# InformationPhysicsVirtualClassroom

## Introduction

See InformationPhysics for the information related to this VirtualClassroom.

## Why does time slow down near ZPE eaters?

Since the more information being communicated means that there is more time-space-sequences being created, and wherever we have ZPE eaters (like Earth, Jupiter, Sol, the BlackHole at the center of our galaxy, etc), we have a lot more senders and receivers of information in close proximity which are therefore interacting (and therefore, sending more information back and forth quickly), shouldn't time 'speed up', rather then slow down?

Every bit of information being communicated is growing space... until it is received, at which point the time-space-sequence chain goes away.

So, in IP, why do ZPE eaters (mass) create the effect of slowing time?

• 'In general relativity, they say time slows down near a gravitational mass.'
• 'Time does not really slow down. What happens is movement across an event ReferenceFrame advances your clock by the events you pass in addition to the events you experience. If this did not happen, you could see events going backward in time if you went fast enough. This can't happen though, because the past events are gone by the time you see the succeeding events. The only choice you have in traversing the events is forward in time, despite the fact that it makes your clock seem slow to those not moving. The ZPE is made of events.'
• 'So it is not gravity that is slowing down time, it is the velocity of ZPE flowing into the mass past those in the gravitational area which causes their time to slip into the future.'
So, you have no real IP explanation? Classic physicals tells us that gravity drags on space, and that's why there is a time dilation effect. Your explanation seems like babble to me, so I need more info, if you please.
• 'That is an IP explanation, the fabric of events, representing state change information manifest space and time. Traveling in space is traveling in time. Velocity (moving past events) due to acceleration is what results in time dilation (skipping ahead in time). Either you are really moving, as in the UnitarianSpaceTravelExperience, or space is moving through you, (dragging past you?) as in gravitational time dilation. Both are manifestations of the same effect. There is no separate effect due to gravity.'
Events not received by a listener are not included in the listener's time. Therefore, if you are at in deep space, the only events you are receiving would be effectively the ZPE that hits you. (The oddball messages from wherever). Each one of these received messages is a tick, an event received. Now, while sitting at my desk, typing this reply, I've received a lot more events then if I was an object floating in deep, intergalactic space. All the light bouncing off me from my monitor and all the lights in the room, as well as the sun-light that has bounced and refracted into my office, as well as all the myriad other events in being in a complex environment (like the forces keeping me in my seat, but not passing through it, and the same for me and the floor, my clothes and me, etc). It's all events. Each is a tick in my time frame. And all this time, I'm still eating ZPE. Just as is everything around me, as well as the bigger ZPE beneath me, and all the atmosphere above me...
• 'The earth sort of shields you from ZPE from below, but ZPE is MUCH greater than all the other sources of events. The events we can measure are just the icing on the cake.'
OK... so you are saying that the quickest "time" is found out in deep, intergalactic-supercluster space, where an object can recieve a full supply of ZPE from all directions, and that we earthbound objects recieve less messages/events because we receive less ZPE messages? So, time is slower near ZPE Eaters because they "block out" more events (recieve more of the local ZPE) from any other objects? Humm... Ok. THAT makes sense to me. Time is events... less events, less time.
This makes sense logical sense to me, in my limited understanding of IP. I am not recieving as many events as say, the Voyager probe, and therefore time is slower for me then for the Voyager probe. It is just that many more ZPE events ahead of me. ---StarPilot
So, saying that my time is slower because I have to still cross over events that are not occurring to me, but occurring elsewhere, has lost me. If events that do not communicate with me are not in my time, 'how can they be counted in my time frame?' Only events that directly affect me (that message me) can be in my framework. So where is the science for this? I do not see it in IP. More info please. ---StarPilot
• 'Your clock does not really slow down. You are passing events others see, so their clock is going faster relative to you. Traveling through space is traveling through time. Gravity has a small time dilation effect because it bends space, well in space (ZPE) falling into (being received by) masses, is effectively movement of space. Space flows into the earth at 32 feet per second at the surface. This creates a very tiny time dilation since 32 feet per second is much less than the speed of light. Gravity only has a significant time dilation effect in the case of huge masses or BlackHoles. The bending of light in water or glass can be understood as time dilation due to the increased mass density of the medium. In essence, events we see are creating space and time, events we don't see destroy it.'
I am not recieving events others are receiving. That's why they are going tick-tock faster then I am. They are recieving more events then I am.
Travelling through space is travelling through un-recieved event messages. When those event messages are recieved, their space chain will collaspe. Our planet earth recieves 32 feet per second of events at the surface. Space doesn't flow into it the earth... Events flow, and some of those events strike the earth. Their message recieved, their space collaspses...
Gravity does not exist in IP. Therefore, it cannot dialate time. Gravity is an emergent behavior we observe in our conscious framework, and decide it must exist (just as mistakenly as lightning flows from the clouds to ground). That was what I was after with this question. How does IP account for this behavior? That was answered to my satisfaction early. The bigger ZPE eater creates a shadow where there is less ZPE to be caught by other, smaller objects, and therefore, those smaller objects recieve less events and therefore time slows for them, compared to a framework away from the larger ZPE eater. I think this should be added to the IP knowledge base in an easy to find form for the future students of IP.

## Why do Pulsars lose rotation?

Question: How can an minorly irregular shaped, rapidly rotating, very dense spheroid (a typical pulsar) lose energy due to creating gravity waves?

Our astronomical observation capability is allowing us to study pulsars in detail never hoped before in the history of astronomy. Most pulsars are expected to be slowly braking in their rotation, due to having slight irregularities in their spherical shape. Now, in IP, I can understand how the raised portions of the irregularities are creating "Gravity Waves", as they "eat" ZPE before its unraised neighbors. That results in time-space collapsing quicker there then elsewhere, resulting in an effect in our viewpoint that would be veiwed as "Gravity Waves". However, how does this mechanism cause the spinning pulsar star to lose spin? I had presumed that the collapse of space-time neither imparts nor draws out any energy, does it?

In the classical explanations I've seen, gravity waves are being created because the mass is forcing it's way through ZPE, which creates gravity, dragging the Aether (ZPE and Space-Time) with it. This drag eats up a bit of kinetic energy, and so the rotation of the star is slowed (very minorly, but over a few million years, the constant minor braking adds up).

• 'If you think of events bouncing off a spinning object you can see that those hit in the direction of spin are going to get more energy and those hitting the trailing edge will lose energy after the bounce. The effect is ZPE in this is small, since the eaten ZPE is mostly not manifest again until the distant future, but with large enough masses spinning rapidly, the effect can be noticed.'
Err... so you are saying that due to ZPE, everything will stop moving? I can understand in classical science framework, how photons, even with their tiniest of mass, hitting against our pulsar could, over a few billion years, have managed to slow it down. However, messages in IP have no mass, do they? A message is just a message. Mass communicates its effects (its "gravity field" or "gravity well" in classic physics) purely by consuming events, primarily ZPE. Whenever a message is received/consumed, it's space-time sequence chain collaspes. As there is now less 'space' where then before, the net effect that emerges, and that we can observe, is that there is less space, making it look like our mass has moved slightly. (It hasn't actually as it is space which has re-configured).
• 'Only irregular shaped objects will have this effect. All point on a perfectly elliptical spinning object will receive information at an average of 90 degrees and will not be effected by relative motion of the object spinning. Mass and energy are the same thing and they are a measure of the information content of the message.'
Elliptical shapes are not perfectly symetrical (those are spheres). Therefore they are will eventually stop?
Would not an object that has equally as high raised surface area to an equally lowered surface area also have the net forces work out to be equal?
Now, I may have missed something in all the IP, but where are we getting +mass/energy and -mass/energy from a message? The entire message is consumed on being received. There is no reflection in IP. Merely a new transmittal message (like a repeater) of the new state after receiving the prior mentioned message. So where are we gaining and losing energy by striking the leading edge and bouncing versus trailing edge and bouncing?
• 'Quantum information is change information, how changes change due to relative motion is a little complicated, but basically you get more (extra) change information from something if it is moving toward you and less if it is moving away. The information corresponds to energy.'
Isn't ALL information in IP physics change information? All information is made up of smaller messages. Therefore, even in symmetry, all greater structures of information are still change information. No matter what you build out of Lego(tm) bricks, it is still a Lego structure, right? No matter what I build out of wood (house, boat, statue), it is still wood, right? Therefore all things in existance are just state change information structures. Some are just complex enough to hold substructures of state change. :-D
In an all things being equal, a leading edge is also a trailing edge from a different angle. And since ZPE averages out over time, then I do not see how you can say that we are bleeding off spin to the ZPE that is being reflected by the leading edge and gaining spin from the ZPE striking the trailing edge. As we are being acted on equally by ZPE, and all leading edges are trailing edges, then the net effect should be zero. Even with minor perturbations/aberrations on a rotating sphere, the aberrations will be struck by ZPE equally in all orientations, so therefore the net effect should be more strikes counter to rotational direction, and thereby a net gain of energy, not a net loss. Indeed, whether the sphere is perfectly shaped or not, most ZPE will strike in non-spinward orientation, and therefore if non-spinward strikes impart energy to our spinning sphere, it should speed up. Only if the majority of ZPE is striking in a spinward direction, according to your explanation given, and striking the leading edge, do we obtain a balance of more energy is being imparted then is being received.
• 'Good point. What your are saying is very true for non-accelerating objects. But the spinning object is changing ReferenceFrames, and if irregular, the effects of this angular acceleration does not cancel out.'
I don't understand where this changing ReferenceFrame comes from. Are we talking about galactic orbital vectors?
The irregularities in question are not going to be of much significance, as a pulsar star is only going to be between 10 to 20 miles in circumfrence, and any irregularities on it's surface will be minor, overall, due to the great compacting these rotating stars have undergone. We are not talking about protuberances that stand 10% of the body's radius above the surface. Overall, we are talking about very minor differences. However, over a few billion years, any net gain or loss of spin would be noticable.
Additionally, to transfer angular energy, there must be sustained contact so that the uneven forces have a chance to be communicated to the striking object. For this to hold true in IP message communication (through ZPE), this means messages would not instantly communicate their message upon reception. That means the basic IP quanta (photon) of IP does not instantly impart its information. Rather, it has a transitory time in which it is imparting its information. This seems to be against the basics of IP. Isn't it instantaneous? If there is a sustained action, of communication between the IP message packet of photon to that which is being struck, this seems to me to be only communicable if there are smaller IP quanta message packets being exchanged until such a time as the photon of this particular particle contained in the ZPE ceases to exist (it's been absorbed) or is no longer in communication (touching) with the object it was communicating with before (it's been 'reflected' in classical physics).
• 'No, the higher energy leading edge messages have more bits of information, the resulting state change is still instantaneous in effect, it is just manifests a state change of a greater number of states, ultimately manifesting more space. If there is some transaction time, it is not observable.'
How can the leading edge have more information then any other part of the pulsar? How can that be enough to need to transmit some of that information away? And even with a raised irregularity ("leading edge"), more ZPE will strike in non-spinward vectors then will strike in spinward orientation, so once again.. if only spinward strikes on the raised irregularity 'bleed' off spin energy (the outgoing ZPE is sent away with more energy then recieved), and all the non-spinward ZPE events are communicated out with less energy then received, it seems to me that the pulsar should still be gaining energy and spinning up. Not losing spin. The only way I can see that this isn't true is if the total energy lost to the the messages sent out from the spinward strikes is higher then the energy gained from the non-spinward strikes messages. As ZPE is mere photons and smaller packets of energy, I have a difficult time presuming there is a net spin loss to accellerate the odd spinward outgoing message because it takes more energy away then the the energy gained from non-spinward strikes and their subsequent outgoing ZPE messages.
Humm... is that right? This seems backwards to me. Are the directions for gaining and loosing spin wrong? Opposite vectors cancel out. ie, their messages add to zero in a receiver. End of message proprogation. So wouldn't non-spinward striking ZPE communicate their spin vectoring against the larger spin vector of pulsar, and thereby act as the tiniest of brakes? And isn't the majority of ZPE going to strike the pulsar in a non-spinward orientation, and thereby, the net effect over billions of years will be to act as a spin down brake on the pulsar? I don't see how it could work otherwise, today. Let me think on this, as the net gain/loss seems to demand this, unless there is an imbalance elsewhere in the energy gained/loss per strike. And all other things being equal, the energy gained per strike should be the same as the energy lost per strike where there is a higher to lower movement. There is only so much energy one can impart, isn't there? Or take away? The mass of the two objects in question should be the same, therefore the energy gained and loss should work out to be the same, depending on the strike orientation, yes? Or am I missing something very big?
Ok, so straighten me out and help improve my understanding of IP physics. What is actually happening, in IP terms? Classical physics has to have the pulsar losing it's spin via conversion to gravity waves. That's the only explanation they have currently for this phenomenon. Of course, this means that there is a basic friction in the very fabric of space-time, and eventually everything will be lost to entropy, but that is not my question. ;) ---StarPilot
• 'State changes are being propagated, but the values are distorted by relative motion. We should be glad that spinning objects do have this very slight tendency to slow down or we would see everything spinning wildly at random speeds generally much higher than would be suitable for explorers to visit.'
If state change is instanteanous, how can relative motion matter? Each state change, and its subsequent messages about its new state, would be based in total on its state, and not relative. Yes? Otherwise, I don't see how a state change could be instantaneous.

## How can anything go faster then light speed?

Question: If the speed of space is the speed of light... how is it possible for local effects to make information travel faster then the speed of light? So far, they cannot maintain photons traveling faster then the speed of light for very long, but they can indeed make them go faster then the speed of light by taking advantage of their wave nature and having constructive interference push the photons faster then the speed of light. (This is under research in speeding up/multiplying the bandwidth of fiber optical networks.)

The normal resulting faster then light speed is canceled out by the destructive interference which brings the total average speed of the photon down well below the speed of light, but they are working on a sustained constructive wave that would cause photons to stay above the speed of light (in a vacuum) while traveling through that 'constructively charged' section of the fiber pipe.

If the speed of light can be exceeded, even for a minimal amount of time (fractions of a second), doesn't that imply that the speed of space is not the speed of light? Otherwise, no matter what 'wave tricks' were performed, the information quanta of the photon could not be speeded up past that point. Space can only grow so fast/Information transmitted so fast. Or is that not true?

I'd have to search around for the links on the news stories and research, as it has been a while since I first read it, but I've been meaning to ask the Guru of IP about this. --StarPilot

In InformationPhysics, space is time. A light path connects two clocks instantaneously manifesting a delay proportional to what we perceive as distance.

If there is some kind of yet undiscovered neutrino or ZPE interaction the speed of space might be a little faster than light in a vacuum.

There are mathematical situations where some theories would predict a faster than light speed, but in these cases something else happens, such as chernov radiation in nuclear reactors. The extra energy is always manifest in some other way.

To exceed light speed is to demonstrate push-me pull-you non-local effects.

In the information universe only change information is manifest. If you think about TheCaseOfTheElectronCollision it becomes clear the speed of light is instantaneous. Also, according to special relativity it takes infinite energy to accelerate you that fast and your travel time approaches zero. You can't beat that. In the IP model everyone has their own clock and sees events in one order only. Different observers may see things in different order. The number of discrete quantum differentials of disagreement in ordering happens to correspond to what we call space. TheCaseOfTheElectronCollision shows how disagreements in ordering arise. Space is an exact mapping of those disagreements. If events a and b are disordered to one participant relative to some other participant, then following events are also unordered increasing the number of disordering or the distance between us synthesizing space at their relative velocity.

There are non-local effects when quantum interactions occur on a large scale. Some have speculated that this might allow faster than light communications. Bell proved this is not the case. In IP, the simple fact is that large-scale quantum events are large scale in nature and not local. A light path, for example, no matter how long it is, defines a spoke of space across its entire length. The endpoints cannot be considered separately with independent local properties. Similarly, an electron cannot be considered independently from its positron partner, or a neutrino independent of its partner. There is no faster than light communication involved. It is simply that BIG events define space and time on a large scale, not a local scale.

Each participant in the universe perceives and generates events in a particular order. Each is a clock that ticks with each event. It is the nature of the universe that no observer sees any clock ticking backwards. InformationPhysics explains this since the communicated differences are all that exists. The orderings of all the clocks together manifest everything. Received events are annihilated before the changes are propagated into the future insuring that there is no going backwards, the past no longer exists. -- JimScarver

'Continuation:' Sorry Jim, that didn't answer clearly how this effect happens. Constructive interference creates a push me-pull you effect on the photon. Which shouldn't be possible, if the speed of space/light is speed of light. Period. Light traveling directly at a BlackHole, doesn't go any faster because it is also falling down the black hole's 'gravity well' (you know, traveling inside the major disappearing of space radius near the hole). But with a bit of fiber optics, we can cause photons to go faster then their top speed in vacuum. That is supposed to be 'impossible'.

'It is indeed impossible if there is really any faster than light communication involved. I am highly skeptical than anything more than ordinary non-locality is being demonstrated. It they actually succeeded in demonstrating such a thing it would contradict quantum theory and relativity, and quantum event time information physics. -- JimScarver'

The only way the rule of 'the speed of information is light, delayed by the distance traveled' can be held to be correct, is to define the event not on the local scale, but on the macro. And that seems to be... cheating... to me. We haven't need to before this.

Is it possible that this is instead an instance of where the only things interacting with the photons, are other photons, and hence are creating their own sequence chain, which to them is obeying the 'space only grows at the speed of light', and then exiting that exclusive framework and reentering ours? Hence, to us, the photons traveled faster then the speed of light, when our event streams are compared to its?

'Photons do not seem to interact with each other. They would need to have hidden variables in another world for that to be. The other world would have to be running backwards in time relative to ours and we would have to have some way of communicating with it. There is zero evidence that any such would exists. -- JimScarver'

Humm... Let's see... What is happening is that one wave of photons is riding another wave of photons... push me pull you... adding their vectors, constructively, and thereby going faster then light speed. Humm... Ah. So yes, to each photon, it is maintaining its speed, but both are creating space as they travel, creating a total amount of space in a particular location of framework that is greater then either photon/wave by itself... Which should mean that the speed of space is not the speed of light, as if it was, then photon waves could not create such an effect. The total amount that the space could grow is limited to its limit...

'not really. Consider the TheCaseOfTheElectronCollision. All that they are doing is making the perspective of one of the electrons our reference frame and saying the other is faster than light. They have not and we can expect will not demonstrate faster than light communication. -- JimScarver

Humm... rethinking some of what you said, you seem to be implying that each photon chain is maintaining its own pace, and the net effect of their passage creates the illusion to an outsider observer that they exceeded the speed of light. But you also conflict yourself, stating that something happens to prevent such an event. You cannot have it both ways... either you can or you cannot, and it is all the same effects on all scales, micro versus macro, unified, in IP.

'I am not sure I follow, photons need not follow any particular path or go in a definite direction. It is the observer who calculates the delay or clock difference required to prevent effects from being seen before causes. -- JimScarver'

Smarmy time: Besides, the photons in the two streams are interacting, which creates even more space. If the speed limit is a real limit, then nothing can pass it. A limit is just that. Otherwise, it is just a threshold, that may be easy to very difficult to cross. Yes? :-D ---StarPilot

' Okay, photons acting on another world maybe, but not with each other. There is no possibility in modern theory and no experimental evidence of any interaction between photons. A photon is just our way of looking at an exclusion event, electrons refusing to occupy the same quantum state. Space was created. The photon has no existence independent of the space created. Space itself has no other dimension other than the photons that define it. -- JimScarver.'

## Teleportation Conversation

(Refactored from ???) Thank you for the responses. My point re teleportation was (StarTrek aside), if a nano-second is detected between events, then time has lapsed. However, if zero time between events is found to be a reality (Newtonian realm) as we know it, does this not prove as described below by JS, that a single entity CAN exist in two places simultaneously?

'I'm not sure I understand. Some of this will be addressed at the bottom in response to StarPilot. In the quantum world there is a sort of timeless realm where possibilities exist but nothing irreversible has happened. In this realm, in the standard model they say an object can exist in a superposition of states. This is something like being it two places at once. But as soon as something happens, the ambiguity vanishes and ultimately history will include only one of the possibilities from any defined window of observation. When quantum differences are observed at the same time they add, cancel, or fold into independent dimensions creating a single observation of the combined quanta from the observers perspective. Relativity excludes simultaneous events do to relative time. Since time is a local phenomenon, you can't say the time is the same no matter how close in time they may appear because there is no common clock.'

Perspective/perception is indeed viewed from our point of individual reference. Is the fact that light travels at zero difference in time regardless of the distance of the reflector, proof that we reside in an enclosed system? Are the light frequencies such, to fit within the boundaries? (The closer, the higher the frequency, the further, the longer the wave). If contained, what lies beyond? Phil.

'I don't see the nature of light (information) itself implying a closed system. It implies time and space are not absolute, they are relative. The inverse relationship of frequency and energy density happens to coincide with harmonics that would exist in a finite size universe. This makes it reasonable to speculate that the universe is finite but does not prove anything. Finite does not mean "contained". The gross geometry of the universe is a hypersphere, look far enough out in space in any direction and you see the single point of the Big Bang. It is a sphere twisted into a forth dimension such that each point on the surface is the center point. There are no boundaries. There is no absolute time or space, only orderings of events.'

Legend:
SP = StarPilot
JS = JimScarver

SP: Ok. Why do people think that if something were to teleport, it would be in two places at once? Too much StarTrek? One interaction you are here, the next interaction, you are there. Done.

'JS: That's in reference to "instantaneous" teleportation or super luminal speed. Instantaneous implies there exists some absolute time reference which has not been observed and does not exist according to relativity. If you teleported from one light year away to my office, I could see one of you in my telescope for a whole year in addition to the one of you standing next to me. You would exist in two different reference frames at the same time. We could watch you build the teleporter, get in, and disappear. Apparently the universe does not allow this. Otherwise we might see things popping in and out of existence inexplicably until we observe the cause in the future. In QET (quantum event time) space is event ordering and there is no connection between a and b except those orderings. One interaction, you are there, is exactly the case with light itself. Teleportation at light speed is possible in theory. If you don't believe relativity or QET and think absolute time and space exist independently from observed events then how can you explain the odd behavior of light (e.g. constant speed no matter how fast you go relative to the light source)? and Why does [itex]e=mc^2[/itex]? The only reason people like to invent absolute time and space is that it seems to work in ordinary human scale observational windows (Newtonian realm). The facts, however, support Einstein's view in the macrocosm.'

(It's a state change, and state changes are instantaneous, after all.) Might cause a lot of problems in your brain with disorientation, and something would need to adjust local vectors (or you have better be go way out into deep space so you can re-vector to 'catch up' with local stuff if you are traveling any real distance I suppose), but it doesn't violate any other 'perceived' laws, does it?

'JS: "instantaneous", super luminal, teleportation breaks all the laws, the speed of light is the speed of information. It is instantaneous from the point of view of the light, our distorted perception that there was a delay is what we call space.' (see below)

Is this just 'Well, Man never walked on the Moon before, so he never will.' thinking showing up?

'JS: All the evidence shows that space and time are aspects of the same thing dependent on the observer. It's only 99.999999999999999999999(a few hundred more nines here)% true. There could be some other kind of aether that light and matter do not interact with ordinarily. It might expand and contract in concert with space-time as we know it through some mechanism, and though nature has been unable to interact with it in any way, we might find a way, and somehow it might provide the absolute reference frame for time and position you are looking for. Once I realized that time was a local phenomenon I find it difficult to conceive how absolute time could be manifest. Once I realized that physical space is as fluid as idea space, I can't conceive of how an absolute space could exist. But, if there is ever evidence that event ordering is violated I'll help look for those things, otherwise it is just fantasy.' (see below)

SP: Also... you still haven't told me why teleporting would put you into stasis while you 'travel' at light speed. According to what you've said... that would only happen so long as you are 'interacting'. Why bother? According to IP, we are all just information in motion, so tune out all other transitory receivers of your info (and you of transitory info), and just communicate with a receiver/consumer elsewhere. Presto. No violations. If you are not interacting/viewable, you achieve quanta effect, and hence you can go from here to there, just like one great freaking huge quanta particle. Jah? It's the traveling in free broadcast form that causes one to 'Photate' along. If your receiver is specific, rather then general, then in the viewpoint, there is no such thing as intervening distance. And it's the viewpoint that counts.

'JS: yes, in theory, you can teleport at light speed without violating anything. And you will get there instantaneously by your clock.'

## Light is slowing?

assumed post would indicate the author .. sorry .. below questions are from Phil

also .. read just today that E=MC2 is challenged yet again. Macquarie University (Australia), Professor Paul Davies has observed that the speed of light is slowing. If proved, this raises the question of C being a constant in the equation. It also asks the question if the speed of light may have been infinite at the point of the "big bang". If infinite then, might this explain the measured light reflection of objects being at the same speed now, arriving at the same time upon the target of reflection, regardless of distance from the light source?

'in a sense light speed is infinite, the closer to light speed you get, the closer you come to getting there instantly from your perspective'
SP: Which is because: your brain is an electro-chemical organic structure that depends on light speed. It's like if our brains depended on the speed of sound, then the closer we go to the speed of sound, the closer we'd perceive we got their in an instant. That's purely a mechanical effect, and has nothing to do with what is actually happening.
'JS: I wouldn't say that, speed is relative, nothing is happening because you are moving infinitely fast, the fact that others don't agree with that a separate issue from brain chemistry. Your own movements are controlled by Newtonian laws, the more fuel you burn the faster you get there, but your speed is only relative to other objects, you don't have any absolute speed.'

If so, are we measuring "old infinite speed light" ? Compression/expansion of light waves (comparative to the audio experience of the Doppler Effect) is promulgated as the answer to instantaneous arrival of reflection, under the given equation of measured finite speed. Any thoughts ?

'all light has the same speed today in our realm.'
SP: Prove it! :-D We 'assume' this, we do not know this. We know what it is locally, under certain conditions, and presume that's true everywhere else. We do this to make things simple on ourselves. Should we suddenly discover this wasn't true, it would still take generations of scientists before we'd start using that knowledge, because people use what they know, and what they know first is always most true of the true. Regardless of Truth. Again, nature of the HumanAnimal.
'JS: one violation of event ordering is all I would need to believe it. That would invalidate `e=mc^2`, it would violate time ordering as effects could happen before causes and our universe would exhibit nonsensical behavior again. I'd be a little pissed off, just when I resolved the strangeness of relativity and the quantum, the universe threw me a whammy. But one single reproducible effect of event ordering violation would invalidate all of modern science including my own views. I know that would make your day, but don't put any money on it. I'm sure our views today are in fact wrong, but they are exceedingly accurate with respect to experiment and any new science will have to agree in the realms of relativity and quantum electrodynamics.'

If C is in fact slowing AND E=MC2 still holds, what impact does this have on our measurement and understanding of energy transfer? If the equation fits and C is variable, how does this change energy/life as we perceive it?

'First of all, let's be clear on the nature of time and space. Everything perceived are events, events are manifest in orderings, the ordering are perceived as time or space depending on the perspective of the observer. The Big Bang created almost infinite dimensions of organization, to talk about how light or mass or anything might have been manifest in the beginning we need to define the organizational dimensions of the observers. With that in mind, lets look back from our perspective.'
'The early universe was small and hot. We can speculate that the universe can only contain waves that fit. The lowest energy quantum wave would have a wavelength equal to the diameter of the universe. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the frequency (f). Thus the energy (e) of a quanta increases as we go back in time. By `e = hf`, Planck's constant (h) would increase. If we hold `h` constant, then for `hf = mc^2` to hold, we would have say the speed of light (c) increased. Both interpretations are equivalent and neither has any impact of the world we observe today or tomorrow. Speed is a relative concept. The big and slow organisms of the cold distant future will not think their light is any slower than our light seems to us. Should we survive until then, we will be smaller because our quanta will be smaller and light should seem to be the same speed relative to our size. For me, adjusting the size of the quanta makes more sense than adjusting the speed of light, but it's all a matter of perspective.'

I read of my local university claiming to have teleported a laser beam over a metre, in a nano-second. Re the question below from StarPilot; is time required for teleportation , else a particle would exist in two places at the same point in time?

'absolutely, time is money and space is time. Movement in space is traversing times orderings cause that is all there is. Don't put any money on traveling back in time.' But you could put a dollar in the bank, travel 200 light years and be a millionaire when you get back....

## Teleporting equals Delay?

Humm... I am finding it difficult to just accept that instantaneous travel/transport between two points in space results in a time delay of light speed. Perhaps I've been exposed too much to (science) fantasy, but why should this be true? I do not see it as violating any other rule of InformationPhysics, so I obviously have not quite GotIt.

Now, the reason I'm thinking this, is that we have quantum tunneling and other things where items just pop about/into/outof. Yah? Sure, it's small scale, but in IP it doesn't matter between the scales, does it? After all, information is information. It's only the scale of the consumer and vendors (is that the right word? Vendors? Broadcasters?) that changes. The 'information' hasn't changed, until it has been received by something, anyways. ;)

'Quantum objects have no defined position unless an event occurs. Positions only exist where positional events occurred. How many dimensions space has depends not on any intrinsic property of space, but on the geometric configuration of the events. Quantum tunneling occurs because the quantum object does not have a position in space without an interaction it does not care which side of a barrier it is manifest on.'

Otherwise... otherwise light isn't actually anything. Light would be the information wave front/packet of the broadcast about certain quanta, and nothing more. Wouldn't it?

Although... from what I do get about IP, it's all just a very convoluted state machine, broadcasting, receiving, (possibly) processing and re-broadcasting information. We aren't even really 'sentient'... We are just merely Turing state machines responding to our received signals and processing accordingly. (Ok. We may be 'sentient', but we are not 'free willed'. We merely think we are at times. But it's a solid state universe, and we are just cogs in the end to end playing through of that solid state... Like the songs on a cassette tape. We are only conscious of the tape being played in the direction we call forward.)

Bleah. That's no fun. --StarPilot (Maybe it's just the day I'm having?)

'Free will is a tough issue in a collaborative existence. We can say the universe is deterministic because everything happens for a reason, it is caused by what happened before and what can happen now. We can say the universe is not determinable because it would take a computer larger than the universe itself to model it and predict what will happen. Since deterministic implies it must be determinable, by ClassicalLogic, our premise, that the universe is deterministic, is false. At the same time existence itself is a participatory process, it is the whole universe acting on you that manifests you and you receiving information and acting on it that manifests the universe.'

Oh... What is the information being broadcast when light is first produced? Say, inside our good ole Sol, or the room's lights? Or the CRT? I'm hot? What... its quanta, so that makes it... I'm hotter then ???? (what) ???? my glowing point? --still the curious StarPilot

'when you take a cup of water out of a tub, it leave a hole that gets filled in. If you dump the cup in, it makes a bump that gets smoothed out. An electron moving from a high numbered (energy) state to a low numbered state leaves at hole, or virtual positron where it left, another electron tries to fill the hole and in doing so moves from a low numbered state to a high numbered state. We say light having the number of quanta equivalent to the change in state went from one electron to the other, but nothing really went anywhere, the electrons interacted at a distance like billiard balls that don't need to touch as their interactions create the perception of time and space.'

## Fast/Hot equals lots of time (chat)

```[[SlopeDome]]: if zero point energy is infinitely abundant, but infinitely weak,
how can it be worth anything?
[[JimScarver]]: It is NOT weak! 175 GEV!

[[SlopeDome]]: and why is it that we can't harness it?
[[JimScarver]]: energy only flows from higher to lower
[[JimScarver]]: it is harnessed! it manifests all mass.

[[JimScarver]]: The [[WhitescarverClock]] harnesses it.
[[SlopeDome]]: build it
[[JimScarver]]: lol
[[JimScarver]]: it is built, it is the universe:-)

[[SlopeDome]]: so you don't think the universe will cool and be destroyed?
[[JimScarver]]: only as we know it, the huge slow complex systems that will exist
then will not feel slow at all.
[[SlopeDome]]: if the universe is accelerating apart so fast, how can we reasonably
assert that we've seen objects that existed shortly after the big bang
[[JimScarver]]: nothing is lost really, it is only lost to our observational
window to live in the future
[[SlopeDome]]: wouldn't they have disappeared from view in a short time?
[[JimScarver]]: all we see is the blur from when the plasma world condensed into
separate quasars and such.
[[JimScarver]]: that world still exists in the sun
[[SlopeDome]]: that world exists again in the sun
[[JimScarver]]: very hot and fast, its generations are a blink of the eye
[[SlopeDome]]: the sun wasn't always hot
[[JimScarver]]: true
[[SlopeDome]]: getting hotter too
[[JimScarver]]: livin in the fast lane.

[[SlopeDome]]: how about earth.  why isn't the magma getting hotter
[[SlopeDome]]: shouldn't all those neutrinos and x-rays be jacking us up?
[[SlopeDome]]: if the sun could just support our seismic activity for a few billion
more years, life has a better chance of surviving
[[JimScarver]]: it is just enough to manifest the earths mass, the only heat source
Are tidal forces due to the moon.
[[SlopeDome]]: I though we'd have enough to manifest our mass in the zero-point
energy without the sun present.  there is no extra?
[[JimScarver]]: never fear, we are leaving this planet before than recreating it on
other worlds like the sun recreate the big bang.
[[JimScarver]]: the sun is weak compared to the [[ZPE]]

[[SlopeDome]]: so the manifestation of matter takes quite a bit of energy
[[JimScarver]]: e=mc^2
[[JimScarver]]: well, its sustenance energy equals its gravity really
[[SlopeDome]]: so does it return the energy?
[[SlopeDome]]: or does it destroy it
[[JimScarver]]: ? if it becomes too energetic the [[ZPE]] eats it:-)
[[JimScarver]]: which is what is happening to the sun...

[[SlopeDome]]: how long do black holes last?
[[JimScarver]]: in theory, almost an eternity, but there are no black holes really,
they are an idealization at macrocosmic dimensions
[[SlopeDome]]: what do you call what's at the center of our galaxy?  a brown hole?
[[JimScarver]]: Quazino?
[[SlopeDome]]: what's that?
[[JimScarver]]: baby quasar, brown hole isn't very description, but is technically
correct.
[[SlopeDome]]: so quasars are more massive than quote-unquote 'black holes'?
[[JimScarver]]: black holes can be any mass depending on the size. quasars indeed
were incredibly immense
[[SlopeDome]]: quasars don't last long?
[[SlopeDome]]: if black holes can be any mass, what determines whether concentrated
mass and energy will create a quasar as opposed to a black hole?
[[JimScarver]]: There are no black holes really, chance determines what is manifest,
there is a finite possibility enough energy could manifest a Mack truck.
[[JimScarver]]: Quasars have a short life by our standards, but in event time they
lived almost forever
```

## Why don't we just pick an appropriate viewpoint?

StarPilot says:

Alright, this is getting tiresome... Someone is very married to their view, just as I'm married to my use of the word 'Intelligence' when applied to 'People'. (I'll address that over on OneHundredMonkeys. :-D)

' I would love to be wrong. That is path to truth. Do you really think I have not given your point of view considerable thought? It is an argument I have had with just about everyone for about 35 years. I apologize for not having conveyed that. -- JS'
'SP: Well, when I say this, I knew you'd at least thought about it. Made me a happy camper. '

Look, Mr. Carver... you say it's tick tock tick tock. On different scales for different information senders/receivers. Well, now, in Software and Database Design, when you have 'More then One', you almost always have 'practically infinite'. Now, each 'VIEWPOINT' (one or more senders/receivers is required to form a viewpoint) has its own time frame. This suggests that if we can pick our own viewpoints, we get the appropriate time frame.

'Ok, on a network, from any node we receive messages in a particular order. But the order the messages were send is indeterminate. No matter how closely the systems on the network try to synchronize there clocks there will always be slight variations even is they all use GMT the same time stamp on two messages does not mean they are actually simultaneous. In the universe the situation is much worse, the relative nature of time, as unveiled by Einstein, implies there is no GMT that can apply to multiple distant observers. You can try for a fixed set of observers, but adding another observer is guaranteed to screw it up.'

Now, why cannot we just pick a viewpoint where only the you and where you want to go are the only members of that viewpoint? In one viewpoint tick, you are here, the next, you are there? Same as a SuperQuanta. You seem to be violating your own IP by saying, well, yes, BUT you only think it's instantaneous, in reality you Photate and once your Photation reaches the desired receiver, you leave stasis.

'Ok, there is no problem with an individual observer getting somewhere instantly, I only contend that they must get there by space-time geometry, there is no other relation between here and there.'

No. You only deal with that receiver. So there is no Photating involved. Tick----------Tock. No travel between. That's a DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT. And no other viewpoints exist. You've stated, if only one viewpoint, it will be. If a viewpoint does not include that item, that item does not exist.

'now you lost me...'
' SP: I may not have properly grasped something in IP, but in my head (current understanding), every bit of universal bits belong to one of more viewpoints. For viewpoints that are not concerned with that type of bit, it doesn't exist. Is this correct? I am doing a logic/viewpoint game/shenanigan to get instantly from here to there. '

So I'm trying to figure out why you are staying rooted in your viewpoint. According to what you've described, by manipulating something into a viewpoint where only the sender and receiver exists, and nothing else is in the viewpoint, the time it takes to send that information will be instantaneous.

Instantaneous is instantaneous is instantaneous. Otherwise, it isn't instantaneous.

'due to the observed relative nature of time instantaneous is not simultaneous.'
'SP: Whose observational window? '
JS: Einstein assumed there was no preferred observer. In that case there is no way to define simultaneities given the relative nature of time and space.
SP:'Once again, you are using the derived attribute along with the primary. No need to repeat yourself. And There is such a thing as simultaneous. Everything is tied together and communicates through gravity.

It's a simple system viewpoint. To me, the trick is figuring out how to make the manipulation for sending them into that viewpoint, and then bringing them back to our shared viewpoint. Maybe you see this as impossible. (Then why are there impossible viewpoints in the IP information? Maybe I misunderstood that...) That's alright by me, as long as I know I've successfully communicated my silly idea to you for your consideration. At this point, I feel it's being knee-jerked shot down, rather then being considered, as a fun mental exercise.

'I have conceded that relative time and space could be different in some other world and if we could communicate somehow in spite of the fact that nature has failed to do so then that view might be reasonable.'
' SP: Nature has not failed to communicate. We are the ones who have failed to perceive it. It is only a failure of Nature to communicate if Nature is trying to communicate it to us, specifically. '
JS: unless we can measure it does not exist in science. If things instantly popped from here to there we could not help but notice. Nothing does.
SP: Tsk tsk, JS. Things pop up all the time. Generally small things but they do just pop up. Generally this small things don't last long, but some rare few do. Just because you haven't figured out how to measure something does not mean it doesn't exist. With new knowledge and theories of how things work, come new measurement systems.

Why do people want absolute time and space? Who cares. Humans seem to often crave such things, to know there is an 'absolute'. That's my general observation. I'm not looking for that. I think an infinite scale is just fine for providing what I'm looking for. And from what I've inferred from all this, rather then their being an absolute time scale, with offsets of scale from that absolute (x10 slower per tick, x10000000 slower per tick, yadda yadda blah), there is an infinite. Every viewpoint has its own time scale. Only when the SuperQuanta are shared between viewpoints do time scales, well... Scale. In that case, at least where they share viewpoints with us, we can see whether they are faster or slower then us.

'yes, relatively. But I don't believe in the SuperQuanta or the infinite from the viewpoint of science, that is a religious issue. There is still no way to map everyone into the same time zone in 4 dimensional timespace. We say we are seeing a star 100 years in the past, but it is not our past, it is a past independent of us by 100 light-years of cause and effect.'
SP: Who am I talking to here? Who doesn't believe in the SuperQuanta? Everything physical is a SuperQuanta. Or am I using a word that has different assigned meaning from what I was trying to communicate? (I'd never heard of SuperQuanta before using it here. Just occurred to me as the most likely term for what connotation I was after.)
JS: it is I. I thought you were talking about some ideal perspective. So SuperQuanta is the edge of classical perhaps.
SP: Once again, you are wrong in your example. We are seeing the image of that star, as it was 100 years ago. It is only an image. 100 years ago, the gravity from that star had already effected us.
JS: It is not an image, it is a direct observation with no events in between, no storage, no retransmission. We can slow the signal, but we are not, it is instantaneous in event time. The gravity of the star has not effect on us at all, it only effects the shape of space and time between us. Not even gravity communicates faster than light.
SP: Oh, please. Gravity is faster then light. We can plot the current positions of matter concentrations, like stars, planets, and black holes, due to their gravitational shadow. Not where they were. GRAVITY is instantaneous, and if your system doesn't take that into account, it is a failed system.
I submit this. There is universal and absolute Time. It is called Gravity.
Gravity's effect is not broadcast. It is felt throughout space-time, every instance at all instances of time. Therefore, Gravity is your internal bus speed, in InformationPhysics.
JS: In IP there are no strange fields and forces at a distance. Everything can be explained without such voodoo. Your system has failed SP. You cannot give an instant by instant account of my thought experiment by a universal clock for the same reasons the effect of gravity is not instantaneous.
The following is from: http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html
#. Space and space-time are not rigid arenas in which events take place. They have form and structure which are influenced by the matter and energy content of the universe.
#. Matter and energy tell space (and space-time) how to curve.
#. Space tells matter how to move. In particular small objects travel along the straightest possible lines in curved space (space-time). (Note the above descriptions of General Relativity are due to John Wheeler.)
In curved space the rules of Euclidean geometry are changed. Parallel lines can meet, and the sum of the angles in a triangle can be more, or less than 180 degrees, depending on how space is curved. Einstein's theory gave a correct prediction for the perihelion shift of Mercury. It also explained why objects fall independent of their mass: they all follow the same straightest possible line in curved space-time. Finally, in Einstein's theory the instantaneous gravitational force is replaced by the curvature of space-time. Moving a mass causes ripples to form in this curvature, and these ripples travel with the same speed as light. Thus, a distant mass would not feel any instantaneous change in the gravitational force, and special relativity is not violated.
If you want more references I can show them to you. The reason gravity seems instantaneous is the same reason Bell's experiment (EPR) seems to create correlations faster than light, because the space on space is determined by events. Your classical Newtonian view is being clung to by a few, but I am afraid it is doomed.
'JS: gravity is not felt at all! All bodies are free falling and feel no force due to gravity at all. Einstein said they are traveling straight lines through bent space, and you might stay, aha!, the bends exist, but there is no basis for that assumption. In the IP/QET model events/photons define time and space, the more quanta of events the more time and space, the fewer the less time and space. transmitting a photon creates space and time, receiving one destroys space and time. In the ecology of event information entropy=gravity. earth at the surface is eating 32 feet of time and space (due to received zero point energy mostly) every second manifesting an acceleration. It is a local phenomenon that needs not effect everything in the universe simultaneously. The space and time consumed by the earth and the moon is just enough to manifest the orbital "bend" Einstein described. No force is felt, only the bending of space resulting from there being less space between objects now than there was before.
SP: You know, when I first read this, I thought 'If that's what IP then IP is just flat out wrong.' But now that I'm reviewing my composition, I think you are almost right. Check this out...
There is no such thing as free-fall. Gravity did not suddenly stop affecting them. Gravity is still at play. What most people call free-fall, such as is experienced on the International Space Station, on a big drop amusement ride, the Vomit Comet, is the change in feeling of not being pushed down against a surface. To orbit a mass and retain in that state, you simply have to travel in a straight line vector at a speed that equals the amount of distance your mutual gravity will cause you to 'fall' towards each other in height difference. Here (Terra), it means traveling at 6 miles a second. That will equal the amount of distance you fall in a second versus the amount of height you 'gain' and how much the earth's surface will curve away from you. Exceed that amount, and you leave local orbit.
JS: that works for the IP perspective, but I don't see where your voodoo gravity comes in, you are falling at the same rate space is eaten.
Fact: Gravity is a force. We call it the mutual attraction between two masses. It is an environmental force, not a broadcast ray such as a light beam. A light beam is made of photons, which are particles of matter. As particles of matter, they are affected by Gravity, as all matter is.
JS: what is a force made of? I don't see any reason to invent them. Kinetic energy is a component of total energy that impacts the total gravity of an object. Thus if I am moving fast relative to a mass the mutual attraction is greater than if I am moving slowly.
Gravity is an environmental effect of the universe. But it does not eat anything. It is in fact the exact opposite (which is why I decided it's just your viewpoint making you think it's eating something). Gravity is caused by empty space expanding. Two masses are pushed together by the difference in environmental pressure being exerted on them due to the fact that the masses exist. The masses do not expand, unlike empty space. This prevents the space between them from expanding as much the space between the mass and the edge of the universe (well, any of the other longer chains of EmptySpace). The net effect is, the two masses are pushed together. The more EmptySpace between the masses, the less the impact of the mass on the chain of EmptySpacePoints, and therefore, the less the observed effect of mutual attraction between the two. This is balanced by the larger the mass, the more it disrupts the local space expansion (as it takes up more SpacePoints), and hence, the stronger its presence is felt.
A net effect is a net effect, no? If you have an unequal pressure differential between two masses, this will impart a vector on otherwise vectorless objects. If the difference is a negative vector (towards each other), they will eventually go together. Presto. Gravity.
So... EmptySpaceExpands. And the more empty (meaning, the further away matter is from the EmptySpace), the more it expands, in comparison to other space. This has been proved. This is Einstein's suspected 'Counter-Gravity' force, that he dropped to avoid ridicule from his peers, and because he couldn't get his mind around it completely, and therefore made him uncomfortable (Einstein's statements, from what I've seen reported on Biographies and Histories shown or printed about him). It's the reason the universe is expanding, faster and faster.
But what can be causing EmptySpace to Expand? Entropy. :-D Entropy is the energy lost, jah? But nothing is lost. So, that energy goes where? The Zero Point Energy, yah? So the ZPE is rising, every moment in the UniversalSystem. And that drives the expansion. The further away a point in space is from a mass, the more its ZPE is felt.
This just makes sense to me, but that doesn't mean anything. We know that nothing is truly lost. Just converted into a state that isn't of use to us, or we are unable to distinguish. Energy gets lost, so where does it go? Into what we'd think of as a base level in the UniversalSystem. The total sum of the system remains the same.
I also find this effect explains the Big Bang. However, this has all evolved from my personal fascination with being told as a small child that the sky presses us against the earth by some jokester. And my personal sense being affronted at a one time only universe. If the Universe is ever expanding, it will die a quiet heat death eventually, yes? So I've arranged things in a matter that makes me feel more comfortable and makes personal sense to me. (Just like every other HumanBeing, including Scientists from what I've seen and researched.)
How do I use this to explain the Big Bang? Eventually, when almost all (up to all) of our universal matter has decayed (returning its energy to Entropy), all our energy has returned to the ZPE... in the very center of our most expanded space (which will be the greatest expanded EmptySpace point in the Universe, which I currently think is the exact Center of our Universe), there will be a Big Bang. Again. As all that Energy in our UniversalSystem transitions from potential (this is the force driving the expansion of EmptySpace, remember) to ActualEnergy as it crosses the threshold beyond what the potential energy can stay locked away as mere potential. (This ties into things do just pop up out of the base quantum foam... the local ZPE exceeded the boundary, and transitioned into energy/matter. However, this Little Bang just hasn't got the built up total potential. This whole effect to me seems like lightning... when the path from ZPE is found through a weak local point, it transitions.)
Now, that's just one of my patent pending OddThoughts. But that's just taken what's proven in science currently and tieing it all together, in a manner that makes personal sense to me. Or amuses me. ;-)
So, you see, matter does not eat space. You just need to zoom back a touch, and see the whole system. :-P And, as I hope you followed, Gravity is the Universe's clock. Everything interacts, instantly.
Filed for future consideration on IP... each tick of Gravity Cellular Array is the transitional event of some energy or matter going into Entropy, and hence changing the total ZPE of the universe? Humm... I'll think about that, for a while...

---StarPilot

JS: nice try SP, but no cigar. Empty space is not empty, it's composed of ZPE. But what is ZPE? It is the total energy coming from all directions. most of it comes from the early universe, shortly after the big bang. Space expands when more events happen and contracts when events are lost from our window of observation. You are very close in that all those events are responsible for the expansion of space and you are right that there is an energy "shadow" between masses that partially explains gravity.

This (accelerating) expansion of space would be negative gravity, making things further apart. IP finds quantum electrodynamics sufficient to describe everything we perceive. ZPE expands only if you have more events, energy doesn't come from nowhere usually. The "shadow" effect can explain gravity but only if the shadow (mass) consumes ZPE. Almost the same amount of ZPE pushes on every side of an object. You drop a glass, there is slightly less ZPE coming from the bottom than the top, 32 feet per second. This is a tiny difference, but the earth's "shadow" is enough so you see the effect of space below the glass evaporating. If the earth doesn't absorb the ZPE, then how can there be a shadow? The shadow and the "eating" of ZPE are manifestations of the same phenomenon.

Note that the ZPE is not really lost, it is recycled to manifest expansion of the universe in the distance future.

Your star ship moves by creating space behind itself by generating events.

You cannot really touch anything because no matter how hard you press enough electron exclusion events will occur to maintain a space between your finger and the object. If you press hard enough you may actually see the space created behind the moving object.

You go in space with a giant silver umbrella. You open it and the events between your umbrella and the sun create space between you and the sun accelerating you away. Close the umbrella and the ZPE eaten by the sun becomes apparent as the space decreases accelerating you into the sun.

Like charged objects create space between them by exclusion events.

Like spin objects create space by exclusion (magnetism)

There are more detailed examples if you actually read the IP stuff :)

There is no call to invent inexplicable forces at a distance.

### The star has been around for 100 years

Your star has been in our viewpoint, for the past 100 years. We were synced by Gravity. Our Gravity on it, just as it's Gravity on us. Mutual Gravity. Constant two way communication.

JS: we have no basis to presume that, and it contradicts the relative nature of time.
SP: That's bull hockey. It does not contradict anything. We KNOW it. It's been proved. The Gravitational Effect is how we determine where things are, in real time. Not by the light bouncing off something and taking it's sweet time to show up.
Gravity is the common viewpoint, and common clock for all things. Galaxies on the far side of the universe, Galaxies which will not even exist by the time their light reaches us, are in complete sync with us right now, through our common Gravity. Our mass communicates with their mass. This is the problem with your view on IP. Gravity is not an energy wave, it's an environmental effect. But it does keep everything in the same common viewpoint.
Furthermore, wherever Gravity is, there is Space. Perhaps I'll share one of my OddThoughts on what Gravity is in the future. Just to see what more scientific minds think about it. ;-)'
JS: space is the food gravity eats
SP: Nope. Just a useful crutch towards the ultimate understanding, I think.

### Quantum jump

'One thing that really confuses people is the idea of the quantum jump. I think this is where the real communication difficulty lays. Positions only exist where objects are manifest. There are no points of space in between, there is no jump, just existence punctuated by events. Due to incomplete knowledge we can't say exactly where something will be manifest in the orderings, we only know that the longer time between events the further away it may be manifest at up to the speed of light'

SP: I still disagree with this, on general HumanAnimal behavior. If it's beyond our expectations, then we will presume something other then our 'Rule'/ExpectedBehavior is in error. Such as the set up, instrumentation, procedure, etc etc etc. (As stated earlier, below.)

'A change in position manifests a velocity differential, `dx/dt`, it is undefined if dt equals zero which is the same case as being in two places at the same time. In relativity, `dx/dt` also cannot exceed the speed of light (requires infinite energy). This corresponds in the quantum to the limit of dt equaling the quantum time and dx equaling the smallest quantum distance (either requires all the energy in the universe). If we fudge relativity and ignore that simple fact that values larger than the speed of light cannot be obtained and plug them into the equations anyway, we find time is going backwards. This leads to speculation about time travel and the misinformation that relativity allows it, it doesn't. In quantum time, event counts are positive in any direction, you can't get anywhere in less than one event. One event corresponds to the speed of light as light is a single event with two participants and no absolute direction in time.'

SP: DT = Distance * Time, right? So, where are you getting 0? This reminds me of a logic slight of hand, where 0 = 1. A change of position manifests a velocity differential because we use vectored transport to achieve a change of position. Otherwise, one would not manifest a velocity differential. So this is the same thing as saying that people will always travel by foot, because you have to walk to get there. You aren't traveling by foot while sitting on a plane or train or other non-foot (direct or powered) transport are you?
'JS: no, dt is the differential with respect to time, not distance times time, remember calculus? I would have used delta if I had one, `dx/dt` is just change in position per change in time.'

### Consider TheCaseOfTheElectronCollision

Consider the thought experiment: TheCaseOfTheElectronCollision

So what's the point? Instantaneous transport has no meaning in the relative universe. Light is the closest thing to instantaneous that is possible.

SP: No it isn't. See above about the absolute clock of The Universe/ IP. :-)
JS: there is no way to map a common absolute clock to relative time and space. I'll bet you a dollar you can't devise a common clock for the observers in this thought experiment that corresponds to the experimental results.
SP: Then your view of IP is flawed. You have a common ordering. Gravity. Gravity is not transmitted through Gravitons. Each little instant our Gravities are causing two way communication between ever bit of energy in the universe, if you believe `e=mc^2`. It's the common field and clock for all.
JS: then tell me what happened blow by blow by your universal clock and claim your dollar.

### Two of me?

The thing about 'two of me' existing is a red herring. There would not be two of me. If I construct a teleporter, 1 light year away from you, climb in it, and teleport 'instantly', that does not violate ANYTHING. Sure, with a good set of optics, you could watch me over that year, build the teleporter. But you cannot INTERACT with the image of me from one year ago. It's just light, not 'ME'. It's the same thing as claiming that there shouldn't be an 'image' in a mirror of yourself, because you cannot be standing in front of the mirror, and in it. It's merely an image. How the heck does that make two of me? Stand in front of a mirror. There's 'you' and then the image of you. Only one is you, and you are not seeing the real you in the mirror. Just a reflection. So, come up with something else to counter the 'there will be two of you, the now you and the you from a year ago', because that's really just stupid. Here(Tick) -> There(Tock). It happens on the quanta scale. What prevents it from being applied on the larger scale? So far, according to you... nothing, other then you don't like it.

'Standing in front of a mirror does not violate time ordering, it simply provides another path that delays the signal. There is no restriction on delaying a signal in this universe. You can make a video tape and play it any time you want. In fact, even in the quantum, distance equals delay, tick, tock is two events. You are saying that you can violate distance equals delay. I am saying that requires a common clock which by all experience does not exist. You are saying that relativity can be wrong. It probably is.'
'Einstein's example was to suppose you are leaving the station on a really fast train that can exceed the speed of light. You look back at the clock on the station tower. The faster you go the clock seems to be running slower until, at the speed of light, the clock seems to have stopped. As you go faster you see the clock moving backwards. You perceive time going backwards, you perceive effects before causes. And experimental results indicated that all this time no matter how fast you go the light from the clock is still traveling toward you at the speed of light relative to your reference frame. How can you and the guy standing along side the tracks see the light coming at the same speed and he see it moving forward and you see it moving backwards. It seemed that the universe violated common sense. The only answer that worked was that time and space are aspects of the same thing, space-time, and time and space were relative phenomenon not absolute. And so it works out that if you map classical speed to relativistic speed where infinite classical speed equals relativistic light speed everything works out fine, the contradictions of experiment are resolved and e=mc^2.'
SP: This is bologna. And not good grade either. (FTL Train, you, sideline observer).
First off, you cannot -perceive- if you are FTL. How is your brain going to function? (Yes, I'm stuck on this. I admit it).
Second, (presuming you got around #1), you are outdistancing the light from the clock. So how are you going to see? The light isn't going to exactly be traveling into your eye, yes? Your eye depends on being slower then photons to concentrate, direct (that's provided by the photon), and perceive/sense them. Your retinas, along with the rest of you, are putting more space between the photons and you. You are outpacing them. What are you doing, traveling forward on the Clock's photon stream's path?
Third, (Must be the allergy drugs) presuming we get around #2 , you are only seeing an image. Where does the violation occur? So what? You perceive effects before the cause? So WHAT! The image is not the actual event. (Remember your video tape analogy? Don't confuse what's visible on the screen for your recorded sequence event on tape.)
Fourth, you are in a falsely built example. To see anything on the train, you have to make your local area "slower" then the train. Otherwise you cannot see or perceive.
Fifth, Space is a measure of time. It's in our perception. Space is "How Long"; which is to say, how long does it take to travel that amount. We are not seeing clearly. The objects we deal with are themselves are made of particles that are TRAVELING (Brownian movement). This is part of that "space" we see. There is no pure Dimensionality. Our perceptions are keyed on our awareness of time. Whether this is the true nature of the universe or not, we will not know until we meet other intelligent beings whose perceptions are not keyed on time (in the fashion we are), but that can successfully communicate with us in a way that we are aware that the communication is coming from an another intelligent being.
Sixth, I've lost track of my important issues I wanted to toss in. We will have to see if I recapture my train of thought next time I respond. :-D

### Ignoring data

SP: We ignore data that does not match our results, all the time. That's common practice in scientific research. I wouldn't have to show you one instance of something showing up, and then the event that caused it happening. (The cause following the effect). Mind you, we know these exist. They have been documented. But there is always a logical reasoning out of it, or 'errors must have happened in the set up/execution/measuring equipment/whatever'. Not that I have anything invested in any particular thought or theory being followed over others. Professionally speaking, I'm a software developer. My job has me as a facilitator and enable of collaboration for NASA. Now, that's fun. :D However, getting back on subject... I would expect the same behavior out of you. After all, when something is outside our expected norm, in a testing condition, we expect something went wrong, rather then everything is right. Something is off, and most people recognize a sign of "Murphy At Work" when we see it in our test results. I won't claim to know what is and isn't, scientifically. After all, Science, and Scientist, used to know for certain fact that grain of rice would spontaneously turn into mice and rats. No telling how long until we know that again. ;-)

### That's not science

JS: Again I concede that there could be some data path that is not on the known network and things could come and smack you in the face without you seeing them come and zip off without you seeing them go and 100 years later you see what caused it. But that is not science unless there are reproducible experiments that exemplify the effect. IP is about science, supposition is welcome, but it is not science unless it corresponds to observation. Personally I doubt such paths exist because nature tends to use all the communication paths available and if it is taboo for nature it is taboo for us as well. Einstein's proof of `e=mc^2` seems like a mathematical trick resulting from him kluging the equations of Newton and Maxwell to incorporate the observed nature of light, but the fact that the bomb exploded suggests to me that his supposition about the relative nature of time and space must be fundamental to the universe. To proclaim that it can be violated with no data at all to back it up seems ridiculous to me.

SP: Taboo is a bad word. It connotes forbidden to me. Nothing is forbidden to Nature. But we do forbid things, culturally, and just by perceptual. If you cannot perceive the possibility, then you will not act in consideration of that possibility. It just won't factor into your thinking.
And I already answered "Space = Time" in our definition of Space. We can break space down into time, but not time into space. :-P
JS: why not? time and space are manifestations of the same thing, event orderings. Whether they are manifest as time or space is purely an accident of perspective.
SP: Because Space is Time. Time manifest is space. Without Time, you have no Space. Space is merely what we call the perceived ordering of Time, as we see it.
JS: sounds like you are getting it :)
SP: I think I've been close to understanding IP in the overall sense since I was first exposed to it. But that's my personal ill-informed opinion, of course. I just like to play with new concepts... stretch them, squash them, put them through their paces, as it were. :-)

As a scientist I am embarrassed that my bias has been so apparent. I am the first to admit that today's science must be wrong and that progress is discovering how we are wrong. And that being objective, science is limited to statements about the known observational results and theories that predict reality that are destined to be overthrown. Living fully demands that we subjectively deal with the oceans of uncertainty as well as the islands of objectivity. IP is just an island which I believe might become a continent, but although it can reclaim land from the sea over time, its dikes only serve to make the oceans deeper. I have witness personally effects that I could not demonstrate scientifically, such as ESP and spirits. Someday I think they will succumb to science, but they are not science yet. An open mind is essential to science, but science has a responsibility to separate what WE can prove and what is supposition. (Gee, in my house grain and rice generate moths! :) )

SP: No worries by me. I'm enjoying the exploration of the ideas. I enjoy learning, and understanding. And I also enjoy the odd debate. Although I'm usually the odd one in the debate. ;-)

### Gravity != Voodoo

SP: Whee! It's getting awfully difficult to find the entries to put the replies with them.

Voodoo? Gravity is not voodoo. And once again, gravity's effect is instantaneous. It does not ripple/bend/eat/spread at the speed of light. Which means, either it's faster then light, or something different entirely.

Is hydraulics voodoo? No. It's an environmental effect in a closed system. Same thing with gravity. An environment effect. You obviously believe in environment effects... your Gravity eating space. That's a local environmental effect, rather then a communication, in the terms you are currently using. If there is no VooDoo allowed, then you have to remove that... it's not data. It's an environmental effect. Jah?

JS: hydraulics has a medium. there can be no single medium for light or gravity since is acts differently for each observer or reference frame.

As far as your clock... Let me think about this. You've had 35 years. I'm only on 3 months of refactoring my personal UniversalSystem view with the Truth About Gravity. :D However, now that I've been thinking about it from earlier today, I do think it's the change of the sum total of energy in Entropy that creates the new tick on the Gravity. A readjustment/new cycle of the Gravity Cellular Array. I presume you are aware of Cellular Arrays/Automata? Weather is a Cellular Automata. Oh, wait. That's a VooDoo, isn't it? So there is no such thing as weather, is there?

JS: weather is in your face, there is not strange inexplicable action at a distance with weather.

Look, if you prefer, Gravity is just the constant pressure of Entropy in the roughly spherical 3D area that is our ClosedSystemUniverse. Pressure is just that, pressure. It's an environmental effect. That might seem like voodoo in the clean world of IP, but that is how many systems work. If we apply some more energy to a sealed tank of air, the air PRESSURE in the tank increases evenly, instantly. That's impossible according to you. But it's a fact of reality. Gravity is the same thing. A simple environmental effect. The boggling thing is just how BIG the container is. Not that such a thing exists.

JS: it would require some aether or medium to press against that has some absolute dimension not relative to the observer.

Where's the VooDoo? Nowhere. Think of the atmosphere pressure on you. Are you saying there is no such a thing according to IP? That's exactly what it sounds like. Pressure is observable.

JS: there is pressure due to electromagnetic radiation, largely the ZPE, but there is nothing instantaneous about it.

Gravity is instantaneous. Ask NASA if you don't believe me.

JS: I'm sure NASA has some old farts that still believe in instantaneous gravity, but no leading physicist does that I know of, see Truth About Gravity.

The Sun is 8 light minutes away. 8 minutes from now, the light that is leaving its surface it will reach Earth. But its gravitational effect from existing this instant has already effected us. If it suddenly ceased to exist, we'd suddenly loose our constant vector to it... now. Not in 8 minutes. That's because gravity is an environmental force of pressure, not a transmitted energy.

JS: Such communication violates special relativity. There are no violations of special relativity know to science. Whoever at NASA is telling you different is lieing.

How is it instantaneous? The same way that adding energy (heat) to our sealed air tank is instantly felt throughout the tank. With the air, it's just a raising of the local Brownian movement on the air molecules, yes? Gravity operates on space itself. That's the only difference.

JS: wrong, pressure increases are also bound to the speed of space (light).
SP: So you are saying if I just swap my Gravity is emergent behavior of the expansion of EmptySpacePoints from being instantaneous to the speed of each space bumping/pressuring the next, you are happy? It's still a waterfall sequence, which means you get the effect at the end of the sequence at the same time as the event occurs, where you maintain an even space between transmission members. You only travel at say, light speed, when you have to 'collide' to have "(new unit jams old. Old pops over, passing it along)". It's the how you maintain the space in the sequence. Meet or not, that determines if you have a wave medium speed, or an instantaneous effect. In simple theory. :-D

Want a basic kids example? Let's look at Risk. If you have a chain of territories strung together, and want to move one extra man present in Alaska to Iceland, you can do so, instantaneously, through use of the waterfall method, despite the fact that your units can only move (normally) at one territory at a time. Your extra man in Alaska bumps over to Alberta. The longer remaining man in Alberta bumps to Ontario. The older man in Ontario bumps to Greenland. The older remaining main in Greenland bumps to Iceland. In Risk, it's called Waterfalling (and is an option listed in most rules). We see this effect in electricity. You know, that stuff powering our computers right now. If you like, it's maintaining a constant safe zone, etc. But that's the emergent behavior of the system. An environmental effect.

Happy yet? Gravity is instantaneous. Or at least, practically. :-D I suppose there is the actual 'Energy transitions to Entropy' ; 'Local ZPE increases' ; 'Any differential of ZPE over local average is transmitted to neighbors, bumping along in our waterfall/electricity effect'. Humm. I'll continue to refine the possibility, to toss back at you. I'd like to close out IP's hole... Gravity is instantaneous, compared to light, or close enough we won't know the difference. (Right now, my IP concept is definitely out of sync with the original. More communication is needed to resolve my understanding of why there are differences. :-) And why yours isn't as advanced as mine. (Just teasing ya. :-P ) )

You know, I don't really know what ZPE is. It's the basic energy of empty space, yah? The Quantum Foam I've heard tossed around?

JS: pay attention! (sorry, lol) it is electromagnetic energy coming from all directions. It does no interact with itself in any way, it only interacts when the photons it is composed of encounter objects of same or less energy and are received.

### Showing my work

Ok JS, just for you, I'll play along, and show you how much I have managed to comprehend. While still playing at being a SnuckerBug. :-D

In Information Ecology|, there are two methods of exchanging information:

1. Push - Sender Initiates (Broadcasts)
2. Pull - Receiver Initiates (Absorption)

In IP, everything but Gravity is a Pull communication. In an Information Ecology the Gravity pushes. Gravity absorbs. In a system where everything is information ( IP), this makes gravity a pull communication ( Gravity eats space, remember?). This is why I was saying that Truth About Gravity, this is true.

Now, if space is nothing more then a virtual event chain, growing larger/longer with each event, and growing smaller when those events are concluded, then matter destroys space by the simple fact of absorbing more broadcast events then it reflects/relays/initiates. Absorption means the event chain ends, ending the sequence and thereby causing the collapse of that events space. Yah?

js: This gets a little sticky. like energy lost into a BlackHole that is received and then sometime in the way future scrambled and readmitted, event the ZPE is not really lost, it is only lost to the now. Most of the photons in the ZPE are almost 12 billion years old. Ancient time-space is destroyed while the time-space that will exist in the distant future is created.

So, I presume this is why you claim mass doesn't communicate via pull method. Your viewpoint is this isn't a communication. It's merely the clean-up (deletion) of that event chain. That would mean: 'Space doesn't curve'. That's an illusion of a human mind refusing to accept the removal of space. Or (giving you the benefit of the doubt) an analogy of a human mind trying to communicate this to other human minds. ;-) That ray of light isn't bent by the curvature... it merely passed straight forward and ended up on a different cell, because it's cell has been shifted over from the deletion of another cell in the row. Now, our ray of light looks bent from an observational viewpoint, but it is in fact unaffected. It is space that was deleted (due to the collapse of a sequence chain). No curving involved.

js: Right, you got it! the photons don't curve. The curve everyone talks about is the shape of space. Parallel lines, e.g. light beams may eventually meet because the events between them are lost (to the present). If you try to think of space as a three dimensional grid (which it is not), or euclidian space, you think the light is bent.

We need to work on your terminology, I think, to better communicate with the masses. Most of the world is, at best, ClassicalPhysics thinkers. And that is not nearly as fun, to me, as my gravity. :-D This is my play, so I pick the game paths that are more fun for me. It's not like I am going to ever use this somewhere to help myself or anyone else that I can see.

On instantaneous nature of Gravity:
NASA is launching GRACE... an experiment to use the gravitational attraction of the earth to map the surface and substructures, in real time. There is no delay of travel involved between the orbiting satellite and the earth, which on their scale of measurement (micron) I think would be required if Gravity wasn't an instantaneous force. That's a current experiment. I've begun looking for publicly accessible information on the new AntiGravity experiments being carried out here at MarshallSpaceFlightCenter, under a \$700 Million contract to Boeing. The project is following up on a Russian Scientist's theory and project. I'd like to find that, and see what methodology and principles they are trying to prove/utilize.

Also, NASA is mapping the universe, near and far, by the moving gravity shadow of masses. That's also instantaneous, not 'delayed at the speed of light'. (I'm been digging for the overall public domain information on this, but haven't found anything shareable so far.) These aren't Super Senior Level Scientist... these are it's Bright Bright Kids fresh out of College and refusing to go make a really nice living working for the Corporate World. If Gravity isn't closer to what I've described, NASA is doomed for a few more generations at least from making any real progress, and it's Astronomical Database is horribly, horribly wrong. It could be as you say, but these boys and gals are supposed to know better. When a Senior/Tenored Scientist around here is just too married to their UniversalSystem which has been proved wrong, they get transferred to places where those views will not effect the science. That's not happening on the gravitational front. Oh well... maybe the Russians will show them the way? ;-)

js: Newtonian physics works for just about everything NASA does. They rarely need or use relativity within our solar system. Only the orbit of mercury is significantly effected by relativistic effects because it is so close to the huge mass of the sun. I heard a NASA director on TV remark on this fact.
The 0.1 second delay in the earths gravity for an orbiting satellite will not hurt the results of that mission. They can map it without concern for the delay. Similarly, using gravitational effect to learn the true mass, rather than the mass based on luminosity of distant objects does not require instantaneous gravity.
There are many classical thinkers in science that think instantaneous gravity and special relativity might be reconciled. These do not include the leading physicists. Instantaneous gravity allows faster than light communication which is strictly forbidden by SR and has never been observed. Remember, the bomb did explode.
The type of delusion pervades all of science. If we can address the general problem, and fix it, who knows, not only will the scientific process accelerate but we might even get objective science in our classrooms and courtrooms.

Now... time for me to pick on you:
Weather in your face means it's explainable? Really? So that explains why there is a monsoon over Tokyo, you get a nice pleasant day? They are related, but they are only explainable if you have the world's greatest supercomputer... which would at the current tech be the size of the Known Universe to try and accurately model our simple atmosphere. It's driven by a very simple formula, but the emergent behavior of the simple Cellular Automata is well beyond our means to accurately model. They have yet to be able to reasonably model the formation of a tornado, for instance. It's all dark ages alchemy, if you go digging. But it's all driven by the simplest of formula (Darned if I can remember it, though. :D Only had it for 2 weeks in HS and haven't used it since).
Note also: Gravity is also in your face. So I do not believe that's a good comeback/counter argument.

js: It has nothing to do with explainability, it has to do with measurability. We say two objects in space attract each other due to a gravitational force. But there is no measurable force between them. Their world lines simply meet in the future. We don't "feel" gravity, we feel the acceleration that counters the meeting of our world lines. There simple is no force involved. In addition the gravity of an object does not have any absolute value. A fast moving object still sees a large value of gravity, a slow one sees a small one. If gravity was an actual force than it should only have one value at any one place in space.
Weather is very different, the wind blows one you, the rain falls on you. It is measurable and all observe agree whether it is raining or not at a certain place or time.

Let's see... you freely admit space expands. And space contracts. You just refuse to consider the possibility that space is the medium that gravity acts through? Really don't like the Wave Through Space, eh? Well, I'll keep digging. And teasing you. And trying to grok interesting concepts. 2000 years ago, the Romans believed the force Vulcan made volcanoes to erupt, and the force Zeus threw lightning for fun and profit. Doesn't seem to have affected our Universe, despite a mass of people knew it was true. And the Romans had quite a lot of advanced knowledge. Heck, some of their advanced knowledge we still haven't been able to recapture.

js: exactly! we invented strange voodoo forces at a distance to explain things which are no longer needed since quantum electron dynamics alone explains what we perceive in the macrocosm and would be contradicted by the existence of such forces. Even the tiniest iteration of the photons comprising space contradicts both quantum theory and experiment.
As I have said, we cannot rule out totally ever finding anything beyond the quantum brick wall no matter how good our evidence is. But making presumptions that contradict the evidence and are untestable is the same as declaring the effects to be an act of the gods. It is not science.

However, you need to do one thing, JS... stop saying OBSERVER. We cannot see the far side of the universe (heck, according to you, there isn't a far side of the universe, because humans wouldn't be able to observe it). Whether humans existed or not, wouldn't change things. These processes existed without us, continue to exist without us, and will continue to exist after we are gone. If you mean the subset of event chains (which is what I think you mean) and the event sequencing in those event chains, well.. we need to come up with a better word then observer. The word observer implies an Intelligence of some form involved... or, if you prefer a more concise description for observer: a conscious watcher. Unless you mean God or the Universe is the witness... Heck. Maybe witness is a better word. We all know that witnesses are often mistaken in what they say, yes? ;-)

js: I never mean a human observer and should say "information receiver" or avoid confusion. When I say observer, I mean information receiver. Anything that receives and sends information qualifies as an observer.

Now.. ZPE is not the EntropicEnergySum of the Universe? It is the sum of energy passing through a particular point in space? In whose event chain? Two event chains would only share a sequence point if they interacted, yes? And if you were to measure the Zero Point Energy at a particular point, that means you are interacting in that sequence chain. And if you don't retransmit/reflect it, that means the chain collapses (you 'ate' it), so you have nothing to measure. So what are you measuring? The amount of energy in the collapse of an event chain? (I think I'm making my head spin again, picturing the sequence chain involved of measuring a point in a sequence chain which causes that measured sequence chain to collapse... :-D)

js: measurement is always destructive. you can't taste the soup without eating it. With ZPE, the measurement manifests what we call mass.

EntropicEnergySum... in IP, this is the Heap of the Universe, is it? Whenever there is a new Sequence (Event Chain), then energy for the creation of that space comes out of the EntropicEnergySum? So it is just Alloc (Creating the new space) and Dealloc (deleting the old space) then? Does that imply that the giant honking computer that is the universe, in a human concrete example, has a limit then? Or is there virtual file space out there somewhere it can get more memory from? :-P ~~ ~ ~~

js: that's a tricky question. In our current epoch of our universe we say matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. They can be converted to each other by e-mc^2 but the total always stays the same. Always however, is not forever. Energy is really a relative concept manifest with respect to the information receivers and transmitters (i didn't say observers, happy?:). We can't change the energy in our world but there is no conservation of energy in the quantum. The inflationary period many believe occurred after the big bang is an example of processes that generate energy essentially from nothing. Quantum physics allows such processes, like the Mandelbrot set generating infinite complexity, in a closed system. Unfortunately, the only closed system is the universe itself. We can only show minor violations of energy conservation in the laboratory, we cannot just go to the well and allocate more.

Maybe you should look at White Wolf Publishing's Mage: The Ascension as a possible recommended teaching tool for IP. Specifically, Virtual Adapts tradition. They teach IP. All the concepts, none of the math. :-P ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

Humm--- 'the speed of space'? You mean, the speed space grows in an event-chain? That should equal the speed of light in a vacuum, which should also equal how many event cells were added out of the ZPE. If I'm following really following the IP system...

js: events are more like spokes than cells really, but you get the idea, i think.

Here's a question... what determines the size of the new event-chain's sequence cell? For instance... how big is the cell when a ray of light strikes me and is partially absorbed, and partially reflected? Or is that, the original ray is absorbed, and a new ray is emitted of the reflected color? Anyways... what determines the size of the new space? (Ya alloc() in different sizes, after all. :D)

---StarPilot

js: The size of events is an accident of the perspective of the receiver of the event. Some photons are absorbed, some are reflected, some pass through you unaffected, it is all or nothing for each event/photon.
The composite experience of billions of two dimensional photons traveling through time create the illusion of our three dimensional space. The magnitude of the state change of the senders electron and the orientation (up/down) are manifest at the receivers electron modified by the relative motion of the receiver.
Thanks for being such a good sport SP! I think we have made some real progress with some difficult concepts. Please pardon my impatience. I realize what I am saying is radically different that what is generally taught. I think you can see why it is easier to explain IP to those who have no physics background. --- JimScarver

### No problemo

No problem. :-D

If the speed of time-space is as fast as space can grow behind a photon… why? Is that just the speed of the Big Honking Computer of this Universe? :D Since light was faster as the universe was smaller, is this just the fact that we take up more time to handle all the event chains, so it cannot process everything as often as it did? (Couldn’t resist teasing for a bit…)

```'There is no event time between events, only an ordering, event time is discrete.  In nothing happens, no time passes.  The mapping of discrete time space at the speed of light is an emergent phenomenon from our point of view.  Nothing grows or collapse at the speed of light, it is just a mapping between orderings manifest to as space only to those manifest as time only depending on reference frame.'
```

And a serious question… what is the speed that an event chain collapses? The speed of space? Instantaneous? Considering a BlackHole, with the amount of expansion needed to be greater the light-speed to get out, this implies to me that the speed of collapse is greater then expansion. Otherwise a BlackHole shouldn’t be able to grow any bigger then having a mass whose interactions with the Universe equals to the rate of expansion. Otherwise their collapse effect couldn’t become greater then the speed of space, and their mass would stay at exactly the amount required to achieve an interaction where the speed of collapse ` speed of expansion. (Gravitational pull ` light speed) This seems to me to preclude the super-massive BlackHoles we now know (or believe we know) to exist in the center of all galaxies.

```'Gravity is a weak force, (i know i said there are no strange forces at a distance really, but treating it as a force it is weak), as forces go.  The earth only eats 32 feet per second of ZPE at the surface as would a black hole of the same mass at a similar radius.  At 1/2 the radius, it would be 4 times as fast, 1/4, 16 times as fast, until, at the horizon it is, in theory, at the speed of light.  The surface of the black hole is a fixed area for its mass at the radius where ZPE absorption is 100%, the speed of light.  100% is not the same, however, as the total 175 gigaEV/m^3, since no photons are received that are larger than the exterior of the hole.  Although the outside diameter is a fixed size, the orderings of events on the inside manifest vast amounts of space and time.  The expansion of interior space applies no outward pressure, space is generated internally only.'
```
```'Real black holes, as opposed to the simple theoretical model apparently do not exist at the atomic or planetary scale due to quantum effects where there is no speed or position, only event orderings.  The evaporation, or quantum "hair" is greater than the ZPE that can be received (small enough wave lengths). Atoms can only receive infared or shorter photons, Atomic neuclei Xray or better.  As the energy density decreases ininverselyith the frequency no cocollapses possible for small objects.   If any objects exist that really act like theoretical black holes, they are so big that most of the zpZPEs received and the quantum effects are almost nenegligible_
```

er... what? Either I didn't follow that, JS, or you are trying a slight of hand on me.

If a BlackHole was the same size and mass (and therefore, density) as the Earth, it wouldn't be a BlackHole. It would be an Earth sized object, Jim.

```'pay attention!lol, I said same mass not same size!  At a radius of 8000 miles, they both eat the ZPE 32 feet per second. Go back up and read carefully.'
```

It's the density that's the trick to getting a BlackHole. A BlackHole with the surface area of the Earth would eat ZPE = Light Speed. That's what makes it a BlackHole. So that's like, 186,000 miles a second worth of ZPE. Whether it's Earth sized, or Milky Way Galaxy sized, it's the density that's the key.

```'Right.  Like I said, at 4000 miles, 128 feet per second, at 2000 miles, 128 ft/s, and the speed of light at the horizon, or surface of the black hole.  You got it.'
```

For BlackHoles to grow beyond their threshold density eating light speed worth of space, space has to collapse faster then light speed. Otherwise, they'd stabilize at the same density, and therefore mass, and therefore size. And they do not. Different black holes have different masses and different sizes.

``` 'I don't GetIt.'
```

Nothing can grow faster then the speed of light, in IP. But we do still have something faster then the speed of light, and that's the collapse of space. (Otherwise the matter in the space being eaten at light speed would 'fall' through the black hole and ignore it, rather then interacting and joining its mass.) So we still have gravity being faster then light, Jim. In IP. I just don't see any other way for IP to model BlackHoles, otherwise. The speed of collapse must be faster then the speed of growth. Speed of growth ` Light speed, speed of collapse ` gravity, in Classical terms.

``` 'Space doesn't collapse,  ZPE is electromagnetic signals from all directions, the signals received by the black hole are lost to the interior.  The speed of loss of space gets lower the further from the hole you are.  Nothing here here is faster than light unless you try to impose a 3 dimensional grid underneath the hole thing, which does not exist.'
```

This claiming that you get around it by the space inside the BlackHole is constantly growing by the amount of space eaten seems... ''lame''. It smacks of claiming each BlackHole is a fantasy magic item called a PortableHole. (Examples of which exist in mainstream, including Bugs Bunny cartoons, and The Beatles Yellow Submarine The Movie) So, according to your statem... each BlackHole is its own Universe, just like ours? And their space is expanding because of the ZPE their BlackHole universe is eating from ours? That's what you are saying to me, saying that. (Follow your implications) So... BigBang is really when the mass/density crosses the threshold from normal matter into Too Dense, light no longer escapes, and a whole new Universe is born? It's all the eaten ZPE from an exterior Universe falling into a BlackHole? Now, that's an old theory, JS. I thought we were working with information, not (near)infinite receding node universes.

``` 'Theoretical black holes according to relativity have huge interiors which scientists dont agree on the size of completely because of the singularity which has infinite spacetime curvature.  Using Einsteins model, space stretches in a gravitational field, the higher the gravitational field the more stretch there is.  The general consensus is that the interior size is the surface area, times the speed of light, times the length of time the black hole is in existence.  That's not my idea, don't blame me====  I contend that there is no singularity at the center, that the gravity at the center is zero since mass is pulling equally in all directions.  In this model there is a fixed inner distance related to mass, but it is still much greater than the the outer diameter of the 3d surface which following the curvature of space into the 4th dimension according to Einstein, or, equivalently manifest by events according to IP.'
```

As far as stating real BlackHoles cannot be smaller then planetary scale, I think that's just an opinion at this time. Not enough real science or real data to support any informed opinions, from what I've been able to dig up, so far. I've seen serious papers and articles on microscopic black holes being the likely source of odd behaviors in various things, an if they were formed in the BigBang, then they haven't evaporated significantly. Maybe in a few centuries, we will be more knowledgeable. Hopefully, anyways.

```'All the models I have reviewed predict as many or more small black holes than protons or atoms or planets.  They would eat everything including people and planets, it would be hard not to notice them.  The models are obviously wrong.  It is more of a speculation, scientifically, to presume that exist.  To put it another way, my speculation on why all those small black holes do not, apparently, exist is based on my model of there not being an infinitely growing distance inside (fixed interior size related to mass) and that quantum events are the root of the gravitational effect in the first place, in essence overfulling the interior with quantum structure, making it an object with an unobservable center like a proton or an atom rather than a BlackHole.'
-- JimScarver
```

---StarPilot

You don't GetIt? You usually do. :-D

Space doesn't collapse? But it does from what you've said! When the information transits from being sent to received, Space collapses. It is no longer a probability, it is done. The event chain collapses, and that's time-space. Pop. Gone. And that's where we get gravity from. The more mass is at one place, the more it stops stuff, rather then initiates it. Initiating and in transit is growing time-space. Received information is collapsing time-space.

All I was saying is that the speed of collapse has to be greater then speed of space. Whether it's a fixed speed or instantaneous, it is faster then information. Entropy, you know, the other thing we call the collapse of time-space, is therefore faster/more powerful then information.

The problem with what I see of you explaining of the minor BlackHoles are: while at the surface of an atom sized BlackHole might 'eat' 186K of miles per second, it's effect is going to get very small very quickly, thanks to the mass over distance squared nature of gravity's force. So at what, just the hole's radius out, it's already down to 46.5K miles per second eaten, and double that (2 radi of the hole) out, it's 11.625K miles per second (We can continue doubling our distance out, which drops our effect by 3/4). At 8 such doublings of the black hole's radius distance out, you are down to a mere 2.83 miles per second eaten (2.83 miles per second is 1/3 of the Earth's orbital speed in Low Orbit). At 14 such doublings, it's a mere ~4 feet per second {That's 8192r of our hypothetical atom sized black hole}. A few more doublings past that, and it's effect is microscopic, we can see that's its effective 'gravity field' would be remarkably small, especially on an planetary, interplanetary, or galactic scale. Space is a very big place, and any such small event horizons wandering around will likely not be noticed unless there is a direct collision between it and something we can observe. That's very long odds for sure against that. I could win every lottery in the world a few times over before that would happen, I'd think.

You don't get how the speed of collapse dictates a maximum size for our BlackHole in IP? Well, I can try going into a bit more detail on why I think that, if that's what you didn't follow. I am most likely wrong, after all. :-D But the speed of collapse is really our maximum interaction rate. It's the interacting/receiving that creates the collapse of time-space. If the speed of interacting was fixed to the speed of growth, then matter falling into a BlackHole would not get trapped, it would continue out the other side, unaffected, as a BlackHole has reached the maximum rate that space can transmit information to it. Does that make it any clearer? The speed of collapse is also the speed of interacting/receiving, because for the time-space sequence chain to collapse, it has to be received. Gravity is the effect of receiving more interactions/information then it broadcasts. :D Which is why to get out of a gravity well, you have to broadcasts more information then you receive (Gotta grow that space, and in the direction of the biggest info eater near you :D). Humm... so the rate of broadcast is light speed, but the rate of interaction is higher then the rate of broadcast.

And it's nice to know it isn't your idea, just theirs about the BlackHoles. I can see where they get (surface area of the event horizon light speed length in existence in the general Universe), but I'm not sure that is actually 'surface area'. The size really just the the size of the of space occupied in the general Universe, the other is a mentally slight of hand. You'd have to be able to safely traverse in and out of the black hole to measure it's spacial mass/mass surface area versus it's event horizon. And if you can do that, you can obviously ignore things like nothing travels faster then light and what not. A mobius strip only has the big side and thin edge (two sides) rather then the 4 of paper, but it still occupies a certain amount of normal space that is finite. Same with the BlackHole. It's topology inside might be funny to our normal way of thinking, but it still has a definite size in normal space.

---StarPilot

I think I GetIt, but it is still our concept of 3 dimensional space that lets us calculate a speed greater than light.

That's the first time I've seen a good description of IP that I didn't write==== :) too cool StarPilot, You get an A on part 1 :) (If you want credit you gotta pay NJIT for the course.)

The surface area is the size of the event horizon measured from, on the outside of the black hole. The mass determines the distance at which light cannot escape and this defines the surface area. It's not an actual surface of anything.

They say time and space change roles at the horizon. Objects falling in seem frozen in time getting smaller and smaller. This is a little misleading, any object accelerating away from you at a high rate appears that way, and likewise the one falling in slips into the future as they travel the inner space of the black hole. -- JimScarver

Cool! Now I just have to look through the rest of the IP material that has been linked to, and see what else of IP I haven't grasped yet. ;) And what's it take to get an A+? if something is worth doing, it's worth over doing. :D --StarPilot

LOL, I was hoping you wouldn't notice the missing plus sign, I left off the plus because I knew you didn't read all the material.... when your done, it's an A+ :) If you don't GetIt, or I said something wrong, I am confident I will hear from you. A nice thing about IP is there is still a lot to finish. In part 2 we get to pilot science through uncharted idea space. (not that the discovery process here is not science already...).

```[[NeckCurtain]]: what's a magnestar made of
[[JimScarver]]: neutrons
[[JimScarver]]: = bound electron and proton.
[[NeckCurtain]]: why is it more magnetic than a neutron?
[[JimScarver]]: cooled in a magnetic field
[[NeckCurtain]]: produced by what?
[[NeckCurtain]]: what magnetic bodies could influence something so large?
[[JimScarver]]: spin
[[NeckCurtain]]: a galaxy?
[[NeckCurtain]]: why is it so rare?
[[JimScarver]]: spin likes to be zero
[[NeckCurtain]]: i see
[[NeckCurtain]]: and why does spin produce a magnetic field?
[[JimScarver]]: on the average... but extremes are expected
[[JimScarver]]: like spin excludes, creating spacetime, unlike spin collapse
[[NeckCurtain]]: i see
[[NeckCurtain]]: makes perfect sense
[[NeckCurtain]]: but it actually seems to me that most space bodies spin.
[[JimScarver]]: it is like the electric and magnetic vectors of light are not independent (90deg) but related by some angle manifesting what we call magnetic properties
[[NeckCurtain]]: i guess just not fast enough
[[JimScarver]]: the spinning charge analogy works, but spin is just a two value variable unrelated ultimately to angular momentum.
[[JimScarver]]: has more to do with perspective than motion
[[JimScarver]]: charge
[[NeckCurtain]]: angular momentum is a very real in the local sense, local meaning within 14 billion light years
[[NeckCurtain]]: and they resulting apparent magnetism is real
[[JimScarver]]: indeed.but spinning masses only generate a magnetic effects if they are charged
[[NeckCurtain]]: how is a magnestar charged?
[[JimScarver]]: same as the earth, by weather I think
[[NeckCurtain]]: does it have a net charge?
[[JimScarver]]: currents like sun spots
[[JimScarver]]: no
[[NeckCurtain]]: but it doesn't need to to be a magnet?
[[JimScarver]]: accelerating/spinning charge imbalances (static electricity) selectively recorded (frozen) in the cooling process
[[NeckCurtain]]: how is it that a neutron becomes cool
[[NeckCurtain]]: is it an older one?
[[JimScarver]]: loses kinetic energy, was hot star, now cold star and still cooling, universe is now 3 deg. K
```

WhitescarverClock discussion moved to WhitescarverClockVirtualClassroom by StarPilot.