Re: Feynman's fallacy
From: glbrad01 (glbrad01_at_insightbb.com)
Date: 01/19/05
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: little-oh"
- Previous message: Oscar Lanzi III: "Re: Circumcircle Quickie"
- In reply to: Jesse Mazer: "Re: Feynman's fallacy"
- Next in thread: vonroach: "Re: Feynman's fallacy"
- Reply: vonroach: "Re: Feynman's fallacy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:10:36 GMT
"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:41E8467C.7080206@mail.verizon.net...
>
>
> vonroach wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:54:07 GMT, Jesse Mazer <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't think so, see the quote I posted from the sci.physics FAQ
>>>earlier:
>>>
>>
>>I suggest that you revisit it and reflect more deeply on what it means,
>>
>
> Can you explain what you mean? Einstein originally set the cosmological
> constant to give a static universe, so wouldn't it be a valid solution to
> the equations of GR to have a static universe containing a single white
> hole?
>
> Jesse
>
I ask you this, if you have a spatially infinite Universe (thus uniformly
indeterminate), could it in any way be a static Universe? Does my question
contain its own answer?
A cosmological constant of zero would necessarily apply to the overall
timelessness of an infinite (of an indeterminate) Universe. It would apply
to an infinite Universe's equivalent of Greenwich Mean Time, in this case
real-time zero or Universal Real Time. Einstein put this time as time at the
speed of light. Hawking put it as the forever frozen time on the clock in
Grand Central Station Universe through which all the Universe passes at all
times. Static, absolute, unchanging, constant (cosmologically constant).
Considering Einstein's and Hawking's placements of "timelessness" on the
one hand and "zero" on the other, WHEN in the time of the Universe is this
'timeless zero'? Neither Einstein nor Hawking specifically identified
"when", but the "when" should be as obvious as "real-time." It should be all
too obvious, so obvious it has been overlooked and completely missed.
Obviously it would be the beginning time of the Universe. Just as
obviously it would the end time of the Universe, rather the leading edge of
the time of the Universe since per Einstein it has to be the time at the
speed of light, the one and ultimate light-time constant to which all time
ultimately points (all times ultimately point). So to close to it is to
close to Universal Real Time (the cosmological constant of zero). Pasts via
futures to zero.
Past, present, future, should be changed in order to reflect the above,
past, future, zero (-t +t = 0). We can't possibly pin down the present,
there is no "instant" in time, never was, never will be, just a very loose
expression of some relativity being indistinguishable from "instant." We
can't see or detect a "present" two mille-meters in front of, out from, our
eyeballs since the limitations of the constant of the velocity of light even
forbids it at that distance. A "history" must cross the distance--in the
distance-time between two points two millimeters apart--while in the
meantime time passed in even that space in that short of a time (thus
arrival to the eyeball of a light-time "history" frame). Space exists two
millimeters from the eyeball. The eyeball exists. the light beam or wave, or
burst, exists, but the time marked in the two-dimensionally 'flat'
light-time picture frame arriving to the eyeball no longer exists. We can't
catch up to 'now'. We can't catch up to 'real-time' or 'cosmological
constant zero'. The closest anything gets to catching up with it is in
atomic collisions. Yet even then there is always an [indeterminate] margin,
always a margin of [uncertainty].
All it really means is that the Universe carries a zero balance of time,
forever. It doesn't accumulate time. It doesn't accumulate such a
catastrophic, apocalyptic, liability. It isn't that stupid; it never was
that stupid; and it never will be that stupid. Only astronomers,
cosmologists, physicists, and people of certain religions, were and still
are so stupid as to believe it's that stupid.
A wheel of time turning on a hub of zero with no ground and no external
references whatever, turns in how many directions? Four! Hub zero. At top of
rim, right directional arrow. At bottom of rim, left directional arrow.
Right rim, down directional arrow. Left rim, up directional arrow.
Clockwise. Or, if you are counter-clockwise orientated, reverse the
directions of the four arrows. The big picture is mirror same in any case,
the wheel just also turning perpendicular to turn, where bottom is then top,
and top is then bottom, all directional arrows of time then reversing.
Remember, no ground and no external references.
If God stood at the side of a narrow fish tank full of light (the water),
indeterminate in length going off to right and to left of him, and with the
side of His hand chopped the light one chop per second there would be two
light-waves at once traveling away from his chopping, one to the left of His
timely chopping going away to the left in the tank, and one to the right of
His timely chopping going away to the right in the tank. The first
light-wave left and right reflecting the light-time of the first chop, the
second light-wave reflecting the time of the second chop, and so on. The
first light-wave moving away to His left and right, light-second distance to
light-second distance, away from His steady chopping each and every second,
will always reflect the first chop, never the second, never the third, never
the latest chop by the source propagator. Since each light-wave traveling
away from the source reflects a later time than the previous light wave
farther away in distance from the source, why is it a physicist believes
time to run face-forward, forward toward him as the distant observer rather
than ass-forward, forward toward him? Relatively speaking, the past arrives
to the observer at location zero in time, while the future is farthest
distant, also at a location zero in time, from that arrived past and from
that observer it has arrived to.
Does the stupid observer think he can observe any traveler traveling
directly away from him into time-future lines (relatively speaking)? when
all that arrives to him are time-past frames? Will time actually slow for
the traveler traveling time-future lines and he remain young while the
observer grows old? What is the traveler's starting point per the light-time
frames arriving to him before he even starts his travel? Relatively speaking
he is negative in the time-line at his starting point to zero at his
destination, and he must travel positively in space and time along the
time-future line just to arrive and break even in time with any observer at
his destination, and at his starting point as well. No, he will not remain
young while observers grow old. The Universe, or God, or both, putting him
back in [apparent] time with regard to any distant travel destination, at
any distance whatsoever, permits him to only break even in time--break even
with the cosmological constant of zero--in all time travels through space.
Brad
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: little-oh"
- Previous message: Oscar Lanzi III: "Re: Circumcircle Quickie"
- In reply to: Jesse Mazer: "Re: Feynman's fallacy"
- Next in thread: vonroach: "Re: Feynman's fallacy"
- Reply: vonroach: "Re: Feynman's fallacy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
