On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Edgar,
I already wrote up one argument against the concept of a universal
present moment using the general covariance requirement of GR. Did you read
it? It is impossible to define a clock on an
On 1/15/2014 10:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM, spudboy...@aol.com
mailto:spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Ok, speculatively jumping into the Tegmark book, which I am plodding
through and his
4 levels of the multiverse, I need to throw out this question. Is it
Hi Jason,
Yes I do have an explanation for how GR effects are computed. Thanks for
asking. It's refreshing to just have someone ask a question about my
theories rather than jumping to attack them. Much appreciated...
The processor cycles for all computations are provided by P-time (clock
time
Dear Jason,
I do not think that block time is a coherent idea. It assumes something
impossible: that a unique foliation of space-time can be defined that
correlates to a specific experience of an entity that is said to be
embedded in the block. My argument is that the entire way that time is
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 10:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Ok, speculatively jumping into the Tegmark book, which I am plodding
through and his 4 levels of the multiverse, I
Dear Edgar,
I would agree with your idea here if you made one change: replace the
single abstract computing space for all of space-time and replace it with
an abstract computing space for each point of space-time. The *one*
computation becomes an *infinite number* of disjoint computations.
On 1/16/2014 1:40 AM, LizR wrote:
On 16 January 2014 19:20, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 1/15/2014 7:44 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
But stop and think of the implications of what even Bruno is saying.
*Space is
completely
Stephen,
There is no all of spacetime nor each point of spacetime where the
computations are occuring. Remember, that's an abstract dimensionLESS
computational space prior to dimensional spacetime. It has no 'points'
itself, it computes all points of dimensional space and clock time. They
Stephen,
PS: I agree with the rest of what you are saying here but again you are
talking about clock time, dimensional spacetime, and not P-time which is
distinct and is prior to any metrics...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 1:23:50 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
On 1/16/2014 7:09 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Whoa, back up a little. This is the argument that proves every INDIVIDUAL observer has
his OWN present moment time. You are trying to extend it to a cosmic universal time
which this argument doesn't address. That's the second argument you
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I do not think that block time is a coherent idea. It assumes something
impossible: that a unique foliation of space-time can be defined that
correlates to a specific experience of an entity
Dear Edgar,
Is P-time observable?
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
PS: I agree with the rest of what you are saying here but again you are
talking about clock time, dimensional spacetime, and not P-time which is
distinct and is prior to
Dear Edgar,
The closest thing that I can comprehend that might line up with your
ideas of a abstract dimensionLESS computational space is a Hilbert space.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
There is no all of spacetime nor each point of
Dear Jason,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I do not think that block time is a coherent idea. It assumes
something impossible: that a unique
Der LizR,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:14 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I have a 2c worth on block time, too :)
On 17 January 2014 09:33, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Jason,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
I do not
On 1/16/2014 10:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 10:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM, spudboy...@aol.com
mailto:spudboy...@aol.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
Block time does not offer any explanation for the notion of a flow of
time, even if such is an illusion. Something has to account for the
asymmetry of the arrow of thermodynamics. My proposed solution is to assume
that Becoming is a ontological property, not an illusion at all, pace
On 1/16/2014 10:07 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jason,
I do not think that block time is a coherent idea. It assumes something impossible:
that a unique foliation of space-time can be defined that correlates to a specific
experience of an entity that is said to be embedded in the
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/15/2014 10:59 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:46 PM, spudboy...@aol.com
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
Block time does not offer any explanation for the notion of a flow of
time, even if such is an illusion.
Please explain how you know this.
Something has to account for the asymmetry of the
Hi Stephen
On 17 January 2014 09:33, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
The first part is right, but within a given foliation, there is an ordering
of events. It's only when comparing foliations that you get different
orders. (I believe this is called proper time or
On 17 January 2014 10:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Jason,
Block time does not offer any explanation for the notion of a flow of
time, even if such is an illusion. Something has to account for the
asymmetry of the arrow of thermodynamics.
Something does! The
Brent,
First the observer being at the event is the way all science is observed
and confirmed. That is what an observation is. You speak as if it's somehow
unimportant. Again this first argument merely proves there is a present
moment for each observer, not a common universal present moment.
Stephen,
Yes, of course p-time is observable. The present moment of p-time is the
present moment we all observe our entire existence within from birth to
death.
It's the most fundamental and persistent of observations...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:28:06 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul
Dear Edgar,
Can you describe the construction or basic mechanism that one would use
to measure P-time?
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:14 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Yes, of course p-time is observable. The present moment of p-time is the
present moment we all observe
Stephen,
We have to be very careful when we try to 'measure' p-time because it is
prior to dimensionality since it provides the processor cycles in which
dimensionality and thus measure is computed and is the locus or substrate
of those computations.
We all experience the present moment of
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 10:06 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:37 AM, meekerdb
On 1/16/2014 5:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 7:31 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/16/2014 1:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:44, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I disagree. A universal number is still a number and this is an
idea of a mind.
This contradicts your admission, if I remember correctly, that 23 is
prime is true or false independently of us.
2+2=4 is infinitely
On 14 Jan 2014, at 18:48, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Correct. Most reality math is likely fairly simple and fairly
limited. That's why Bruno's 'comp' that assumes all math exists out
there somewhere is so extraordinarily wrong and excessive and non-
parsimonious.
I will stop comment, if
On 14 Jan 2014, at 19:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
'Non-existence cannot exist', obviously refers to the existence of
reality itself,
Then it is circular.
not to milk in your refrigerator! Existence must exist means
something must exist, whether it's milk or whatever. Individual
On 14 Jan 2014, at 20:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/14/2014 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Alas, I dream often of people doing that to convince me on the
reality of something, and I have developed, apparently, an immunity
on that kind of argument, at least when made public.
So in private you
On 14 Jan 2014, at 21:39, LizR wrote:
On 14 January 2014 23:01, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Physicists have not yet formal theory. Like all scientists they work
informally.
You don't consider Newton's Law of Gravitation to be a formal
theory?
No, but I understand what you
OK, I see what you mean. (And you're right, it was on FOAR that you set me
various exercises.)
So maybe I asked for the wrong thing from Edgar. I don't suppose I will get
anything remotely like the *Principia* no matter how many times I ask, but
out of interest, what *should* I be asking him for?
Bruno,
No, you don't get the idea of what I'm saying. Think of a running computer
program. It's always able to compute its next computation. Same with the
'program' that computes reality. It is always able to compute the next
state of the universe. If it wasn't there obviously wouldn't be a
Bruno,
Thanks for the correction.
But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there in
'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything happens,
and how the universe gets computed. I know you claim that somehow movement
is an illusion of perspective from inside
Bruno,
Of course it is circular - but it is meaningful.
The fundamental axiom MUST be circular, but it must be so in a meaningful
way. I already noted that when I said it was 'self-necessitating'.
So far as I know my Existence Axiom is the most meaningful fundamental
axiom.
What is YOUR
On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:31, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No, you don't get the idea of what I'm saying. Think of a running
computer program.
Run by which computer? Arithmetic or some physical reality?
running computer program is ambiguous.
It's always able to compute its next
On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:36, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Thanks for the correction.
But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there
in 'Platonia'.
I use only the fact that the arithmetical proposition is true of
false. It is the belief that 1+1=3 is false or true,
On 15 Jan 2014, at 13:41, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Of course it is circular - but it is meaningful.
Without further ado, circular statements are *to much* meaningful.
The fundamental axiom MUST be circular,
Is that anew meta-axiom? Again, that is not obvious at all.
but it must
Bruno,
If the fundamental axioms of arithmetic are the fundamental axioms of your
UDA then where do those come from?
Unless you can answer that question you have a gap in your theory that mine
doesn't have.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 8:50:44 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Jan 2014, at 10:50, LizR wrote:
OK, I see what you mean. (And you're right, it was on FOAR that you
set me various exercises.)
Yes. nice to see you on the everything list!
So maybe I asked for the wrong thing from Edgar.
I think that you ask, what we all ask. To be
Bruno,
If you assume the basic axioms of arithmetic are the basic axioms of
reality then you ARE effectively saying that Arithmetic exists because
arithmetic exists. whether you verbalize it or not, and that is your
implicit unstated fundamental axiom.
That is certainly not less circular than
On Jan 15, 2014, at 6:36 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Bruno,
Thanks for the correction.
But it's still just as bad to claim all arithmetic just sits there
in 'Platonia'. You still don't address the problem of how anything
happens, and how the universe gets computed. I know
On 15 Jan 2014, at 15:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
If the fundamental axioms of arithmetic are the fundamental axioms
of your UDA then where do those come from?
Russell and Whitehead suggested that they could be derived from logic
alone, but that has been refuted, and today, we know that we
On 15 Jan 2014, at 16:59, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
If you assume the basic axioms of arithmetic are the basic axioms of
reality then you ARE effectively saying that Arithmetic exists
because arithmetic exists.
That is true.
But the premise is incorrect.
I do not assume that the
Jason,
1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time (by requiring a moving
arrow of time and a present moment), so since SR is well verified block
time is false.
2. I asked you around a dozen questions each homing in on another problem
with block time. I received no convincing answers
2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Jason,
1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time
You did not
(by requiring a moving arrow of time and a present moment)
It does not...
, so since SR is well verified block time is false.
BS
Quentin
2. I asked you around a
Quentin,
If you are so sure about SR not falsifying block time you must be able to
recall my argument that it does in detail. Would you be able to explain
what is wrong with that argument specifically?
Do you actually remember the argument?
Just stating your opinion that it doesn't is not
2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Quentin,
If you are so sure about SR not falsifying block time you must be able to
recall my argument that it does in detail. Would you be able to explain
what is wrong with that argument specifically?
People have already done it... The main
Quentin,
You obviously have no idea what my argument is and thus can't properly
comment on whether it is valid or not
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:00:15 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:
Quentin,
If you are so sure about
2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Quentin,
You obviously have no idea what my argument is and thus can't properly
comment on whether it is valid or not
You make my point It's obvious, the problem is with me, not your theory.
Quentin
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15,
On 1/15/2014 4:31 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
No, you don't get the idea of what I'm saying. Think of a running computer program. It's
always able to compute its next computation. Same with the 'program' that computes
reality. It is always able to compute the next state of the universe.
Brent,
You asked me how I explained the spin entanglement paradox day before
yesterday and I referred you to my detailed answer at the the initial post
of the Another shot at how spacetime arises from quantum reality topic.
Again I refer you to the same initial post in that topic for the
On 16 January 2014 07:26, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
1. First I demonstrated that SR falsifies block time (by requiring a
moving arrow of time and a present moment), so since SR is well verified
block time is false.
SR doesn't require a moving arrow of time, and the
On 16 January 2014 07:54, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Quentin,
If you are so sure about SR not falsifying block time you must be able to
recall my argument that it does in detail. Would you be able to explain
what is wrong with that argument specifically?
SR doesn't require a
On 1/15/2014 2:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
You asked me how I explained the spin entanglement paradox day before yesterday and I
referred you to my detailed answer at the the initial post of the Another shot at how
spacetime arises from quantum reality topic.
Again I refer you to the
Dear Edgar,
I will have to agree with LizR here. SR in fact makes the notion of a
present moment a nonsensical concept, as SR shows how there does not exist,
nay cannot exist any global frame of simultaneity. This prevents the
existence, if SR is correct and good evidence tells us that it is,
Liz,
Do you know what my argument is? Quentin also claimed it was invalid but he
couldn't tell us what the argument is that he claims is invalid. Do you
know?
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:41:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 16 January 2014 07:26, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net
Liz,
Of course it does. Do you know what my argument to demonstrate that is? If
not you are just stating an unsubstantiated opinion...
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:42:54 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 16 January 2014 07:54, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Quentin,
On 16 January 2014 11:53, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Do you know what my argument is? Quentin also claimed it was invalid but
he couldn't tell us what the argument is that he claims is invalid. Do you
know?
You argued as follows:
The proof is simply the fact that the time
Stephen,
Do you know what my argument is that demonstrates otherwise? Neither Liz
nor Quentin seem to know it even though they claim it's invalid. So I'll
ask you if you know what the argument is?
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:54:12 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
Edgar,
It is not possible to get around the consequence of a finite maximum
velocity of signal propagation. Even if we where to accept the notion that
the computation is being done outside of space-time one has to show how
the relationships between the events in space-time are computed. In
Liz,
No Liz, that's not it. That's a different argument. Obviously you don't
know it
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:59:21 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 16 January 2014 11:53, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
Do you know what my argument is? Quentin also
Stephen,
That's not my argument. Where are you coming up with that stuff?
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:03:45 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Edgar,
It is not possible to get around the consequence of a finite maximum
velocity of signal propagation. Even if we where to
Brent,
OK, I just reposted it again under the original topic heading.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 5:50:00 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/15/2014 2:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
You asked me how I explained the spin entanglement paradox day before
yesterday and I
Dear LizR,
Thank you for the repost!
Dear Edgar,
There is a reason why this simple obvious fact was not recognized in
literature. It has been proven to be nonsense.
Your concept is: the time of the present moment (what I call P-time) which
is absolute and common to all observers across
Dear Edgar,
Parse what I just wrote and read the linked references.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
That's not my argument. Where are you coming up with that stuff?
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:03:45 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul
2014/1/15 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Liz,
Do you know what my argument is? Quentin also claimed it was invalid but
he couldn't tell us what the argument is that he claims is invalid.
You're joking ? I didn't ? I explicitely refer your BS common universal
present which is contrary to
Stephen,
Once again, that's not the argument in question that proves it, that's a
different train of thought.
Liz's repost has nothing to do with the argument I'm referencing. She
clearly doesn't know what it is.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:21:35 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King
2014/1/16 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Stephen,
Once again, that's not the argument in question that proves it, that's a
different train of thought.
Liz's repost has nothing to do with the argument I'm referencing. She
clearly doesn't know what it is.
I know it... you're a troll...
Stephen,
How many times do I have to tell you? You are on an entirely different
train of thought and not addressing the argument I made at all...
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:22:22 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
Parse what I just wrote and read the linked
Quentin,
That's not the argument. As you stated it it isn't even in the form of the
logical sequence an argument requires.
You are just stating your opinion on a part of my theory, not being able to
reference the specific argument in question you claim is invalid.
Edgar
On Wednesday,
On 1/15/2014 2:54 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
I will have to agree with LizR here. SR in fact makes the notion of a present moment a
nonsensical concept, as SR shows how there does not exist, nay cannot exist any global
frame of simultaneity. This prevents the existence, if SR
2014/1/16 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Quentin,
That's not the argument. As you stated it it isn't even in the form of the
logical sequence an argument requires.
blablabla
You are just stating your opinion on a part of my theory,
That part of your theory is falsified... so your
Quentin,
It is not arrogant or trollish to ask someone to demonstrate knowledge
of an argument he claims is invalid.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:32:45 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014/1/16 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:
Stephen,
Once again, that's not the
Dear Edgar,
Parse what I just posted and think about it. It is not obvious or common
sense, but the math works and predicts what we observe. :-)
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Once again, that's not the argument in question that proves it,
2014/1/16 Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
Quentin,
It is not arrogant or trollish to ask someone to demonstrate knowledge
of an argument he claims is invalid.
I did... but you won't acknowledge it, because that's how trolling work...
and you're sure good at it, you're an irritating troll
Edgar logic:
There exist a common universal present, therefore block time is false...
yeah \o/
It's obvious, so it's true, don't get it why you didn't register \o/
My theory is true, any informed person could see it at first look, the
world thought SR proved simultaneity is relative, but no,
Brent,
Bravo! Someone actually registered some of my arguments, though I would
state them slightly differently.
The argument in question, that everyone except Brent seems to have missed,
is simple.
SR requires that everything moves at the speed of light through spacetime.
This is NOT just a
On 16 January 2014 12:03, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
No Liz, that's not it. That's a different argument. Obviously you don't
know it
Well, re-present it, then. I'm not going to play guessing games with you.
So far every argument you've presented has been thoroughly
Dear Edgar,
Your argument is based on a disconception of what the speed of light is!
Light -photons- do not move at all. They are the null length rays that
connect events together. Nothing can travel faster than c because to do so
would be traveling in less than zero distances.
A light cone
On 16 January 2014 12:33, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
How many times do I have to tell you? You are on an entirely different
train of thought and not addressing the argument I made at all...
Well tell us what it is, then.
--
You received this message because you are
On 1/15/2014 3:21 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
Thank you for the repost!
Dear Edgar,
There is a reason why this simple obvious fact was not recognized in literature. It
has been proven to be nonsense.
Your concept is: the time of the presentmoment (what I call P-time) which
Dear Edgar,
There is no such thing as a location in time. The entire idea of a
dimension of time is a mental construct that we hang events that we
experience and learn about in a sequence. SR and GR do not allow for a
unique dimension of time for all observers such that we can say everything
On 16 January 2014 12:39, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Quentin,
That's not the argument. As you stated it it isn't even in the form of the
logical sequence an argument requires.
You are just stating your opinion on a part of my theory, not being able
to reference the specific
On 16 January 2014 13:02, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Brent,
Bravo! Someone actually registered some of my arguments, though I would
state them slightly differently.
The argument in question, that everyone except Brent seems to have missed,
is simple.
SR requires that
On 1/15/2014 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Bravo! Someone actually registered some of my arguments, though I would state them
slightly differently.
The argument in question, that everyone except Brent seems to have missed, is
simple.
SR requires that everything moves at the speed of
Stephen,
c is actually the speed of TIME as the STc equation makes clear. It just so
happens that light, having no velocity in time, always travels at the speed
of time in all observers' frames thorough SPACE. All its spacetime velocity
is only through space.
I didn't say anything travels
Dear Brent,
You wrote: That's a non-standard and confusing development of QM
(besides being 168pages long). GR assumes a continuous spacetime manifold
that is differentiable..
Yes, I admit that it is non-standard and can be confusing. The math that
Prof. Kitada uses is not well known by
On 16 January 2014 13:31, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
c is actually the speed of TIME as the STc equation makes clear. It just
so happens that light, having no velocity in time, always travels at the
speed of time in all observers' frames thorough SPACE. All its spacetime
Stephen,
You are just jumping to that conclusion without actually addressing the
argument I present. What do you see wrong with my argument, other than that
you disagree with the conclusion?
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:21:31 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
Dear Bot,
Time does not move. Please alert your programer that your libraries of
responses are failing to achieve the predicted response. Get new ones.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
c is actually the speed of TIME as the STc equation
Dear Bot,
Arguing from false premises will never lead to truths. Please update your
library.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
You are just jumping to that conclusion without actually addressing the
argument I present. What do you see wrong
Liz,
No, that's a misunderstanding of SR as the argument demonstrates.
It is clear you disagree with the conclusions but what's wrong with the
argument in your opinion?
You are simply stating the argument must be wrong because you don't agree
with the conclusions.
That doesn't cut it...
Brent,
Both DO follow if you understand the argument. Why do you think they don't
follow?
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:27:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/15/2014 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Bravo! Someone actually registered some of my arguments, though I would
Stephen,
Time does not move??? Even your clock knows better than that! And you
think my theories are weird!
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:35:26 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bot,
Time does not move. Please alert your programer that your libraries of
responses are
Dear Edgar,
Time is not the movement of the hands or numbers of a clock, it is the
measure of the mapping between the positions of the hands. That is not
motion, it is something else. Time does not move.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Stephen,
Time
Stephen,
If time doesn't move then nothing moves.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 7:48:02 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Edgar,
Time is not the movement of the hands or numbers of a clock, it is the
measure of the mapping between the positions of the hands. That is not
201 - 300 of 604 matches
Mail list logo
