Quentin, You obviously have no idea what my argument is and thus can't properly comment on whether it is valid or not....
Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:00:15 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net <javascript:>> > > Quentin, > > If you are so sure about SR not falsifying block time you must be able to > recall my argument that it does in detail. Would you be able to explain > what is wrong with that argument specifically? > > > People have already done it... The main problem, is that there is *no* > universal common present time, it has been shown to you several time. But > you decided there is, you don't read proofs there is not (claiming SR > advocate a universal present time is such BS), you ignore them and pretend > you've demonstrated something when obviously you did not in any common > sense of the meaning of the word "proof"... > > > Do you actually remember the argument? > > > I do, it is plain BS. > > > > Just stating your opinion that it doesn't is not sufficient.... > > > I don't see a point now proving anything to you, you'll ignore it, and > tell others that to understand you theory, they have to understand first > your theory to understand your theory to understand your theory because > you're so obviously right and someone equiped with a brain should obviously > sees it.. it's so obvious. > > Quentin > > > Edgar > > > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 1:30:25 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> > > Jason, > > 1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time > > > You did not > > > (by requiring a moving arrow of time and a present moment) > > > It does not... > > > , so since SR is well verified block time is false. > > > BS > > Quentin > > > > 2. I asked you around a dozen questions each homing in on another problem > with block time. I received no convincing answers to any of them that I > recall. Basically you just told me they weren't really problems without > giving any reasons why not. > > 3. Then I asked you to clarify a couple of aspects of the structure of > block time (e.g. is it a continuum or sequential frames) which you were > unable to provide. > > Please understand I'm not singling you out here. The problem is not so > much with your explanations as with the theory itself which is just not > tenable and which of course you are not responsible for.... > > Edgar > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:56:56 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote: > > > > On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, "Edgar L. Owen" <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Bruno, > > Thanks for the correction. > > But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in > 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything happens, > and how the universe gets computed. I know you claim that somehow movement > is an illusion of perspective from inside the system which sounds like the > nonsensical 'block time' universe, which no matter how many protest, is > riddled with contradictions and lacunas.... > > > I don't recall you pointing out a single critique of block time for which > I or someone else did not offer a reasonable answer to. > > Jason > > > > Edgar > > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:04:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Liz, > > Correct. Most reality math is likely fairly simple and fairly limited. > That's why Bruno's 'comp' that assumes all math exists out there somewhere > is so extraordinarily wrong and excessive and non-parsimonious. > > > I will stop comment, if you repeat false allegation already corrected in > previous posts. > I do not assume all math exists out there. Only arithmetic. "all math" is > an expression having no precise meaning. It means nothing, actually. > > Now, if you believe that "29 is prime" does depend on you, show me the > functional relation between "29 is prime" and "you", with "you" defined > without using the notion of numbers. > > Bruno > > > > > As for the grid cells on the GR rubber sheet model just imagine a > mass-energy content in one cell dilating it. That automatically produces a > curvature in the rubber sheet around that mass-energy consistent with the > effects of space curvature in GR. > > Edgar > > > > On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:52:24 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 14 January 2014 16:49, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: > > Liz, > > Sure, the particle property conservation laws that conserve the amounts of > particle properties in elementary particle interactions, and the laws that > govern the binding of elementary particles in matter. These are the > fundamental computations that determine most of the structure of the > universe.... > > ... -- 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.
