I asked three simple true/false questions about what your theory says.  You 
didn't even fucking anwer "false, because the concept isn't quite right, 
but you'd do better by asking XYZ".  If you simply won't answer basic 
questions about whether your theory entails something, then you probably 
can't.  And if you can't answer whether your theory is about something, 
then I conclude that your theory doesn't actually exist.  You'd just be 
playing word games.

Sorry for the angry word -- but it was well deserved by blatantly evasive 

On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:16:43 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Hi Gabe,
> These questions are ill formulated but I'll take a shot at them....
> 1. For every observer there is a uniquely true (actual is a better 
> descriptor) order of events in their own experience. All these events 
> always occur in their Present moment. The rate at which these events occur 
> is controlled by their local Clock times. Their clock times can pass at 
> different rates through their present moments.
> 2. All observers exist in a present moment P-time. In other words at every 
> moment of P-time all observers exist and are doing something no matter what 
> their relativistic differences.They cannot disappear out of existence and 
> out of the present moment.
> 3. The clock times of all NON-relativistic observers are isomorphically 
> mappable. Their clocks all read the same times and progress at the same 
> rates through a common shared universal present moment of P-time.
> 4. The clock times of observers who have NO relative motion but different 
> gravitational fields will progress at different rates through the common 
> present moment p-time in a one-to-one mappable way which those observers 
> all agree upon.
> 5. The clock times of observers in relative motion will each experience 
> the clock times of the others to be slowed. Since relative motion is in 
> fact relative, this effect is equal and opposite. In this case it is 
> impossible for the observers to agree upon which of their clock times 
> corresponds to the clock times of the other observers in the present 
> moment. Nevertheless all observers are all always in existence and doing 
> something in the common present moment even when it is impossible to assign 
> a mutually agreed clock time to it. They know what they are doing in the 
> common present moment but they observe what an observer in relative motion 
> was doing in a past present moment.
> 5a. This occurs in the same way we observe what was happening in deep 
> space in a present moment billions of years ago, and an observer there 
> observes our galaxy as it was in a present moment billions of years ago. 
> This is due to the finite speed of light (actually c is the finite speed of 
> time, light just travels at the maximum time speed possible). The relative 
> motion equal and opposite time dilation effect is pretty much the same 
> effect and also due to the finite speed of light=speed of time due to the 
> STc Principle that states that everything without exception always travels 
> through spacetime at the speed of light (again actually it's the speed of 
> time)
> 6. When relative motion ceases, once again clock times can be mapped and 
> all observers can agree what they are doing in the common present moment.
> 7. Without a common present moment in which everything exists as a 
> background reference, none of this would even be knowable. None of this 
> analysis or comparisons could be made. That's the key insight that everyone 
> seems to be lacking, that they actually exist in a present moment and that 
> present moment is the only possible basis for anything, including the 
> differing clock times of relativity, to even take place.
> Edgar
> On Friday, January 3, 2014 12:23:52 PM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>> Hi Edgar,
>> That response does not at all address the contradiction I asked out.  
>> However, if you'd like to make your meaning crystal clear, you could give 
>> direct answers to the following logical questions.  A direct (non-evasive) 
>> answer includes, at a minimum, picking one of "true" or "false" for each 
>> question independently, and may optionally include an explanation beyond 
>> that if you think the explanation is helpful.  An answer which excludes 
>> picking either "true" or "false" for each question independently is 
>> evasive.  I'd really like to nail down a few logical fixed points of your 
>> theory so that we can be surer we are talking about the same thing.  When I 
>> get direct answers to these questions, I'll better understand what you mean 
>> and will be able to move on to deeper questions.
>> 1. According to your "P-time" notion, there is some uniquely true order 
>> of events which occur widely separated in space but in the same reference 
>> frame: True or False?
>> 2. According to your "P-time" notion, there is some uniquely true order 
>> of events which occur widely separated in space and in different reference 
>> frames: True or False?
>> 3. According to your "P-time" notion, there is some uniquely true order 
>> of events at the same point in space: True or False?
>> -Gabe
>> On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:23:57 AM UTC-6, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>> Gabriel,
>>> See my long most recent response to Jason for an analysis of how this 
>>> works and why this contradiction doesn't falsify Present moment P-time.....
>>> Best,
>>> Edgar
>>> On Friday, January 3, 2014 10:31:59 AM UTC-5, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:
>>>> (I'm expanding on the comment by Jason.)
>>>> The "P-time" notion, if it means anything at all timelike, says that 
>>>> there exists some uniquely correct ordering of events across space.
>>>> Consider these events: Pam's 3rd birthday party and Sam's 4th birthday 
>>>> party
>>>> The "P-time" notion says that either (A) P3bp happens before S4bp, (B) 
>>>> P3bp happens after S4bp, or (C) P3bp happens at the same time as S4bp.  
>>>> The 
>>>> "P-time" notion, having not developed in a scientific manner, can't offer 
>>>> any help in discovering which of A, B, or C is the case; it merely says it 
>>>> is the case that, in principle, exactly one of A, B, or C is true.
>>>> By contrast, the past century of physics concludes that A is true in 
>>>> some reference frames, B is true in other reference frames, and C is true 
>>>> in other other reference frames.  It is NOT the case that, in principle, 
>>>> exactly one of A, B, or C is true.
>>>> So there's a direct contradiction.  And "P-time" falls on the wrong 
>>>> side of the contradiction according to a whole century's worth of 
>>>> experimental work in physics.
>>>> Furthermore, there is (scientific) theoretical work (c.f. 
>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002145454.htm ) that 
>>>> indicates that, by exploiting quantum behavior, we should be able to build 
>>>> a superposition of one causal order and the reverse causal order between 
>>>> two events in the same location.  If that pans out empirically, then the 
>>>> "P-time" notion won't even have the appearance of being a local 
>>>> approximation to the truth.
>>>> -Gabe
>>>> On Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:19:52 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>>>>> Edgar,
>>>>> I realized there is another problem.  It is not just that we don't 
>>>>> what Sam is doing, but it seems the present moment P-time does not 
>>>>> proceed 
>>>>> in an orderly or logical manner.
>>>>> From Pam's point of view the event of her reaching Proxima Centauri 
>>>>> happens *before *Sam's 4th birthday. But from Sam's point of view, 
>>>>> Pam reaching Proxima Centauri happens *after *his 4th birthday!
>>>>> If there is a single, orderly proceeding, present moment, then I see 
>>>>> no what whatever to reconcile the incompatibility of these views...
>>>>> Jason

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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to