# Re: Tegmark's New Book

```Brent,

Both DO follow if you understand the argument. Why do you think they don't
follow?```
```
Edgar

On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:27:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/15/2014 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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).
>
>
> It's a commonplace in relativity texts.
>
>
>  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,
>
>
> Not exactly.  It requires that there be a time-axis, but it doesn't say
> anything about which way the arrow points.  It only implies that bodies
> cannot move spacelike (because when they get up to c they've used all their
> speed to move through space and none to move through 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 doesn't follow.
>
>   That present location in time is the present moment, it's a unique
> privileged moment in time.
>
>
> That doesn't follow.
>
> Brent
>
>
>  (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
>
> ...

--
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