Once again, that's not the argument in question that proves it, that's a 
different train of thought. 

Liz's "repost" has nothing to do with the argument I'm referencing. She 
clearly doesn't know what it is.


On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:21:35 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Dear LizR,
>   Thank you for the repost!
> Dear Edgar,
>   There is a reason why "this simple obvious fact" was not recognized in 
> literature. It has been proven to be nonsense.
> Your concept is: "the time of the present moment (what I call P-time) 
> which is absolute and common to all observers across the universe."
>  P-time is not common to any pair or combination of observers. It cannot 
> be extended in any unambiguous way to span any pair of observers, so forget 
> about greater groups. Each observer has its very own notion of a Present 
> moment" and it is not shared or sharable. To be sharable, there must exist 
> some way to map the observation that one observe might have to that of 
> another and guess what, when we construct the set of possible maps between 
> observers that connects each and every shred of content, all of the 
> "commonality" of a notion of a present moment vanishes! 
>   In fact, in the math of GR there is a serious prohibition on a clock 
> that has a size greater than an infinitesimal point! See General 
> Covariance <>. What kind 
> of periodicity do you think such a clock might have? The solution to this 
> obstruction to the notion of clocks in GR is to use something like afiber 
> bundle 
> construction<>and
>  associate a system to each and every infinitesimal point of the 
> space-time manifold.
> This has been done 
>   What was found is that each bundle must be completely disconnected from 
> all others. We cannot create a *single* space of points that will map to 
> the set of infinitesimal points that make up a space-time manifold. To do 
> so would prevent the existence of curvature - commonly known as gravity. 
>   A way out is to have an infinite number of totally disconnected spaces, 
> each mapped to a single point of space-time and build your clocks in those 
> spaces. This construction allows for a notion of time that is consistent 
> with both GR and QM but is not consistent with any notion of a *absolute 
> and common P-time for **all observers across the universe*.
>   We do experience gravity, thus the association of a single 
> external computational space to the space-time manifold is not allowed. 
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:59 PM, LizR < <javascript:>>wrote:
> On 16 January 2014 11:53, Edgar L. Owen < <javascript:>>wrote:
> Liz,
> Do you know what my argument is? Quentin also claimed it was invalid but 
> he couldn't tell us what the argument is that he claims is invalid. Do you 
> know?
> You argued as follows:
> The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again 
> with different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. 
> This proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which 
> varies by relativistic observer, and the time of the present moment (what 
> I call P-time) which is absolute and common to all observers across the 
> universe.
> When this is realized there are a number of profound implications. 
> First that time travel outside the common present moment is impossible 
> since all of reality (the entire universe) exists within/is the common 
> present moment. The only time travel that is possible is having different 
> clock times within the same shared present moment.
> Second, that this is compatible with only one cosmological geometry, named 
> that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere with P-time (not clock 
> time) as its continually extending radial dimension. That is cosmological 
> space is positively curved and finite. In fact we all see all 4-dimensions
> ...

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 post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to