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 <[email protected]> > > > > 2014/1/16 Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> > >> 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 <[email protected]> >>> >>> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 16 January 2014 11:53, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> 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 [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) > -- 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.
