On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> The accelerating floor of an elevator the size of a planet is not "an
> infinitesimal neighborhood of a point in spacetime". So that comment of
> yours does not apply.
>
It seems to me it should apply, since you asked "If not doe
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> You agree "It is true that they both agree on an overview which says
> things along the lines of "In frame 1, X is true, in frame 2, Y is true""
>
> Presumably what you mean by that is that both A and B agree on (1) A's
> calculat
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse, Brent, Liz, et al,
>
> Free fall in a gravitational field is NOT acceleration. Standing on the
> surface of the earth IS acceleration because only then is the acceleration
> of gravity felt as such.
>
Yes, that's why I equated inerti
In this case the horizon is basically just the edge of a light cone, and a
continuously-accelerating observer can indefinitely avoid crossing into
this light cone (see the top diagram at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rindler_coordinates -- x=0 is the edge of the
light cone, while the curve labeled
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> 4 questions:
>
> 1. Do you agree that for every relativistic scenario involving 2
> relativistic observers A and B, that relativity provides a description of
> how each observes the other's clock time vary relative to their own cl
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:29 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 14 February 2014 06:55, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically
>> relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any
>> relativistic situation. So all you have
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Let me think about this, but it is NOT the observer in "free fall in a
> gravitational field" that is equivalent to acceleration. It is an observer
> RESISTING free fall (e.g. standing on the surface of the earth) that is
> equiva
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I haven't seen any book on relativity point this out even though it is
> quite obviously what relativity actually does. Do you deny relativity gives
> equations for BOTH frames for each single relativistic scenario? That, my
> fri
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> You still don't get it.
>
> There is no frame dependent notion of clock time simultaneity in
> relativity, but when one compares the 2 frames that relativity uses to
> describe a single scenario from both observer frames, one does
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Depends on what you REALLY mean by the same point in spacetime.
>
> If you mean the same point in spaceCLOCKtime, then no, because the twins
> are NOT at the same point in clock time, though they are at the same point
> in space,
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> The same reading in the exact same sense that relativity tells us they do
> which I've already explained for the nth time. It's in the same frame
> independent sense that relativity is able to meaningfully define 2 frames
> for an
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> All,
>
> By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation.
>
Too vague. A more precise statement is that in an observer in free-fall in
a gravitational field can define a "local inertial frame" in an
infinitesimall
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> See my proximate response to Liz who asked the same question. Basically
> relativity theory gives you the equations for both frames for any
> relativistic situation. So all you have to do is do the calculations like
> I've explai
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> 'Any point' for observers in different frames is well defined by
> relativity theory itself. The very fact that relativity theory can provide
> 2 equations, one for each separate frame, for any SINGLE relativistic
> scenario requir
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Not at all. I pointed out maybe a week ago with examples why your notion
> of "a same point in SPACEtime" is not the same as a same point in p-TIME.
> They are the same is true only when A and B are at the same point in SPACE,
>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Let me clarify my response since I see it's slightly ambiguous.
>
> First every observer in the universe is ALWAYS at the same point in p-time
> ALL the time with all other observers. No exceptions.
>
> The question is what clock
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> "Instantaneously pause" has no frame-independent meaning in relativity, do
> you disagree? If A and B are in relative motion, and unlike my example
> above, B is *not* at the same point in spacetime as A when A tu
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Your example does NOT establish any inconsistency. I NEVER said "I'm
> pretty sure you've said before that you agree that if SR predicts two
> clocks meet at a single point in spacetime, their two readings at that
> point must be
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> The point to understand here is the very fact that relativity describes
> different frames that are BOTH simultaneously true from different
> relativistic perspectives requires that there actually is a background
> independent of
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase
> your condition C. as two observers with no relative motion AND in identical
> gravitational fields. Then it does hold and is consistent with conditions A
> a
Edgar, you wanted me to address your examples so I will, although I thought
it better to hold off on this until we settled the question of whether the
basic assumption you seem to be making in case #1 leads to contradictions.
Given your recent post at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> OK, I see which assumptions A, B, and C you are referring to now. I was
> looking for them in the link you gave.
>
> I agree assumption C is incorrect because I NEVER CLAIMED that. I even
> gave an example in which it was NOT tru
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular
> coordinate system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both
> equations of the two coordinate systems in the system, e.g. twin A and twin
> B, relativit
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've
> provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is
> asking all these questions is not to learn anything about the theory (since
> y
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Before I go the trouble of answering your 4 questions on your example
> could you please tell me if you agree with the 3 examples I provided, and
> the p-time simultaneities I stated there?
>
What do you mean "agree with"? I don't
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Both, but you completely ignored my broad conceptual argument I gave first
> thing this morning of why relativity itself assumes an unstated present
> moment background to all relativistic relationships.
>
You mean the post at
htt
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> My answer to your last paragraph is yes, as I understand it...
>
> For transitivity ignore my first post on that, and just read the second
> that concludes there IS transitivity..
>
> Edgar
>
OK, then in the scenario I described,
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> The crux of my answer to the crossed tapes question was that yes that
> would be true of clock time but not for p-time. Again you are using the
> question to argue against clock time simultaneity. And I agree with that
> 100%. It's
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> 1. is correct. There is an objective truth that past events are
> simultaneous in p-time. Recall I also gave the exact same answer yesterday
> or the day before.
>
Thanks. So how about the issue of transitivity? If event A and eve
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> No, "the definition of p-time simultaneity itself depends on the
> arbitrary "choice of coordinate system" is NOT true. I clearly stated
> otherwise and explained why. Please reread if it isn't clear.
>
Rereading doesn't help, I
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> It's not clear to me what you mean by, "in every coordinate system the
> time-coordinate of A = the time-coordinate of B. Are you actually
> disagreeing with that (please answer clearly yes or no)".
>
> The way I understand that th
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Same thing as I'm saying. My other clock time is just a clock centered in
> your coordinate system. It's the same idea. If you look at the equations of
> relativistic clock time they are always of the general form dt'/dt = f( ).
>
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> The ages are the only 'real' clocks here because they are not arbitrary
> but real and actual and cannot be reset. They show different clock times in
> the same present moment. All other clocks are arbitrary.
>
> I don't know what
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse, et al,
>
> A Propros of our discussion of determining same past moments of P-time let
> me now try to present a much deeper insight into P-time, that illustrates
> and explains that, and see if it makes sense. I will show how relativit
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Consider another simple example:
>
> A and B in deep space. No gravity. Their clocks, t and t', are
> synchronized. They are in the same current p-time moment and whenever t =
> t', which is always their clock times confirm they ar
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I gave you a clear easy to follow and understand procedure that I believe
> works in every case to determine if any two clock time labeled events
> occurred in the same p-time moment or not.
>
No you didn't, because you just used
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> No, they do NOT have the same time coordinates in their respective frames
> because their clocks read different t-values.
>
In the post you're responding to here I had another request for
clarification which you didn't answer:
"
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen
> at the same point in p-time or not, provided you know everything about
> their relativistic conditions.
>
> You do this by essentially computing their relat
Edgar, it's very frustrating trying to have a discussion with you when I
repeatedly ask you questions that are meant to clarify things that seem
unclear to me in your arguments, and you just completely ignore these
questions and just give me a broad restatement of your overall views, which
for me u
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> If as you say, the ""same point in time" in relativity just MEANS that
> two events are assigned the same time coordinate" then the twins are NOT at
> the same point in time because the two events of their meeting have
> different
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Re your question of "simultaneous past p-times" its a good question and I
> did answer it but will give a more complete answer now.
>
> I said first that everything happens at the same p-time (the same present
> moment of p-time as
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> BTW, your own operational definition proves that time flows. Because your
> reflected light will always arrive back to you later on your clock than
> when it was sent.
>
And how does that prove that time "flows" in a non-block-t
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Well you just avoid most of my points and logic.
>
Can you itemize the specific points you think I'm avoiding?
>
> But yes, I agree with your operational definition analysis. That is
> EXACTLY my point. That what our agreed ope
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this
> issue that I promised:
>
>
> A few points:
>
> 1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition' of the
> present moment that I used before. The t
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> What's wrong with "conscious experience"? Every observation of science is
> ultimately a conscious experience.
>
Yes, ultimately, but the observations used in physical science used are
always of quantitative values that can be mea
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> OK, what I don't understand in this clearer example near the end of your
> post is you say "The coordinate time of an event *is* just clock time on
> the local coordinate clock that was at the same point in spacetime as the
> event
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> OK, here's another question to get to the crux.
>
> You claim the twins "meet in the same point of spacetime".
>
> OK, if that's a real point in spacetime it MUST have a t-coordinate. What
> is the value of that t-coordinate?
>
In
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine?
>
No, but it's pretty irritating when you ask me questions specifically about
*my* (relativistic model), and then when I give you answers you suddenly
change the subject and make sco
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> You are misunderstanding most of my points here!
>
> By standard I just mean any usual analysis that computes the correct
> answer of the twins' clock time differences when they meet. It seems to me,
> correct me if I'm wrong, that
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time
> simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same
> present moment of p-time.
>
Because you were *asking* about whether relativity can
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Quentin,
>
> Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that...
>
> Edgar
>
I would guess that, like me, Quentin is asking how you would retroactively
determine whether two events in the past happened at the same p-time (and
because of
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> No, I've mentioned that on a number of occasions. And yes, Omega should
> give us a p-time radius if we can actually figure out how to use it to
> calculate the radius of a simply hypersphere (if it is actually the
> curvature of
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Frankly the utility of this approach seems opaque to me. I don't see how
> it differs from just being able to calculate the actual clock time
> differences the twins will have when they meet in 'a same present moment'.
> Because y
esn't exist.
>
> Edgar
>
> On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:47:05 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>>
>>> --question 1 dealt w
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:45 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/5/2014 9:47 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU woul
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> --question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time
> simultaneity in a cosmological model where there's no way to slice the 4D
> spacetime into a series of 3D su
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Again, if I understand you, this is just a way to define 'same points in
> spacetime'.
>
No, it's a way to physically define coordinate position and coordinate time
in terms of actual physical clocks and rulers. The definition pre
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> "velocity vector" means movement through time as I'm sure you recall from
> elementary physics.
>
If by "movement through time" you mean something inherently incompatible
with block time, then no. Velocity just means that position
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, that is what I'm saying.
>
> But how you don't understand that actively traveling through spacetime at
> c doesn't imply everything is at one and only one point in time is beyond
> me. It's a trivial inference.
>
Simple, I do
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> This is just outrageously wrong. Block time implies the most magical
> mystical miraculous creation event of all times, of the entire universe
> from beginning to end, a creation event that makes the Biblical creation
> event look
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:21:47PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Russell Standish >wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:53:16AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:53:16AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> >
> > In fact relativity itself conclusively falsifies block time as it
> requires
> > everything to be at one and only one point in clock time due to the fact
> > that everyt
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:21 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 6 February 2014 08:49, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>>
>> You have it exactly backwards, Edgar. I am the one arguing that there is
>> no definitive way to decide whether block time or presentism is correct,
>> you are the
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> No, what the equations of relativity say, and the only thing they compute,
> is that WHEN the twins meet up again at the same point in space, that they
> will have different clock times.
>
> But what is that 'WHEN'? It is not A's c
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Let me ask you this simple question. You agree that there is "a same point
> in spacetime" that both twin meet at and in which their clock times are
> different.
>
> How does your theory, or relativity, account for or predict this
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Correct. Relativity theory does NOT require block time. We agree on that.
>
> Your assertion that "clock time only flows in the sense that it value is
> different at different points along a worldline" ASSUMES a view outside of
> a
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> A couple of points in response:
>
> 1. Even WITHOUT my present moment, the well established fact of a 4-d
> universe does NOT imply block time nor require it. Clock time still flows
> just fine in SR and GR.
>
I would agree that
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I didn't answer these 3 because you are once again describing well known
> aspect of CLOCK time simultaneity with which I probably agree.
>
Uh, no they weren't, each of them concerned questions about YOUR
definitions and argumen
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/4/2014 1:11 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>> There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined by
>> future boundary conditions.
>>
>
ither one can be used to determine the quantum state of a system. But
again, that's fundamentally different from saying neither set of boundary
conditions alone is sufficient, that you need to take into account both at
once.
Jesse
>
>
> On 5 February 2014 09:54, Jes
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:35 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 23:25, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:29, LizR wrote:
>>
>> On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, wrote:
>>&g
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Come on now. The well established fact that it is impossible to always
> establish CLOCKTIME simultaneity of distant events does NOT require or even
> imply block time.
>
Einstein just says there is no "simultaneity of distant eve
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Aside from quotes already mentioned, if you want to educate yourself on
> the subject you might try reading the book Bruno mentioned, Pale Yourgrau's
> "Einstein and Gödel" which recounts the extensive discussions E
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Hi Jesse,
>
> Well, we disagree here
>
What part of what I said do you disagree with? Do you disagree that in the
context of relativity, "sections" of the four-dimensional structure should
be taken to refer to simultaneity surfaces? And do
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> I agree that the evidence is that Einstein very probably believed in a non
> personal God of the universe. But there are those who try to prove he
> believed in a personal Biblical God and they do come up with some quotes
> they cl
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:55 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 13:32, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>> SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity.
>>> This can be tested experim
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> Talk about confirmation bias! It's SOP when a person can't come up with a
> real objective scientific rebuttal to an argument that they just flame and
> retreat. How awful it would be if facts and rational arguments changed
> their b
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> That's possible but it's only one quote and considering the circumstances
> it could have just been an attempt to provide comfort to the grieving
> family. Also Einstein is known to have spoken metaphorically at times and
> even to
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Liz,
>
> You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
> Einstein believed in block time.
>
> I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual
> quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.
>
>
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at
>>> the edge of relativity o
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, wrote:
>
> But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at
> the edge of relativity or at its core. What I mean is, beyond that it is an
> implication of relativity, have there been or are there any prospects for
> developing blocktime as i
Good suggestions. 12 Monkeys is also a good depiction of time travel in a
block universe--and for a comedy take, the Bill & Ted movies fit together
perfectly with block time as well! (as long as you take for granted that
the historical figures they bring along never spoke publicly about their
trips
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, 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, wrote:
>>>
Jesse - if the assumption is a fundamental ge
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:13 AM, 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 Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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, or are you
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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.
>
There is
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 presen
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 that are *
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Jesse Mazer 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 spa
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 "twin A's
t
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Your first paragraph is correct. My theory, or at least this part of the
> theory, makes the prediction that the universe is a 4-dimensional
> hypersphere with p-time its radial dimension, i.e. that Omega is very
> slightly >1. Se
Edgar, if Omega=1 the universe wouldn't have the geometry of a hypersphere,
3D space would be "flat"--it would be more like a "hyperplane". Only if
Omega is greater than 1 would it have the positive curvature of a
hypersphere (and if Omega is less than 1 space would have a hyperbolic
geometry with
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Brent,
>
> But the twins DO AGREE on whose clock ran slower.
>
> So I don't see your point if you use the twins as evidence...
>
> Edgar
>
Edgar, can you please answer my question about whether, when you talk about
one clock running slower
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:39 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 30 January 2014 12:34, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:07:08PM +1300, LizR wrote:
>> > On 30 January 2014 12:11, Russell Standish
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Yes. Pity the poor blighters at high school if someone tried to teach
I think the problem is that for non-converging series, there are multiple
similar tricks you could do that would give different answers...for example:
S = 1-1+1-1+1-1...
-1*S = -1+1-1+1-1+1...
For a finite or converging series, the order of the summation doesn't
affect the final sum, so if in -1*
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> First this doesn't have anything to do with present moment theory, only
> with standard physics.
>
> 2nd, hopefully it's just a matter of you using different semantics than me
> as to what is meant by absolute and relative. I'll
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Hi Jesse,
>
> Sorry if I misunderstood you and for the dismissive comment I
> apparently misread your comments...
>
> As for your other comments in this post. The slowing of the clock in a
> gravity well is an absolute phenomenon, not a
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Brent,
>
> I don't think my statement is confused. Your response is ambiguous because
> it doesn't specify frames of reference correctly.
>
> The object's clock DOES tick slower according to the external observer's
> clock, but obviously not
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Once again my initial response to Jesse was because he claimed there was a
> pile up and their isn't
>
No I didn't. The very first comment of mine on the subject (you can review
it at
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegro
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> PS: In my post below that should read electric FIELDS can come out of a
> black hole, not electric CHARGES.
>
> Pardon the typo!
>
> Edgar
>
I don't think it's right to say fields "come out of" the black hole. In
classical electromagnetism
201 - 300 of 781 matches
Mail list logo
