On 31 Jan 2014, at 13:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving!
The problem is not that static equations DESCRIBE aspects of
reality. The problem is that you are denying the flow of time.
We deny a *primitive* and *ontological* flow of
On 31 Jan 2014, at 14:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Telmo,
Block time and Bruno's comp can only tell us how a set fixed static
sequence of events could be perceived by some observer as a fixed
static sequence of events. It simply CANNOT tell us how time moves
ALONG that sequence.
Correct.
On 31 Jan 2014, at 19:27, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
I HAVE explained my computational space and how it relates to p-
time. Here it is again copied from my post of Jan. 25 since you
missed it.
I did not miss it, but apparently you missed my comment on it.
Bruno,
Once again a
On 31 Jan 2014, at 20:24, David Nyman wrote:
On 31 January 2014 18:30, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
snip
OK. But you could also start by saying something like the POPJ
assumes by default a primitively-physical basis).
Especially that it is certainly arguable that comp does not
On 31 Jan 2014, at 20:57, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have
direct experience of the subjective.
Nice for you.
Indeed.
But that does not invalidate the point that you can't prove
On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:24 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated person should
know get tiresome too.
Try Vitamin B 12. It is known to have a positive effect on the mind's ability
to accept new input. Failing that, you might
Actually, John Clark wrote...
On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:34 pm, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 1 Feb 2014, at 8:24 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Your endless homemade acronyms that you pretend every educated person
should know get tiresome too.
Try Vitamin B
On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 03:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Maybe it will help to make the sense-primitive view clearer if we
think of sense and motive as input and output.
This is
On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:16, LizR wrote:
On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
Is there any instance in which a computation is employed in which no
program or data is input and from which no data is expected as
output?
The UD.
Isn't everything output from
On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any instance in which a computation is employed in which no
program or data is input and from which no data
On 1 February 2014 16:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/31/2014 9:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
We are potentially immortal in the same way as a car can potentially
survive indefinitely provided parts can be repaired or replaced
indefinitely. At present, we can repair or
On 01 Feb 2014, at 06:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/31/2014 9:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
We are potentially immortal in the same way as a car can potentially
survive indefinitely provided parts can be repaired or replaced
indefinitely. At present, we can repair or replace some parts in the
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:15:26 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 13:22, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 5:32:49 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
It emerges along the time axis. Evolution, for example, can operate in a
block
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:26:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 17:30, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
It's not an assumption, it is a question. I am asking, what good is
computation without input/output and isn't the fact of i/o completely
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:09:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any instance in which a
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 03:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Maybe it will help to make the sense-primitive
Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps
has the most members in it.
For another try I have read the following:
arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other]
Title: The Mathematical Universe
Authors: Max Tegmark (MIT)
arXiv:0707.2593 [pdf, ps, other]
Title: Many lives in many
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:05:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the
list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the
concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements like change
can't
Hi John,
One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock, BUT
the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire trip
which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on earth. So
if the accelerations were exactly equal during the entire
Brent,
But see my response to John. How can that work since the accelerations are
both = 1g throughout the entire trip? By the Principle of Equivalence
shouldn't they have the same effect on time then?
But if you say it's not the acceleration, but the distance through
spacetime, then the
Liz,
But see my responses to John and Brent on this ..
The question I'd ask you is why A's frame cannot be put into a single
inertial frame of reference if his 1g acceleration was exactly the same as
B's 1g acceleration during the ENTIRE trip?
Are you saying that the simple fact that the
On 1 February 2014 09:54, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
My poor car followed the schroedinger equation without effort, but at a
higher level, it tooks her a lot of effort to climb some steep roads. Well,
she died through such effort, actually.
RIP :-(
--
You received this message
Bruno,
You have a very strange view of arithmetic if you think it is full of
processor cycles.
Can you explain how that works? It seems to imply an innate notion of time.
Note that I agree with this, it's my p-time, but block universe and your
block comp seem to be lacking it...
PLease
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
On 1 February 2014 12:13, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No. The UD has no output. It is a non stopping program. everything
physical and theological appears through its intensional activity.
Appears = output.
I think I see the confusion here. Remember that in comp, as in any
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 8:54:12 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 12:13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
No. The UD has no output. It is a non stopping program. everything
physical and theological appears through its intensional activity.
On 1 February 2014 07:05, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Everything we observe takes place in a manner that can be placed within a
space-time continuum such that a god's eye view (or the relevant
equations) would see it as static. But of course *we* don't see it like
that.
This appears to be
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 1 February 2014 15:44, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote
Neither comp nor any other TOE can consistently make reference to input or
output extrinsic to itself,
Unless, like mine, your TOE makes I/O (unified as a sensory-motive dipole
'sense') the foundation of Everything.
So
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
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 11:32:03 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 15:44, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote
Neither comp nor any other TOE can consistently make reference to input or
output extrinsic to itself,
Unless, like mine, your TOE makes
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 Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock,
BUT the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire
trip which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back on
earth.
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't see how my 'theory' automatically trumps any logical objection
then you don't understand my theory fully.
That is truly hilarious Craig! I cannot help being reminded of Luther's
admonition that To be a
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
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I must have lost the thread. This Google Groups format is always burying
threads for me. If I can find it, I'll definitely reply.
I see you use gmail, like me. Why don't you just filter messages from this
group to a gmail
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 Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:47:31 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
If you don't see how my 'theory' automatically trumps any logical
objection then you don't understand my theory fully.
That is truly
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:54:10 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
I must have lost the thread. This Google Groups format is always burying
threads for me. If I can find it, I'll definitely reply.
I see
On 1 February 2014 18:14, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Eh, I've had formatting issues in the past when I try to respond through
Gmail.
Try using rich formatting and just interpolate your answers, snipping as
necessary. It works really well for me.
--
You received this message
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
John,
First, 2 substantial errors in your post below.
1. I stated that A began his trip from earth ORBIT, not from blasting off
from earth's surface, so A's acceleration is 1g for the ENTIRE trip. But
even if he blasted off from earth's surface at 2g that would have a
negligible and
On 01 Feb 2014, at 14:31, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 09:54, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
My poor car followed the schroedinger equation without effort, but
at a higher level, it tooks her a lot of effort to climb some steep
roads. Well, she died through such effort,
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
then feel free to invoke some non-comp or invoke more comp if that
floats your boat, I no longer care. I've given up trying to find a
consistent definition of your silly little word comp that is used on this
list and
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 1 February 2014 18:08, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't expect anything and I'm not looking for anything. I'm explaining
why logic is theoretical representation rather than aesthetic presentation,
and that the distinction between the two is the key to solving the hard
On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:09:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 03:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 14:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
You have a very strange view of arithmetic if you think it is full
of processor cycles.
It is the standard understanding of computer science. That is
understood (by the theoricians) since Gödel 1931 (symbolically, as
some have seen
On 01 Feb 2014, at 16:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Only sense can allow theory to go beyond itself...in theory.
Löbian machine can use their G*-G difference to go beyond itself, and
perhaps generate sense, at their own risk and peril. But the sense
will be mediated by the different points
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 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I get around that with perceptual relativity. When flying over a city, it
doesn't look like there are millions of conscious entities - not because
their behavior is limited to a set of rules, but because your vantage point
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:16:43 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:13, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5,
Bruno,
A mathematical ordering is static and does NOT move. It is not a flowing
time. Doesn't matter if you claim there is some 1p perspective that is a
mathematical ordering. Unless some primitive time, such as my p-time, flows
then nothing moves and you most certainly would NOT be posting
Hi Edgar,
Block time and Bruno's comp can only tell us how a set fixed static sequence
of events could be perceived by some observer as a fixed static sequence of
events. It simply CANNOT tell us how time moves ALONG that sequence.
The fact that time flows, that things change, is a
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
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:53:30 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
I get around that with perceptual relativity. When flying over a city, it
doesn't look like there are millions of conscious entities - not
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
Hi Telmo,
No, because I don't have to remember that my clock moved. I can actually
OBSERVE it in the process of moving. That's one of many reasons block times
including Bruno's don't make sense.
I don't accept that QM indeterminacy is dependent on the existence of a
human observer. That's
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
Stathis,
I rereply a statement you made.
On 31 Jan 2014, at 01:18, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 31 January 2014 04:19, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think there is a problem if consciousness is an
epiphenomenon.
Is it not that very idea which leads to the notion of
Found it!
On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:45:24 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 31 January 2014 01:52, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
The we of individual human beings relies on physical consistency because
that is a common sensory experience of the
On 2/1/2014 2:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:48, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/31/2014 9:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
We are potentially immortal in the same way as a car can potentially
survive indefinitely provided parts can be repaired or replaced
On 2/1/2014 2:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 06:48, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/31/2014 9:18 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
We are potentially immortal in the same way as a car can potentially
survive indefinitely provided parts can be repaired or replaced
indefinitely. At present,
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.
On 2 February 2014 08:41, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There can be no zombies if consciousness is epiphenomenal.
Just to be sure, I agree with that.
I asked why? because I was thinking at the meta-level.
The problem, is that if we can conceive that consciousness is
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:48:04 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On 2 February 2014 08:41, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript:
wrote:
There can be no zombies if consciousness is epiphenomenal.
Just to be sure, I agree with that.
I asked why? because I was thinking at
On 1 February 2014 21:49, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Found it!
On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:45:24 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 31 January 2014 01:52, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
The we of individual human beings relies on physical consistency
because
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 1 February 2014 20:33, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:53:30 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
I get around that with perceptual relativity. When flying over a city, it
doesn't
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
Russell,
Sorry, but you miss my argument. The 1:1 correspondence is between actual
or present moment time, not clock time. Please refer to my proximate
responses to Jesse for the details of the argument.
Edgar
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:21:48 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat,
Maybe we can convert Bruno to Aristotelanism:
https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/e.pdf
Brent
--
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
On 2/1/2014 9:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote:
One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock,
BUT the
point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:56:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 20:33, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:53:30 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
I
Jesse,
Consider another case:
Consider every observer in the entire universe. Every one of them is always
currently in their own local actual time, their present moment. Now
consider every last one of them all travel to meet up on earth. Every last
one of them continually brings their own
Sorry Craig but I find you a simply impossible discussion partner. It
doesn't seem to matter how directly and specifically one tries to put a
point to you; you seem endlessly capable of deflecting, ignoring or just
changing the subject. It's a real pity too that you seem convinced that all
I will answer that if / when I have read it.
On 2 February 2014 01:23, Ronald Held ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz I should have typed which of the two diametrically opposed camps
has the most members in it.
For another try I have read the following:
arXiv:0704.0646 [pdf, ps, other]
On 2 February 2014 04:44, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 1 February 2014 07:05, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Everything we observe takes place in a manner that can be placed within a
space-time continuum such that a god's eye view (or the relevant
equations) would see it as
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 6:30:52 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 1 February 2014 21:49, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
wrote:
Found it!
On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:45:24 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 31 January 2014 01:52, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
It's because you don't listen, and then project that quality onto me. It's
very common I've found. Not everyone is that way though. I have many
productive conversations with people also. That would be hard to explain if
it was my fault.
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:28:38 PM UTC-5, David
The saga continues...
[image: Inline images 1]
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Consider another case:
Consider every observer in the entire universe. Every one of them is
always currently in their own local actual time, their present moment.
Are you just asserting your presentist views,
On 2 February 2014 06:47, David Nyman da...@davidnyman.com wrote:
On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't see how my 'theory' automatically trumps any logical
objection then you don't understand my theory fully.
That is truly hilarious Craig! I
For a trip of interstellar distance, the time dilation caused by getting
into low earth orbit will be insignificant. Alice and Bob can compare their
watches when Alice is in orbit, and see that they are still synchronised to
high accuracy, at least as far as humans are concerned - there might be a
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 05:36:42PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Sorry, but you miss my argument. The 1:1 correspondence is between actual
or present moment time, not clock time. Please refer to my proximate
responses to Jesse for the details of the argument.
Edgar
The only
92 matches
Mail list logo
