2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> > Quentin, > > You obviously have no idea what my argument is and thus can't properly > comment on whether it is valid or not.... > > You make my point.... It's obvious, the problem is with me, not your theory.
Quentin > Edgar > > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:00:15 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> >> >> >> 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> >> >> 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. > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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.
