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 <[email protected]<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, > > � 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 a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<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 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.
