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, > > � 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 > > ... -- 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.
