Liz, Do you have some references or links indicating either Einstein or Newton believed in block time? That's news to me and I rather doubt they did. I know Einstein once mentioned time was a persistent illusion, but that's not at all the same as believing in block time....
Or perhaps you are just wrong about that also? As for your usual flames I know it must be terribly embarrassing to have the very person you've repeatedly labeled a 'troll' and a 'crackpot' to correct your understanding of both QM (not understanding that all particle interactions produce entanglements) AND GR (not understanding that space warps at the edge of galaxies as space expands and misunderstanding p. 718 of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's Gravitation) on the same day as I did in the morning! :-) Ah well, you can always block my messages and try to hide from the embarrassment as you've announced you are going to. We will see if you can really resist the temptation for further flames and personal attacks on me and now Stephen as well who was just very politely and objectively expressing a disbelief in block time when you maligned him? Edgar On Friday, January 24, 2014 5:58:33 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 25 January 2014 06:00, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: > > Liz, > > Stephen is correct here and you are wrong. As Stephen says "block time" is > a BS theory. This is true for all sorts of reasons, a couple of which > Stephen has just presented to you. > > > Poor old Newton and Einstein, how could they have been so stupid? > > > All the advocates of block time just keep repeating that something fixed > and static somehow moves (without actually ever telling us how) but it > simply can't. it simply can't explain the obvious observable fact that time > flows. It's not just a BS theory, it's a total BS theory that rightfully > should have been laughed into oblivion as soon as it was proposed.... > > > Apart from constant repetition of "I'm right and you're wrong" you make > one statement in here to support your views, namely "the obvious observable > fact that time flows". What does that mean? How does it flow? What does it > flow through? Don't bother to reply because far more astute minds than > yours have worked out the answer - it doesn't, unless you postulate another > time through which it flows. But so far that is completely unnecessary to > explain the universe. (It isn't even necessary to explain your > computational reality idea, ironically enough.) > > > And you still keep repeating your misunderstanding of p-time, that it is > somehow falsified by relativity. It isn't. It is entirely compatible with > relativity, and in fact the whole notion of a present moment is a direct > consequence of SR. > > > <div clas > ... -- 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.
