;
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 1, 2016 8:01 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:02:49AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 2/12/2016 9:26 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 10:02:49AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On 2/12/2016 9:26 am, Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
> >>Einstein ever asserted that space-time or
On 2/12/2016 9:26 am, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
Einstein ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.
To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:26:25PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> I am not sure why he says that Einstein was wrong, as I am not sure
> Einstein ever asserted that space-time or gravity was fundamental.
> To say that Einstein is wrong looks like a cliché in fashion, today.
It's code speak for
Hi Telmo,
On 30 Nov 2016, at 21:33, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hello,
What do you guys think of this?
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
Interesting, seems plausible to me, not so original (cf the
explanation
-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 30, 2016 3:33 pm
Subject: No gravity / no dark matter
Hello,
What do you guys think of this?
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkabl
ty / no dark matter
Hello,
What do you guys think of this?
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
Cheers
Telmo.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" grou
"inflation in disguise"?
Cheers
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 09:33:11PM +0100, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What do you guys think of this?
>
> http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
>
>
.com
Subject: No gravity / no dark matter
Hello,
What do you guys think of this?
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
[http://assets2.bigthink.com/system/idea_thumbnails/61999/primary/GettyImages-71525117.jpg?1480
Hello,
What do you guys think of this?
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/remarkable-new-theory-says-theres-no-gravity-no-dark-matter-and-einstein-was-wrong
Cheers
Telmo.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubs
There are 2 recent papers
about Primordial Black Holes and Dark Matter, both are in
Physical Review Letters
. In one
John Hopkins University
scientists say the rate that LIGO discovered Black Hole mergers is
consistent with Dark Matter being made entirely of Primordial Black Holes.
http
On Friday, November 28, 2014 8:49:33 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound
systems like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the
universe though for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same
rate). And that
OK, I'm just curious to knowI don't know what plausible answers were
provided, I don't recall any that addressed this point. Maybe I missed
them, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this forum (or any forum...)
I suppose if the amount of DM being annihilated is very small relative to
the
of course. How can a
piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter interplay, with
a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe, if the same
data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You are 100% in
the logic IMHO.
I'm sorry I didn't see it because I
point in
terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of
course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter
interplay, with a calculated implication for the expansion of the universe,
if the same data cannot at least say something about smaller scales. You
noticeable effect. Is it supposed
to be relatively negligible?
Liz - I've got to admit I've only just now seen your point in
terms of your actual line of inference. You are absolutely right of
course. How can a piece of data involve a dark energy / dark matter
interplay, with a calculated
On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
I posted a reference here that suggested how distant black holes could
become correlated.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1308.0289v1.pdf
I saw / have seen the argument...always read things you reference if see
them. What I would say is
I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
Richard
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:25 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:14:33 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
I
On Monday, December 1, 2014 2:30:05 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
I have read that reference. It is obvious that you have not.
But then almost everything you post here is baloney.
So it may not matter if you read the paper or not.
Richard
I read and we even exchanged about it. But there are
That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna
and I are talking about.
It is a form of cosmic entanglement.
However, if you recall I extrapolated from GP's paper that black holes
must be intelligent to be monogamus.
And in a post to Bruno I speculated the particle wave
On Monday, December 1, 2014 4:24:38 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
That is exactly the same kind of correlation that Motl, Gharibyon, Penna
and I are talking about.
It is a form of cosmic entanglement.
how do we know when an idea like cosmic entanglement is a good scientific
idea or a catch-all
Zibby,
They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put
their careers at risk.
It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in
print.
What they can publish is the math behind the limited conclusion.
David Deutsch is the exception.
Zappy
On Sun,
On Monday, December 1, 2014 5:05:43 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
Zibby,
They may be interested, but they cannot publish such an interest and put
their careers at risk.
It is only emeritus types like myself that can put such speculations in
print.
What they can publish is the math behind the
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 8:49:02 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing
mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding.
It's a fact, Bruno's estimate levels are too low at present obviously
reasonable accepted
The point is that galaxies should be expanding in relation to bound systems
like stars and the solar system, in a similar manner to the universe though
for a different reason (so almost certainly not at the same rate). And that
should be visible as we look back in time. So it's an acid test for
the distinction between galaxies and other bound states? Galaxies
and clusters of galaxies are as much gravitationally bound states as
stars and solar systems. I don't understand why you should expect them
to expand, unless dark matter is decaying and radiating energy out of
the system
becomes obscured.
Why the distinction between galaxies and other bound states? Galaxies and
clusters of galaxies are as much gravitationally bound states as stars and
solar systems. I don't understand why you should expect them to expand,
unless dark matter is decaying and radiating energy out
between galaxies and other bound states?
Galaxies and clusters of galaxies are as much gravitationally bound
states as stars and solar systems. I don't understand why you should
expect them to expand, unless dark matter is decaying and radiating
energy out of the system
On 29 November 2014 at 11:59, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
I have wondered if space is expanding by adding on more space, keeping the
space of say our galaxy intact.
Or is the actual space within our galaxy getting bigger, along with each
of us.
And if the latter, how would we
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 2:52:48 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 26 November 2014 at 22:05, zib...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed
galaxies should be expanding
Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are losing
mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
LizR wrote:
Still no comment on the fact (if it is a fact) that if galaxies are
losing mass thru dark matter annihilation, they should be expanding.
The reports I have seen about possible detection of dark matter
annihilation events suggest a rate that is far too low to have any
appreciable
On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed
galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational
evidence to support this.
Liz, you said it right at the start...but the point is only
On 26 November 2014 at 22:05, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 25, 2014 6:50:00 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:
And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed
galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational
evidence to support this.
Liz
The article was about the bad fit.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:58 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 November 2014 at 11:53, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the
article is about.
I only saw references to a
And I said that it seemed to me that if dark matter was being destroyed
galaxies should be expanding, and asked if there was any observational
evidence to support this.
On 25 November 2014 at 23:44, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The article was about the bad fit.
--
You received
http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html
my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest.
--
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,
Isn't this news a few months old?
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:05 PM, zibb...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.space.com/27852-dark-energy-eating-dark-matter.html
my comment is testimony. my worldview predicted this. honest.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM UTC, yanniru wrote:
Isn't this news a few months old?
dunno, I just saw it now on the Mind list on yahoo groups
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be
expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely? (And large
scale structure may also be different now from what it was in the past.) Is
there evidence of this sort of change?
On 25 November 2014 at 10:48,
The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the
article is about.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Shouldn't this be testable? If DM is disappearing then galaxies should be
expanding as there is less mass holding them together, surely?
On 25 November 2014 at 11:53, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The continuing tests have been done. The results are in. That is what the
article is about.
I only saw references to a bad fit with CMBR measurements, there was no
mention of expanding galaxies.
--
You received this
If Dark Matter and Dark Energy represents 96% of the “known” universe,
even if it paradoxically turns out that we know virtually nothing about it,
what other kinds of ratios-in-ignorance lurk as shockingly in our
self-significant lives?
There are 23% of Dark Matter and 73% of Dark Energy
Liz,
For the first part of my answer to the question of in what sense might
space be absolute see my new topic post on 'Newton's Bucket and Mach's
Principle'..
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:57:32 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 8 February 2014 15:45, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Brent, and Liz,
We have to be careful in our choice of words here.
It is quite clear that e.g. during relative motion of frames A and B, that
each sees the other's clock running slower. So the two frames DO NOT give
the same results here.
However when one twin returns with a different clock
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:36:08 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent, and Liz,
We have to be careful in our choice of words here.
It is quite clear that e.g. during relative motion of frames A and B, that
each sees the other's clock running slower. So the two frames DO NOT give
the
On 9 February 2014 04:36, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent, and Liz,
We have to be careful in our choice of words here.
It is quite clear that e.g. during relative motion of frames A and B, that
each sees the other's clock running slower. So the two frames DO NOT give
the same
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime
distortion representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth,
which - I thought - had to
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:36:02 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent, and anyone else since Brent is not answering my more difficult
questions,
Take this example:
Consider A on the earth and B in geosynchronous orbit directly overhead.
By definition there is NO relative motion
Ghibbsa,
I'm not sure that works because it assumes there is an absolute space
background (sort of like the aether) defined by the NON-rotating center of
the earth. Why would that be the case? In other words what is that hell of
a lot faster motion relative too, and why do we choose that frame
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:04:42 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I'm not sure that works because it assumes there is an absolute space
background (sort of like the aether) defined by the NON-rotating center of
the earth. Why would that be the case? In other words what is that
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime
distortion
representing the sun and a tiny one
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:37:17 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime
distortion representing the sun and a
Ghibbsa,
Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to choose
one frame over the other to get the correct results.
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 5:17:41 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:04:42 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge
On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:34:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to
choose one frame over the other to get the correct results.
Edgar
I see what you are asking, or think so. But unfortunately it goes
beyond
On 2/7/2014 5:53 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:34:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to choose
one
frame over the other to get the correct results.
You don't. But in almost
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:43:37 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 February 2014 15:45, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
but can you throw the relative character out of the window, and speak
of an 'absolute landscape' implied by relativity theory that is made up of
all the gravity wells, that definitely suggests a 'reality' that goes
beyond the principle of
On 2/7/2014 6:43 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
One could consider the rest frame of the CMBR as an absolute landscape I
suppose. One over which the Earth is hurtling at some rate, iirc.
On 8 February 2014 16:28, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/7/2014 6:43 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM
Brent, and anyone else since Brent is not answering my more difficult
questions,
Take this example:
Consider A on the earth and B in geosynchronous orbit directly overhead. By
definition there is NO relative motion whatsoever.
Nevertheless A's clock runs slower than B's and both A and B
Jesse,
Correct. Yes, plenty of things are not relative. And any notion of a
cosmological spacetime is just a useful approximation. Penrose's 'Road to
Reality' points out that properly speaking all dimensional world views
exist as observer centered individual 'manifolds', and these are not
Brent,
First thanks for recommending Epstein's book Relativity Visualized. It
turns out though that I seem to have independently invented 'Epstein
diagrams' myself since I use them both in my book and in my 1997 paper.
However I always thought the concept was obvious and never even thought of
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 6:21:41 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, that being at the same point in spacetime is CALLED the present
moment that I'm talking about.
But your present moment goes
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface of
a world, and if the speed of light is constant, then you could draw dots
around that world for exact intervals of the speed of light, in which case
the light
On 2/2/2014 4:13 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface of a world, and
if the speed of light is constant, then you could draw dots around that world for
exact intervals of the speed of light, in which case the light arrives at each
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface
of a world, and if the speed of light is constant, then you could draw dots
around that
On 2/2/2014 12:44 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface
of a
world, and if the
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry akin to the surface
of a world, and if the speed
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:16:09 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 12:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental geometry
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental
On 2/2/2014 3:17 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:16:09 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 12:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, ghi...@gmail.com
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32:26 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 3:45:24 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13
On Monday, February 3, 2014 5:38:59 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32:26 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:44:07 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:12:18 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 5:38:59 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32:26 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime distortion
representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth, which - I thought - had to
bias the objectively true relation between the sun and the earth for the
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:35:49 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Dear Ghibbsa,
Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious
fact that the twins DO share a common p-time present moment with different
clock times.
,
There are major distinctions between
Ghibbsa,
I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from time to a
rather rambling post on epistemology?
Perhaps you were afraid you might be coming close to agreeing with me on a
present moment and afraid of the public consequences of that here on this
group? I agree you'd
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:00:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from time to a
rather rambling post on epistemology?
I don't see it as epistemology save in the most literal sense of the word
with no baggage allowed.
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 3:53:06 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:00:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from time to
a rather rambling post on epistemology?
I don't see it as
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
And of course it is OBVIOUS that the twins share a common present moment
when they compare clocks. Otherwise they couldn't compare clocks now could
they?
The fact that they can compare clocks, and agree for example that
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that they can compare clocks, and agree for example that twin
A's turning 30 coincides with twin B's turning 40, is because they are
making the comparison at the same point in spacetime (assuming ideal
Ghibbsa,
Boy, you are really taking some giant leaps here!
Just because I point out that a local present moment is obvious IN NO WAY
is a claim that that insight is original with me! That's a crazy inference.
The fact is that 99.999% of everyone on earth throughout history has had
the same
Jesse,
Yes, that being at the same point in spacetime is CALLED the present
moment that I'm talking about.
You are probably repeating the claim that 'coordinate time' falsifies
p-time. It doesn't. Coordinate time is an attempt to explain the obvious
problems with clock time not actually
You're so a joke... cannot doubt your own genius eh !
2014-02-01 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Jesse,
Yes, that being at the same point in spacetime is CALLED the present
moment that I'm talking about.
You are probably repeating the claim that 'coordinate time' falsifies
p-time. It
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:13:29 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Boy, you are really taking some giant leaps here!
Just because I point out that a local present moment is obvious IN NO WAY
is a claim that that insight is original with me! That's a crazy inference.
The fact is
Jesse,
Perhaps i could understand better what you are saying if you could kindly
explain in detail step by step a COORDINATE time analysis of how the twins
start at the SAME point in spacetime and end up at the SAME point in
spacetime but with different clock times.
And please describe what
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, that being at the same point in spacetime is CALLED the present
moment that I'm talking about.
But your present moment goes beyond that and says that there is an
objective common present moment for events
Jesse,
Not correct. My present moment does NOT say that there is an objective
common present moment for events that are *not* at the same point in
spaceTIME (my emphasis).
My theory says that there is a common universal present moment shared by
all points in SPACE, not spaceTIME. Because
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Not correct. My present moment does NOT say that there is an objective
common present moment for events that are *not* at the same point in
spaceTIME (my emphasis).
My theory says that there is a common universal
On 01 Feb 2014, at 18:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Boy, you are really taking some giant leaps here!
Just because I point out that a local present moment is obvious IN
NO WAY is a claim that that insight is original with me! That's a
crazy inference.
The fact is that 99.999% of
Jesse,
No, it's not just semantics. It's my definition of the present moment. You
claim the present moment means something else, but then you don't even
believe there IS a present moment which seems a little strange! But be that
as it may.
The example you give is just standard relativity
Jesse,
PS: If coordinate time is just saying that when the twins meet up again
they are actually at the SAME point in spacetime, but we don't know (can't
agree) what clock time that corresponds to then I agree completely. That is
exactly what my theory says and what I've always said.
I just
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
PS: If coordinate time is just saying that when the twins meet up again
they are actually at the SAME point in spacetime, but we don't know (can't
agree) what clock time that corresponds to then I agree completely.
Jesse,
You already told us that the twins ARE at the same point in spacetime when
they meet up again.
Is that not an OBJECTIVE fact? Do we not actually KNOW that? The twins most
certainly DO KNOW it because they can shake hands and look at each other's
clocks at the same time. How can you
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 03:46:37PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
c. Therefore during the trip there must always be a one to one
correspondence between those actual present moments even though the clock
times are not in synch. Because they both begin and end in that present
moment and never
Jesse,
You said it was just a label that seemed to imply otherwise, but I'm glad
we agree it is an objective knowable fact that the twins meet in an ACTUAL
same point in both time and space even with different clock times. That's
what I've always exactly said the present moment was.
By actual
201 - 300 of 475 matches
Mail list logo
