|
John Attamack wrote in panentheism: ...
I don't know -- maybe this is *obviously* false.
It certainly seems false, thinking of normal clocks running normally, or even normal clocks running relativistically.
But one thing that makes me unable to dismiss it is this thought experiment: Let's say we could, somehow, go back in time
to one second after the Big Bang, and try to measure the age of the universe. The realm we would be living in would
be unimaginably dense, and we couldn't be made of the same matter we are made of now, nor could we be measuring time the same
way we measure time now. But even so, would we get that the universe is just one second old, the way we count seconds
today? Or, in order for everything to be able to have happened that would have had to have happened to get the universe
to that state, would we get that the universe had to be older than that? Might we get that it was 13.7 billion years
older than that?
.....
Hi all!
The thing with time as a physical parameter, say in Velocity=[Length]/[Time]=[L]/[T] or Energy=[Mass][L2]/[T2]
in all cases reduces to the LightSpeed parameter as LightPath x=ct.
This represents of course the foundation for the relativities in all Special, General and Quantum.
However, of all the fundamental parameters of interconnected spacetime: Mass, Time, Length, only the INVERSION
of TIME also results in a parameter observable in 4D-Minkowski spacetime applicable to that spacetrime - as FREQUENCY. {The
inversion of Length in a way defines the superstring dualities for the 'higher dimensions' but does not 'measure' inverse
length say}.
The presence of mass in such a 'flat' spacetime then introduces the 'curvature' of spacetime in the phenomenon of gravity;
with this mass emerging directly as transformed Energy via the c-invariance or photonic mass m=hf/c2.
So a minimum mass-quantum, say as that of the Tau-Neutrino induction of 0.052 eV or so 9.3x10-38 kg (and as
part of the electron self-coupling between its 'point' size and its classical size) does in fact represent a massless eigenstate.
This selfstate then becomes 'pure energy' in the form of the Planck parameters, all quantized.
In particular an energy of 8.4x10-21 Joules (as mc2) for the Tau-neutrino induction will have a
PRECURSOR 'pure energy' with frequency of 1.3x1013 Hz (as mc2/h) and detectable in the infrared electromagnetic
spectrum.
On the other scale of manifested, meaning measured' mass, the mass of a human of say 70 kg and that of a star, say 3x1030
kg; the 'virtual aka unmeasurable' frequencies are of the order of 9x1051 and 4x1080 Hz respectively.
Those frequencies cannot be measured, as ther wavlength of resolution (as c/f) are far too small to be accomodated by
any measuring apparatus, limited of course by the Planck-Length of so 10-35 meters.
IOW, the wavelength of any inertial object with mass m directly relates to its emerging size, say as Compton- or
de Broglie wavelength (as h/mc).
So measuring the universe in time after 1 second will result in a frequency measurement (in whatever manner undertaken)
of Energy=hf=mc2 and where m is the mass of the universe at the measurement limit fopr the spacetime applicable.
As the universe is measured to be flat with energy-density as Unity (ratio of actual energy density to critical density
defining this flatness in closure or selfcontainment); one can calculate the initial mass energy required from the General
relativity field equations.
This then defines a thermodynamic universe of expansion and a cosmology of 'cooling down' from an initial low entropy
and high energy selfstate.
The frequency measurement for the 'closed' universe then represents a true constant, subject however to an 'apparent'
change in the mass-state covariant with the 'ageing' universe in the socalled 'Hubble-Constant' (which is a kind of Frequency-Minimum
for the cosmos as a whole).
IOW, as the universe 'gets older, its Hubble-Frequency will decrease and the mass-eigenstate could increase in a 'transformation'
commonly interpreted as dark matter/dark energy interactions.
But the crucial point is, that there exists a MAXIMUM Hubble-Frequency, which defines the entire cosmic evolution from
its Planck-parameters. This is referred to as the classical- and modified Big Bang scenario.
John Attamack's question of returning to ther beginning of 1 second then can be generalised in specifying this
maximum Hubble-Frequency as the Planck-Quantum for the measurable spacetime.
Namely, the inverse of this Hubble-Frequency will then DEFINE the 1 second interval as a NUMBER of such transformed Planck-Times.
Assume, that this NUMBER is 3 Thousand Million Billion Trillion, stating that 1 metric second is made up of that many
'Planck-Times'.
This also implies, that that many 'Planck-Universes' have EMERGED SINCE the initial Big Bang of a unitary such 'Planck-Universe'
of the metric limit for the spacetime equations, say the one fundamental Schwarzschild metric in General Relativity {Curvature-Radius=2GM/c2}.
Ergo the already known 'Total Mass M' now DEFINES the Minimum Hubble-Frequency as Ho=c/RH , so closing the circle of the definition in self-consistency.
Finally, any TIME-measurement in this context will so COUNT Planck-Universes as NOW- or INSTANTANEOUS Universes and as
the correct measurement of 3x10^30 cycles implies a 'cosmic universal chronology' of 1 second*; the time measured would be:
Age of the Universe = 1 second* one-to-one with a lightpath of x=ct* meters* or 300,000 km*.
The minimum Hubble curvature for the universe as an encompassing 'Mother-BlackHole' {aka 'Body of God' as the Yin/Goddess
etc.} however BOUNDS the lightpath of thermodynamic expansion due to the predefined critical mass/energy used to harmonise
the parameters. The inverse of the maximum Hubble-Frequency so defines the absolute METRIC timelimit because of the c-invariance
of the lightpath.
The interaction of the minimum- and maximum Hubble-Frequencies accomodates the physical laws for the universe in 4 dimensions;
allows however the introduction of 7 additional dimensions in a cyclicity spanning 33.8 Billion years and as a basic 'cosmic
heartbeat' or time cyclicity. This cyclicity is superposed onto a number of other cyclicities, engaging many other parameters
and Schwarzschild metrications.
Tony B.
The Rising of the Sun, The Running of the Deer
The holly and the ivy,
When they are both full grown,
Of all trees that are in the wood,
The holly bears
the crown
Yuletide Carol from Druidic Origins
Blessings and Joy on the Return of the Light
(posted by Jordan Stratford+, 21.12.2004)
To: Panentheism@yahoogroups.com
From: atomicj@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:57:20 -0500
Subject: RE:
[Panentheism]...ex nihilo
Hi Mike/Mac,
There is a Native American tribe, I believe
formerly located in the northeastern US and adjoining Canada, that went by a name that got mistranslated as "Micmac", and
I think of that every time I write something to you! :-) I want to call you "Micmac". :-)
About my temporal thinking, it's really just
half-baked, I know, but what I'm getting at is precisely that measuring time could somehow be analogous to measuring speed.
It seems intuitive that, if one accelerates to 100,000 miles per second relative to something, one could then accelerate
100,000 miles per second more relative to that, and be going 200,000 miles per second relative to the first thing. But
by relativity, we know that 100,000 + 100,000 doesn't equal 200,000 in this case. The relativistic math has us dividing
that 200,000 by 1+((v1*v2)/c^2), which a quick bit of calculation shows comes to 155,254 miles per second relative to
the first object. Meanwhile, the people inside the ship doing the travelling will experience time such that to them,
they might as well be thinking that they are travelling at 200,000 miles per second, in that the pre-measured distance they
will perceive themselves covering will be traversed at that rate. But they are never going faster than light, their
time perception is different from ours, and the whole rest.
So what I'm getting at is that maybe, somehow,
300,000,000 years from now, if they were to do the same measurement we are doing today, they would STILL get that the universe
is 13.7 billion years old; i.e., that the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. And maybe, if they tried to measure
back to something that their experience indicates should have happened 300,000,000 years ago, like our existence, they will
get that it was "really" only 290,000,000 years ago, or 280,000,000 years ago, or some such, even though they would somehow
have had the experience of it being 300,000,000 years ago, just like the relativistic travellers would have had the experience
of accelerating to 200,000 miles per second, even though we know that they are only going 155,254 miles per second.
Somehow, the addition of time would be like the addition of velocity. There would have to be some other kind of factor
to divide by, etc. And since we can't measure time precisely at those kinds of intervals, we don't have any way to detect
it at present.
I know that such a thing, if it were real, would
have strong implications for all other physical law, most notably energy conservation laws. I know that it even sounds
a bit crazy, but I don't know that it sounds any crazier than relativity would have sounded pre-1905. But such an assumption
should have testable implications, and be showable to be false if it is false, and I know I am nowhere near being able to
do such a thing. I wouldn't even know how to formulate the question. It's really just a very far-fetched idea,
but I think that, whatever the true answer is to the riddle of time as regards the question its relationship to the Big Bang,
will have to be something very far-fetched, whether it somehow relates to what I'm getting at, or something else.
Maybe there could even be a relationship between
what I'm getting at and the idea that things like the gravitational constant might be somehow changing with time, when measured
over billions of years. Maybe, if indeed the constants are changing (I know this has never really been shown to
be the case, either, but is another outlandish possibility proposed to solve other cosmological problems) the idea could
be that the constant never really changed, but when applying measurements today that imply clocks running the way they
run today ran the same way 5 billion years ago, one might get different values for the constants.
I don't know -- maybe this is *obviously* false.
It certainly seems false, thinking of normal clocks running normally, or even normal clocks running relativistically.
But one thing that makes me unable to dismiss it is this thought experiment: Let's say we could, somehow, go back in time
to one second after the Big Bang, and try to measure the age of the universe. The realm we would be living in would
be unimaginably dense, and we couldn't be made of the same matter we are made of now, nor could we be measuring time the same
way we measure time now. But even so, would we get that the universe is just one second old, the way we count seconds
today? Or, in order for everything to be able to have happened that would have had to have happened to get the universe
to that state, would we get that the universe had to be older than that? Might we get that it was 13.7 billion years
older than that?
I wish I were in an environment where this kind
of question could be explored further, and I wish that, if I were in such an environment, that such ideas could be explored
without fear of the reprisal of powerful egos with a vested interest in not being wrong about their worldviews. I'm
not attached to its being right -- just maybe to whether it is good enough to be explored and determined to be wrong, without
ridicule.
Happy New Year,
-- John Attamack
<snip>
If we were to be able to wait 10 billion years, in
the way we measure time now, but then did another measurement, would we STILL find that the universe was 13.7 billion years
old, and that all the time the universe had experienced up to then was now compressed into the first second? If that
were the case, then 13.7 billion years would be a sort-of magic number, like the speed of light, and somehow, we could never
get either that far back in the past or that far up in the future. T-minus-or-plus 13.7 billion years would be a sort
of finite infinity, like the speed of light seems to be.
.
No - whatever
the age you measured, if you probed back in time by x years, then it would take x years to reach out, during which time the
thing you were measuring would have aged another x years.. Say in the year 300,002,007, - the universe would be 14 billion
years old - someone wanted to measure my age in universal terms. He would have to reach out to me to measure my universal
age, but the 'reach' would take 300,002,007 years so the answer would come back as 14 billion years!
|
