On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 9:30:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 4 Jun 2019, at 17:42, John Clark <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> >> you said atheism is just a slight variation of Christianity and >>> believe my saying Aristotle was the worst physicist who ever lived means I >>> have embraced Aristotle's ideas as an act of faith. >> >> >> *> The physics is wrong, which is nice as it means that Aristotle was >> clear enough to be shown wrong.* >> > > Aristotelian physics could have been easily disproven even with 2500 year > old technology, and yet for 2000 years any suggestion that it might not be > flawless was met with derision if not violence. > > > That is not Aristotle fault, but the fault of abandoning the most > fundamental science to “politics”. With the Renaissance, only a part of > science has been freed from “authority”. > > > > > Physics would be more advanced today if Aristotle had never been born. > > > That is hard to refute, or to prove. > > > > > *> Criticising the scientifically-minded theology of the greek >> neoplatonist *is* so typical among christians. You really defend them all >> the time, DE FACTO.* >> > > The new total is now (6.02*10^23) *+**2*. > > And I've already told you how I figure out which book is most likely to > clear up my confusion of how the world works but you *STILL* haven't said > how you do it. > > >> Immortality means never having a last thought and the only way I know >>> how to do that is with infinity. >> >> >> *>That would happen in circular model of time, like in Gödel GR universe.* >> > > But the Gödel GR universe is not the one I live in, my universe does not > rotate. > > > How do you know that? We don’t have yet a picture of what is beyond the > observable universe, nor do we have even a coherent theory of the physical > universe. We have to jewels: QM and GR, but they are insistent when taken > together, and both would contradict Mechanism (the hypothesis in cognitive > science) if taken as the fundamental theory. > > Bruno >
It is unlikely, or at least if the universe rotates is is very small. A rotation frame drags spacetime, and for the Gödel universe that rotates as a stationary set of point then for points removed from the spatial center this frame dragging becomes enormous. There is even an event horizon generated. Also even regions inside the horizon scale have geodesics that will time loop, where in fact the only geodesic that will not time loop is one passing through the center and normal to the spatial surface. This is problematic for the spatial surface at any time can't contain unique Cauchy data. LC [image: A-map-of-the-future-lightcones-of-the-Goedel-universe.png] -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c6e796bb-5d97-401a-a977-696dd759d8b7%40googlegroups.com.
