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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to