On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:46 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com 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 turns some age
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
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
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:45 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/5/2014 9:47 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/5/2014 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
--question 1 dealt with the question of how YOU would define p-time
AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net 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
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:21 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 February 2014 08:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com 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 one
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
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
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:21:47PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:53:16AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net 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 surfaces
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com 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 Einstein
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 23:25, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 04 Feb 2014, at 00:29, LizR wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote
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, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 23:25, Bruno Marchal
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/4/2014 1:11 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There is nothing exotic about the state of a photon being determined by
future boundary conditions.
You *could
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 Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:23, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
But more generically speaking, would this inference for blocktime sit at
the edge of relativity or at its
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 7:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 13:32, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
SR directly demonstrates block time via the relativity of simultaneity.
This can be tested
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 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 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
point
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
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 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 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,
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 Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
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
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 6:39 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 January 2014 12:34, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:07:08PM +1300, LizR wrote:
On 30 January 2014 12:11, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
Yes. Pity the poor
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:02 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/25/2014 5:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
We have to be careful to be precisely accurate here.
1. The structure of a black hole is
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No.
First you have a basic misunderstanding of relativistic time in your first
paragraph. External observers DO see objects fall through the event horizon
of a black hole with no problem at all. They don't get
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No, you are just plain wrong here. It's simple relativity theory. Just
because observer A sees observer B's clock slow down does NOT mean observer
A sees observer B's MOTION slow down. In fact it is the increase
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
PS: It's not my theory, it's mainstream relativity theory. Any physicist
and probably some others here can set you straight
Edgar
If you think this is mainstream physics, then can you please answer the
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Respectfully, I don't have time to argue what is well known. If you don't
believe me ask others here, or a physicist.
You are being evasive--you want me to ask a physicist but don't have
time to tell me if you
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent, Liz and Jesse,
OK, now I understand the effect you guys are referencing...
I thought Jesse had been saying that things don't ACTUALLY fall into black
holes, they just pile up on the event horizon surface, because
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net 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
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 16 January 2014 03:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 5:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2014 22:55, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:04, LizR wrote:
Sorry, I realise that last sentence could be misconstrued by someone
who's being very nitpicky and looking for irrelevant
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrot
In classical physics there is no limit in principle to your knowledge
of the microstate.
Yes, 150 years ago every physicist alive thought
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The entropy is defined not in terms of some vague notion of the number of
ways the system could have gotten into its present microstate, but rather
as the number of possible microstates the system might
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:20 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I never claimed Liouville's theorem was a fundamental law of physics in
itself,
Good, I agree.
rather it is derivable as a mathematical consequence
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:43 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:38 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
As a lot of people have now pointed out, physics can be local and
relistic if time symmetry is valid.
If time is symmetrical then retro-causality exists,
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:11 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The equations of Newtonian dynamics are time-symmetric,
I know.
similarly for relativity both SR and GR -
I know
and quantum mechanics is, too.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:08 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you will find relatively few physicists who expect that any new
fundamental theory like quantum gravity will fail to have these [time
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote
For example, in Life one could define macrostates in terms of the ratio
of white to black cells [...]
In the Game of Life the number of black
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:53 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
to me, the Bell's inequality experimental violation is a quite strong
evidence for MW, that is QM-without collapse.
To me Bell's inequality experimental
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
And as I've said, there is also the fact that if the laws of physics
don't conserve phase space volume, the 2nd law wouldn't hold either.
You've
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 13:14, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
The expansion of the universe is the most likely explanation for the
entropy gradient - there are a number of ways in which it generates
negative entropy, briefly
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 7:57 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 12:53, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:35 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 January 2014 08:59, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, most physicists already
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:47 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
you could have laws where a large number of initial states can all lead
to the same final state (many cellular automata work this way, specifically
201 - 300 of 676 matches
Mail list logo
