Strange

2 minutes ago, drumbo said:

But is that not an example of a memory-less process? As far as I know, the prior amount of time which has passed without a decay does not give you any information about when the muon will decay in the future.

Huh? So what. The muon will decay in a few microseconds, even though nothing changes in the meantime. So obviously time passes with no change.

1 minute ago, drumbo said:

If there is no change, time effectively never passed.

Take the example of a muon then: no internal structure, nothing to change. And yet it still decays after some time.

8 minutes ago, drumbo said:

The time quanta is the minimum amount of time that must pass before something in the state of the universe changes.

Do you have any evidence for this minimum amount of time?

3 minutes ago, drumbo said:

Consider this, if space in quantized, and we know it is, then how could time also not be quantized, since one cannot exist without the other?

How do you know space is quantised?

6 minutes ago, drumbo said:

This necessarily implies the existence of a time quanta when you consider the infinitesimal limit and the greatest lower bound where you begin to see a change in the system.

Or it implies the non-existence of quanta when you consider that time is continuous and there is no lower bound.

(In other words, your statement is an example of the fallacy of begging the question.)

It is not very clear what you are asking. What is an "IN function"?

46 minutes ago, Strange said:

The curvature is a function of the presence of mass (energy)

You could go further, maybe, and say that is the definition of mass: something that curves spacetime.

1 hour ago, Charles 3781 said:

Just as past  key-board instruments like the clavichord and harpsichord, have been perfected into the modern piano?

You know that people still play, and compose music for, harpsichords and clavichords.

1 hour ago, Charles 3781 said:

If the ship underwent contraction as it approached light-speed, wouldn't the hydrogen atoms inside the ship get so squeezed together, that they underwent nuclear fusion, and blew the ship apart in a gigantic nuclear explosion?

Remember this is about relative measurements. The people (and atoms) on the ship will see no change.

And, from the point of view of the other observer, the atoms will be compressed as well so they never get close enough to fuse. (Having seen your later post: yes, we have evidence of this.)

18 minutes ago, Charles 3781 said:

Do you consider Einstein to be correct?  He claimed that the speed of light is invariable.  Where's the evidence for that?  Don't our telescopes show show galaxies flying apart at many times the speed of light?

The thing is, you shouldn't get too fixated on an "authority figure" like Einstein. These "authority figures" have held up the progress of science in the past.

Like Aristotle.  He said that the planets must revolve in perfect circles.  They don't - they revolve in ellipses. But because Aristotle was an authority figure, he delayed the progress of astronomy for a thousand years.

Einstein looks like another authority figure - he says nothing can exceed the speed of light.  How does he know?   

It is nothing to do with Einstein as an authority figure. It is purely about the evidence. The only reason he is considered an "authority" at all, is because the evidence confirmed most of his ideas. Not all though.

6 minutes ago, Winterlong said:

I imagine this contraction in the direction of the movement, like two walls closing on the ship from the front and rear.

It sounds like yo are describing a rather extreme version of the ladder paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

(Note that, like all "paradoxes" there is no paradox here.)

14 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

Now imagine Space (mathematically). Then imagine time (mathematically). Then curve it. Does gravity come out of this model? Or do you have to put something else in this empty model to make time begin to run & gravity arise? What is this thing you have to put in?

If you curve the empty spacetime then you will get gravity. Well, depending how you curve it, I suppose. 

15 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

But if mass is not a function of the manifold then why do we say that gravity is the curve of spacetime?

The curvature is a function of the presence of mass (energy)

56 minutes ago, Winterlong said:

The mental experiment I want to discuss applies equally to an universe without expansion, something seemingly not impossible within relativity principles 

The experiment you have described so far is non-physical (so you could pretty much make up any answer you like). You seem to think you have created a paradox. But if you invent an unrealistic thought experiment, then it isn't surprising that you can make it inconsistent.

Is it possible to frame your question in a way that applies in the real world? If not, that is because the paradox you are imagining does not exist in the real world.

12 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

If gravity is the curvature of Spacetime, it means that spacetime is not only a 4D mathematical concept. It is not a pure 3D space and one more dimension (called Time). I say that because I doubt that you can infer gravity from the curvature of a pure 4D mathematical concept (or am I wrong here?)

Gravity is purely an effect of the curvature of four-dimensional spacetime. I'm not sure what else you think is required?

11 hours ago, hoola said:

this does seem to infer that with the pure informational state carrying out the implicate order that filled the ROM proceeded in a perfectly efficient state. A theoretical 1+1=2 with no losses, as opposed to a mechanical effort post BB to replicate this function having the minimum amount of inefficiencies, due to the energy loss required to accomplish this calculation, leading to a surmise that this is why the universe began in a low entropy state.

That is utterly incomprehensible. (So may be a good basis to start a new religion 🙂)

7 hours ago, hoola said:

If space is filled with  quantized particles and antiparticles, when they appear/decay, the process manifests in the classic world, so must behave according to it's principles of some minimum inefficiencies of process. Is that the basis of dark energy? Each bit of space giving off that minimium loss?

This is off topic. You should ask this in the physics section.

The non-zero vacuum energy / virtual particles looks as if it should be the explanation for dark energy. Unfortunately, it is 10¹²⁰ times too large. This is one of the big problems in current physics.

17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm intrigued; in what ways have gun makers been seeking to solve the problems- say the problems of mass shootings in schools?

Apparently, by making sure more people are armed so they can stop the shooter. Has that ever happened? Even once? Even when the school guards are armed? Do people with guns do better if armed robbers attempt to break into their homes? (I am fairly certain they are significantly more likely to be shot, themselves.)

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think Michel is trying to display the logical connective for implication which is not necessarily symmetric . In boths maths and logic the symbol is some sort of arrow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

Possibly. But, even if we take logic, instead of simple mathematical statements, there is no temporal aspect.

2 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

But how can you even imagine existence without Time.

How is that relevant?

10 hours ago, Winterlong said:

This solves the paradox, but at the cost of making the recession of the border of the universe at c a necessity, rather than something that could be different

The "border" (horizon) of the observable universe recedes at more than c (about 3c, if I remember correctly). Which highlights, again, you can't use SR in a situation where GR is required.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I asked two questions, one one which you addressed in a Barnum sort of way and the other you have ignored twice, although I repeated it in my first reply to you.

Here is is again.

12 hours ago, studiot said:

What exactly is the ship travelling so fast relative to that his gamma factor will be that large?

The quote clearly shows the question mark at the end of the sentence.

I just realised I may have misinterpreted that oddly worded sentence. It took it to mean "What exactly is the ship travelling so fast relative to" but maybe you mean something else?

Anyway, it just occurred to me that the perfect answer may be: a neutrino: they travel at speeds indistinguishable (by current measurements) from c.

43 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

Ontology ((the existence of the underlying object) needs time.

Why? (This sounds like an example of the fallacy of begging the question. I hope you can persuade me otherwise.)

37 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

My point is that there is an arrow between the two mathematical statements.

Statement 1: x² = 4

=> x=+ - 2

This arrow has no reverse (like the arrow of time).

There is only an arrow because you have just written it that way! There is no such arrow in mathematics. And of course the arrow works both ways. 

If x = 2 (or -2) then x² = 4. That is why it is an equivalence and not a "process".

37 minutes ago, studiot said:

So I will try to answer my own question since you didn't.

I answered it: it is relative to another observer.

Your calculations do not answer the question you asked ("What exactly is the ship travelling so fast relative to") although, in passing you say "its relative velocity be to us". So it sounds like we agree. So I don't really know why you denied this initially.

22 minutes ago, Winterlong said:

Right, but keep it simple. Even discussing curvatures, the resulting ship encroaching itself ten times is somehow awkward. As the speed remains constant, the restricted relativity should be enough for our discussion 

It still isn't really clear what you are asking, but it looks like studiot has got the closest trying to calculate the required speed. 

Note that even if you compressed the visible universe down to 1m (a factor of about 10²⁷) the whole universe is many, many times larger than this. So it is not as if the spaceship would "stick out" of the universe either end. But as Markus points out, it is a completely unphysical scenario.

So can you explain a bit more clearly what (and maybe why) you are asking?

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Where do you think this absolute space is that the ship is travelling so fast that all of it is 'compressed' to 1m ?

It would be a relative measurement. I'm not sure why you said it wouldn't happen.

The Terrible Sea Lion: http://wondermark.com/1k62/

Just now, studiot said:

Winterlong, the fly in your ointment argument is that the pilot does not see a contracted universe, that is the view of some observer travelling relative to him.

Someone moving relative to the pilot, will see the pilot and her ship contracted. The pilot will see that other person contracted.

This must mean that the pilot will, for example, the distance between stars contracted relative to someone who is stationary relative to those stars? (But maybe I have misunderstood the point you are making?)

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

Ok, I have a question for you:

x² = 4,  what is the value of x?

Haven't we just had this? (x = +/- 2).

What is your point? That you posed it as a question? That it took me time to answer? But that doesn't change the facts that: (a) It is only a question because you chose to phrase it like that. It doesn't have to be in the form of question and answer. And (b) time does not appear in the equivalence. Because it is irrelevant.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Maybe a less ontologically-loaded question would be: Where does time come from?

Let me rephrase: What geometrical context in which some principles to characterize observers can be formulated would allow anybody to guess possible mechanisms from which these observers would see a single parameter emerge as necessary to map observations of the world around them? Something like that.

I think that is an interesting question to ask.

But we are edging back into philosophy, again. But that is probably unavoidable.

1 hour ago, ran cohen said:

 

 

Thank you for your response. 

My meaning of `soul` is in no way religious. Only the existence of something that is beyond the actual body or matter.

This "something" is probably in no way "good" or "bad", it might not have any memory or thoughts of its own, it does not have to be in any specific body such as human or bug.

To the body, it is only a tool to survive and pass on its genes and i have no clue what happens to it after the body is dead.

This theory is based on several assumptions: 

1. Our body only cares about its gene survival as described by the "selfish gene"
2. We have limited control over our body i.e. our body have some direct control on its own e.g. heart, ears, hair etc.
3. Our body is generating the feelings e.g. pain or love which are expressions of the physical
4. Our actions based on feelings alone

I know assumption '4' can be argued  but i believe that is true and can be proven scientifically. I would even go as far as saying that we might only care about the feeling we are having now (putting aside any argue of what "now" means e.g. 1us or 1 day). 

From assumptions '1' and '2' one can ask himself: if our genes are selfish and if the body can control some functions why not all and why actions (which have direct influence on survival,) are not controlled directly but through feelings?

Like anything else in science, it might just be that these questions can also lead to more theories and answers such as where did we come from and what is beyond this world.

Best Regards

Ran

You might be pleased (or disappointed) to know that all these questions are, already, the subject of scientific (and philosophical) inquiry. People including psychiatrists and neurologists are interested in these questions (and a few misguided physicists).

5 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

Replace "input" by "question" and "output" by "answer.

Nope. It is just a relationship.

And, whatever you call them, there is no time involved. There is no 't' in the relationship.

1 minute ago, geordief said:

pi is not the relationship between a circumference and the radius of a circle?

It is on a flat surface. But not if you draw the circle on a sphere, for example.

1 minute ago, geordief said:

Maths has no relationship to the physical world?

It can do, when we use it that way. But it doesn't have to. Large parts of it appear to have no relevance to the physical world. (And even where it does, it doesn't necessarily include time as a parameter.)