# Re: Tegmark's New Book

```On 1/15/2014 3:21 PM, 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 presentmoment (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.
```
```
That's a non-standard and confusing development of QM (besides being 168pages long). GR assumes a continuous spacetime manifold that is differentiable..
```
Brent

```
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 <lizj...@gmail.com
<mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On 16 January 2014 11:53, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net
<mailto:edgaro...@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 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 of this geometry all
the time
and visually verify this, as the radial P-time dimension is seen as
distance in
every direction from every point in the 3-dimensional space of the
hypersphere's
surface.

What amazes me is that no one recognized this simple obvious fact prior to
my
stating it in my 1997 paper 'Spacetime and Consciousness'. It's a great
example of
how the trivially obvious can remain unrecognized, no matter how important,
if it
isn't part of the accepted world view of, in this case, either common sense
or
science.....

```
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups
```    "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

stephe...@provensecure.com <mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com>

http://www.provensecure.us/

“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information
that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt
from
disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work
product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that
any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
notify sender
immediately and delete this message immediately.”

--
```
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
```