Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On 1/4/2019 9:20 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *Still a little murky. Does coordinate time ever differ from proper time? TIA, AG * Of course.  That's like asking does change in longitude ever differ from distance sailed. Brent *Suppose I imagine a path in

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Saturday, January 5, 2019 at 3:23:54 AM UTC, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/4/2019 6:25 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 2:08:39 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On 1/4/2019 6:25 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 2:08:39 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM > wrote: On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 2:08:39 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM > wrote: > >> On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 8:58:14 AM UTC, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 12:00 PM John Clark wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 5:50 PM Brent Meeker wrote:

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

I just happened to see this response on Quora today: = How does one resolve the twin paradox in a toroidal universe? Viktor T. Toth

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Sat, Jan 5, 2019 at 1:41 AM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 9:08 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote: > > *> In JC's formula: d^2 = r^2 - t^2* [...] >> > > That's not my formula, I used d^2 = r^2 - (ct)^2 , that way the units > always come out right. > I did make it clear that I use

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:15 PM Brent Meeker wrote: > > *You said t was the proper time for me to take the trip. * > Yes. > > *But the proper time is what a clock measures * > Yes, > > *and so it depends on the path you took in making the trip. * > Yes. And that is exactly why proper time

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On 1/4/2019 9:43 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 5:59 PM Brent Meeker > wrote: >>If I travel from event A to event B and use the formula x^2 + y^2 + z^2 -(ct)^2 /> You can only travel between A and B if they are timelike, in

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

On 1/4/2019 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 4 Jan 2019, at 05:16, Brent Meeker wrote: On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the plausibility of the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world appearances much before I

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 5:59 PM Brent Meeker wrote: >>If I travel from event A to event B and use the formula x^2 + y^2 + z^2 >> -(ct)^2 > > > * > You can only travel between A and B if they are timelike, in which > case your formula will yield an negative squared distance.* > So what? The

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

On Friday, January 4, 2019 at 10:02:51 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 3 Jan 2019, at 15:41, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 7:46:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 2 Jan 2019, at 21:09, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January

Re: [SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

> On 3 Jan 2019, at 15:41, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 7:46:58 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 2 Jan 2019, at 21:09, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 1:07:37 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> On

Re: What is more primary than numbers?

On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 9:08 PM Bruce Kellett wrote: *> In JC's formula: d^2 = r^2 - t^2* [...] > That's not my formula, I used d^2 = r^2 - (ct)^2 , that way the units always come out right. John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

> On 4 Jan 2019, at 05:16, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the plausibility of >> the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world appearances much before >> I realised the physicists were