SamBridge

 

Exactly. In Newtonian physics, infinite speed requires infinite energy. This requirement does not go away. i.e. teleportation of massive particles at the maximum allowable speed requires infinite energy. Adjusting the value of c does not modify this, meaning that the two situations are not interchangeable. Teleportation still violates laws of physics.

But we can *pretend* it goes away to see what's missing from information taking a finite speed. Mathematically, this is called a "difference." It use to be that gravity traveling at a finite speed violated physics anyway, so your notion that different possibilities and scenarios can't be investigated with mathematics just because we don't currently observe it that way is moot, we already showed that they can, and they can even be very accurate.

You accelerate the star to a speed such that it is length contracted to half its rest volume. It's now twice as dense, but it's not a black hole. You can't compare the density of the black hole at rest with the density of the length contracted star. If you accelerate the black hole to the same velocity, the black hole will increase in density by the same proportion as the star, and that's the density the star needs to achieve to become a black hole in that length contracted frame.

The scenario you described doesn't seem to show a real difference. There's equations to model relative density, it's not something that's made up, it has real effects, it's relative mass in the smaller volume. It's more likely that the atomic structures themselves are contracted, thus the distance between the atomic structures never becomes critical.

If they were in a different gravitational potential but still standing still from a near luminal object's frame, sure. And in addition to that, some frames agreeing still wouldn't mean every frame will agree. If they did, special relativity wouldn't exist.

 

In their own reference frame there is no contraction of dilation noticed.

Which doesn't matter, any frame that measures them as moving or is in a different gravitational potential will see differences in the way it counts time. As I keep saying, just because someone looks normal in one frame doesn't mean it works like that in every frame.

 

No, what I meant is that the inner univers could appear similar to ours when seen from the inside,

Before we even look at that, how do we get to the "outer" universe to distinguish the difference?

Um, what?

That doesn't answer the question.

There's experiments he didn't do experiments after 1905 either, so that just proves the point that even he experiment with theoretical physics and investigated in purely mathematical realms, sometimes ending up with the right answer, sometimes not.

aha !!! you put your finger on it...communication can happen faster than light.......what about inflation? what about the electron's near instant speed when changing valence positions, what about symmetry breaking of entangled particles? ..

Correlations, no violation of relativity, no superluminal speed needed. It's not much different than saying gravity affects a particle in a position that the gravity has already propagated too. You don't need to travel distance over time simply to exist, a dimensional by nature already exists at all points indefinitely and so it never sent any information about its propagation between any two points for any duration of time,.

Dimensions are a way to identify a the position of something in any extension of a coordinate system. Temporal dimension means a 4th dimension that is orthogonal to all spacial dimensions in which spacial coordinates can vary in relation too, which is impossible to see visually, but still has real effects. A 5th dimension is orthogonal to all those, and a 6th is orthogonal to the previous 5 and ect. If you have the point (7,1,0,3,6,-4), it exists in 5 dimensions, 7 units along one spacial axis, 1 along the other, 0 along the third, 3 along the temporal axis and -4 on the axis that is orthogonal to all those. Even though we can't see extra dimensions directly, we can observe how matter moves in accordance to vectors that can only make sense if you give them 5D coordinates or 6D coordinates and use 5 dimensional distance formulas which are somewhat related to the Pythagorean theorem to explain that the movement of space at one point in time is based on how the 5 dimensional object travels to a coordinate along the 5th dimensional axis. You can sort of think of it parametrically. Otherwise the only ways to visualize higher dimensions is by adding more visual effects like color or using vector space.

Imaginary space is just how it sounds, only its normally used with real numbers as well to make complex space. Complex space arises from using Fourier transformations in 3 or more dimensional coordinates and also can be used in distinguishing imaginary components of vectors that travel along a different axis with quaternions. Physically, complex space doesn't mean much, it's basically just an "in between" dimension that can modulate between a set of complex numbers to distinct values like 1, -1, i and -i or j and -j or k and -k and ect. to allow someone to use the square root of a negative number over a wide range of different real components and angles to get accurate results.

I'm not sure where you get that statement from, because it's certainly nothing I would say or agree with. What post number are you referring to.

#29.

How would you ever know?

Because there are inherent random (no way to base the exact future results off of past results, meaning the future results are not causally connected like with the super position of matter and light, uncertainty principal, vacuum fluctuations, results of entanglement, ect) and non-local properties (elimination of hidden variables) of the phenomena along with quantinization of matter and energy (gets rid of the "infinitely smaller particles determining everything on the next largest scale" argument), but, in a purely mathematically a-physical model, computers are 100% deterministic, so we know the universe cannot be modeled as what we think of as a true computer because that computer model doesn't match the results we see. I can see how this is a big bummer for someone who spends a lot of time studying computers, so you can hate science, or you can move forward and work on quantum computers.

My original statement is what you're now agreeing with.

No you're original statement implied that one frame's measurements are universal because you'd be stating that if the aliens measure a density being a certain number, other people must measure that same number, which isn't true, it isn't true for space, it isn't true for time, it's not going to be true for density either.

All that happens between prompting is indistinguishable from nothing, and, for that reason, there is no need to speculate about Newtonian mechanics and chemical interactions in the brain because you are dealing with knowledge, which is like a consistent and simultaneous bubbling of equal bits so that they are recognizable.

Sorry, but reality is not some computer that you can program.

Everyone always counts time normally in their frame, regardless of their relative motion with other frames. If I count time in another frame in relative motion to mine, I will see their time as passing slower, but as far as they're concerned, their time is normal, and my time is slow. Time IS relative.

Right, so you can't necessarily use other frames in place of your own. Just because someone else measures time normally from their frame doesn't mean I will see it that way. Just because density seems normal from their frame doesn't mean I will see that same density, so I don't think your original statement does the answer justice. I think a better direction forward is to say things can appear smaller but relativistically count distance with a shorter metric and appear to have a different mass and appeared slow down because of the changing metric, there's likely something about the geometry of contracted space-time that is kept constant, though I don't see exactly what it is.

No, because in the ships own reference frame it is not contracted.

I'm pretty sure the answer is no too, but I don't think you actually explained it. With that logic, I could say time is universal and not relative because someone else counts time normally from their frame.

It could be the DNA in all actuality

If you ignore evidence and logic, anything is possible, they even have a special forum for that addresses that http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78802-if-i-can-imagine-it-it-is-possible/

We simply don't have evidence that we can predict every outcome and furthermore we can claim with numerous confirmations from other observers to consciously distinguish what complete determinism would be from what we consciously measure happening, therefore there must be a difference between the two, no matter how small it is.

This topic was started in February of 2013. Where are we at now?

There is no example I could conject that would be sufficient as an argument against determinism. Seriously, I don't know why anyone even ponders the idea of free will. It's incoherent.

How bout the mountains of observable evidence we have that there is no way to predict the exact location of a particle and that they are quantized meaning there cannot be indefinitely smaller constituent particles that constitute their actions on the larger scale?

Determinism is an absolute necessity for a computational theory of mind, there's no sidestepping that. If you have any interest in AI then you wouldn't even be concerned with that question. Your argument was fallacious because it was like 2+2=5000.

 

So what you're saying is that because you are not someone else, things are inherently random and determinism is false. That makes absolutely no sense to me. I can predict what I'm going to say next, I'm going to say hi. Hi

Then obviously the situation isn't isolated just AIs. My argument is a basic property of relativity, not of arithmetic, so your analogy does not follow. For instance, you'd know you're not a Christian because you could view Christianity from a different view other than theirs and thus identify differences between your belief system and the Christian belief system, and a Christian could do the same thing with you for whatever non-Christian belief system you have, and you'd both be right about each other.

And if you believed in computational theory of the mind to its full extent, it would already be determined of the illusion you'd think you know that you know that you yourself can't think your going to say "hi" and that you don't actually have any control, the result would already be determined and is simply the result of stuff moving around in a pre-determined way.

nothing (void) has no dimensions with which to have size..dimensions are information, just like everything else....so a more accurate way of saying void, is a region without information.

But if a dimension was a piece of information then it wouldn't be able to travel faster than light which means dimensions would have to follow time symmetric and conservation laws and not be observed traveling faster than light. Dimensions are by nature infinitely long and already extend to any point that could be obtained by traveling a finite speed.

We probably can't predict behavior by peoples genes. Stuart Hammerhoff makes a good point in his lecture and I think that he's right. "[Microtubules are the containers of knowledge]," and then he backs up his point by giving an example of a single celled organism performing complex tasks (such as having a sex life, learning, and navigating its environment). From my experience (computationally), if you want to be able to predict the output of any computational mechanism you're going to need access to a few things. 1. in the simplest scenario, you need to know that there is ABSOLUTELY no alternative input that the mechanism is receiving because if there was, then the system is exactly twice as complex as you anticipated, 2. You need to know how the mechanism is organized, 3. you need to know the fundamental units that are associated with knowledge (commonly called "units", "units of knowledge", "bits of information", etc.) and you need to know the boundaries between these units. Currently, we don't have a single mechanism that can measure even the simplest known central system that is required for output (algorithmically) in any known organism, and that's not even to mention what the input may be. I see that one day we will have this type of tool, but it needs to be extremely precise and it needs to know how to distinguish noise from the actual thing that we are measuring. A common complaint about neuroscience is that the brain is just too noisy and that our systems aren't able to bypass that yet. It's getting better thanks to pattern recognition and Bayesian/statistical inference, but I think that we are still years away from measuring accurately and recognizably anything remotely as complex as our analytical system, and particularly language (which is BY FAR the most complex thing that any of us can achieve).

Ok, and another point: Look to your left, and then to your right. Were you in either of those positions when you saw them? How do you know? The answer is "no" and you know that because you viewed them from different position, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to view the physical space between them. If one can view determinism from an external frame, they logically cannot occupy that deterministic frame, i.e. we know people and reality can't be completely deterministic because we know what complete determinism would look like from an outside view and can thus identify differences, which you just explained.

 

- the very concept of relativity, is that ultimately the state of matter is subject to relativity.

Because space and time are submitted to relativity : what we see as a compressed space for a moving object is for itself a totaly regular space.

- because every object is globaly not moving for us, the relativity effect are only "local". so globally the matter is simply in a dense state in a closed volume. But, localy, because of general relativity, the space itself near the horizon is moving at the speed of light (from our point

So if a ship moved at .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% the speed of light, would it have the properties of degenerate matter due to extreme length contraction making it appear denser? And what do you make of the expansion of space causing things to move in reference to us eventually to beyond the speed of light?

Here, maybe reading something will help clear it up for you.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology)

Alright, that seems to explain it. so what about observing an influx of hydrogen atoms or ions from that epoch? Or what about neutrinos? Neutrinos wouldn't even be affected by the scattering. I guess we'll just have to see when we get a good enough telescope, I'd imagine those particles would take considerably longer to reach Earth though, at least from that distance.

Also, I know about the homogeneity model of space-time, but I still have questions regarding that. In purely flat 3-D space, it wouldn't make a lot of sense that if I was 100000 light years from something and saw it receding at an angle of say, 2pi, and then I traveled to the other side of it, I'd see it receding at an angle of pi back towards my original position enough to say that if I considered both positions at the same time, the net motion should be 0. I could see it in curved space 4-D space, but we know space isn't naturally curved 4-dimensionally, so what property of 5 dimensional space allows that spacial property?

Wouldn't nothingness just have no dimensional size?

 

So why would the proportions stay the same?

I don't necessarily think they'd stay exactly the same in terms of (a-b)/a = (c-d)/c, I just think the new difference would be proportional to the seemingly reduced energy it took from the seemingly increased density minus the slower speed of the neutron relative to the fuel, they both decrease. I don't know by how much exactly because I don't have an equation to relate density to the energy required to ignite the fuel, but I'd still assume both the aliens and hysor would say "it barely wasn't enough" due to the previous factors I mentioned, and there should be a function that can relate the ratio if we ever find that missing equation. Everything in the ship contracts by the same length factor, but the neutron also appears to travel slower in relation to the fuel, so that's the best answer I can come up with without more information. Maybe it isn't (a-b)/a -> (c-d)/c, it could be (a-b)/a -> (c-d)^2/c^2 or something, but it will be directly related to the factors I mentioned and it will have to be true in some way in order for the fuel to not show two different outcomes. If it wasn't that way and (c-d)/c > (a-b)/a, it could easily imply c was greater than d and thus the neutron did have enough energy from outside frames. If it takes less energy to ignite the fuel, the neutron better not be traveling with a fast velocity that would transfer that much energy or more.

Would it be ok to go from point A to point B faster than light as long as no one could observe you doing it? Like with hyperspace or space-time expansion?

Sure. Science just needs a quantum theory of gravity to work it out.

Right, but with the current explanation, why do scientists think information gets stuck at the event horizon? Like what reason is there for that?