What have I asserted "contrary to known science"? Very little if anything.
One needs to clearly distinguish between known science = the equations that
work to correctly predict events, and the INTERPRETATIONS of known science
which are generally projections of current world views onto those
equations, and so are often wrong as they inevitably reflect
current paradigms and prejudices.
Example, the quantum wavefunction collapse interpretation has been
correctly replaced by notions of decoherence. The interpretation has
changed but not the equations = the actual science.
I always accept actual science, though I often offer new interpretations of
what is really happening with it.
On Tuesday, December 24, 2013 8:26:00 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz states that "Special relativity shows that there is no such thing as
> a "common present moment". but this is incorrect.
> Actually special relativity shows exactly the opposite. In my book I
> explain how this works. It is well known, though little understood, that
> everything without exception continually travels through spacetime at the
> speed of light according to its own comoving clock. I call this the STc
> Principle. This is a well known consequence of special relativity but
> actually as I point out in my book this is an even more fundamental
> Principle than Special Relativity and Special Relativity is properly a
> consequence of it and can be derived from it.
> What the STc Principle says is that the total velocity through both space
> and through time of everything without exception is = to the speed of
> light. This is the reason that time slows on a clock moving with some
> relative spatial velocity, as Special Relativity tells us.
> It also demonstrates that the speed of light is properly understood as the
> speed of TIME. That's what c really is. Light just happens to move entirely
> in space according to its own comoving clock, therefore its entire
> spacetime velocity is in space only.
> Anyway it is precisely this STc Principle that puts both the arrow of time
> and a privileged present moment on a firm physical basis. Why? Because it
> requires that everything must be in one particular place in spacetime (the
> present moment) and moving at the speed of light (the arrow of time).
> So exactly contrary to your statement, it is precisely special relativity,
> properly understood, that puts both the arrow of time and a common present
> moment on a firm physical basis.
> This insight simultaneously solves two of the big problems of the
> philosophy of science, the source of the arrow of time, and the reason for
> a common present moment, though no one seems to have recognized this prior
> to my exposition in 1997 in my paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.