Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???
From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/08/04
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: glbrad01: "Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 7 Oct 2004 20:59:46 -0700
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:<4v89d.83005$He1.68225@attbi_s01>...
>
>Snip
> The claim is that we are looking out farther and ever farther back in time
> to the beginning of the Universe. This presupposes time does not turnover,
> that it is an "arrow" one end of which is the so-called Big Bang, there and
> then, and the other end is the Earth, here and now (at least here).
Why would such a presupposition stop at Earth and not go on the
horizon?
> No
> change, no event, occurs at this end, "now," that does not blow up the
> balloon some more and lengthen the arrow that much more. Not a single second
> passes on Earth, or rather at this end, that the arrow does not
> correspondingly lengthen by one more light second and the Universe expand by
> exactly that much in space-time (300,000 kilometers more of spatial increase
> to the Universe, radially--blowing up the entire bubble or balloon that much
> more, to that one second's passage in time (300,000 kilometers per second)).
Yes, agreed.
>
> Snip
> It doesn't matter though, change is turnover, as in a wheel turning, it is
> not an arrow. A wheel turning usually has reasonably straight spokes running
> from the turning hub to the equally turning rim, and if the hub is zero, and
> the rim is the distant horizon, the wheel will have rolled in turnover of
> time forever and will roll in turnover of time forever. The Universe could
> be infinite in space, eternal in time, but the spokes running out in
> straight lines from any zero time point or hub (time at 300,000 kilometers
> per second, 300,000 kilometers of space to each and every second of time, is
> exactly zero) to the distant horizon or rim--be it 13.7 billion light years
> or 78 billion light years, or whatever length--will have measurably finite
> total length.
>
All that above and below presupposes that time accrues to space and
matter, not just to matter, contrary to that which SR infers. You
must get past this confrontation before any of that which you claim
can be considered valid.
TomGee
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: glbrad01: "Re: Does Time Obey The inverse Square Law???"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
