# Re: Tegmark's New Book

```Jason,

This is only a problem if you don't understand that everything happens in
the present moment P-time. The clock times diverge in value but always in
the same present moment. There is no 'catching up' in p-time because
nothing ever leaves it no matter how fast or slow their clocks are running
relative to each other. That is in fact the ONLY way the twins can meet,
shake hands and compare differing clocks - because they are in the same
p-time present moment.```
```
You still haven't grasped this....

There is an answer to this riddle, but you need to study some of Edgar's
theory to figure it out.
:-)

Edgar

On Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:47:41 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
> Stephen,
>
> c is actually the speed of TIME as the STc equation makes clear. It just
> so happens that light, having no velocity in time, always travels at the
> speed of time in all observers' frames thorough SPACE. All its spacetime
> velocity is only through space.
>
>
> If what you say is true, then it seems to contradict P-time.
>
> Imagine one thing remains still, and uses all its speed to travel through
> space time in a straight line at c.
>
> Then imagine something else, at the same location as that one thing moves
> away. It could then never catch up and reach that thing it moved away from,
> since it has deviated and fallen behind, thus it is gone forever and they
> could never shake hands again.
>
> |
> |  \
> |   \
> |   /
> |  /
> A B
>
> A and B both travel at c, but now B can never catch up to A...
>
>
> Jason
>
> P.S. there is an answer to this riddle, but you need to study some of SR
> to figure it out.
>
>
> I didn't say anything travels faster than c. Why claim that?
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:14:56 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Dear Edgar,
>
>   Your argument is based on a disconception of what the speed of light is!
> Light -photons- do not "move" at all. They are the null length "rays" that
> connect events together. Nothing can travel faster than c because to do so
> would be traveling in less than zero distances.
>   A light cone is defined as those events that are "connected" by the null
> rays. You really need to go back to the books and work the math to learn
> and understand what it means. Books for laymen are only good for wetting
> one's appetites for the real thing.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> 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,
> <div style="font-family:aria
>
> ...

--
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