On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 3:25:08 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 6 Jun 2019, at 02:47, Lawrence Crowell <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > 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]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 10:55 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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. > > > > To be franc, I have not enough expertise in GR to measure the impact on > this. I can imagine slowing down the rotation to make the drag as small as > possible, but that is only a guess. Then, I am not Aristotelian: I don’t > believe in what I see (take this with some grain of salt). > > Bruno > > “De mémoire de rose, je n’ai jamais vu mourrir un jardinier” (Fontenelle). > > > LC > > <A-map-of-the-future-lightcones-of-the-Goedel-universe.png> > > >
This I know: I can understand >95% of what Bruno writes, and <5% of what Lawrence writes. @philipthrift -- 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/2fc8e940-3903-4937-a756-f24665110af8%40googlegroups.com.
