On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world
line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer)
because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
And B's worldline consists of the following five segments:
Segment 1 (blue): Remaining at rest in C's frame, from t=1999 to t=2009
Segment 2 (red): ACCELERATION 1 from t=2009 to t=2011
Segment 3 (blue): Moving
Jesse,
OK, Assume c=1 and start with your sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2) to
calculate what you say is the proper time on a time-like interval. Using
your method, which I assume is correct I do see that A's proper time will
be greater than B's. The reason is basically that A has to travel
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
OK, Assume c=1 and start with your sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2) to
calculate what you say is the proper time on a time-like interval. Using
your method, which I assume is correct I do see that A's proper time
Jesse,
PS: And in your nice long numerical example, which I thank you for, it
seems to me what you are doing is calculating the proper time length of
every segment of A's trip in terms of C's proper time. Isn't that correct?
But if so aren't you in fact establishing a 1:1 correlation of proper
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
PS: And in your nice long numerical example, which I thank you for, it
seems to me what you are doing is calculating the proper time length of
every segment of A's trip in terms of C's proper time. Isn't that
Jesse,
Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your
posts.
I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would
argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME LENGTH due to
the identical accelerations of A and B rather than different
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your
posts.
I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would
argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME
Jesse,
Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the
typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER?
E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A's world line looks
longer than C's world line, it is ACTUALLY SHORTER?
Edgar
On Friday, March 7, 2014
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the
typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER?
E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A's world line
looks longer than C's
This is why time has a minus sign in SR. (I believe the usual way this
informally is put is that the space-traveller trades space for time.)
On 8 March 2014 13:26, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Do you
Jesse,
I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world
line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer)
because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting?
Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree
Liz,
Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to
acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing
I was?
Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included this
except in response to your own Troll obsession.)
Anyway let's
Jesse,
Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame
synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY
FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we
know their acceleration histories). And only SO LONG AS they continue in
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to
acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing
I was?
Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have
Jesse,
You are right about velocity intervals I think, but I do think there will
be a mathematically rigorous way to compare the proper time correlation of
any two observers from all frame views of that correlation and I do think
they will cluster around my results. Each frame view will
Jesse,
I don't think this is correct. It is meaningless to try to TAKE THE FRAME
VIEW OF ALL FRAME VIEWS. That's not the correct way to look at it.
What we do is to take all frame views of any ONE proper time correlation.
Every frame view will give one and only one EXACT answer of how close
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame
synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY
FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we
On 3/6/2014 9:01 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to
acceleration and
gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same
On 7 March 2014 06:01, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to
acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing
I was?
Just realized in retrospect that it was a very confusing choice of
terminology to use reference frame to refer to the frame that's used to
label other frame's relative velocities--I was thinking of the idea that
other frame's velocities are labeled in reference to this one choice of
frame, but
Jesse,
First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any
contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that?
But that really doesn't matter because second, you are NOT using MY method
because you are using ANOTHER coordinate clock FRAME rather than the frame
views of the
Jesse,
Here's another point for you to ponder:
You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the
weighted mean of all frame views is? I would suspect that it converges
towards my solution. It is clear from your own analysis that it does
converge to my solution as
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any
contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that?
No, I was just asking if you agreed with those two steps, which show that
different pairs of
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Here's another point for you to ponder:
You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the
weighted mean of all frame views is?
Weighted how? I can't see any weighing that doesn't itself
Jesse,
Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly.
What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow weighted,
but that all views considered together would tend to cluster around my
results for any distance and motion difference pairs. In other words there
would be a lot
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly.
What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow
weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster
around my results for any
Jesse,
Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying is that your example doesn't
represent my method OR results.
In your example of A and B separated but moving at the same velocity and
direction, and C and D separated but moving at the same velocity and
direction, BUT the two PAIRS moving at
Jesse,
Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed
simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes. Or you
could equally integrate over the continuous functions.
Considered together simply means you plot the correlation each frame view
(at the
Jesse,
PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY causes
that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age rate
changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them when
they meet up and check them, and 2.BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT.
On 6 March 2014 09:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY
causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age
rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them
when they
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying is that your example doesn't
represent my method OR results.
In your example of A and B separated but moving at the same velocity and
direction, and C and D separated but
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed
simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes.
But velocity intervals which are equal when the velocities are defined
If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from +c
to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over them?
Isn't there a measure problem over an uncountably infinite set?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY
causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age
rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from +c
to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over them?
Isn't there a measure problem over an uncountably infinite set?
There's no
On 6 March 2014 11:01, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from
+c to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over
them? Isn't there a
Jesse,
I'm interested in finding the truth, not in assigning blame.
The important thing is we both now agree that there IS ALWAYS A CORRELATION
OF ACTUAL AGES between any two observers.
The difference is I think it's an EXACT correlation, and you think that
it's ALMOST EXACT except for cases
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
So you are just going to COMPLETELY IGNORE my response, which pointed out
that your supposed error relied on using the ambiguous phrase B's and
C's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are at the same
Jesse,
You ask me to choose between 1. and 2.
1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age
at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are
simultaneous in the sense that they must reach the same age
simultaneously).
2. If B and C's
On 3/4/2014 11:19 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
You ask me to choose between 1. and 2.
1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age
at this
point in
Jesse,
BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way
for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by
any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age correlation.
If A and B are separated at any distance but at rest with respect to
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way
for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by
any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age
Brent,
First thanks for your comment.
I think Jesse and I are both aware of that, but we are considering the age
relationship JUST BETWEEN A and B and so must consider only how they see it
in their OWN frames, not the view of a 3rd observer of that relationship.
Though Jesse would probably
Jesse,
Good, we agree it's a valid method for determining 1:1 age correlations in
a common inertial frame in which they are both at rest. I claim that frame
is the correct one to determine the actual age correlation because it
expresses the actual relation in a manner both A and B agree, is
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Good, we agree it's a valid method for determining 1:1 age correlations in
a common inertial frame in which they are both at rest. I claim that frame
is the correct one to determine the actual age correlation
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I promise you the example has nothing to do with any frames other than the
ones in which each pair is at rest. Again, the only assumptions about
p-time that I make in deriving the contradiction are:
ASSUMPTION 1. If
Jesse,
Your position becomes more and more absurd.
You claim they DO have a unique 1:1 correlation of their ages when they are
together but they DON'T when they separate.
So how far do they have to separate before this correlation is lost? 1
meter? 1 kilometer, 1 light year?
And is the
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Your position becomes more and more absurd.
My position is simply that for any question on which different frames
give different answers, there is no physical basis for judging one frame's
judgments to be reality
Jesse,
OK, this is some progress.
Now you've gone from saying there is NO correlation at all, to the ages ARE
CORRELATED WITHIN SOME LIMIT. In other words we DO know that for any set of
twins we can always say that their ages ARE the same within some limits.
Correct?
This is a VERY BIG
By the way, a friend suggested how Edgar's p-time could be rescued from
relativity. If the universe is a simulation running on a game of life,
which is itself running in a Newtonian universe with separate space and
time dimensions (and assuming the simulation can handle relativity - we
weren't
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
OK, this is some progress.
Now you've gone from saying there is NO correlation at all, to the ages
ARE CORRELATED WITHIN SOME LIMIT. In other words we DO know that for any
set of twins we can always say that
Liz,
Thanks but P-time doesn't need to be rescued from relativity since it's
completely consistent with relativity, though apparently not with some
people's interpretation of relativity.
Edgar
On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:42:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
By the way, a friend suggested how Edgar's
Jesse,
No, it was you that said there was NO correlation. In any case that's
irrelevant if we know you now accept that there is a very LARGE correlation
in most situations, and a definable correlation in ALL situations. That
there is always SOME correlation.
By actual age changing effect I
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No, it was you that said there was NO correlation.
Jeez Edgar, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. I just
got through AGREEING that I had said that there wasn't a correlation, but I
explained
Jesse, much as I admire your attempt to engage with Edgar and his theory, I
suspect you will eventually have to accept that he isn't arguing rationally
- it looks to me as thought he will just pounce on some word you use, and
twist it around to try and make a case.
He is, in other words, a troll.
On 04 Mar 2014, at 00:01, LizR wrote:
Jesse, much as I admire your attempt to engage with Edgar and his
theory, I suspect you will eventually have to accept that he isn't
arguing rationally - it looks to me as thought he will just pounce
on some word you use, and twist it around to try
Jesse,
To answer your final question. If I understand your 3 points correctly then
I agree with all 3. Though I suspect we understand them differently. When
you spring your 'proof' we will find that out.
And to your first points. I agree completely that there is no objective or
actual truth
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
To address your points in order:
1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important
point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks
at his age clock), but to
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
To answer your final question. If I understand your 3 points correctly
then I agree with all 3. Though I suspect we understand them differently.
When you spring your 'proof' we will find that out.
Thanks for
Jesse,
I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple
new case by you.
Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each other
at 1 second intervals (of their own proper clocks) for the duration of the
entire trip.
At each 1 second meeting I'm
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple
new case by you.
Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each
other at 1 second intervals (of their own proper
Jesse,
Glad we agree on the first point but, even if there is some minimum time
limit to the criss crosses, you miss the real point of my example. Let me
restate it:
Since a criss cross symmetric trip is NO DIFFERENT IN PRINCIPLE than our
previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is
Jesse,
Just checking but I'm sure you would agree that twins AT REST with respect
to each other are the same actual age (have a 1:1 proper age correlation)
even if they are SEPARATED by distance? You just don't agree that if they
are separated by distance AND in symmetric acceleration that
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Just checking but I'm sure you would agree that twins AT REST with respect
to each other are the same actual age (have a 1:1 proper age correlation)
even if they are SEPARATED by distance? You just don't agree that
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Glad we agree on the first point but, even if there is some minimum time
limit to the criss crosses, you miss the real point of my example. Let me
restate it:
Since a criss cross symmetric trip is NO DIFFERENT IN
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique actual truth
about their ages in this case, nor would any mainstream physicist.
Sorry, I wrote too quickly here--what I meant is that I don't agree there
is any
Jesse,
OK good, that's what I assumed you meant.
BUT now take the two twins at rest standing on opposite sides of the earth,
and then they each start walking in different directions. By your criterion
you then have to say that suddenly and instantly there is NO more 1:1
correlation of their
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
OK good, that's what I assumed you meant.
BUT now take the two twins at rest standing on opposite sides of the
earth, and then they each start walking in different directions. By your
criterion you then have to
A little consideration of trains travelling at half lightspeed with photons
bouncing between parallel mirrors, and people observing lights being turned
on in the station should suffice to demonstrate that there is no objective
truth about the order of spatially separated events. This margin is too
On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:18, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:14:29PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Isn't it crazy to reject what there is enormous evidence for and
accept what there is NO evidence for?
That is what you do. There are no evidence for any universe, and
indeed,
Jesse,
Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over
another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to
representing ACTUAL physical facts.
E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any
number we like but nevertheless they are
Jesse,
To address your questions:
1. Yes, of course the choice of their own frame is a matter of
convention. But that does NOT mean that all frames are equal when it comes
to accurately representing some particular physical fact or relationship.
2. The their experience in my symmetric example
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over
another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to
representing ACTUAL physical facts.
E.g. we can choose various frames to
On 2 March 2014 05:42, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over
another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to
Liz,
Hmmm, that's exactly what I said. So why are you disagreeing with yourself
again? Looks like you are out of touch both with reality and English
comprehension...
Edgar
On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:51:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 2 March 2014 05:42, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Let me ask you one simple question.
In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the
exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude they
must also have been the
On 2 March 2014 11:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Let me ask you one simple question.
In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with
the exact same real actual ages isn't it
On Monday, February 24, 2014 10:57:14 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
I apologize, but I'm a little unsure as to what you are actually asking of
me here, but I'll try to answer.
First P-time and relativity are NOT causally isolated. A proper
interpretation of relativity actually
Jesse,
To address your points in order:
1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important
point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks
at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an
observation. In fact from their native
Jesse,
Yes, but what you are saying here is just that it is impossible to
unambiguously OBSERVE that the proper ages are the same. I agree. But it is
possible to unambiguously DEDUCE and CALCULATE that they MUST be the same,
which is all my theory says.
If we can use calculation and deduction
On 26 Feb 2014, at 15:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stathis,
At least we AGREE there is NO empirical evidence for a block universe.
There is no evidence for a universe. (in the usual aristotelian sense
of the word).
But there is OVERWHELMING evidence for flowing time and a present
Bruno,
Your contention that there is no evidence for a universe is simply
delusional. The very fact you can make any statement absolutely PROVES a
universe of some kind.
Your contention is so absurd it's laughable..
Edgar
On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:14:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Jesse,
With regards to your contention in your first paragraph below it may
express the correct view of frame DEPENDENT simultaneity, but that is NOT
the point I'm making. I'll try to explain more clearly. This example is
revised to attempt to conform with your previous objections so please
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
You point out that from the POV of all arbitrary frames they won't be, BUT
the point is we MUST use a frame that MAINTAINS the real and actual
symmetry to determine the ACTUAL REALITY of this situation.
Why? You give no
Jesse,
First I would appreciate it if you didn't snip my proximate post that you
are replying to...
Anyway we MUST choose a frame that preserves the symmetry because remember
we are trying to establish a 1:1 proper time correlation BETWEEN THE TWINS
THEMSELVES (not them and anyone else), and
On 27 Feb 2014, at 04:45, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Can you agree to this at least?
To repeat what I said in my second-to-last post:
'If you continue to ask me Do you agree? type questions while
ignoring the similar
On 28 Feb 2014, at 00:10, LizR wrote:
Any attempt to separate out time from space-time and remain within
the context of special relativity is bound to fail, because SR is
the unification of space and time. In Newtonian theory there was
absolute space and absolute time. In SR there is only
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
First I would appreciate it if you didn't snip my proximate post that you
are replying to...
Anyway we MUST choose a frame that preserves the symmetry because remember
we are trying to establish a 1:1 proper
On 28 Feb 2014, at 16:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Your contention that there is no evidence for a universe is simply
delusional.
I meant the Aristotelian universe, where physics is supposed to
describe the fundamental ontology, or what is.
Of course I believe in something, and I
Bruno,
Nonsense. You continually ask the exact same questions which I answered
several times but just ignore my answers and keep asking the same
questions, and when you rarely do respond to my answers you do so
incoherently and only in terms of your own very rigid worldview.
Well perhaps
On 1 March 2014 04:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Feb 2014, at 15:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Stathis,
At least we AGREE there is NO empirical evidence for a block universe.
There is no evidence for a universe. (in the usual Aristotelian sense of
the word).
True. If only
On 1 March 2014 06:42, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Feb 2014, at 04:45, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Can you agree to this at least?
To repeat what I said in my second-to-last post:
'If you continue to ask me
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:14:29PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Isn't it crazy to reject what there is enormous evidence for and
accept what there is NO evidence for?
That is what you do. There are no evidence for any universe, and
indeed, as you assume comp, you could understand that there
On 28 Feb 2014, at 21:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Nonsense. You continually ask the exact same questions which I
answered several times but just ignore my answers and keep asking
the same questions, and when you rarely do respond to my answers you
do so incoherently and only in
Jesse,
I haven't answered those questions out of any disrespect or rudeness but
because I was working on a new explanation which I think does specifically
address and answer all of them which I present in this post. I will be
happy to answer any of your questions if you think they are still
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I haven't answered those questions out of any disrespect or rudeness but
because I was working on a new explanation which I think does specifically
address and answer all of them which I present in this post. I
Jesse,
First the answer to your question at the end of your post.
Yes, of course I agree. Again that's just standard relativity theory.
However as you point out by CONVENTION it means the observer's comoving
inertial frame which is the way I was using it.
Now to your replies to my post
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
First the answer to your question at the end of your post.
Yes, of course I agree. Again that's just standard relativity theory.
However as you point out by CONVENTION it means the observer's comoving
inertial
Jesse,
Remember we are talking ONLY about PROPER TIMES, or actual ages. These DO
NOT HAVE any MEANING IN OTHER FRAMES than that of the actual frame of the
observer in question. So your comments that an observer's age will be
measured differently in other frames, while obviously true, is NOT
1 - 100 of 548 matches
Mail list logo
