# [time 839] Re: [time 838] Re: [Time 837]

Thu, 30 Sep 1999 22:02:47 +0900

Dear Stephen,

Stephen P. King <stephenk1@home.com> wrote:

Subject: [time 838] Re: [Time 837]

> Dear Friends,
>
> Here is am example of that I was talking about in my last post!
>
http://x23.deja.com/[st_cam=deflt.cobrd.best]/getdoc.xp?AN=528709925&CONTEXT=9
38692987.902103121&hitnum=1
>
> Subject:Re: Does a fundamental time exist in GR and QM?
> Date: 1999/09/23
> Author: Toby Bartels <toby@ugcs.caltech.edu>
>
> Vesselin G Gueorguiev <vesselin@baton.phys.lsu.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >I could be wrong, but I tend to think of any chart as
> a physical observer
> >who is siting at the origin and does measurements.
>
> A physical observer provides only an *infinitesimal* chart.
> As an observer, I define x,y,z,t axes going out from me (the origin),
> but I can't describe how the axes will curve as they
> leave me.

This is exactly what I assume about local systems. The observer (each of us)
does not know beforehand how the space is curved. We have to assume our system
is the standard, thus it does not have any curvature. Viz. our local system
must be Euclidean for each of us.

> So, I can't define a chart large enough to contain two distinct points
> and any geodesic linking them -- which is what you wanted here.

In this point I differ from his. We each cannot know the curvature if it
existed, even if we could reach to the inifinite point in our local system as
far as we remain inside it. Only when we open our eyes and see the outside,
the outside tells us it might be different from our own world (LS). Thus
observation gives us GR.

>
>
> -- Toby
> toby@ugcs.caltech.edu
>
> Later,
>
> Stephen
>

Best wishes,
Hitoshi

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:42 JST