Edgar logic: "There exist a common universal present, therefore block time is false"... yeah \o/
"It's obvious, so it's true, don't get it why you didn't register" \o/ "My theory is true, any informed person could see it at first look, the world thought SR proved simultaneity is relative, but no, the world misread SR, I know it, because I'm the one who said it, and what I say is true, it's obvious" \o/ boring troll... 2014/1/16 Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> > > > > 2014/1/16 Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> > >> Quentin, >> >> It is not "arrogant" or "trollish" to ask someone to demonstrate >> knowledge of an argument he claims is invalid. >> > > I did... but you won't acknowledge it, because that's how trolling work... > and you're sure good at it, you're an irritating troll like all good trolls > are, but now you can rest and go back to your cave... > > >> >> Edgar >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:32:45 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014/1/16 Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> >>> >>> Stephen, >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> I know it... you're a troll... could you please go back in the cave you >>> came from ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_bundle_construction_theorem>and >>> associate a system to each and every infinitesimal point of the >>> space-time manifold. >>> This has been done http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410061. >>> 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 <liz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 16 January 2014 11:53, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> 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 impossibl >>> >>> ... >> >> -- >> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. >> 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) > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.