Black Holes Do Not Exist, claims Mersini-Houghton

Tom,

With capitalized Relativity in contrast to logically founded relativity I meant the hypothetical explanation of Michelson's 1881/87 null result which was ad hoc enforced by Lorentz, Poincaré, Einstein, and others. This Relativity led Poincaré 1904 and later Minkowski to a spacetime that is based on Parmenides. Physics suffers from such illusory Relativity up to now.

Among items that are not concrete and real are mere mathematical objects. For instance, the potential length of a way around a circle has no end to both sides. Bolzano considered "I think that I think, that I think, ... " as evidence for the existence of infinity. Such path is therefore not commensurable with any measure of that circle, e.g. its circumference. Infinity is no measure, no quantity but a quality. It is neither an even nor an odd number.

Likewise, nothing tangible in nature has the measure zero because in contrast to mathematics, natural items are not endlessly divisible. Non-existence is not a quantity but a quality. It is also not commensurable with anything.

Eckard

" ... 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

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