more energy ..."

At the initial velocity only. A bullet fired parallel to the plane in a gravity field at the same time a bullet is dropped from the height of the gun's muzzle will find the bullets impacting the ground at the same time. Only gravity affects the bullets' acceleration; there is no horizontal velocity. This is high school physics -- the projectile problem as explained by Galileo.

The relativistic case of muon life compares decay rates, not velocities. The more energetic muon from deep space under minimal gravity influence lives longer than an identical muon born under the influence of Earth's gravity.

"... my own proposition that energy is conserved, ie. persists, while form, ie. inFORMation, is transient. So the present being the state of the energy, while time is an effect of the changing form."

Nope. Energy conservation is a consequence of the laws of motion. Time is conserved along with energy.

"If you convert its energy to momentum, it would have a much shorter lifespan ..."

Nope. Energy and momentum are the same thing. What you mean to say is to convert the potential energy of particle rest mass into kinetic energy -- in which case the particle will have a longer life, not shorter. Remember it the way Einstein did: "Moving clocks go slower."

Lyle, John,

Yes. That's quite equivalent to the 3D wave (helix) my essays etc discuss.

If a muon is considered as a 'spring' and the 'front' end is accelerated first it will then stretch the spring (redshift). The wavenumber and total energy are the same, but the number of 'waves' per unit TIME are reduced for any one speed. As the speed has increased (the acceleration) the muon gets further before it dies.

Now the discrete field model can also resolve CP violations in that model! Remember the 'spring' is also rotating. Which way? A 50:50 distribution of both of course. So how many 'waves' arrive per unit time with one spinning the 'positive' direction rather than negative at that particular orientation? (you may need to check out 'non-mirror symmetry' of spin to get your head totally round that!)

Ergo; Half of moving rotating bodies are found to rotate counterclockwise, and half are found to go 'faster' on interaction (when they're approaching you) but all APPEAR to go faster when approaching than when as relative rest purely due to changing light travel time. (Doppler shift)! You may need to read that a few times, and NOT first try to rationalise it against old incomplete doctrine!

Let me know if the logic emerges (it surely won't for some).

Best wishes

Peter

" ... a tree is a real and therefore countable item. The same for the number of stars in a German nursery rhyme ..."

Still trying to get you to commit to what "concrete and real" means. So it means "countable items"? Do you want to stick with that?

"The energy is conserved, not the form! That is because energy PERSISTS!!!!! It is what constitutes presence/present!"

And the universal form is -- wait for it ...

Least action.

I should add that in contrast to Euclid and Galileo Galilei, Georg Cantor was naive. Confer what Ebbinghaus wrote about him, also what Cantor wrote himself: "Je le vois, mais je ne le crois pas", and Cantor's correspondence with cardinal Franzelin. Cantor was asked whether infinity, if it is a quantity, is it an even or an odd number. Instead of logically explaining that the distinction between being even and odd gets gradually lost when approximating to the qualitative property of being endless, he blamed those who put the question for not understanding his theory.

Incidentally, the possibility to distinguish between positive and negative gets likewise gradually lost when approximating zero. Naive mathematicians like G. Cantor and narrow-minded mathematical physicists tend to not even grasp Euclid's abstraction as an abstraction that must not be equated with reality. Their science is just fiction.

Eckard

"Half of moving rotating bodies are found to rotate counterclockwise, and half are found to go 'faster' on interaction (when they're approaching you) but all APPEAR to go faster when approaching than when as relative rest purely due to changing light travel time. (Doppler shift)!"

What a load.

"You may need to read that a few times,"

Read it a thousand times and it will still be meaningless. Light does not accelerate in any frame of reference.

Lyle's question is a good one to think through and answer.

"Cantor was asked whether infinity, if it is a quantity, is it an even or an odd number. Instead of logically explaining that the distinction between being even and odd gets gradually lost when approximating to the qualitative property of being endless, he blamed those who put the question for not understanding his theory."

Cantor was right -- they and you do not understand his theory and the question is meaningless. An even set of integers and an odd set of integers are both on the order of an uncountable infinity.

Infinity isn't a number.

And that's as far as I will go with this off-topic discussion.

John, Peter,

Here's another link for you to ignore.

Tom,

"What you mean to say is to convert the potential energy of particle rest mass into kinetic energy -- in which case the particle will have a longer life, not shorter."

If I convert the mass of the particle to energy, it would seem the particle, as a particle, no longer exists.

We already went through why a moving clock goes slower, but as I keep arguing, time is only a function of the form, since as you observed up thread, the energy is conserved. So only form can age. Now if the particle is converted entirely to energy, say throwing a log on the fire, therefore converting rest energy to light and thermal energy, the life of the log would seem to be cut shorter than one not converted to energy.

?

Regards,

John M

Tom,

No problem with that. As I keep arguing, energy and form/information are inseparably two sides of the same coin. Energy needs to manifest as force, mass, radiation, etc, or there is no energy. No energy in the void.

Meanwhile form needs energy to manifest. No form in the void.

So yes, at its most elemental description, "least action" would a suitable description of what energy does, ie. express itself as efficiently as possible.

And on that efficiency, all other laws of nature are based.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

So is the additional energy velocity, or mass?

If you have more energy, then there is more to power before it starts to decay, or it has a slower rate.

Either way, I don't see how it disproves my observation that of two clocks with equal energy, the one with the slower rate will last longer, thus the faster clock ages quicker and so recedes into the past faster. If one clock has more energy, yes, it can go longer.

Regards,

John M

Tom,

"The physics of synchronized spring powered clocks is identical to two objects in simultaneous free fall in a gravity field. They fall (or tick) at the same rate."

I said nothing about being in a gravity field. I said that if one is simply manufactured to tick faster, it uses energy faster.

The point being that if time were a vector from past to future, much as a spatial dimension goes from point A to B, wouldn't faster clock move from prior events to succeeding events quicker than a slower clock? Just like a faster car gets to point B quicker.

Yet they both still exist in the same reality and arrive at their subsequent meeting together.

Now consider that link you sent me to the Feynman paper on least action. The faster clock is like a non optimal trajectory, in that it(s atomic activity) rushes around while getting from point A to B, while the slower clock leaves A and arrives at B at the same time as the faster clock, with less atomic activity. The reality is that faster clock and slower clocks still exist in this state of the present, just that faster clocks burn more energy.

Regards,

John M