On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
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.
No, you couldn't be more wrong about that
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
A simple example: say in Alice's rest frame, there are two markers at rest
in this frame 20 light-years apart, and Bob moves inertially from one
marker to the other a velocity of 0.8c in this frame. What is the proper
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 absolute space-time (in the sense of
invariant
Jesse,
My understanding of the first part of your reply is though proper time is
ONLY one's reading of one's own clock (as I stated) it IS possible for
any other observer to calculate that proper time and always come up with
the same answer. Is that correct?
If so that's precisely what I've
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
My understanding of the first part of your reply is though proper time is
ONLY one's reading of one's own clock (as I stated) it IS possible for
any other observer to calculate that proper time and always come up
Stathis,
You completely miss my point.
First you are imagining a case which has no reality whatsoever. Your
example with widely separated temporal selves somehow running sequentially
doesn't even conform to block universe theory, much less to reality.
Second you still have to RUN the sequence
Stathis,
Again you DISprove what you want to prove by your own language.
You say I am me, here and now. Yes, of course you are. That's what being
in the present moment is. You tell us you are in the present moment at a
single location by that very phrase...
You are obviously not at any other
Stathis,
At least we AGREE there is NO empirical evidence for a block universe.
But there is OVERWHELMING evidence for flowing time and a present moment.
The experience of our existence in a present moment is the most fundamental
empirical observation of our existence. And all science, all
Liz,
Where do you come up with these wildly off the wall statements! Don't you
even care about the truth?
Block universe theory is the MOST NON-parsimonious theory out there. It
requires all sorts of extra unsupported assumptions such as those to
explain the appearance of time flowing when
Jesse,
You continue to quibble over terminology to avoid engaging the real issues.
Of course by 'view' I DO mean the actual equations in terms of a coordinate
system with origin at a particular observer. There is OF COURSE a single
set of equations that describes that view. You can describe
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
You continue to quibble over terminology to avoid engaging the real
issues. Of course by 'view' I DO mean the actual equations in terms of a
coordinate system with origin at a particular observer. There is OF
Jesse,
A symmetric trip is defined in terms of the symmetric view of two observers
A and B OF EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN COMOVING COORDINATE SYSTEMS.
They both experience the exact same amounts of accelerations and
gravitation during their trips.
The proper times of both twins A and B
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
A symmetric trip is defined in terms of the symmetric view of two
observers A and B OF EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN COMOVING COORDINATE
SYSTEMS.
If they aren't inertial observers in flat spacetime--and they
Jesse,
O, for God's sakes. Just take a SINGLE INERTIAL coordinate system centered
at some point in deep space from which they both depart, travel
symmetrically away from RELATIVE TO THAT SINGLE COORDINATE SYSTEM and then
meet back up at. That addresses all your concerns.
The whole trip is
On 27 February 2014 11:44, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said before, this is quite rude behavior, and if you aren't
interested in civil reasoned discourse where you actually address the other
person's arguments and questions, rather than just haranguing them with the
same
Jesse,
Forget about coordinate systems, that isn't really the issue.
The point is that each twin has A REAL ACTUAL AGE at every point on its
world line no matter what its relativistic circumstances.
The point is that it is always possible for each twin to figure out a 1:1
correlation of the
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
O, for God's sakes. Just take a SINGLE INERTIAL coordinate system centered
at some point in deep space from which they both depart, travel
symmetrically away from RELATIVE TO THAT SINGLE COORDINATE SYSTEM and then
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Forget about coordinate systems, that isn't really the issue.
The point is that each twin has A REAL ACTUAL AGE at every point on its
world line no matter what its relativistic circumstances.\
Yes.
The
Jesse,
The only thing we are interested in is whether A and B THEMSELVES can
establish an UN-ambiguous 1:1 correlation of their actual ages. At this
point we don't care about any other observers or how they may view this.
In the symmetric case we merely take the common point of departure and
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 questions I ask you, I guess I'll have to take that as a
Jesse,
Here is a clearer, unambiguous and more general way to define p-time
simultaneity in terms of proper times. Let me know what you think. I'll
also address your latest questions in separate replies...
Drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto an arbitrary space. Place a clock
at each
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Here is a clearer, unambiguous and more general way to define p-time
simultaneity in terms of proper times. Let me know what you think. I'll
also address your latest questions in separate replies...
Drop an
Stathis,
I understand your point but you don't understand my point.
My point is that you try to prove time doesn't flow by giving me an example
is which time DOES flow (the running projector). The projector has to run
in time to give the motion of the frames.
That kind of proof obviously
Jesse,
So we agree on my first two points. And yes, I agree you can have as many
arbitrary coordinate systems as you like but that adds nothing to the
discussion.
I accept your criticism of my third point which was not worded tightly
enough. I'll reword it...
What I mean here is that all
Stathis,
I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you are
completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example in which
time is already FLOWING.
Since you can't demonstrate it, there is no reason to believe it. Belief in
a block universe becomes a matter
Stathis,
PS: You claim you are not, but you ARE privileged in SPACE compared to
other people because your consciousness and your biological being are
located where you are, not where anyone else is. That's a stupid claim on
your part
So your example proves MY point, not yours..
Edgar
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
So we agree on my first two points. And yes, I agree you can have as many
arbitrary coordinate systems as you like but that adds nothing to the
discussion.
I accept your criticism of my third point which was not
On 26 February 2014 04:50, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
I understand your point but you don't understand my point.
My point is that you try to prove time doesn't flow by giving me an example
is which time DOES flow (the running projector). The projector has to run in
time
On 26 February 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
PS: You claim you are not, but you ARE privileged in SPACE compared to other
people because your consciousness and your biological being are located
where you are, not where anyone else is. That's a stupid claim on
On 26 February 2014 08:07, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you are
completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example in which time
is already FLOWING.
Since you can't demonstrate it, there is no
On 26 February 2014 11:39, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 February 2014 08:07, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you
are
completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:12:05 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Well, first of all my theory doesn't tell nature what to do, it asks
nature what it does and attempts to explain it. All the issues you raise
are good ones, but when my theory is understood it greatly SIMPLIFIES
Jesse,
Let me make sure I understand what you are saying.
You say we can drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto spacetime, and then
we can place an originally synchronized clock at every grid intersection.
Is that correct?
And that those clocks read what is called the coordinate times of
Stathis,
1. This disproves what it sets out to prove. It assumes a RUNNING computer
which assumes a flowing time. This example can't be taken seriously. If
anything it's a proof that time has to flow to give the appearance of time
flowing, which is the correct understanding...
2. I assume in
Stathis,
You've of course hit on the crux in your explanation, though perhaps
unknowingly so.
You state The me, yesterday is not me, now
Yes, I agree completely. You, yourself have just stated the selection
mechanism is the 'NOW' which you mention. It is the now that you are in
that
Ghibbsa,
To address one of your points.
My P-time theory starts by accepting EVERY part of relativity theory and
adding to it rather than trying to change any part of it. If my theory is
inconsistent with relativity in any respect I would consider my theory
falsified.
I'm not trying to
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:41:17 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
To address one of your points.
My P-time theory starts by accepting EVERY part of relativity theory and
adding to it rather than trying to change any part of it. If my theory is
inconsistent with relativity in
On 24 Feb 2014, at 14:26, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
It assumes a RUNNING computer which assumes a flowing time.
Not at all. you can hope that there is a physical universe capable of
running a computation, but a computation is a mathematical, even
arithmetical notion.
The existence of any
Ghibbsa,
Nevertheless people keep accusing P-time of being inconsistent with
relativity when it isn't and no one has been able to demonstrate any way
that it is.
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:48:09 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:41:17 PM UTC, Edgar
Plenty of people have already demonstrated the inconsistency of your view
of p-time and simultaneity... you just ignore it and play dumb. You still
haven't grasped what it means to be at the same spacetime coordinate...
Quentin
2014-02-24 18:14 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
O Bruno, Bruno!
First you snip my post you respond to so no one can tell that my quote
applied to a very specific example given by Stathis which you snipped out,
and NOT to what your quote implies it referred to.
Second you once again repeat the charge I haven't explained what I mean by
Quentin,
I challenge you to show me a single inconsistency between P-time and
relativity. There aren't any that I'm aware of even though Jesse has tried
repeatedly he is still trying to prove the very first one (by his own
admission) and hasn't succeeded so far
You can't just state an
ahahah
2014-02-24 18:36 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
I challenge you to show me a single inconsistency between P-time and
relativity. There aren't any that I'm aware of even though Jesse has tried
repeatedly he is still trying to prove the very first one (by his own
For your pleasure, just a little quote from yourself:
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
time coordinates in
Quentin,
As I expected you can't show us anything to make your point, and just
revert to hot air...
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:39:30 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
ahahah
2014-02-24 18:36 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript::
Quentin,
I challenge you to
Yeah yeah... you're a misundestood genius... poor guy.
2014-02-24 18:50 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
As I expected you can't show us anything to make your point, and just
revert to hot air...
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:39:30 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux
Quentin,
The pitiful thing is that you don't understand that is a true statement
exactly as stated. It's a comment on definitions of terminology another
poster was using, rather than actual theory.
Keep trying my friend, but if that is the best you can do it will take a
very long time!
Edgar
Quentin,
Certainly you clearly CAN'T understand very much of anything, certainly not
my theory. You demonstrate your lack of comprehension by being unable to
even spell misunderstood correctly!
:-)
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:53:12 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Yeah yeah...
Yes, you didn't know proper time and coordinate time, and now you're
mastering it... you're the best joke of the internet... you should open a
circus.
Quentin
2014-02-24 18:56 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
The pitiful thing is that you don't understand that is a true
écris donc en français et on en discute...
2014-02-24 18:58 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
Certainly you clearly CAN'T understand very much of anything, certainly
not my theory. You demonstrate your lack of comprehension by being unable
to even spell misunderstood
Quentin,
Even if that were true, and it's not, it doesn't even address your
contention my theory is inconsistent with relativity, which remains
unproved and simply an unfounded opinion on your part.
Perhaps you are trying to change the subject because you can't prove your
original contention?
Just first, explain what p-time is supposed to solve in the first place
that relativity doesn't. (if you come back again with the possibility for
the twins to meet up, relativity doesn't need p-time for that, so you
should find a real problem p-time solve that relativity alone can't).
Then answer
On Monday, February 24, 2014 5:14:20 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Nevertheless people keep accusing P-time of being inconsistent with
relativity when it isn't and no one has been able to demonstrate any way
that it is.
Edgar
Well, I can put hand on heart I have no
On Monday, February 24, 2014 5:14:20 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Nevertheless people keep accusing P-time of being inconsistent with
relativity when it isn't and no one has been able to demonstrate any way
that it is.
Edgar
Well, I can put hand on heart I have no personal
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Let me make sure I understand what you are saying.
You say we can drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto spacetime, and
then we can place an originally synchronized clock at every grid
intersection. Is that
The point Edgar seems to be missing vis-a-vis block universes is that,
whether correct or not, they explain our experience of time. Otherwise
Einstein, Weyl, Minkowski etc would have dismissed the idea of space-time
out of hand, instead of embracing it as a replacement for the Newtonian
paradigm
Quentin,
Ah, at last a couple of meaningful questions!
Actually relativity does NOT explain how the twins can have different clock
times in the same present moment AND compare and agree on them in spite of
what you say. I'll explain why...
Of course one can place a coordinate clock at their
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 implies the necessity of P-time. i've
demonstrated why. Please read to my
by relativity, it is FALSIFIED
by relativity.
Not understanding that doesn't make block universe theory right my dear!
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 4:09:03 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
The point Edgar seems to be missing vis-a-vis block universes is that,
whether correct or not, they explain
2014-02-24 23:50 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
Ah, at last a couple of meaningful questions!
Actually relativity does NOT explain how the twins can have different
clock times in the same present moment AND compare and agree on them in
spite of what you say. I'll
Quentin,
Ah, and I had hopes for you for a moment there, but those hopes have just
been dashed...
Sadly it's you who don't understand the perfectly valid points I'm
making
In any case even if you were correct, and you most certainly aren't, and
relativity did explain all of that, that
I just did,... your p-time is unnecessary, does not explain anything...
your answer to my post, proves that you don't understand relativity at
all... so I think there is not much left to discuss...
If you could just explain what your p-time is supposed to solve and answer
this question: is there
Welcome to the club, Quentin.
--
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 group, send email
Jesse,
Well, I thought I was expressing your own model, but apparently not.
However IF, and a big if, I understand you correctly then I do agree that if
two events have the same space and time coordinates in a single inertial
frame, they must also satisfy the operational definition of same
Quentin,
I just answered those exact two questions of yours. Why are asking the same
two questions again?
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 6:22:04 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
I just did,... your p-time is unnecessary, does not explain anything...
your answer to my post, proves that
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
Well, I thought I was expressing your own model, but apparently not.
However IF, and a big if, I understand you correctly then I do agree that if
two events have the same space and time coordinates in a single
Because you did not, and you use the twin argument arguing that relativity
does not explain it, where clearly it does, p-time is of absolutely no use
for that.
2014-02-25 2:12 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net:
Quentin,
I just answered those exact two questions of yours. Why are
On 25 February 2014 00:26, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
1. This disproves what it sets out to prove. It assumes a RUNNING computer
which assumes a flowing time. This example can't be taken seriously. If
anything it's a proof that time has to flow to give the appearance of
On 25 February 2014 00:35, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
You've of course hit on the crux in your explanation, though perhaps
unknowingly so.
You state The me, yesterday is not me, now
Yes, I agree completely. You, yourself have just stated the selection
mechanism is
Hi Jesse,
First, my name is Edgar, not Edward
OK, even though I've answered this question of yours on several occasions,
I'm willing to finally put it to bed once and for all.
So please state in a non-ambiguous manner exactly what the question is AND
what you think the implication of it
Hi Stathis,
First thanks for answering my questions that Jesse refused to answer.
A few more questions if I may.
1. Are you a believer in a block universe, or are you just presenting the
argument for it? The following questions assume belief.
2. You don't believe time flows, that everything
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Hi Jesse,
First, my name is Edgar, not Edward
OK, even though I've answered this question of yours on several occasions,
I'm willing to finally put it to bed once and for all.
So please state in a non-ambiguous
Jesse,
To address your question. I'll start with your terminology. Your ABC
doesn't follow and I'll show why it doesn't.
Same space and time coordinates? In which coordinate system? In general
these will be different in different coordinate systems, and as you
yourself have pointed out choice
On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Hi Stathis,
First thanks for answering my questions that Jesse refused to answer.
A few more questions if I may.
1. Are you a believer in a block universe, or are you just presenting the
argument for it? The following
On 24 February 2014 07:16, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
3. So if we can prove that time does flow would that be sufficient to
disprove a block universe?
Yes, though not its impossibility.
To be exact,
Liz,
LOL! Sounds like P-time!
Edgar
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 1:40:13 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 24 February 2014 07:16, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
3. So if we can prove
Stathis,
You have avoided my main question which is the crux of block universe
theory.
It is easy to see how a 1p block time perspective gives a STATIC view
because the memory of the past must exist in every present moment. But if
the present moment is static, then that view of the past must
Stathis,
A couple more questions.
Do you believe you are the same one of your block time selves at 8:00 AM as
you are at 8:01 AM? Presumably you aren't. You are a different block time
self in every instant of your existence. Right? I'm not talking to the same
block time Stathis now that I was
On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
You have avoided my main question which is the crux of block universe
theory.
It is easy to see how a 1p block time perspective gives a STATIC view
because the memory of the past must exist in every present
On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
A couple more questions.
Do you believe you are the same one of your block time selves at 8:00 AM
as you are at 8:01 AM? Presumably you aren't. You are a different block
time self in every instant of your
Stathis,
If we assume time flows, as everyone in the universe other than block time
devotees do, the answers to all your questions are obvious.
First of all my universe is NOT a presentist universe. Don't use
misleading incorrect labels to describe it.
If time flows, as it clearly does, then
Stathis,
This is just Sophistry that avoids the real question. Everyone of the
Stathis instantiations may well feel it is the real one, but why is the one
you are right now the one I am talking to?
It could be anyone of them? Right? So why is it the one you think you are
right now?
The only
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
read this?
Yes.
2. Do you agree that I am actually a particular age right now today as I
write this, whether or not you know what that
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
To address your question. I'll start with your terminology. Your ABC
doesn't follow and I'll show why it doesn't.
Same space and time coordinates? In which coordinate system? In general
these will be different
On 24 February 2014 12:49, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
One more question: Do you agree that if you lived in a block universe that
you would be completely deterministic with no free will at all, and that
you
On 24 February 2014 07:57, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
If we assume time flows, as everyone in the universe other than block time
devotees do, the answers to all your questions are obvious.
First of all my universe is NOT a presentist universe. Don't use
misleading
On 24 February 2014 08:09, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stathis,
This is just Sophistry that avoids the real question. Everyone of the
Stathis instantiations may well feel it is the real one, but why is the one
you are right now the one I am talking to?
It could be anyone of them?
Jesse,
I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from
you answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow,
that there is no such thing as a now in which you or the twins actually
exist. From your answers it seems clear that you can't even bring
Ghibbsa,
Well, first of all my theory doesn't tell nature what to do, it asks nature
what it does and attempts to explain it. All the issues you raise are good
ones, but when my theory is understood it greatly SIMPLIFIES reality. It
doesn't make it more complex as you claim. And in fact it
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from
you answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow,
that there is no such thing as a now in which you or the twins
-Original Message-
From: Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 3:03 pm
Subject: Re: Block Universes
Jesse,
I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from you
answers below, is your basic
I'll give it a go. Us Kiwis have a rep for punching above our weight in
physics, what with radioactivity and rotating black holes, to name but two
(I hestitate to mention powered flight) so who knows, he may be onto
something.
On 23 February 2014 12:20, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
What if
On 2/22/2014 3:20 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the credit for this term?)
function because reality is what I call Virtuality? Its the old simulation argument,
served up by myself, today. Someone who has worked arduously on this concept
OK, maybe I won't bother with it after all. (My time is a bit limited...!)
On 23 February 2014 13:03, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:20 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the credit for
this term?) function because
Jesse,
1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
read this?
2. Do you agree that I am actually a particular age right now today as I
write this, whether or not you know what that is?
3. Do you agree that we can both agree on those two ages?
4. Do you agree that
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
read this?
Hey, more questions! But as usual, I see you demand that I answer your
questions while you pointedly ignore the question I have
Maybe Edgar should start the Edgar-thing list, where he *does* have
the unique
power to dictate what will be discussed.
--
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
On Sunday, February 23, 2014, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
read this?
Not Jesse, but yes.
2. Do you agree that I am actually a particular age right now today as I
write this, whether or not you know
Last question: Why do you act every minute of every day as if you live in
a present moment through which clock time flows if it actually doesn't? How
can your mind be so completely deluded in this respect? Why does everyone
in the world except a few members of the block universe cult believe
On 23 February 2014 16:37, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
But if the block universe creates the effect of flowing time, as it must
if the idea is not to be summarily dismissed, this isn't an issue.
Would you like to take a small bet? I wager that Edgar will completely
ignore
101 - 200 of 549 matches
Mail list logo
