Bravo! Someone actually registered some of my arguments, though I would 
state them slightly differently.

The argument in question, that everyone except Brent seems to have missed, 
is simple.

SR requires that everything moves at the speed of light through spacetime. 
This is NOT just "a useful myth", it's a very important fundamental 
principle of reality (I call it the STc Principle).

This is true of all motions in all frames. It's a universal absolute 

Now the fact that everything continually moves at the speed of light 
through spacetime absolutely requires that everything actually moves and 
continually moves through just TIME at the speed of light in one direction 
in their own frame. This movement requires there to be an arrow of time, 
and this principle is the source of the arrow of time and gives the arrow 
of time a firm physical basis.

Second, because everything is always moving through time at the speed of 
light everything MUST be at one and only one location in time. That present 
location in time is the present moment, it's a unique privileged moment in 

(This argument demonstrates only there must be a present moment for every 
observer. The other argument Brent references is necessary to demonstrate 
that present moment is universal and common to all observers.) Bravo again 
Brent, for remembering that one too!

Since by the STc Principle everything must be at one and only one position 
in time and traveling through time at c in one direction, this conclusively 
falsifies block time.

Thus SR conclusively falsifies block time. QED.


On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:39:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>  On 1/15/2014 2:54 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>  Dear Edgar,
>  � I will have to agree with LizR here. SR in fact makes the notion of 
> a present moment a nonsensical concept, as SR shows how there does not 
> exist, nay cannot exist any global frame of simultaneity. This prevents the 
> existence, if SR is correct and good evidence tells us that it is, of any 
> thing like a global present moment.
>  � "That dog don't hunt!"
> But notice that Edgar makes two kinds of arguments: 
> First, the local event argument - if two bodies interact it must be at the 
> same moment (he neglects to to mention that it must also be at the same 
> place).� 
> Second, the continuity argument - if two bodies interact at two different 
> events than at any given time between those two events both bodies exist 
> and this means that they are existing in the same moment, even though they 
> are in different places..
> Curiously, in his online blog about SR he takes the same approach as Lewis 
> Carrol Epstein in his excellent little book "Relativity Visualized".� He 
> notes that everything is always traveling at the speed of light.� If 
> you're 'standing still' that means you're just traveling in the time 
> direction.� So if you move in the space direction you must give up some 
> speed in the time direction.� Epstein calls this a useful myth and 
> doesn't misused it.� Edgar assumes that 'time direction' is fixed like 
> Newtonian space.
> Brent

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