If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

 THE METRIC OF REALITY
 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

## THE METRIC OF REALITY

#1
July 14th 13, 12:25 AM posted to sci.astro
 George Hammond[_3_] external usenet poster Posts: 8
THE METRIC OF REALITY

Absolute physical reality is measured by laboratory
clocks and rulers. This reality is seen by the "physics
observer" which is actually an inanimate lattice of clocks
and rulers which record everything. The "laws of Physics"
obey these recorded observations.
According to these measurements there exists a
Relativistic metric given by:

ds^2 = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 (The flat Lorentz metric)

However, this is NOT what the individual person actually
SEES.
The "apparent size" of the world is judged relative to a
person's own individual body size (i.e. a 9 year old sees a
world which is twice as large as an 18 year old, simply
because he's only half the size of an adult).
The same thing holds true for time. A 9 year old's
mental speed is known to be only half that of an 18 year old
(so called mental age) and this can be easily demonstrated.
speed of a 9 year old is only 8 bits/sec. Amazingly Thomas
Edison himself first discovered this when he invented the
run the film at 16 frames/sec to make it "movie", but for a
9 year old you only had to run it at 8 frames/sec to achieve
the same effect. A century of intense investigation has
confirmed this to be a direct measure of a persons "mental
speed". Fact is, a 9 year old sees a world that moves twice
as fast as an 18 year old. This follows the human growth
curve. And if we call this curve a(t), we can convert the
ordinary Lorentz Metric into a "seen reality metric" by
substituting a(t)dx for dx and a(t)dt for dt which gives us
what I call the "SEEN REALITY METRIC"

ds^2 = a(t)^2 ( -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2)

In other words, as a person grows thru childhood he sees the
world "shrinking" and "getting slower". Notice that dx now
is a "co moving coordinate". And that the metric is what
Physics calls a "conformal metric", because it is
conformally flat. Note: although it is conformally flat, it
is not actually flat, since the Riemann Curvature tensor is
not zero… it contains terms in a’ and a".

Okay, so what I have done is substitute the person's own
"foot size" for the standard ruler, and the persons "mental
speed" for the standard clock. We now have a metric written
using a VARIABLE CLOCK and a VARIABLE RULER, but what we are
saying is that it APPEARS that the person is not changing,
but that actually the world is changing, it is SHRIUNKING
and getting SLOWER.

Now obviously this metric is NOT going to satisfy the laws
of Physics.. a variable clock would mean that Newton's first
law of motion wouldn't even hold true.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER we are only taking about an
"apparent world" not the real world! It is only the IMAGE
of the world that is shrinking and slowing down... but this
is important, because as they say "what you see is what you
get".

Now what I want to know is whether the above proposal,
the "conformal metric" proposal is actually true!
For instance, I explained this to a small group of
physicists once and one of them raised his hand and said "if
the Universe looked like it was contracting, why wouldn't
all of the stars in the night sky appear to be blue?". Well,
I was floored by the question.... of course there should be
a "blue shift in the head" if my proposal was correct. BUT
then I realized that NO, in fact there is NO HUBBLE SHIFT IN
A CONFORMAL METRIC! yes the wavelengths are scrunched up by
the contraction, but meanwhile the stock is speeding up by
the same factor, the net result is that there is NO
HUBBLEFREQUENCY SHHIFT.

So my question really is this.... while the conformal
metric obviously does not obey the DYNAMIC laws of Physics
(Newton’s laws, Einstein's field equations etc.), it DOES
appear to me that the conformal metric obeys the KINEMATIC
laws of Special relativity. Note for instance that in a
conformal metric the speed of light is ALWAYS ONE, so I
think the Lorentz Metric is entirely justified.

So.... can you see any further objections that would
contradict my proposal of the fact that "HUMAN REALITY" is
described by the conformal metric above described.

In closing, let me mention that this is NOT A FRIVELOUS
PROIBLEM. It is actually a scientific explanation of the
phenomenon of "God", so called.

George Hammond

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post NASA rejects metric system Andrew Nowicki[_2_] Policy 4 April 25th 10 05:14 AM The metric system sucks Andrew Usher Astronomy Misc 352 February 23rd 10 06:16 PM Take that, metric system! Fred J. McCall Policy 2 September 12th 07 08:44 PM Minkowski Metric Jack Sarfatti Astronomy Misc 269 February 21st 07 09:35 PM Metric on Mars Markus Kuhn Policy 432 June 10th 04 11:20 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 AM.