THE METRIC OF REALITY

On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:18:19 -0500, Tom Roberts
wrote:

On 7/13/13 7/13/13 5:39 PM, George Hammond wrote:
Adult mental speed is about 16 bits/sec [...]

My estimate for me playing the piano is an order of magnitude greater than that.
While I am a semi-professional pianist (i.e. I earn money by playing, but don't
make my living at it), I am by no means a virtuoso.


Tom Roberts



[George Hammond]
In the history of intelligence measurements IQs less than
70 or greater than 210 have rarely been observed. This is
only a factor of three which is far, far less than an "order
of magnitude".
And as a matter of fact it has been well-known for many
decades that an IQ of 100 corresponds to a mental speed of
16 bits per second. This is been confirmed by many diverse
methods of experimental measurement, and it never ceases to
amaze me how many scientists are totally unfamiliar with
this fact!
The most elegant measurement is something called the
Picture Fusion Frequency (PFF) test. The subject is given
a movie projector with a variable speed knob on it and told
to slowly increase the speed until the flashing pictures
begin to " move" ( i.e. it becomes a movie). A century ago
it was discovered that a half grown child of nine will crank
up the speed to about eight frames per second while a full
grown adult will have to increase it to 16 frames per
second.
The reason for this is that recognizing that a frame is
"the same or different" than the previous frame constitutes
one bit of information. Hence 16 frames per second = 16
bits per second of mental comprehension speed.
Moreover it is well-known today that the PFF correlates
directly with one’s IQ, that is, it is well-known that the
predominant correlate of intelligence is in fact mental
speed. It is actually quite easily possible to measure a
person’s IQ by measuring his PFF.
__________________________________________________ __-

The upshot of all this then, is clearly that the world
APPEARS to become "smaller and slower" as we grow to be
"larger and faster". This is hardly rocket science!
__________________________________________________ ___

Where it does become rocket science is when we take the
following step:
Body size and mental speed follow directly the human growth
curve which I will call a(t). So what I am proposing is
that there is a METRIC OF REALITY that can be created by
simply taking the ordinary flat Lorentz metric and changing
it into a Robertson -- Walker type of expanding ( actually
contracting) metric by simply substituting adt for dt and
adx for dx:

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

In other words I am simply substituting the person’s foot
size and his mental speed for the standard ruler and clock
of the physics laboratory. Then I am saying that personally
speaking, reality looks as if we are staying the same and it
is the WORLD that is getting smaller and slower!

Now obvioussly this metric is not called pay the
dynamical equations of physics such as Newton’s laws or the
Einstein field equation etc.. however I am of the opinion
that this "conformal metric of reality" actually does obey
the kinematics of special relativity. In particular we note
the following:

1. The speed of light is always ONE in a conformal metric
so that this metric causes no problem for SR.

2. Even though a(t) is decreasing and causing a
"contraction" of the Universe, we DO NOT SEE a
"Hubble Blue Shift" because the clock is speeding up
as the Universe contracts canceling out the frequency
shift.. So this is in accord with observational
experience also.

3, There is no mass in this universe, it is only an IMAGE
that is moving, therefore we don't have to worry about
violating dynamical properties such as E=mc^2, energy
or momentum continuity equations etc.

4. I believe that this "conformal contracting universe" is
not only a true description of reality, it appears to
me that this metric does not violate any KINEMATICAL
property of SR.

Would you disagree with any of these 4 assertions?

George Hammond

On 7/14/13 7/14/13 3:27 AM, George Hammond wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jul 2013 23:18:19 -0500, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 7/13/13 7/13/13 5:39 PM, George Hammond wrote:
Adult mental speed is about 16 bits/sec [...]
My estimate for me playing the piano is an order of magnitude greater than that.
In the history of intelligence measurements IQs less than
70 or greater than 210 have rarely been observed. This is
only a factor of three which is far, far less than an "order
of magnitude".
And as a matter of fact it has been well-known for many
decades that an IQ of 100 corresponds to a mental speed of
16 bits per second.

I make no claim that my piano playing ability corresponds to a higher IQ [#].
But it's clear to me that when sight reading new music I definitely process data
at much greater than 16 bits per second. Even playing from memory greatly
exceeds that rate.

[#] Indeed, I have met many other musicians better than me,
but they have not struck me as particularly smart. But they
all an process music 16 bits per second. This is a
particular talent developed over many years of practice.
Compare to simple walking discussed below (another talent
developed over years of practice that is 16 bits/sec).

While I can imagine that mental speed may be correlated with IQ, it is QUITE
CLEAR to me that simply being able to process information faster does not make
one smarter. Quicker, perhaps, but not necessarily smarter.

BTW unlike your dubious claim above, it certainly has been well-known for many
decades that there is no single "number" (such as IQ) that can possibly capture
the many subtle ways that human intelligence exhibits itself. Data processing
speed/skill/experience is merely one aspect of a VERY complex phenomenon....


On 7/14/13 7/14/13 4:55 AM, Y wrote:
What if the brain is like an IBM 086, but runs VERY efficient software ?

The brain is nothing like any existing computer. It is clearly a highly parallel
architecture. A supercomputer may come closer, but is still far from a
reasonable analog.

It's clear that simple walking requires data processing much faster than
Hammond's claim of 16 bits/second -- it requires continuous fine motor control
of hundreds of muscles, and each one needs more than 1 bit per second of
control; in addition there is the handling of dozens of body position sensors,
pressure sensors in the feet (etc.), and clues from environmental sensors such
as eyes and ears. The conscious effort of figuring out where to walk may well
occur ~ 16 bits/sec, but the actual walking itself is necessarily much higher.

This ability is CLEARLY essentially unrelated to intelligence,
"smartness", or IQ. As I said before, no single "number" can
possibly capture the subtleties of human intelligence.


Tom Roberts

On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 08:53:19 -0500, Tom Roberts
wrote:


But it's clear to me that when sight reading new music I definitely process data
at much greater than 16 bits per second. Even playing from memory greatly
exceeds that rate.


July 15, 2013 Hyannis

Hello Tom,

Sometimes simple facts shed a great deal of light on
complicated issues.
You seem incredulous that human mental speed is only 16
bits/sec despite the fact that it was discovered by Edison
that the slowest you can run a movie film is 16 frames per
second. You seem to not comprehend the physical meaning of
that.
So since you are a musician and a piano player I thought
perhaps a musical explanation might have more meaning for
you. You’ve heard it said hundreds of times that the human
hearing range is "20 to 20,000 Hz". Well, deeper
investigation shows that lower number is not actually 20 it
is actually, again, the magic number 16. And the reason it
is 16 cps is EXACTLY the same reason that a movie camera has
to run at least 16 frames per second. It is because the
human brains "COGNITIVE" processing system only runs at 16
bits per second!
Furthermore. It turns out that if you use a small
piezoelectric pincher taped to the skin and start pinching
someone’s skin at a very slow rate and then increase the
rate…guess what….. when it reaches the magic number of 16
pinches per second it no longer feels like you’re being
pinched, it merely feels as if there is some constant level
of skin irritation on your arm!
Now these effects were discovered by Galton himself as long
ago as 1890 and have been studied intensely ever since.
Now in every case the magic number 16 only holds for
adults with average IQ of 100. If you test a half grown
child of 9: guess what… the magic number drops to half its
value namely 8 Hz. A hundred years of study by an army of
academic researchers in thousands of peer-reviewed papers
has long since established that this is due to normal
childhood brain growth! The magic frequency increases right
along in tandem with the human growth curve and stops at 16
Hz when you finally stop growing at age 18..
Moreover, for a fixed age, the frequency goes up or down
directly with IQ. In fact so-called "INTELLIGENCE" is
nothing more than a reference to your COGNITIVE mental speed
in bits per second. This is why mentally retarded people
have been called "mentally slow" for thousands of years. You
can actually measure someone’s IQ with a veritable speed
movie projector!
Okay, all of that is right off the shelf textbook
learning. What is really of interest here is the
"relativity" of mental speed itself. And it doesn’t seem to
me that it is rocket science to assert that the world looks
faster to someone who has low mental speed or vice versa but
the world looks slower to someone who has a high mental
speed. In fact it is quite obvious that the world must
"slow down" as you grow up. And sure enough, as I recollect
the world does look a lot slower now than it did when I was
two years old! And it has gotten a lot smaller too!

Okay Tom, so much for postage stamp collecting. It is
time to get back a Relativity. As you know I believe that
the world APPEARS to get smaller and slower as you grow up.
And I believe that you can write this as a Robertson-Walker
metric where a(t) is a (decreasing) scale factor:

ds^2 = a(t)^2 [-c^2 dt^2 + dx^2] (Conformal RW Metric)

and as you know I am already deeply indebted to you for
running this metric through Mathematica and discovering that
the Riemann Curvature Tensor for this metric is non-zero
because it contains terms in a/dot and a/dot/dot. If it
weren’t for you I would still be computing the 256
components of Riemann by hand for God’s sake!

But since all that, I have had some further twinges of
alarm about this metric. I mentioned in a previous post the
"Blue Shift" scare that I had for a brief moment when I
believed that the metric said that all of the stars in the
night sky would turn blue! A "blue shift in the head" as it
were. Interestingly, it turns out that that scare was
unwarranted since "there is no Hubble shift in a conformal
metric".
But other anxieties have begun to creep in to my view of
all this. For instance: Should this contracting and
slowing down of the Universe even obey a relativistic
metric? But then I realized that the speed of light is
always ONE in a conformal metric, and I breathed another
sigh of relief. In fact as a(t) finally comes down to one
as you approach adulthood, you are simply left with the
normal Lorentz metric, which of course we know is correct.

At any rate, even if you will never come to believe that
the world does APPEAR to slow down and get smaller as we
grow up, I would like you to take a look at the conformal
metric I have written down and tell me if you have any
objections to the following four assertions:

1. The speed of light is always ONE in a conformal metric
so that this metric causes no problem for SR.

2. Even though a(t) is decreasing and causing a
"contraction" of the Universe, we DO NOT SEE a
"Hubble Blue Shift" because the clock is speeding up
as the Universe contracts canceling out the frequency
shift.. So this is in accord with observational
experience also.

3, There is no mass in this universe, it is only an IMAGE
that is moving, therefore we don't have to worry about
violating dynamical properties such as E=mc^2, energy
or momentum continuity equations etc.

4. I believe that this "conformal contracting universe" is
not only a true description of reality, it appears to
me that this metric does not violate any KINEMATICAL
property of SR.

Would you disagree with any of these 4 assertions? As an
experienced relativity expert there is always the odd chance
that something mathematical might jump out at you as being a
ghastly faux pas!

George Hammond

George Hammond wrote in
news
You seem incredulous that human mental speed is only 16
bits/sec despite the fact that it was discovered by Edison
that the slowest you can run a movie film is 16 frames per
second.

I find it incredulous that you imply very clearly there that an entire
image in a film frame is one bit. Utter nonsense.

Perhaps you use a different definition of "bit" to what is used by everyone
else?

You seem to not comprehend the physical meaning of
that.

That seems to be *your* problem.

So since you are a musician and a piano player I thought
perhaps a musical explanation might have more meaning for
you. You’ve heard it said hundreds of times that the human
hearing range is "20 to 20,000 Hz". Well, deeper
investigation shows that lower number is not actually 20 it
is actually, again, the magic number 16. And the reason it
is 16 cps is EXACTLY the same reason that a movie camera has
to run at least 16 frames per second. It is because the
human brains "COGNITIVE" processing system only runs at 16
bits per second!

Utter nonsense again. By your "logic" we could not hear sounds with a
HIGHER frequency than 16 hz. And that as one gets older the lower limit
must decrease.

Really .. you're just linking things arbitrarily without any thought or
logic. That's quackery.

George Hammond wrote in
news
So since you are a musician and a piano player I thought
perhaps a musical explanation might have more meaning for
you. You’ve heard it said hundreds of times that the human
hearing range is "20 to 20,000 Hz". Well, deeper
investigation shows that lower number is not actually 20 it
is actually, again, the magic number 16. And the reason it
is 16 cps is EXACTLY the same reason that a movie camera has
to run at least 16 frames per second. It is because the
human brains "COGNITIVE" processing system only runs at 16
bits per second!

So .. you say human hearing hs a lowest frequency of 16hz because of the
16 bits / sc processing speed of the human brain. And that frequency is
directly related to intelligence (the higher the intelligence, the
higher the bits and the higher the frequency)

Moreover, for a fixed age, the frequency goes up or down
directly with IQ. In fact so-called "INTELLIGENCE" is
nothing more than a reference to your COGNITIVE mental speed
in bits per second. This is why mentally retarded people
have been called "mentally slow" for thousands of years. You
can actually measure someone’s IQ with a veritable speed
movie projector!

So .. lets look at hte frequency ranges for different animals. The one
with the highest low frequency limit should be the most intelligent

from

Species Approximate Range (Hz)
human 64-23,000
dog 67-45,000
cat 45-64,000
cow 23-35,000
horse 55-33,500
sheep 100-30,000
rabbit 360-42,000
rat 200-76,000
mouse 1,000-91,000
gerbil 100-60,000
guinea pig 54-50,000
hedgehog 250-45,000
raccoon 100-40,000
ferret 16-44,000
opossum 500-64,000
chinchilla 90-22,800
bat 2,000-110,000
beluga whale 1,000-123,000
elephant 16-12,000
porpoise 75-150,000
goldfish 20-3,000
catfish 50-4,000
tuna 50-1,100
bullfrog 100-3,000
tree frog 50-4,000
canary 250-8,000
parakeet 200-8,500
cockatiel 250-8,000
owl 200-12,000
chicken 125-2,000

(source http://www.lsu.edu/deafness/HearingRange.html)

So by your theory, sheep and rabbits are much more intellient than
humans and mice even more so. And what about bats ... so much more
intelligent by the hammond theory of hearing and intelligence

Hmmmmmm

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 07:57:05 -0700, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth
Earl of Medway" wrote:



"George Hammond" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 08:53:19 -0500, Tom Roberts
wrote:


But it's clear to me that when sight reading new music I definitely process
data
at much greater than 16 bits per second. Even playing from memory greatly
exceeds that rate.


July 15, 2013 Hyannis

Hello Tom,

Sometimes simple facts shed a great deal of light on
complicated issues.
You seem incredulous that human mental speed is only 16
bits/sec despite the fact that it was discovered by Edison
that the slowest you can run a movie film is 16 frames per
second. You seem to not comprehend the physical meaning of
that.
So since you are a musician and a piano player I thought
perhaps a musical explanation might have more meaning for
you. You’ve heard it said hundreds of times that the human
hearing range is "20 to 20,000 Hz". Well, deeper
investigation shows that lower number is not actually 20 it
is actually, again, the magic number 16. And the reason it
is 16 cps is EXACTLY the same reason that a movie camera has
to run at least 16 frames per second. It is because the
human brains "COGNITIVE" processing system only runs at 16
bits per second!
Furthermore. It turns out that if you use a small
piezoelectric pincher taped to the skin and start pinching
someone’s skin at a very slow rate and then increase the
rate…guess what….. when it reaches the magic number of 16
pinches per second it no longer feels like you’re being
pinched, it merely feels as if there is some constant level
of skin irritation on your arm!
Now these effects were discovered by Galton himself as long
ago as 1890 and have been studied intensely ever since.
Now in every case the magic number 16 only holds for
adults with average IQ of 100. If you test a half grown
child of 9: guess what… the magic number drops to half its
value namely 8 Hz. A hundred years of study by an army of
academic researchers in thousands of peer-reviewed papers
has long since established that this is due to normal
childhood brain growth! The magic frequency increases right
along in tandem with the human growth curve and stops at 16
Hz when you finally stop growing at age 18..
Moreover, for a fixed age, the frequency goes up or down
directly with IQ. In fact so-called "INTELLIGENCE" is
nothing more than a reference to your COGNITIVE mental speed
in bits per second. This is why mentally retarded people
have been called "mentally slow" for thousands of years. You
can actually measure someone’s IQ with a veritable speed
movie projector!
Okay, all of that is right off the shelf textbook
learning. What is really of interest here is the
"relativity" of mental speed itself. And it doesn’t seem to
me that it is rocket science to assert that the world looks
faster to someone who has low mental speed or vice versa but
the world looks slower to someone who has a high mental
speed. In fact it is quite obvious that the world must
"slow down" as you grow up. And sure enough, as I recollect
the world does look a lot slower now than it did when I was
two years old! And it has gotten a lot smaller too!

Okay Tom, so much for postage stamp collecting. It is
time to get back a Relativity. As you know I believe that
the world APPEARS to get smaller and slower as you grow up.
And I believe that you can write this as a Robertson-Walker
metric where a(t) is a (decreasing) scale factor:

ds^2 = a(t)^2 [-c^2 dt^2 + dx^2] (Conformal RW Metric)

and as you know I am already deeply indebted to you for
running this metric through Mathematica and discovering that
the Riemann Curvature Tensor for this metric is non-zero
because it contains terms in a/dot and a/dot/dot. If it
weren’t for you I would still be computing the 256
components of Riemann by hand for God’s sake!

But since all that, I have had some further twinges of
alarm about this metric. I mentioned in a previous post the
"Blue Shift" scare that I had for a brief moment when I
believed that the metric said that all of the stars in the
night sky would turn blue! A "blue shift in the head" as it
were. Interestingly, it turns out that that scare was
unwarranted since "there is no Hubble shift in a conformal
metric".
But other anxieties have begun to creep in to my view of
all this. For instance: Should this contracting and
slowing down of the Universe even obey a relativistic
metric? But then I realized that the speed of light is
always ONE in a conformal metric, and I breathed another
sigh of relief. In fact as a(t) finally comes down to one
as you approach adulthood, you are simply left with the
normal Lorentz metric, which of course we know is correct.

At any rate, even if you will never come to believe that
the world does APPEAR to slow down and get smaller as we
grow up, I would like you to take a look at the conformal
metric I have written down and tell me if you have any
objections to the following four assertions:

1. The speed of light is always ONE in a conformal metric
so that this metric causes no problem for SR.

2. Even though a(t) is decreasing and causing a
"contraction" of the Universe, we DO NOT SEE a
"Hubble Blue Shift" because the clock is speeding up
as the Universe contracts canceling out the frequency
shift.. So this is in accord with observational
experience also.

3, There is no mass in this universe, it is only an IMAGE
that is moving, therefore we don't have to worry about
violating dynamical properties such as E=mc^2, energy
or momentum continuity equations etc.

4. I believe that this "conformal contracting universe" is
not only a true description of reality, it appears to
me that this metric does not violate any KINEMATICAL
property of SR.

Would you disagree with any of these 4 assertions? As an
experienced relativity expert there is always the odd chance
that something mathematical might jump out at you as being a
ghastly faux pas!

George Hammond
============================================
HD TV, 1080 rows and 1920 columns of 3 colour pixels, 24 bits per pixel,
frame rate 60 Hz.
That's 2,985,984,000 Hz, call it 3 Gigabits per second.
Hardly seems worth the trouble when we can only receive 16 bits/sec.
We ignore the other 2,985,983,984 bits every second, and we ignore
the data overload of the sound and we stop chewing gum at the same
time, right, George?
Perhaps some day your nurse will teach you the difference between
parallel and serial processing.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway



[Hammond]
Oh for chrissakes Duke of Earl, the human retina takes in
10^7 bits/sec of info, the human ear takes in 10^6 bits/sec
of info, the tactile sensory system takes in 4x10^5 bits/sec
of info... but the human COGNITIVE (conscious perception)
system only operates at 16 bits/sec. were talking about
"conscious thinging speed" here, what is usually called
"cognitive speed". Stop doing all that reading and do some
thinking for a change!

George

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 01:40:31 -0400, George Hammond
wrote:



2. Even though a(t) is decreasing and causing a
"contraction" of the Universe, we DO NOT SEE a
"Hubble Blue Shift" because the clock is speeding up
as the Universe contracts canceling out the frequency
shift.. So this is in accord with observational
experience also.


Would you disagree with any of these 4 assertions? As an
experienced relativity expert there is always the odd chance
that something mathematical might jump out at you as being a
ghastly faux pas!

George Hammond


[George Hammond]
Hi Tom,
To give you a clue to my thinking.... here is the kind of
thing that is bothering me about the conformal metric.

In the first place I'm not positively sure that there "is no
Hubble shift in a conformal metric". This is a mathematical
question that I am still digging into.

Secondly, there are more mundane questions about color. This
one for instance:

As I grow up my mental speed (internal perceptual clock)
increases from say 5 Hz to 16 Hz. Tthat is a factor of
3..... so the clock on my kitchen wall will appear to slow
down by a factor of three as I grow to adulthood. OK...
frequencies of things will slow down by a factor of 3.
Well, if that's so, what about colors. Why wont the
yelllow Dandylions on the lawn slowly turn to Pink as I grow
up since yellow is a frequency and all frequencies are
supposed to be cut in one third perceptually?

Well, the obvious answer there is that "colors" are not
within the "cognitive frequency range".... color doesn't
depend on mental speed... in fact it depends on frequency
sensitive molecvules in the rods and cones of your eye which
are entirely UNAFFECTED by any changes in you "cognitive
speed". So colors will obviously stay the same over your
entire life irregardless of any change in your mental
speed.

Whether or not this has any bearing on the "blue shift
problen" mentioned above, I dunno, I'm still digging into
the problem.

George

"George Hammond" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 14 Jul 2013 08:53:19 -0500, Tom Roberts
wrote:


But it's clear to me that when sight reading new music I definitely process
data
at much greater than 16 bits per second. Even playing from memory greatly
exceeds that rate.


July 15, 2013 Hyannis

Hello Tom,

Sometimes simple facts shed a great deal of light on
complicated issues.
You seem incredulous that human mental speed is only 16
bits/sec despite the fact that it was discovered by Edison
that the slowest you can run a movie film is 16 frames per
second. You seem to not comprehend the physical meaning of
that.
So since you are a musician and a piano player I thought
perhaps a musical explanation might have more meaning for
you. You’ve heard it said hundreds of times that the human
hearing range is "20 to 20,000 Hz". Well, deeper
investigation shows that lower number is not actually 20 it
is actually, again, the magic number 16. And the reason it
is 16 cps is EXACTLY the same reason that a movie camera has
to run at least 16 frames per second. It is because the
human brains "COGNITIVE" processing system only runs at 16
bits per second!
Furthermore. It turns out that if you use a small
piezoelectric pincher taped to the skin and start pinching
someone’s skin at a very slow rate and then increase the
rate…guess what….. when it reaches the magic number of 16
pinches per second it no longer feels like you’re being
pinched, it merely feels as if there is some constant level
of skin irritation on your arm!
Now these effects were discovered by Galton himself as long
ago as 1890 and have been studied intensely ever since.
Now in every case the magic number 16 only holds for
adults with average IQ of 100. If you test a half grown
child of 9: guess what… the magic number drops to half its
value namely 8 Hz. A hundred years of study by an army of
academic researchers in thousands of peer-reviewed papers
has long since established that this is due to normal
childhood brain growth! The magic frequency increases right
along in tandem with the human growth curve and stops at 16
Hz when you finally stop growing at age 18..
Moreover, for a fixed age, the frequency goes up or down
directly with IQ. In fact so-called "INTELLIGENCE" is
nothing more than a reference to your COGNITIVE mental speed
in bits per second. This is why mentally retarded people
have been called "mentally slow" for thousands of years. You
can actually measure someone’s IQ with a veritable speed
movie projector!
Okay, all of that is right off the shelf textbook
learning. What is really of interest here is the
"relativity" of mental speed itself. And it doesn’t seem to
me that it is rocket science to assert that the world looks
faster to someone who has low mental speed or vice versa but
the world looks slower to someone who has a high mental
speed. In fact it is quite obvious that the world must
"slow down" as you grow up. And sure enough, as I recollect
the world does look a lot slower now than it did when I was
two years old! And it has gotten a lot smaller too!

Okay Tom, so much for postage stamp collecting. It is
time to get back a Relativity. As you know I believe that
the world APPEARS to get smaller and slower as you grow up.
And I believe that you can write this as a Robertson-Walker
metric where a(t) is a (decreasing) scale factor:

ds^2 = a(t)^2 [-c^2 dt^2 + dx^2] (Conformal RW Metric)

and as you know I am already deeply indebted to you for
running this metric through Mathematica and discovering that
the Riemann Curvature Tensor for this metric is non-zero
because it contains terms in a/dot and a/dot/dot. If it
weren’t for you I would still be computing the 256
components of Riemann by hand for God’s sake!

But since all that, I have had some further twinges of
alarm about this metric. I mentioned in a previous post the
"Blue Shift" scare that I had for a brief moment when I
believed that the metric said that all of the stars in the
night sky would turn blue! A "blue shift in the head" as it
were. Interestingly, it turns out that that scare was
unwarranted since "there is no Hubble shift in a conformal
metric".
But other anxieties have begun to creep in to my view of
all this. For instance: Should this contracting and
slowing down of the Universe even obey a relativistic
metric? But then I realized that the speed of light is
always ONE in a conformal metric, and I breathed another
sigh of relief. In fact as a(t) finally comes down to one
as you approach adulthood, you are simply left with the
normal Lorentz metric, which of course we know is correct.

At any rate, even if you will never come to believe that
the world does APPEAR to slow down and get smaller as we
grow up, I would like you to take a look at the conformal
metric I have written down and tell me if you have any
objections to the following four assertions:

1. The speed of light is always ONE in a conformal metric
so that this metric causes no problem for SR.

2. Even though a(t) is decreasing and causing a
"contraction" of the Universe, we DO NOT SEE a
"Hubble Blue Shift" because the clock is speeding up
as the Universe contracts canceling out the frequency
shift.. So this is in accord with observational
experience also.

3, There is no mass in this universe, it is only an IMAGE
that is moving, therefore we don't have to worry about
violating dynamical properties such as E=mc^2, energy
or momentum continuity equations etc.

4. I believe that this "conformal contracting universe" is
not only a true description of reality, it appears to
me that this metric does not violate any KINEMATICAL
property of SR.

Would you disagree with any of these 4 assertions? As an
experienced relativity expert there is always the odd chance
that something mathematical might jump out at you as being a
ghastly faux pas!

George Hammond
============================================
HD TV, 1080 rows and 1920 columns of 3 colour pixels, 24 bits per pixel,
frame rate 60 Hz.
That's 2,985,984,000 Hz, call it 3 Gigabits per second.
Hardly seems worth the trouble when we can only receive 16 bits/sec.
We ignore the other 2,985,983,984 bits every second, and we ignore
the data overload of the sound and we stop chewing gum at the same
time, right, George?
Perhaps some day your nurse will teach you the difference between
parallel and serial processing.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:35:13 -0700, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth
Earl of Medway" wrote:



"George Hammond" wrote in message
.. .

[Hammond]
Oh for chrissakes Duke of Earl, the human retina takes in
10^7 bits/sec of info, the human ear takes in 10^6 bits/sec
of info, the tactile sensory system takes in 4x10^5 bits/sec
of info... but the human COGNITIVE (conscious perception)
system only operates at 16 bits/sec. were talking about
"conscious thinging speed" here, what is usually called
"cognitive speed". Stop doing all that reading and do some
thinking for a change!

George
===================================
Conscious thinging speed is cognitive speed because Edison didn't thing
anyone else would notice flicker at 16 frames a second but everyone else
does thing there is flicker except Hammond Organ the numerologist
thinger... got it.
Well done, Hammond Organ, I'll stop reading and thing for a change.
What can you tell us about unconscious thinging?

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway


[George Hammond]
Wrong again Zorromeister, Flicker Fusion Frequeny (FFF)
= 70 Hz is ENTIRELY UNRELATED to Picture Fusion Frequency
(PFF) = 16 Hz. FFF is a property of the eye and does not
correlate with IQ. PFF depends upon visual comprehension of
a picture image, thus mental cognitive speed, and correlates
directly with IQ.
Put your Merlin's magician hat on Zorro, this problem
involves sophisticated scientific principles.
Were discussing the world's first bona fide hard
scientific proof of God here. Dummy up!

George Hammond

"George Hammond" wrote in message
...

[Hammond]
Oh for chrissakes Duke of Earl, the human retina takes in
10^7 bits/sec of info, the human ear takes in 10^6 bits/sec
of info, the tactile sensory system takes in 4x10^5 bits/sec
of info... but the human COGNITIVE (conscious perception)
system only operates at 16 bits/sec. were talking about
"conscious thinging speed" here, what is usually called
"cognitive speed". Stop doing all that reading and do some
thinking for a change!

George
===================================
Conscious thinging speed is cognitive speed because Edison didn't thing
anyone else would notice flicker at 16 frames a second but everyone else
does thing there is flicker except Hammond Organ the numerologist
thinger... got it.
Well done, Hammond Organ, I'll stop reading and thing for a change.
What can you tell us about unconscious thinging?

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway