How many things can happen in a single instant? [Archive]

Mike Helland

Dec19-04, 06:48 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>This seems to be a standard assumption people have:\n\n"If time did not exist, no event occurred."\n\nAs you may know this the opposite of how I view things. Instead I would\nsay:\n\n"If no event occured, time does not exist."\n\nSo time is not a medium for change. It is not a continuum, and its not\neven really a dimension. It is the analysis that something has changed.\nIt exists in the subjective conscious experience of an observer. This\nis consistent with special relativity\'s definition that "time is what a\nclock measures", with the implications of quantum mechanics and string\ntheory, and with what recent developments in the field have suggested.\n\nIn other words, time is not a prerequisite for something happening, it\nis a result of something happening.\n\nThere\'s an easy way to wrap your head around this.\n\nLet\'s take the following situation with bleacher seats. Imagine you\nhave a stadium, and there are four people (A1-A4) sitting in a single\nrow:\n\n___A1_A2_A3_A4\n\nAnd in the next row, are four more people (B1-B4), but sitting one seat\nto the left, so we have:\n\n___A1_A2_A3_A4\nB1_B2_B3_B4\n\nFinally, there is a third row, and those people (C1-C4) are sitting one\nseat to the right of the original row. This is our picture:\n\n___A1_A2_A3_A4\nB1_B2_B3_B4\n______C1_ C2_C3_C4\n\nWe now make the following rules:\n\n1. Consider that movement and time in the stadium is discrete\n\nWe know that from quantum mechanics and Planck\'s Constant, such a\nsuggestion might actually apply to nature\n\n2. Since time is discrete, consider that the smallest, indivisible\ninterval of time is the time it takes to move one seat, and this\ninterval is called an instant\n\nOk. Now, in our picture, our row B will move one seat to the right, and\nC one seat to the left, so that after an instant we have:\n\n___A1_A2_A3_A4\n___B1_B2_B3_B4\n___C1_C2_ C3_C4\n\nIn this instant of time, if we were sitting in row A, you would have\nseen row B and row C move one seat. Which makes sense, because our\nrules say that in one instant, the smallest indivisible interval of\ntime, only movement from one seat to the next will occur.\n\nBut what if you were sitting in row B? You would have seen row A move a\nsingle seat, but row C would have moved 2 seats! How can, in the\nsmallest indivisible interval of time where only movement by one seat\nis possible, can this be true? And doesn\'t that mean that if the\nsmallest indivisible unit of time corresponds to the movement of one\nseat, that by moving two seats, we\'ve actually managed to divide the\nindivisible unit of time?\n\nThere is an assumption here that all eight seats (four from row B, and\nfour from row C) can move in a single instant. The assumption is\nmultiple things may happen in a single instant.\n\nWhat if that assumption is not correct? In fact, let us assume it is\nwrong.\n\nRemember what I said at the top about time?\n\nIf something moves, there is time. Not the other way around.\n\nThat means that when a single seat moves in its smallest allowed\nmotion, there is an instant of time. In our example eight seats are\nmoving, so, based on this new view of time, there should be eight\ninstants, not just one, which was the previous assumption.\n\nTherefore, the rules are not violated, since the seats would look like\nthis after one instant:\n\n___A1_A2_A3_A4\nB1_B2_B3____B4\n______ C1_C2_C3_C4\n\nand this after two:\n\n___A1_A2_A3_A4\nB1_B2_B3____B4\n___C1____C 2_C3_C4\n\nIf you follow this scheme, you will never observe a seat moving more\nthan one seat away from you in a single instant, even when relative\nmotion is involved.\n\n....\n\nRight now our leading theory of mechanics is Relativistic Quantum Field\nTheory. A brief history of the idea is that we found Newtonian\nmechanics, we updated Newtonian mechanics and made it special\nrelativity. Then we found quantum mechanics, something totally\ndifferent from Newtonian mechanics. Making a field theory out of QM\ngave us QFT. And finally we combobulated special relativity, which is\nan evolution of Newtonian mehanics, with QFT as an afterthought.\n\nI suggest that the reason this path to a theory of everything has\nfailed is because we made QFT relativistic by pairing it with old and\nincompatible Newtonian mechanics.\n\nWhat I\'ve described in this post is the foundations for a brand new\nversion of mechanics well suited for quantum phenomena that implicitly\ncontains the effects of special relativity, eliminating the need to\nforce QM and the old Newtonian mechanics into the same hole, and taking\na new path to a theory of everything. We also avoid postulating into\nexistence a speed limit, something that might come in handy since\nNewtonian mechanics and general relativity assume that changes to the\nforce of gravity are propogated throughout space-time much faster than\nthe speed of light, making it difficult to find a workable theory of\nquantum gravity with a graviton that may only move at c.\n\nI\'ve done this by asking a simple question "what can happen in an\ninstant?"\n\nBy the way, this puzzle is Zeno\'s fourth puzzle on time and motion. In\n2500 years it seems that no one has questioned the assumption that\n"many things can happen in one instant of time." By questioning that\nassumption, and postulating the antithesis, we have an extremely\nelegant solution, and an interpretation of mechanics that implicitly\ncontains the effects of special relativity.\n\nIf you disagree with me, you are essentially saying that "more than one\nthing may happen in one instant of time."\n\nI see no reason to accept that as a fact (nor, as a consequence, any of\nthe physics that is built on that assumption).\n\nThat leaves me with one question:\n\nWhy do you accept the fact that many things may occur in a single\ninstant?\n\n--\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>This seems to be a standard assumption people have:

"If time did not exist, no event occurred."

As you may know this the opposite of how I view things. Instead I would
say:

"If no event occured, time does not exist."

So time is not a medium for change. It is not a continuum, and its not
even really a dimension. It is the analysis that something has changed.
It exists in the subjective conscious experience of an observer. This
is consistent with special relativity's definition that "time is what a
clock measures", with the implications of quantum mechanics and string
theory, and with what recent developments in the field have suggested.

In other words, time is not a prerequisite for something happening, it
is a result of something happening.

There's an easy way to wrap your head around this.

Let's take the following situation with bleacher seats. Imagine you
have a stadium, and there are four people (A1-A4) sitting in a single
row:

__{_A1_A2_A3_A4}

And in the next row, are four more people (B1-B4), but sitting one seat
to the left, so we have:

__{_A1_A2_A3_A4}
B1_B2_B3_B4

Finally, there is a third row, and those people (C1-C4) are sitting one
seat to the right of the original row. This is our picture:

__{_A1_A2_A3_A4}
B1_B2_B3_B4
__{____C1_C2_C3_C4}

We now make the following rules:

1. Consider that movement and time in the stadium is discrete

We know that from quantum mechanics and Planck's Constant, such a
suggestion might actually apply to nature

2. Since time is discrete, consider that the smallest, indivisible
interval of time is the time it takes to move one seat, and this
interval is called an instant

Ok. Now, in our picture, our row B will move one seat to the right, and
C one seat to the left, so that after an instant we have:

__{_A1_A2_A3_A4}
__{_B1_B2_B3_B4}
__{_C1_C2_C3_C4}

In this instant of time, if we were sitting in row A, you would have
seen row B and row C move one seat. Which makes sense, because our
rules say that in one instant, the smallest indivisible interval of
time, only movement from one seat to the next will occur.

But what if you were sitting in row B? You would have seen row A move a
single seat, but row C would have moved 2 seats! How can, in the
smallest indivisible interval of time where only movement by one seat
is possible, can this be true? And doesn't that mean that if the
smallest indivisible unit of time corresponds to the movement of one
seat, that by moving two seats, we've actually managed to divide the
indivisible unit of time?

There is an assumption here that all eight seats (four from row B, and
four from row C) can move in a single instant. The assumption is
multiple things may happen in a single instant.

What if that assumption is not correct? In fact, let us assume it is
wrong.

Remember what I said at the top about time?

If something moves, there is time. Not the other way around.

That means that when a single seat moves in its smallest allowed
motion, there is an instant of time. In our example eight seats are
moving, so, based on this new view of time, there should be eight
instants, not just one, which was the previous assumption.

Therefore, the rules are not violated, since the seats would look like
this after one instant:

__{_A1_A2_A3_A4}
B1_B2_B3____B4
__{____C1_C2_C3_C4}

and this after two:

__{_A1_A2_A3_A4}
B1_B2_B3____B4
__{_C1____C2_C3_C4}

If you follow this scheme, you will never observe a seat moving more
than one seat away from you in a single instant, even when relative
motion is involved.

....

Right now our leading theory of mechanics is Relativistic Quantum Field
Theory. A brief history of the idea is that we found Newtonian
mechanics, we updated Newtonian mechanics and made it special
relativity. Then we found quantum mechanics, something totally
different from Newtonian mechanics. Making a field theory out of QM
gave us QFT. And finally we combobulated special relativity, which is
an evolution of Newtonian mehanics, with QFT as an afterthought.

I suggest that the reason this path to a theory of everything has
failed is because we made QFT relativistic by pairing it with old and
incompatible Newtonian mechanics.

What I've described in this post is the foundations for a brand new
version of mechanics well suited for quantum phenomena that implicitly
contains the effects of special relativity, eliminating the need to
force QM and the old Newtonian mechanics into the same hole, and taking
a new path to a theory of everything. We also avoid postulating into
existence a speed limit, something that might come in handy since
Newtonian mechanics and general relativity assume that changes to the
force of gravity are propogated throughout space-time much faster than
the speed of light, making it difficult to find a workable theory of
quantum gravity with a graviton that may only move at c.

I've done this by asking a simple question "what can happen in an
instant?"

By the way, this puzzle is Zeno's fourth puzzle on time and motion. In
2500 years it seems that no one has questioned the assumption that
"many things can happen in one instant of time." By questioning that
assumption, and postulating the antithesis, we have an extremely
elegant solution, and an interpretation of mechanics that implicitly
contains the effects of special relativity.

If you disagree with me, you are essentially saying that "more than one
thing may happen in one instant of time."

I see no reason to accept that as a fact (nor, as a consequence, any of
the physics that is built on that assumption).

That leaves me with one question:

Why do you accept the fact that many things may occur in a single
instant?

--
http://www.techmocracy.net

Igor Khavkine

Dec20-04, 10:03 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:48:24 +0000, Mike Helland wrote:\n\n> This seems to be a standard assumption people have:\n>\n> "If time did not exist, no event occurred."\n>\n> As you may know this the opposite of how I view things. Instead I would\n> say:\n>\n> "If no event occured, time does not exist."\n\nYou are free to say whatever you wish. However, merely stringing together\na few words does not guarantee meaning. This is a common mistake.\n\nThe general idea that you seem to be presenting is not new. However, you\nare falling into the common pit extracting philosophy from it before any\nphysical predictions. The examples that you are presenting are too ill\ndefined, too crude, and too far from anything realistic to be able to\nproduce any physical predictions. Moreover, neither of the statements you\ngive above is used in the derivation of the transformation equations of\nspecial relativity, hence you are neither contradicting nor reinforcing\nthe statements made by relativity.\n\nEverything in physics goes back to measurements. The ideas of space\nand time arise from the fact that we can measure space distances and time\nintervals. When discussing a general enough theory of the world, one\neventually has to include a description of the apparatus that allows us to\nmake these measurements. Then outcomes of these measurements become\nsubject to theoretical prediction and are no longer specified externally.\n\nRealizing that a clock and a meter stick are significantly distinguished\nas physical systems, as neither are stars, clouds, or volcanoes, one comes\nto the conclusion that time intervals and space distances must be\nconsequences of correlations between physical observables. Loosely\nspeaking, time and distance separation between different events can be\ncalculated from the values that physical fields take on. In our universe,\nthese physical fields would be matter fields, radiation fields, and the\ngravitational metric field.\n\nUpon some reflection this idea seems very beautiful and rather natural.\nAnd given an opportunity to explain it to someone one may try to justify\nit by concocting various simple examples or by pointing out that it is\nphilosophically appealing. However, for an idea to survive, its usefulness\nmust extend beyond mere popularization.\n\nThe holy grail application of this idea would be to take a background\nindependent theory (a universal theory of the type I described above) and\nto derive from it in some physically plausible regime a theory with an\nexplicit time parameter, such as Newtonian mechanics or even quantum field\ntheory. This problem is still open and is known as the "problem of time"\nin quantum gravity and more generally in background independent theories.\nRovelli has done some work on this problem. He talks about his attempts at\na solution in\n\nC. Rovelli, in Conceptional Problems in Quantum Gravity, ed. by A.\nAshtekar and J. Stachel (Birkhauser, Boston, 1991), p. 126 C. Rovelli\n\n"What is observable in classical and quantum gravity?", Class. Quant.\nGrav. 8, (1991), 1895\n\nC. Rovelli, "Partial Observables", Phys. Rev. D65, (2002), 124013\n\nAnd also in the first few chapters of his recent book "Quantum Gravity".\n\nIgor\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:48:24 +0000, Mike Helland wrote:

> This seems to be a standard assumption people have:
>
> "If time did not exist, no event occurred."
>
> As you may know this the opposite of how I view things. Instead I would
> say:
>
> "If no event occured, time does not exist."

You are free to say whatever you wish. However, merely stringing together
a few words does not guarantee meaning. This is a common mistake.

The general idea that you seem to be presenting is not new. However, you
are falling into the common pit extracting philosophy from it before any
physical predictions. The examples that you are presenting are too ill
defined, too crude, and too far from anything realistic to be able to
produce any physical predictions. Moreover, neither of the statements you
give above is used in the derivation of the transformation equations of
special relativity, hence you are neither contradicting nor reinforcing
the statements made by relativity.

Everything in physics goes back to measurements. The ideas of space
and time arise from the fact that we can measure space distances and time
intervals. When discussing a general enough theory of the world, one
eventually has to include a description of the apparatus that allows us to
make these measurements. Then outcomes of these measurements become
subject to theoretical prediction and are no longer specified externally.

Realizing that a clock and a meter stick are significantly distinguished
as physical systems, as neither are stars, clouds, or volcanoes, one comes
to the conclusion that time intervals and space distances must be
consequences of correlations between physical observables. Loosely
speaking, time and distance separation between different events can be
calculated from the values that physical fields take on. In our universe,
these physical fields would be matter fields, radiation fields, and the
gravitational metric field.

Upon some reflection this idea seems very beautiful and rather natural.
And given an opportunity to explain it to someone one may try to justify
it by concocting various simple examples or by pointing out that it is
philosophically appealing. However, for an idea to survive, its usefulness
must extend beyond mere popularization.

The holy grail application of this idea would be to take a background
independent theory (a universal theory of the type I described above) and
to derive from it in some physically plausible regime a theory with an
explicit time parameter, such as Newtonian mechanics or even quantum field
theory. This problem is still open and is known as the "problem of time"
in quantum gravity and more generally in background independent theories.
Rovelli has done some work on this problem. He talks about his attempts at
a solution in

C. Rovelli, in Conceptional Problems in Quantum Gravity, ed. by A.
Ashtekar and J. Stachel (Birkhauser, Boston, 1991), p. 126 C. Rovelli

"What is observable in classical and quantum gravity?", Class. Quant.
Grav. 8, (1991), 1895

C. Rovelli, "Partial Observables", Phys. Rev. D65, (2002), 124013

And also in the first few chapters of his recent book "Quantum Gravity".

Igor

Mike Helland

Dec22-04, 05:59 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Igor Khavkine wrote:\n> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:48:24 +0000, Mike Helland wrote:\n>\n> > This seems to be a standard assumption people have:\n> >\n> > "If time did not exist, no event occurred."\n> >\n> > As you may know this the opposite of how I view things. Instead I would\n> > say:\n> >\n> > "If no event occured, time does not exist."\n>\n> You are free to say whatever you wish. However, merely stringing together\n> a few words does not guarantee meaning. This is a common mistake.\n\nPerhaps. Let me be a little more straightforward, then.\n\nThere is a relationship between time and motion, or, more generally\nsince motion is a change of some kind, there is a relationship between\ntime and change.\n\nWe can define that relationship in one of three ways:\n\n1. Time and change are the same thing\n2. Time is a medium, a dimensional continuum for change\n3. Time is a consequence of the analysis of change\n\nAre there any I missed?\n\nNow the meaning that is implied here is that in relationship 2 and 3,\nthere is a cause and effect. In 2, the cause is time and the effect is\nchange; in this view time is a prerequisite for change. In 3, on the\nother hand, change is primary and time is something we deduce from it.\nThat phrase was almost quoted exactly from Julian Barbour. As hard as\nthe 3rd relationship may be to understand, there are many out there\nthat understand and accept it.\n\nSo what I\'m saying in the beginning of my post is that #2 is the common\nview, whereas #3 is my view.\n\n> The general idea that you seem to be presenting is not new. However, you\n> are falling into the common pit extracting philosophy from it before any\n> physical predictions. The examples that you are presenting are too ill\n> defined, too crude, and too far from anything realistic to be able to\n> produce any physical predictions.\n\nYou are right. The examples that I\'m presenting are purely for the sake\nof discussing time\'s role in physics.\n\nIf I wanted to convince you of the predictions I can make, I would have\nto explain to you a brand new view of physics with not only a brand new\nview of time, but of space and matter as well. In that case, after all\nthat had been painstakingly discussed, I could relate to you the\nfollowing prediction:\n\nThat a black hole\'s event horizon does not have the surface area that\nGeneral Relativity predicts, but instead has a surface area of zero,\neffectively meaning that black holes not only hide the matter that is\nin them, but also the distance. Therefore, when we measure the radius\nof the galaxy we are coming up with a measurement far lower than the\nabsolute distance because in addition to the black hole containing dark\nmatter, it contains dark distance. This would explain why spiral\ngalaxies are observed so often without some extra mystical type of dark\nmatter:\nhttp://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/149eeb41fb26c744\n\nBut, that\'s if I had time to convince you of the bigger picture. For\nnow we\'re just talking about some little things. Maybe I erred early on\nin the framing of my hypothesis? Maybe there is something even freakier\nthat I have missed that perhaps leaps out at you? Because of these\npossibilities, some basic points are what I want to talk about.\n\nSo, how many things can happen in a single instant?\n\nTake a row of 2 moving bodies. Now special relativity says that\nsimultaenity is relative to the observer, so light signals would have\nto be sent to the observer from each of the bodies moving away from\nyou. Even if the thought experiment claimed that all the bodies moved\nin a single instant, the observer in question would be the final judge\nof that. Since he receives light signals from the bodies at two\ndifferent times (the light from the object furthest to him would reach\nhim last) he would actually disagree that the bodies moved\nsimultaneously.\n\nTherefore, to that observer multiple things aren\'t happening in a\nsingle instant.\n\nNow Einstein seemed to take the view of relationship 2 that we\ndiscussed above. Obviouslly, because noone was thinking about\nrelationship 3 back then.\n\nSo his solution to this puzzle is that you need to create an entity\ncalled space-time, and the mathematical systems required to calculate\nrelative velocity and time dilation in relative frames, and then rest\nthis system ontop of some mechanics.\n\nIf you had view 3, you wouldn\'t need to stretch or skew the time\ncontinuum, because there is no such thing. Instead you would just say\nthat "well, since there are 8 changes in the system then there are 8\ninstants of time in the system." In view 3, you don\'t need to mofidy\nmechanics to account for these effects, as they are implicit in the\nformalization.\n\nThe conclusion ends up being the same, but a 4 year old could\nunderstand everything that is happening in view #3, which I don\'t think\nyou could say for the solution that requires special relativity.\n\nI would suggest in light of this that view 3 represents maximum\ngenerality and spareness of form, and is thus more attractive to\nphysics.\n\nIf you think I\'m wrong, then I\'m dying to know, how many things do you\nthink can happen in a single instant? And why?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Igor Khavkine wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:48:24 +0000, Mike Helland wrote:
>
> > This seems to be a standard assumption people have:
> >
> > "If time did not exist, no event occurred."
> >
> > As you may know this the opposite of how I view things. Instead I would
> > say:
> >
> > "If no event occured, time does not exist."
>
> You are free to say whatever you wish. However, merely stringing together
> a few words does not guarantee meaning. This is a common mistake.

Perhaps. Let me be a little more straightforward, then.

There is a relationship between time and motion, or, more generally
since motion is a change of some kind, there is a relationship between
time and change.

We can define that relationship in one of three ways:

1. Time and change are the same thing
2. Time is a medium, a dimensional continuum for change
3. Time is a consequence of the analysis of change

Are there any I missed?

Now the meaning that is implied here is that in relationship 2 and 3,
there is a cause and effect. In 2, the cause is time and the effect is
change; in this view time is a prerequisite for change. In 3, on the
other hand, change is primary and time is something we deduce from it.
That phrase was almost quoted exactly from Julian Barbour. As hard as
the 3rd relationship may be to understand, there are many out there
that understand and accept it.

So what I'm saying in the beginning of my post is that #2 is the common
view, whereas #3 is my view.

> The general idea that you seem to be presenting is not new. However, you
> are falling into the common pit extracting philosophy from it before any
> physical predictions. The examples that you are presenting are too ill
> defined, too crude, and too far from anything realistic to be able to
> produce any physical predictions.

You are right. The examples that I'm presenting are purely for the sake
of discussing time's role in physics.

If I wanted to convince you of the predictions I can make, I would have
to explain to you a brand new view of physics with not only a brand new
view of time, but of space and matter as well. In that case, after all
that had been painstakingly discussed, I could relate to you the
following prediction:

That a black hole's event horizon does not have the surface area that
General Relativity predicts, but instead has a surface area of zero,
effectively meaning that black holes not only hide the matter that is
in them, but also the distance. Therefore, when we measure the radius
of the galaxy we are coming up with a measurement far lower than the
absolute distance because in addition to the black hole containing dark
matter, it contains dark distance. This would explain why spiral
galaxies are observed so often without some extra mystical type of dark
matter:
http://groups-\beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/149eeb41fb26c744

But, that's if I had time to convince you of the bigger picture. For
now we're just talking about some little things. Maybe I erred early on
in the framing of my hypothesis? Maybe there is something even freakier
that I have missed that perhaps leaps out at you? Because of these
possibilities, some basic points are what I want to talk about.

So, how many things can happen in a single instant?

Take a row of 2 moving bodies. Now special relativity says that
simultaenity is relative to the observer, so light signals would have
to be sent to the observer from each of the bodies moving away from
you. Even if the thought experiment claimed that all the bodies moved
in a single instant, the observer in question would be the final judge
of that. Since he receives light signals from the bodies at two
different times (the light from the object furthest to him would reach
him last) he would actually disagree that the bodies moved
simultaneously.

Therefore, to that observer multiple things aren't happening in a
single instant.

Now Einstein seemed to take the view of relationship 2 that we
discussed above. Obviouslly, because noone was thinking about
relationship 3 back then.

So his solution to this puzzle is that you need to create an entity
called space-time, and the mathematical systems required to calculate
relative velocity and time dilation in relative frames, and then rest
this system ontop of some mechanics.

If you had view 3, you wouldn't need to stretch or skew the time
continuum, because there is no such thing. Instead you would just say
that "well, since there are 8 changes in the system then there are 8
instants of time in the system." In view 3, you don't need to mofidy
mechanics to account for these effects, as they are implicit in the
formalization.

The conclusion ends up being the same, but a 4 year old could
understand everything that is happening in view #3, which I don't think
you could say for the solution that requires special relativity.

I would suggest in light of this that view 3 represents maximum
generality and spareness of form, and is thus more attractive to
physics.

If you think I'm wrong, then I'm dying to know, how many things do you
think can happen in a single instant? And why?

Igor Khavkine

Dec23-04, 05:48 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mike Helland wrote:\n> Igor Khavkine wrote:\n> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:48:24 +0000, Mike Helland wrote:\n> >\n> > > This seems to be a standard assumption people have:\n> > >\n> > > "If time did not exist, no event occurred."\n> > >\n> > > As you may know this the opposite of how I view things. Instead I would\n> > > say:\n> > >\n> > > "If no event occured, time does not exist."\n> >\n> > You are free to say whatever you wish. However, merely stringing together\n> > a few words does not guarantee meaning. This is a common mistake.\n>\n> Perhaps. Let me be a little more straightforward, then.\n>\n> There is a relationship between time and motion, or, more generally\n> since motion is a change of some kind, there is a relationship between\n> time and change.\n>\n> We can define that relationship in one of three ways:\n>\n> 1. Time and change are the same thing\n> 2. Time is a medium, a dimensional continuum for change\n> 3. Time is a consequence of the analysis of change\n>\n> Are there any I missed?\n\nWhat you are missing is a proper definition of the things you are\ntalking about. By themselves, the words "time" and "change" mean\nnothing. You must construct a mathematical model and assign these names\nto well defined objects in this model. However, you must be careful, if\nthe model is too crude to explain or describe even basic observation,\nwhatever conclusions you draw from it may be completely useless.\n\n> You are right. The examples that I\'m presenting are purely for the sake\n> of discussing time\'s role in physics.\n>\n> If I wanted to convince you of the predictions I can make, I would have\n> to explain to you a brand new view of physics with not only a brand new\n> view of time, but of space and matter as well. In that case, after all\n> that had been painstakingly discussed, I could relate to you the\n> following prediction:\n>\n> That a black hole\'s event horizon does not have the surface area that\n> General Relativity predicts, but instead has a surface area of zero,\n> effectively meaning that black holes not only hide the matter that is\n> in them, but also the distance. Therefore, when we measure the radius\n> of the galaxy we are coming up with a measurement far lower than the\n> absolute distance because in addition to the black hole containing dark\n> matter, it contains dark distance. This would explain why spiral\n> galaxies are observed so often without some extra mystical type of dark\n> matter:\n>\nhttp://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/149eeb41fb26c744\n\nI hope you forgive me if I\'m a little skeptical of this result.\nActually, I hope you\'ll forgive me if I\'m a lot skeptical of your\nresult. Note that the concepts you mention here, such as surface area\nand distance, are ill defined unless you specify more details,\nespecially if the context is general relativity. To give them meaning,\nyou must specify how they are calculated and how their values are\nextracted from direct measurements. This is exactly where the fallicy\nof generalizing conclusions from an oversimplified model is at its most\ndangerous.\n\nYour conclusion about the surface area of a black hole horizone are\nmost likely wrong. This area is tied to many properties of a black\nhole, including mass, life time, temperature. All of these parameters\nare in principle measurable and are not expected to give zero. Your\nstatement about the size of the universe is devoid of meaning since we\nhave no idea how you calculate it from theory, and how you estimate it\nfrom real data such as redshift and related measurements.\n\n> But, that\'s if I had time to convince you of the bigger picture.\n\nAs I mentioned in the previous post, there are more precise\nformulations of the idea and the bigger picture of what you are\nproposing. What I have a problem with, is the way *you* are going about\ndrawing conclusions from this idea.\n\n> If you think I\'m wrong, then I\'m dying to know, how many things do\nyou\n> think can happen in a single instant? And why?\n\nI think as many "things" happen in a single "instant" as "angels" can\nfit on the head of a "pin".\n\nIgor\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Helland wrote:
> Igor Khavkine wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:48:24 +0000, Mike Helland wrote:
> >
> > > This seems to be a standard assumption people have:
> > >
> > > "If time did not exist, no event occurred."
> > >
> > > As you may know this the opposite of how I view things. Instead I would
> > > say:
> > >
> > > "If no event occured, time does not exist."
> >
> > You are free to say whatever you wish. However, merely stringing together
> > a few words does not guarantee meaning. This is a common mistake.
>
> Perhaps. Let me be a little more straightforward, then.
>
> There is a relationship between time and motion, or, more generally
> since motion is a change of some kind, there is a relationship between
> time and change.
>
> We can define that relationship in one of three ways:
>
> 1. Time and change are the same thing
> 2. Time is a medium, a dimensional continuum for change
> 3. Time is a consequence of the analysis of change
>
> Are there any I missed?

What you are missing is a proper definition of the things you are
talking about. By themselves, the words "time" and "change" mean
nothing. You must construct a mathematical model and assign these names
to well defined objects in this model. However, you must be careful, if
the model is too crude to explain or describe even basic observation,
whatever conclusions you draw from it may be completely useless.

> You are right. The examples that I'm presenting are purely for the sake
> of discussing time's role in physics.
>
> If I wanted to convince you of the predictions I can make, I would have
> to explain to you a brand new view of physics with not only a brand new
> view of time, but of space and matter as well. In that case, after all
> that had been painstakingly discussed, I could relate to you the
> following prediction:
>
> That a black hole's event horizon does not have the surface area that
> General Relativity predicts, but instead has a surface area of zero,
> effectively meaning that black holes not only hide the matter that is
> in them, but also the distance. Therefore, when we measure the radius
> of the galaxy we are coming up with a measurement far lower than the
> absolute distance because in addition to the black hole containing dark
> matter, it contains dark distance. This would explain why spiral
> galaxies are observed so often without some extra mystical type of dark
> matter:
>
http://groups-\beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/149eeb41fb26c744

I hope you forgive me if I'm a little skeptical of this result.
Actually, I hope you'll forgive me if I'm a lot skeptical of your
result. Note that the concepts you mention here, such as surface area
and distance, are ill defined unless you specify more details,
especially if the context is general relativity. To give them meaning,
you must specify how they are calculated and how their values are
extracted from direct measurements. This is exactly where the fallicy
of generalizing conclusions from an oversimplified model is at its most
dangerous.

Your conclusion about the surface area of a black hole horizone are
most likely wrong. This area is tied to many properties of a black
hole, including mass, life time, temperature. All of these parameters
are in principle measurable and are not expected to give zero. Your
statement about the size of the universe is devoid of meaning since we
have no idea how you calculate it from theory, and how you estimate it
from real data such as redshift and related measurements.

> But, that's if I had time to convince you of the bigger picture.

As I mentioned in the previous post, there are more precise
formulations of the idea and the bigger picture of what you are
proposing. What I have a problem with, is the way *you* are going about
drawing conclusions from this idea.

> If you think I'm wrong, then I'm dying to know, how many things do
you
> think can happen in a single instant? And why?

I think as many "things" happen in a single "instant" as "angels" can
fit on the head of a "pin".

Igor

Mike Helland

Dec24-04, 06:48 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Igor Khavkine wrote:\n> Mike Helland wrote:\n> > Igor Khavkine wrote:\n> > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:48:24 +0000, Mike Helland wrote:\n> > >\n> > > > This seems to be a standard assumption people have:\n> > > >\n> > > > "If time did not exist, no event occurred."\n> > > >\n> > > > As you may know this the opposite of how I view things. Instead I would\n> > > > say:\n> > > >\n> > > > "If no event occured, time does not exist."\n> > >\n> > > You are free to say whatever you wish. However, merely stringing together\n> > > a few words does not guarantee meaning. This is a common mistake.\n> >\n> > Perhaps. Let me be a little more straightforward, then.\n> >\n> > There is a relationship between time and motion, or, more generally\n> > since motion is a change of some kind, there is a relationship between\n> > time and change.\n> >\n> > We can define that relationship in one of three ways:\n> >\n> > 1. Time and change are the same thing\n> > 2. Time is a medium, a dimensional continuum for change\n> > 3. Time is a consequence of the analysis of change\n> >\n> > Are there any I missed?\n>\n> What you are missing is a proper definition of the things you are\n> talking about. By themselves, the words "time" and "change" mean\n> nothing. You must construct a mathematical model and assign these names\n> to well defined objects in this model. However, you must be careful, if\n> the model is too crude to explain or describe even basic observation,\n> whatever conclusions you draw from it may be completely useless.\n\nAll words are completely meaningless and useless until some human being\ndecides otherwise.\n\nAre you trying to tell me that you\'re refusing to engage in direct\nconversation with me because you don\'t have any idea what "change" is\nsupposed to mean?\n\nHere\'s a mathematical model in the form of a computer program (Visual\nFoxPro):\n\n*Initial Conditions\noElectron = createobject("electron")\noElectron.location = 0\n\n*Now something changes\noElectron.location = 1\n\n* Class definition of electron\ndefine class electron as custom\nlocation = 0\nenddefine\n\n* End of program\n\nAs for how time is defined, I\'ve already said that I\'m using definition\n#3 above: Time is a consequence of the analysis of change\n\nThe reigning definition says that time is what a clock measures.\n\nThis definition is good, but can be stated in a more general and useful\nway, and that is:\n\nTime exists when something changes.\n\nIf "something changes" is taken to mean "the display of a clock\nchanges" then we have our old definition of time, but we can also use\nthis definition much more broadly. We can say that time exists when the\nsun moves over our heads, or when radioactive material decays there is\ntime.\n\nSo, there\'s a mathematical model, and a definition of time.\n\nMy model might be a little crude, and you are correct when you say\ncrude models are not as good as very refined models. While I respect\nthat science and physics demands clarity and refinement, I\'m largely\npissed off by the fact that when confronted with ideas that don\'t jive\nwith their beliefs, physicists use such cop-outs to avoid challenging\ntheir assumptions.\n\n\n> Your conclusion about the surface area of a black hole horizone are\n> most likely wrong. This area is tied to many properties of a black\n> hole, including mass, life time, temperature. All of these parameters\n> are in principle measurable and are not expected to give zero.\n\nYour gut feelings on the likelyness of whether it is likely wrong or\nnot is not the point. What is observed is the point.\n\nUntil observations and measurements are made of the surface area of an\nevent horizon, it should not only be tolerated, but it should be\nencouraged to investigate the different predictions for such\nmeasurements and observations.\nTo deny this is to deny this basic act of scientific investigation.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Igor Khavkine wrote:
> Mike Helland wrote:
> > Igor Khavkine wrote:
> > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 12:48:24 +0000, Mike Helland wrote:
> > >
> > > > This seems to be a standard assumption people have:
> > > >
> > > > "If time did not exist, no event occurred."
> > > >
> > > > As you may know this the opposite of how I view things. Instead I would
> > > > say:
> > > >
> > > > "If no event occured, time does not exist."
> > >
> > > You are free to say whatever you wish. However, merely stringing together
> > > a few words does not guarantee meaning. This is a common mistake.
> >
> > Perhaps. Let me be a little more straightforward, then.
> >
> > There is a relationship between time and motion, or, more generally
> > since motion is a change of some kind, there is a relationship between
> > time and change.
> >
> > We can define that relationship in one of three ways:
> >
> > 1. Time and change are the same thing
> > 2. Time is a medium, a dimensional continuum for change
> > 3. Time is a consequence of the analysis of change
> >
> > Are there any I missed?
>
> What you are missing is a proper definition of the things you are
> talking about. By themselves, the words "time" and "change" mean
> nothing. You must construct a mathematical model and assign these names
> to well defined objects in this model. However, you must be careful, if
> the model is too crude to explain or describe even basic observation,
> whatever conclusions you draw from it may be completely useless.

All words are completely meaningless and useless until some human being
decides otherwise.

Are you trying to tell me that you're refusing to engage in direct
conversation with me because you don't have any idea what "change" is
supposed to mean?

Here's a mathematical model in the form of a computer program (Visual
FoxPro):

*Initial Conditions
oElectron = createobject("electron")
oElectron.location =

*Now something changes
oElectron.location = 1

* Class definition of electron
define class electron as custom
location =
enddefine

* End of program

As for how time is defined, I've already said that I'm using definition
#3 above: Time is a consequence of the analysis of change

The reigning definition says that time is what a clock measures.

This definition is good, but can be stated in a more general and useful
way, and that is:

Time exists when something changes.

If "something changes" is taken to mean "the display of a clock
changes" then we have our old definition of time, but we can also use
this definition much more broadly. We can say that time exists when the
sun moves over our heads, or when radioactive material decays there is
time.

So, there's a mathematical model, and a definition of time.

My model might be a little crude, and you are correct when you say
crude models are not as good as very refined models. While I respect
that science and physics demands clarity and refinement, I'm largely
pissed off by the fact that when confronted with ideas that don't jive
with their beliefs, physicists use such cop-outs to avoid challenging
their assumptions.

> Your conclusion about the surface area of a black hole horizone are
> most likely wrong. This area is tied to many properties of a black
> hole, including mass, life time, temperature. All of these parameters
> are in principle measurable and are not expected to give zero.

Your gut feelings on the likelyness of whether it is likely wrong or
not is not the point. What is observed is the point.

Until observations and measurements are made of the surface area of an
event horizon, it should not only be tolerated, but it should be
encouraged to investigate the different predictions for such
measurements and observations.
To deny this is to deny this basic act of scientific investigation.

Igor Khavkine

Dec25-04, 02:40 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>and olive oil until golden brown,\nabout 6 minutes on each side.\n\n\n\nShish Kababes\n\nAs old as the hills, this technique has employed seafood, beef, pork, lamb,\npoultry, and vegetables; just about anything can be grilled, and young humans\nare no exception!\n\nHigh quality marinade (Teriyaki and garlic perhaps)\n1 inch cubes of tender meat, preferably from the nursery\nOnions\nbell peppers\nWooden or metal skewers\n\nMarinate the meat overnight.\nGet the grill good and hot while placing meat, vegetables, and\nfruit such as pineapples or cherries on the skewers.\nDon?t be afraid to use a variety of meats.\nGrill to medium rare,\nserve with garlic cous-cous and sautéed asparagus.\nCoffee and sherbet for desert then walnuts, cheese, and port.\nCigars for the gentlemen (and ladies if they so desire)!\n\n\n\nCrock-Pot Crack Baby\n\nWhen the quivering, hopelessly addicted crack baby succumbs to death,\nget him immediately butchered and into the crock-pot, so that any\nremaining toxins will not be fatal. But don?t cook it too long,\nbecause like Blowfish, there is a perfect medium between the poisonous\nand the stimulating. Though it may not have the same effect on your\nguests, a whole chicken cooked in this fashion is also mighty tasty.\n\n1 newborn - cocaine addicted, freshly expired, cleaned and butchered\nCarrots\nonions\nleeks\ncelery\nbell pepper\npotatoes\nSalt\npepper\ngarlic, etc\n4 cups water\n\nCut the meat into natural pieces and brown very well in olive oil,\nremove, then brown half of the onions, the bell pepper, and celery.\nWhen brown, mix everything into the crock-pot, and in 6 to 8 hours you\nhave turned a hopeless tragedy into a heartwarming meal!\n\n\n\nGeorge?s Bloody Mary\n\nDon?t shy away from this one, it is simply a cocktail variation of\ngood old Blood Stew. When a pig is killed, its throat is slit a\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>and olive oil until golden brown,
about 6 minutes on each side.

Shish Kababes

As old as the hills, this technique has employed seafood, beef, pork, lamb,
poultry, and vegetables; just about anything can be grilled, and young humans
are no exception!

High quality marinade (Teriyaki and garlic perhaps)
1 inch cubes of tender meat, preferably from the nursery
Onions
bell peppers
Wooden or metal skewers

Marinate the meat overnight.
Get the grill good and hot while placing meat, vegetables, and
fruit such as pineapples or cherries on the skewers.
Don?t be afraid to use a variety of meats.
Grill to medium rare,
serve with garlic cous-cous and sautéed asparagus.
Coffee and sherbet for desert then walnuts, cheese, and port.
Cigars for the gentlemen (and ladies if they so desire)!

Crock-Pot Crack Baby

When the quivering, hopelessly addicted crack baby succumbs to death,
get him immediately butchered and into the crock-pot, so that any
remaining toxins will not be fatal. But don?t cook it too long,
because like Blowfish, there is a perfect medium between the poisonous
and the stimulating. Though it may not have the same effect on your
guests, a whole chicken cooked in this fashion is also mighty tasty.

1 newborn - cocaine addicted, freshly expired, cleaned and butchered
Carrots
onions
leeks
celery
bell pepper
potatoes
Salt
pepper
garlic, etc
4 cups water

Cut the meat into natural pieces and brown very well in olive oil,
remove, then brown half of the onions, the bell pepper, and celery.
When brown, mix everything into the crock-pot, and in 6 to 8 hours you
have turned a hopeless tragedy into a heartwarming meal!

George?s Bloody Mary

Don?t shy away from this one, it is simply a cocktail variation of
good old Blood Stew. When a pig is killed, its throat is slit a

Igor Khavkine

Dec25-04, 03:09 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Nothing is so beautiful as the bond between mother and child,\nso why not consume it?\nChildren or chicken breasts will work wonderfully also.\n\n4 whole umbilical chords (or baby breasts, or chicken breasts)\n4 thin slices of smoked ham, and Gruyere cheese\nFlour\neggwash (milk and eggs)\nseasoned bread crumbs\n1 onion\nminced\nsalt\npepper\nbutter\nolive oil\n\nPound the breasts flat (parboil first if using umbilical\ncords so they won?t be tough).\nPlace a slice of ham and cheese on each, along with some minced onion\nthen fold in half, trimming neatly.\nDredge in flour, eggwash, then seasoned breadcrumbs;\nallow to sit for a few minutes.\nSauté in butter and olive oil until golden brown,\nabout 6 minutes on each side.\n\n\n\nShish Kababes\n\nAs old as the hills, this technique has employed seafood, beef, pork, lamb,\npoultry, and vegetables; just about anything can be grilled, and young humans\nare no exception!\n\nHigh quality marinade (Teriyaki and garlic perhaps)\n1 inch cubes of tender meat, preferably from the nursery\nOnions\nbell peppers\nWooden or metal skewers\n\nMarinate the meat overnight.\nGet the grill good and hot while placing meat, vegetables, and\nfruit such as pineapples or cherries on the skewers.\nDon?t be afraid to use a variety of meats.\nGrill to medium rare,\nserve with garlic cous-cous and sautéed asparagus.\nCoffee and sherbe\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Nothing is so beautiful as the bond between mother and child,
so why not consume it?
Children or chicken breasts will work wonderfully also.

4 whole umbilical chords (or baby breasts, or chicken breasts)
4 thin slices of smoked ham, and Gruyere cheese
Flour
eggwash (milk and eggs)
seasoned bread crumbs
1 onion
minced
salt
pepper
butter
olive oil

Pound the breasts flat (parboil first if using umbilical
cords so they won?t be tough).
Place a slice of ham and cheese on each, along with some minced onion
then fold in half, trimming neatly.
Dredge in flour, eggwash, then seasoned breadcrumbs;
allow to sit for a few minutes.
Sauté in butter and olive oil until golden brown,
about 6 minutes on each side.

Shish Kababes

As old as the hills, this technique has employed seafood, beef, pork, lamb,
poultry, and vegetables; just about anything can be grilled, and young humans
are no exception!

High quality marinade (Teriyaki and garlic perhaps)
1 inch cubes of tender meat, preferably from the nursery
Onions
bell peppers
Wooden or metal skewers

Marinate the meat overnight.
Get the grill good and hot while placing meat, vegetables, and
fruit such as pineapples or cherries on the skewers.
Don?t be afraid to use a variety of meats.
Grill to medium rare,
serve with garlic cous-cous and sautéed asparagus.
Coffee and sherbe

Igor Khavkine

Dec25-04, 03:26 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mike Helland wrote:\n\n> All words are completely meaningless and useless until some human\nbeing\n> decides otherwise.\n\nThat is quite true. In theoretical physics words are given meaning in\ntwo different ways. One way is to assign a name to an experimental\nfact,\nan observation that everyone can reasonably agree on. The other way is\nto assign a name to a mathematical object. Pre-existing notions of what\neach name means in non-scientific language is only a guide to choosing\nthis nomenclature.\n\n> Are you trying to tell me that you\'re refusing to engage in direct\n> conversation with me because you don\'t have any idea what "change" is\n> supposed to mean?\n\nPretty much, or rather I have no idea what *you* mean by "change". You\nhave yet to assign a meaning to it that is either independent of the\nmeaning given to "time", or is well defined mathematically. Philosophy\nis easy, but in physics, the devil, as you know, is in the details.\n\n> Here\'s a mathematical model in the form of a computer program (Visual\n> FoxPro):\n[...]\n\nUnfortunately the pseudocode you present does not come close to meeting\nthe expected standard. Let me give you an example. Consider classical\nmechanics. State of a given system is defined by a bunch of numbers, we\nsay that these numbers correspond to degrees of freedom (coordinates)\nand their momenta. All these numbers are also functions of one real\nvariable, which I\'ll denote by the letter t. We call the variable t\ntime and the change of the values of the degrees of freedom and their\nmomenta with respect to time is called evolution. Evolution is\nspecified by a given differential equation. We say that this\ndifferential equation defines the dynamics of our system and certain\nterms in it define forces or potentials.\n\nUsing this type of mathematical model, I can already describe a large\nnumber of experimentally realizable situations. For example any system\nthat can be modeled as a bunch of point particles already fits. Also,\nall the terms that are used to describe this model, such as "time",\n"degree of freedom", "dynamics", ..., are well defined independent of\ntheir meaning in non-scientific discourse. I expect any framework that\ntouts itself as an alternative to be at least as easy to interpret.\n\nIn fact, changing this model slightly, I can realize in part the idea\nyou are proposing. So far all degrees of freed of the theory are on\nequal footing. Let me pick one of them, say T(t), such that the\nequation T(t)=T_0 is invertible for t=T^{-1}(T_0). I will call T(t) a\nclock. I can then replace any other degree of freedom x(t) by an\nequivalent function of the clock X(T). Hence the notion of time t can\nbe eliminated and be replaced by an equivalent notion of a clock T. The\ndeficiency of this model is that T is treated differently than all the\nother degrees of freedom. The challenge is now to come up with\nsomething better. And by better I mean that it should be able to\nreproduce all that is predicted by the old theory which is observed.\n\nThis is the challenge you must meet before you can attract any\nsignificant attention. Crude toy models are helpful for you to figure\nout what you need to do to meet this challenge. But they are not\nsufficient to convince anyone else.\n\n> Igor Khavkine wrote:\n\n> > Your conclusion about the surface area of a black hole horizone are\n> > most likely wrong. This area is tied to many properties of a black\n> > hole, including mass, life time, temperature. All of these\nparameters\n> > are in principle measurable and are not expected to give zero.\n>\n> Your gut feelings on the likelyness of whether it is likely wrong or\n> not is not the point. What is observed is the point.\n\nYou are right. I did not want to make any definite statement here,\nbecause my knowledge of the relevant observations is not great. But\nI\'ll say that observations of what we believe to be black holes do\nyield non-zero estimates for the horizon surface area. If I am\nmistaken, perhaps someone mor knowledgeable can correct me.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Helland wrote:

> All words are completely meaningless and useless until some human
being
> decides otherwise.

That is quite true. In theoretical physics words are given meaning in
two different ways. One way is to assign a name to an experimental
fact,
an observation that everyone can reasonably agree on. The other way is
to assign a name to a mathematical object. Pre-existing notions of what
each name means in non-scientific language is only a guide to choosing
this nomenclature.

> Are you trying to tell me that you're refusing to engage in direct
> conversation with me because you don't have any idea what "change" is
> supposed to mean?

Pretty much, or rather I have no idea what *you* mean by "change". You
have yet to assign a meaning to it that is either independent of the
meaning given to "time", or is well defined mathematically. Philosophy
is easy, but in physics, the devil, as you know, is in the details.

> Here's a mathematical model in the form of a computer program (Visual
> FoxPro):
[...]

Unfortunately the pseudocode you present does not come close to meeting
the expected standard. Let me give you an example. Consider classical
mechanics. State of a given system is defined by a bunch of numbers, we
say that these numbers correspond to degrees of freedom (coordinates)
and their momenta. All these numbers are also functions of one real
variable, which I'll denote by the letter t. We call the variable t
time and the change of the values of the degrees of freedom and their
momenta with respect to time is called evolution. Evolution is
specified by a given differential equation. We say that this
differential equation defines the dynamics of our system and certain
terms in it define forces or potentials.

Using this type of mathematical model, I can already describe a large
number of experimentally realizable situations. For example any system
that can be modeled as a bunch of point particles already fits. Also,
all the terms that are used to describe this model, such as "time",
"degree of freedom", "dynamics", ..., are well defined independent of
their meaning in non-scientific discourse. I expect any framework that
touts itself as an alternative to be at least as easy to interpret.

In fact, changing this model slightly, I can realize in part the idea
you are proposing. So far all degrees of freed of the theory are on
equal footing. Let me pick one of them, say T(t), such that the
equation T(t)=T_0 is invertible for t=T^{-1}(T_0). I will call T(t) a
clock. I can then replace any other degree of freedom x(t) by an
equivalent function of the clock X(T). Hence the notion of time t can
be eliminated and be replaced by an equivalent notion of a clock T. The
deficiency of this model is that T is treated differently than all the
other degrees of freedom. The challenge is now to come up with
something better. And by better I mean that it should be able to
reproduce all that is predicted by the old theory which is observed.

This is the challenge you must meet before you can attract any
significant attention. Crude toy models are helpful for you to figure
out what you need to do to meet this challenge. But they are not
sufficient to convince anyone else.

> Igor Khavkine wrote:

> > Your conclusion about the surface area of a black hole horizone are
> > most likely wrong. This area is tied to many properties of a black
> > hole, including mass, life time, temperature. All of these
parameters
> > are in principle measurable and are not expected to give zero.
>
> Your gut feelings on the likelyness of whether it is likely wrong or
> not is not the point. What is observed is the point.

You are right. I did not want to make any definite statement here,
because my knowledge of the relevant observations is not great. But
I'll say that observations of what we believe to be black holes do
yield non-zero estimates for the horizon surface area. If I am
mistaken, perhaps someone mor knowledgeable can correct me.

Mike Helland

Jan9-05, 07:46 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nIgor Khavkine wrote:\n> Mike Helland wrote:\n\n<snip>\n> > Are you trying to tell me that you\'re refusing to engage in direct\n> > conversation with me because you don\'t have any idea what "change"\nis\n> > supposed to mean?\n>\n> Pretty much, or rather I have no idea what *you* mean by "change".\nYou\n> have yet to assign a meaning to it that is either independent of the\n> meaning given to "time", or is well defined mathematically.\nPhilosophy\n> is easy, but in physics, the devil, as you know, is in the details.\n>\n> > Here\'s a mathematical model in the form of a computer program\n(Visual\n> > FoxPro):\n> [...]\n>\n> Unfortunately the pseudocode you present does not come close to\nmeeting\n> the expected standard.\n\n1. The code I presented was not pseudocode\n\nThat will compile and run in Visual FoxPro, and with some slight\ntweaking, Visual Basic .NET. You\'ll find that Objected Oriented\nProgramming is the technology that allows for this different type of\nmodel.\n\n2. What *I* mean by "change" is stated in the code\n\nThe line where I set the position of an electron to a different value\nis an example of change in the system.\n\n\n> Let me give you an example. Consider classical\n> mechanics. State of a given system is defined by a bunch of numbers,\nwe\n> say that these numbers correspond to degrees of freedom (coordinates)\n> and their momenta. All these numbers are also functions of one real\n> variable, which I\'ll denote by the letter t. We call the variable t\n> time and the change of the values of the degrees of freedom and their\n> momenta with respect to time is called evolution. Evolution is\n> specified by a given differential equation.\n\nIn the model I\'m trying to communicate to you, evolution is specificied\nby the rules of the computer code I setup. The initial conditions were\nsetup in a few lines of code, and the system changed in a single line\nof code.\n\nObviouslly, it is far from being a model of QED, but that is the\nintention with my research. The purpose of discussing this here is to\nsee if we can find any weaknesses in what I do have, not if there are\nany weaknesses in what I do not have.\n\n\n> This is the challenge you must meet before you can attract any\n> significant attention. Crude toy models are helpful for you to figure\n> out what you need to do to meet this challenge. But they are not\n> sufficient to convince anyone else.\n\nThat may be true. But if my crude foundation has problems in it I\'d\nlike to find this sooner than later, which most often are found in\ndialouge.\n\nSo I think my crude toy models should also be sufficient enough for the\nbasis of a discussion.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Igor Khavkine wrote:
> Mike Helland wrote:

<snip>
> > Are you trying to tell me that you're refusing to engage in direct
> > conversation with me because you don't have any idea what "change"
is
> > supposed to mean?
>
> Pretty much, or rather I have no idea what *you* mean by "change".
You
> have yet to assign a meaning to it that is either independent of the
> meaning given to "time", or is well defined mathematically.
Philosophy
> is easy, but in physics, the devil, as you know, is in the details.
>
> > Here's a mathematical model in the form of a computer program
(Visual
> > FoxPro):
> [...]
>
> Unfortunately the pseudocode you present does not come close to
meeting
> the expected standard.

1. The code I presented was not pseudocode

That will compile and run in Visual FoxPro, and with some slight
tweaking, Visual Basic .NET. You'll find that Objected Oriented
Programming is the technology that allows for this different type of
model.

2. What *I* mean by "change" is stated in the code

The line where I set the position of an electron to a different value
is an example of change in the system.

> Let me give you an example. Consider classical
> mechanics. State of a given system is defined by a bunch of numbers,
we
> say that these numbers correspond to degrees of freedom (coordinates)
> and their momenta. All these numbers are also functions of one real
> variable, which I'll denote by the letter t. We call the variable t
> time and the change of the values of the degrees of freedom and their
> momenta with respect to time is called evolution. Evolution is
> specified by a given differential equation.

In the model I'm trying to communicate to you, evolution is specificied
by the rules of the computer code I setup. The initial conditions were
setup in a few lines of code, and the system changed in a single line
of code.

Obviouslly, it is far from being a model of QED, but that is the
intention with my research. The purpose of discussing this here is to
see if we can find any weaknesses in what I do have, not if there are
any weaknesses in what I do not have.

> This is the challenge you must meet before you can attract any
> significant attention. Crude toy models are helpful for you to figure
> out what you need to do to meet this challenge. But they are not
> sufficient to convince anyone else.

That may be true. But if my crude foundation has problems in it I'd
like to find this sooner than later, which most often are found in
dialouge.

So I think my crude toy models should also be sufficient enough for the
basis of a discussion.

Igor Khavkine

Jan11-05, 02:27 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nOn Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:46:45 +0000, Mike Helland wrote:\n\n> Igor Khavkine wrote:\n>\n>> Unfortunately the pseudocode you present does not come close to\n>> meeting the expected standard.\n>\n> 1. The code I presented was not pseudocode\n>\n> That will compile and run in Visual FoxPro, and with some slight tweaking,\n> Visual Basic .NET. You\'ll find that Objected Oriented Programming is the\n> technology that allows for this different type of model.\n>\n> 2. What *I* mean by "change" is stated in the code\n>\n> The line where I set the position of an electron to a different value is\n> an example of change in the system.\n\nAh, this I can understand and critique. Is your model capable of\ndescribing more than one particle? How about, 10, 100, 1000, 10^20?\nAre you going to change the state of each one of them by hand? Besides,\nyour model must function independently of its creator, in this case you.\n\n>> Let me give you an example. Consider classical mechanics. State of a\n>> given system is defined by a bunch of numbers, we\n>> say that these numbers correspond to degrees of freedom (coordinates)\n>> and their momenta. All these numbers are also functions of one real\n>> variable, which I\'ll denote by the letter t. We call the variable t time\n>> and the change of the values of the degrees of freedom and their momenta\n>> with respect to time is called evolution. Evolution is specified by a\n>> given differential equation.\n>\n> In the model I\'m trying to communicate to you, evolution is specificied by\n> the rules of the computer code I setup. The initial conditions were setup\n> in a few lines of code, and the system changed in a single line of code.\n\nI did not see any rules for evolution. All I saw was you changing the\nstate of one of your objects.\n\n>> This is the challenge you must meet before you can attract any\n>> significant attention. Crude toy models are helpful for you to figure\n>> out what you need to do to meet this challenge. But they are not\n>> sufficient to convince anyone else.\n>\n> That may be true. But if my crude foundation has problems in it I\'d like\n> to find this sooner than later, which most often are found in dialouge.\n>\n> So I think my crude toy models should also be sufficient enough for the\n> basis of a discussion.\n\nUnfortunately, you have yet to provide something that is an actual model\nthat can be discussed (see my critique above). As to your heuristic ideas,\nas I\'ve mentioned and given references for, they are not new and have been\nexplored in some directions.\n\nIgor\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:46:45 +0000, Mike Helland wrote:

> Igor Khavkine wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately the pseudocode you present does not come close to
>> meeting the expected standard.
>
> 1. The code I presented was not pseudocode
>
> That will compile and run in Visual FoxPro, and with some slight tweaking,
> Visual Basic .NET. You'll find that Objected Oriented Programming is the
> technology that allows for this different type of model.
>
> 2. What *I* mean by "change" is stated in the code
>
> The line where I set the position of an electron to a different value is
> an example of change in the system.

Ah, this I can understand and critique. Is your model capable of
describing more than one particle? How about, 10, 100, 1000, 10^20?
Are you going to change the state of each one of them by hand? Besides,
your model must function independently of its creator, in this case you.

>> Let me give you an example. Consider classical mechanics. State of a
>> given system is defined by a bunch of numbers, we
>> say that these numbers correspond to degrees of freedom (coordinates)
>> and their momenta. All these numbers are also functions of one real
>> variable, which I'll denote by the letter t. We call the variable t time
>> and the change of the values of the degrees of freedom and their momenta
>> with respect to time is called evolution. Evolution is specified by a
>> given differential equation.
>
> In the model I'm trying to communicate to you, evolution is specificied by
> the rules of the computer code I setup. The initial conditions were setup
> in a few lines of code, and the system changed in a single line of code.

I did not see any rules for evolution. All I saw was you changing the
state of one of your objects.

>> This is the challenge you must meet before you can attract any
>> significant attention. Crude toy models are helpful for you to figure
>> out what you need to do to meet this challenge. But they are not
>> sufficient to convince anyone else.
>
> That may be true. But if my crude foundation has problems in it I'd like
> to find this sooner than later, which most often are found in dialouge.
>
> So I think my crude toy models should also be sufficient enough for the
> basis of a discussion.

Unfortunately, you have yet to provide something that is an actual model
that can be discussed (see my critique above). As to your heuristic ideas,
as I've mentioned and given references for, they are not new and have been
explored in some directions.

Igor

Mike Helland

Jan13-05, 01:29 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nIgor Khavkine wrote:\n> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:46:45 +0000, Mike Helland wrote:\n>\n> > Igor Khavkine wrote:\n> >\n> >> Unfortunately the pseudocode you present does not come close to\n> >> meeting the expected standard.\n> >\n> > 1. The code I presented was not pseudocode\n> >\n> > That will compile and run in Visual FoxPro, and with some slight\ntweaking,\n> > Visual Basic .NET. You\'ll find that Objected Oriented Programming\nis the\n> > technology that allows for this different type of model.\n> >\n> > 2. What *I* mean by "change" is stated in the code\n> >\n> > The line where I set the position of an electron to a different\nvalue is\n> > an example of change in the system.\n>\n> Ah, this I can understand and critique. Is your model capable of\n> describing more than one particle? How about, 10, 100, 1000, 10^20?\n> Are you going to change the state of each one of them by hand?\nBesides,\n> your model must function independently of its creator, in this case\nyou.\n\nI can\'t post a better version of the program because I use Google\nGroups 2 and it can\'t handle the whitespace.\n\nYou can see a better program here:\n\nhttp://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm\n(Refreshing the page would be a good idea.)\n\nThere are two programs, the second one will be the one you want to\ninspect, but to really get an understanding of this approach it would\nhelp to read the paper in its entirety.\n\nBasically this is a model that allows you to create many instances of\nparticles, and has generic rules that are repeatedly applied so that it\nmay function independently.\n\n....\n> Unfortunately, you have yet to provide something that is an actual\nmodel\n> that can be discussed (see my critique above). As to your heuristic\nideas,\n> as I\'ve mentioned and given references for, they are not new and have\nbeen\n> explored in some directions.\n\nThe basic idea is that instead of modeling the world as an observer\nsees it, we take a step backwards and actually model the observer\nitself. No other theory today is formalized in this way. All posit the\nexistence of an observer as an assumption, they do not define an\nobserver within the operations of the theory.\n\nIf this is an old idea, may you please give me some references to that\nresearch? The only similar ideas I\'ve found have been Leibniz\'s.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Igor Khavkine wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:46:45 +0000, Mike Helland wrote:
>
> > Igor Khavkine wrote:
> >
> >> Unfortunately the pseudocode you present does not come close to
> >> meeting the expected standard.
> >
> > 1. The code I presented was not pseudocode
> >
> > That will compile and run in Visual FoxPro, and with some slight
tweaking,
> > Visual Basic .NET. You'll find that Objected Oriented Programming
is the
> > technology that allows for this different type of model.
> >
> > 2. What *I* mean by "change" is stated in the code
> >
> > The line where I set the position of an electron to a different
value is
> > an example of change in the system.
>
> Ah, this I can understand and critique. Is your model capable of
> describing more than one particle? How about, 10, 100, 1000, 10^20?
> Are you going to change the state of each one of them by hand?
Besides,
> your model must function independently of its creator, in this case
you.

I can't post a better version of the program because I use Google
Groups 2 and it can't handle the whitespace.

You can see a better program here:

http://www.techmocracy.net/science/time.htm
(Refreshing the page would be a good idea.)

There are two programs, the second one will be the one you want to
inspect, but to really get an understanding of this approach it would
help to read the paper in its entirety.

Basically this is a model that allows you to create many instances of
particles, and has generic rules that are repeatedly applied so that it
may function independently.

....
> Unfortunately, you have yet to provide something that is an actual
model
> that can be discussed (see my critique above). As to your heuristic
ideas,
> as I've mentioned and given references for, they are not new and have
been
> explored in some directions.

The basic idea is that instead of modeling the world as an observer
sees it, we take a step backwards and actually model the observer
itself. No other theory today is formalized in this way. All posit the
existence of an observer as an assumption, they do not define an
observer within the operations of the theory.

If this is an old idea, may you please give me some references to that
research? The only similar ideas I've found have been Leibniz's.