On 16 January 2014 19:03, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Jason,
>>
>> 1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time (by requiring a
>> moving arrow of time and a present moment), so since SR is well verified
>> block time is false.
>>
>
> That things move does not disprove block time. All movement is is being in
> different places at different times, which is perfectly valid and
> consistent with the block-time view.  So I don't see what makes it any
> different if everything moves at some fixed speed. Also, the "arrow of
> time" has a different meaning in science than in the sense you seem to be
> using it. It refers to the general process of entropy increase which serves
> as a "pointer" in the same direction through space time in which we
> accumulate memories, it is not refer to any particular direction in which
> things travel through space time.  Everything with a non-zero velocity has
> a different direction through time than you do. Some say anti-matter is
> even traveling in the opposite direction.
>

I for one wouldn't argue with Mr Feynman. But beware talk of things
"travelling through time". It ain't so, and is apt to sow confusion amongst
aynone who takes you literally. Nothing travels through time or through
space time. Things travel through space, and have an extension in time (as
HG Wells pointed out in "The Time Machine", you can't have "an
instantaneous cube")

>
>
>> 2. I asked you around a dozen questions each homing in on another problem
>> with block time. I received no convincing answers to any of them that I
>> recall. Basically you just told me they weren't really problems without
>> giving any reasons why not.
>>
>
> I provided reasons, as I did above.  On the other hand, I asked you a
> number of questions, such as how you can know there is only a single
> present moment, rather than 2, or 10, or 100, etc. but got no answer at all.
>

Maybe the answer was delivered to the wrong time stream ;-)

>
>> 3. Then I asked you to clarify a couple of aspects of the structure of
>> block time (e.g. is it a continuum or sequential frames) which you were
>> unable to provide.
>>
>
> I don't recall being asked this question, but in any case I don't know, it
> seems the jury is still out on whether or not space-time is quantized.
>

It is indeed. The 4/1/14 New Scientist has an article on this, in case
anyone's interested. Evidence from GRBs is equivocal.

>
>
>> Please understand I'm not singling you out here. The problem is not so
>> much with your explanations as with the theory itself which is just not
>> tenable and which of course you are not responsible for....
>>
>
> If anything, presentism is not tenable under relativity.  See "Time and
> Physical Geometry" but Putnam (
> http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/SS04/PutnamJPhil.pdf )
> or "Is there an alternative to the block view" (
> http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/SS04/PutnamJPhil.pdf )
> by Petkov, or "How Relativity contradicts Presentism" (
> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lina0174/kansas.pdf ) by Saunders.
>
> I have given you several of these sources before, but you will not read
> them, so I don't know what more you expect me to do when you say I give you
> no explanation or reason.  Please surprise me and read at least one of
> those papers.
>

Good luck, Jason!

-- 
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