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 <[email protected] <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 <[email protected]> > > 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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
