Quentin, That's not the argument. As you stated it it isn't even in the form of the logical sequence an argument requires.
You are just stating your opinion on a part of my theory, not being able to reference the specific argument in question you claim is invalid. Edgar On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:28:33 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > > 2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen <[email protected] <javascript:>> > >> 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. >> > > You're joking ? I didn't ? I explicitely refer your BS common universal > present which is contrary to what SR *claims*... How arrogant can you be ? > > Quentin > > >> Do you know? >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:41:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 16 January 2014 07:26, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason, >>>> >>>> 1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time (by requiring a >>>> moving arrow of time and a present moment), so since SR is well verified >>>> block time is false. >>>> >>> >>> SR doesn't require a moving arrow of time, and the present moment is >>> only defined for a given location in space-time. >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> Since your point 1 is false, you couldn't have asked any meaningful >>> questions. >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> In SR it's a continuum. >>> >>>> >>>> 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.... >>>> >>>> As far as I know, the idea of block time was proposed by Newton (I >>> think he called it the sensorium of God, or something like that) and was >>> later used by Laplace, Einstein and Minkowski. >>> >>> Since your point 1 is false, you failed to falsify block time. If you >>> *can* show that SR requires a moving arrow of time, or whatever, then >>> SR may invalidate block time, but it hasn't yet. >>> >>> -- >> 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] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> 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.
