# Re: Tegmark's New Book

```Stephen,

You are just jumping to that conclusion without actually addressing the
argument I present. What do you see wrong with my argument, other than that
you disagree with the conclusion?```
```
Edgar

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:21:31 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Edgar,
>
>   There is no such thing as "a location in time". The entire idea of a
> "dimension of time" is a mental construct that we hang events that we
> experience and learn about in a sequence. SR and GR do not allow for a
> unique dimension of time for all observers such that we can say "everything
> must be at one and only one position in time and traveling through time at
> c in one direction". It only works for pairs of observers that have
> identical inertial frames.
>    Transformations of inertial frames do not generally commute. Any time a
> change in the velocity occurs for an observer, its inertial frame is
> changes and never again will their clocks completely agree. There may be a
> momentary congruence of the numbers/readings of the respective clock, but
> the twins will never again have the same biological age.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> 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
> principle.
>
> 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
> time.
>
> (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.
>
> Best,
> Edgar
>
>
> 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,
>
>  ï¿½ 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.
>
>  ï¿½ "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).ï¿½
>
> 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".ï¿½ He
> notes that everything is always traveling at the speed of light.ï¿½ If
> you're 'standing still' that means you're just traveling in the time
> direction.ï¿½ So if you move in the space direction you must give up some
> speed in the time direction.ï¿½ Epstein calls this a useful myth and
> doesn't misused it.ï¿½ Edgar assumes that 'time direction' is fixed like
> Newtonian space.
>
> Brent
>
>  --
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> Visit this group at <a href="http://gr
>
> ...

--
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