Edgar, FWIW, from my lurker's perspective, the people on this list are giving you what you need - criticism. They are actively engaging you on your theory, which is so much better than being ignored. Better still, the quality of the criticism on this list is likely to be of the same caliber as you would encounter among the most important and influential readers of your book, i.e., those whose hearts and minds, being convinced, could carry your ideas where they need to be carried. I.e., convince the experts on this list, and chances are you can convince almost anyone.
Now, their criticism may be warranted, or not, but to this point, it seems to me as though your responses have failed to answer their very specific, well-articulated questions. It's only natural that such criticism will be coming from the null hypothesis. From the years I have been on this list though, one quality I have observed over and over is a willingness to entertain alternate theories even when folks don't agree with them - with much less of the typical intolerance you see on the internet. It's inspiring. Since you have the extraordinary theory, it is your responsibility to meet that criticism. Resorting instead to ad-hominen betrays your lack of any significant challenge to the criticism offered. In particular, Jason Resch has been nothing but respectful and dogged in his attempts to understand the differences between your theory and e.g. SR. And you are getting this for free - I think a little gratitude might not be out of line. But I think most here would rather you just answer their questions head on and could live without the "thank you". Terren On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote: > Jason, Liz, Brent, Pierz, et al, > > Boy it's amazing how heavily personally invested you guys are in your > belief system. You respond as if someone was daring to challenge the > quasi-religous core orthodoxy your very existence and self-image depends > upon. > > As I said before, "Lighten up guys, these are only theories for goodness > sakes." Why all the self-righteous anger over a theory, over just ideas? > > I've been consistently polite, courteous, and on topic with no personal > attacks or flames at all. I suggest we all keep it that way. > > As for 'block time', it's a theory that is riddled with contradictions so > ridiculous and numerous it's actually amazing that anyone would give it any > credence at all much less believe it like some core religious doctrine from > on high. > > Just saying it's not, which is what most of today's responses to my > questions of yesterday amount to, doesn't make that true. > > Best, > Edgar > > > > On Saturday, January 4, 2014 9:01:53 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:48 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" <edga...@att.net> wrote: >> >> Jason, >> >> PPS: More questions about your theory of block time. >> >> 1. How do you keep Quantum Theory from being contradicted by block time? >> >> >> See wheeler-dewitt equation or Feynman diagrams. >> >> With block time all quantum events from big bang to end of the universe >> have already occurred, haven't they? If so then what happened to quantum >> randomness? >> >> >> One way of looking at it is we all exist in the past of a complteted >> spacetime. Another is as Wei Dai described on his home page. Yet a third is >> to dispense with collapse altogether. >> >> >> 1a. Did all the events of block time occur simultaneously at the >> beginning of the universe? >> >> >> There is no beginning (or end). >> >> Did they occur at the big bang? Have they always existed? >> >> >> In a sense, everything that exists has always existed. >> >> >> 2. All the events in the history of the universe are already determined, >> fixed and actual aren't they? >> >> >> Yes. But I would add there is no one universe and no one history. >> >> >> When did that happen? >> >> >> When God made 2+2=4. >> >> In what time, at what time was this structure created? >> >> >> Things don't happen and are not created. These things only appear to >> happen to observers embedded in universes with time-like structures. >> >> >> And since that time had to exist before the creation of block time for it >> to be created within it, just what is that 2nd kind of time that is not >> part of block time? >> >> >> There is no change, as Parmenides supposed and Einstein proved. >> >> >> 3. How do you explain the (presumably) illusion of change, of things >> happening and time progressing if everything is already static and fixed? >> >> >> Our brains play many tricks on us. >> >> What is moving if it's not time? >> >> >> Our minds are, from one slice in spacetime to the next. >> >> >> 4. If block time corresponds to clock time, then how can there be a >> single block time structure that encompasses all events when clock times >> progress faster or slower for different observers? >> >> >> This corresponds to different objects having different velocities through >> space time. >> >> 5. Why, if block time is true, and there is no free will, >> >> >> That is a big assumption. That free will requires indeterminism. If a die >> roll determined your actions would you be more free? If the universe was >> cyclic over trillions if years, would you only have free will the "first >> time through"? >> >> Are you familiar with the idea called compatibalism? >> >> >> are you any more than a robot zombie? >> >> >> It was your theory that everything is a computation. Doesn't that also >> make everything deterministic? >> >> >> >> Awaiting your answers with interest... >> >> >> Me too. :-) >> >> Jason >> >> >> Edgar >> >> On Saturday, January 4, 2014 3:06:21 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jan 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" <edga...@att.net> wrote: >> >> Jason, >> >> If you don't agree with my theory of the Present moment, then what is >> your theory of this present moment we all experience our existence and all >> our actions within? >> >> >> I believe no event embedded in space time is more real than any other >> event. You might interpret this as "all events exist". Our own >> perspective of existing in one particular event speaks nothing to the >> existence or non-existence of other events, be they in other places or in >> other times. >> >> Under this view, the present momenent pops out as an indexical property >> of an observation. That is, one of Caesar's observations believes the >> present to be some moment in time around 0 AD, while one of mine believes >> it to be 2014. Another, equally real observation of mine, replying to a >> previous e-mail of yours might consider it to be 2013. >> >> It clearly is not a clock time simultaneity since Pam and Sam shake hands >> and compare watches in the same present moment and their clock times are >> not simultaneous. >> >> >> This can all be explained by normal special relativity. Relativity is not >> only fully consistent with the view I describe above, but relativity seems >> to be incompatible with the alternatives philosophies of time: presentism >> and possibilism. >> >> >> This question is the key to the whole issue. Be interested to hear your >> answer... >> >> >> I think the view of time I describe above is key to understanding what >> time is under relativity. Your rejection of this view may also be why you >> have so much difficulty reconciling your world view with relativity. I >> don't think presentism is a definsible position if special relativity is >> true. >> >> Jason >> >> >> Edgar >> >> On Friday, January 3, 2014 11:51:53 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: >> >> Jason, >> >> Thanks for your several posts and charts. You really made me think and I >> like that! >> >> >> Thanks, I am glad to hear it. :-) >> >> >> I'm combining my responses to your multiple recent posts here. >> >> First though there are two ways to analyze it, GR acceleration, as >> opposed to SR world lines, is the most useful because it makes the >> following argument re present time easier to understand. >> >> >> In my example, acceleration effects can account for no more than 4 >> minutes worth of age difference, since they spend no more than 4 minutes >> accelerating. How do we explain the other 3 years, 355 days, 23 hours and >> 56 minutes that are missing from Pam's memory? >> >> >> >> Imagine a new experiment in which Pam is completely still relative to Sam >> but somewhere way off in the universe and in a gravitational field of >> exactly the same strength. In this case both Pam's and Sam's clock times >> run at exactly the same rates and both agree to this. Therefore it is clear >> they inhabit the exact same present moment even by your arguments, and >> their identical clock times correlate to this. >> >> Now assume Pam's gravitational field increases to the point where her >> clock time runs half as fast as Sam's. Again there is no relative motion so >> again both agree that Pam's clock time is running half as fast as Sam's. >> And again both exist in the exact same present moment, it's just that Sam's >> clock time is running twice as fast through that common present moment. >> Again clock time correlates with present moment time... >> >> >> I think we should resolve the apparent problems P-time has with SR before >> trying to tackle GR... >> >> >> This gravitational time slowing is a GR, not SR effect, and GR effects >> are absolute in the sense that they are permanent real effects that all >> observers agree upon. They must be distinguished from SR effects which make >> the situation more difficult to understand in terms of a present moment. >> >> >> You may be right that P-time has no difficulties with GR, but it seems to >> have some with SR so let us focus on solving that. >> >> >> An acceleration equivalent to the gravitational field would produce the >> exact same GR effect, but also introduces an SR relative velocity effect. >> >> Now consider an pure SR effect in which Pam and Sam are traveling past >> each other at relativistic speeds but there is no acceleration. Velocity is >> relative, as opposed to acceleration which is absolute, therefore both >> observers think the other is moving relative to them, and both views are >> equally true. Now because of this relativity of velocity both observers see >> the clock of the other observer slow and by equal amounts. But the >> absolutely crucial thing to understand here is that this SR form of time >> dilation is not permanent and absolute like GR time dilation is. It >> vanishes as soon as the relative motion stops, >> >> >> That is not true, the the effects of dilation in SR remain as well. Let's >> say James was born on a space ship at Proxima Cenauri travelling at 80% c >> toward Earth. It takes 5 years to get to Earth at this speed, but when we >> see baby James on board as he whizzes by he is only 3 years old. If the >> ship stops (or not), James is still 3 years old. GR never was a factor in >> James's reduced age. >> >> >> whereas GR time differences are absolute and persist even after the >> acceleration stops. >> >> This is why the SR versus GR model is more useful in understanding what >> is going on particularly with respect to the common present moment. >> >> >> SR and GR are not two ways of looking at the same phenomenon, but two >> ways of explaining two different phenomena. >> >> >> >> So during relative motion between Pam and Sam there most certainly is a >> common present moment, but trying to figure out what clock times of Pam and >> Sam correspond to that present moment leads to a contradiction (as you >> quite rightly pointed out with your diagrams) because Pam and Sam see clock >> time differently and do not agree on it. They did agree on their GR >> relativistic time differences and thus knowing which of their clock times >> corresponded to the same present moment was easy. With SR, equal and >> opposite, time dilation it is impossible to correlate both observers' clock >> times to the same present moment. Nevertheless that's just an artifact of >> SR clock time which doesn't falsify a common present moment. A common >> present moment exists, it just isn't correlated with clock times the same >> way by both observers. >> >> >> Gabriel offered a clear example that I think falsifies the notion of a >> single consistent present moment, and his point has not yet been adequately >> addressed. >> >> >> >> All the nice chart examples you took the time to produce demonstrate >> this. They are trying to assign an agreed upon clock time to the common >> present moment time during SR relative velocities and thus they correctly >> lead to the contradiction you pointed out. >> >> However once you understand how this works >> >> >> Do you currently understand how this works or are you also still trying >> to figure it out? >> >> >> you understand that fact doesn't falsify a common present moment as you >> implied. >> >> >> Why doesn't it? I am not seeing it or you haven't explained it clearly >> enough for me to get it. >> >> >> Now consider the twins from the original example. In this case there is >> both lots of relative velocity SR effects between both twins, and there is >> the absolute GR acceleration effect on Pam only. >> >> Now the SR effects persist only during relative motion and when the twins >> meet up again that leaves ONLY the GR acceleration effect which is the only >> cause of the twins' clock time difference. >> >> >> If Pam were under acceleration for just a few minutes it could not >> explain an age difference of years. If you put Pam under the gravity of a >> black hole for 4 minutes, she would not age much during those 4 minutes, >> and so when you took the black hole away you would find her 4 minutes >> younger. In the experiment I described, the acceleration, which you >> compare to gravity, only lasts a few minutes. It is the time dilation of >> special relativity that accumulates over the years, and remains to explain >> the bulk of their age difference. >> >> >> All SR relative velocity effects must vanish when the relative velocities >> cease. Otherwise we would have Pam and Sam meeting up again with each >> claiming the other's clock time was going slower than theirs. That is >> impossible. >> >> >> It is possible when you consider the geometry of the situation, as >> Brent's nice charts further clarify. (What software did you use to make >> them Brent?) >> >> >> At rest in the same present moment all observers must be able to agree >> on their clock time differences. Both agree Pam's clock time passed more >> slowly than Sam's and both agree as to the amount, based ONLY on GR >> (acceleration) effects. >> >> >> Not true. >> >> >> Assume again the twins passing each other at a constant (no acceleration) >> velocity. Both see the other's time passing slower than theirs and thus >> both see each other at an earlier clock time date than themselves. This is >> contradictory >> >> >> It is not contradictory, it is because their paths are at an angle to >> each other through space time. If both of our paths are at 22.5 degrees >> toward each other, either of us can consistently say "the other is at a 45 >> degree angle toward me." This is not inconsistency, only relativity. >> >> >> and cannot last when they meet. It is the acceleration that brings the >> relative velocities to zero that produces the only absolute persistent time >> effect and when, and only when, that happens will the twins agree as to >> their time differences, as always in a shared universal present moment. >> >> >> In my "James example", there is no acceleration on James but he ages only >> 3 years in his 5 year journey. >> >> >> This is why is is possible to correlated clock times to present moment >> time for GR acceleration time dilation, but NOT for SR relative velocity >> time dilation. >> >> Hope this is clear. It may be a little difficult... >> >> >> >> I don't think we've yet addressed the core issues between SR and P-time. >> Also, you have not said what use P-time has beyond SR. What can it explain >> that SR cannot? In other words, when would it make a prediction that >> differs from SR? >> >> Jason >> >> >> <blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc >> solid;padding-left:1 >> >> ... > > -- > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 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.