On 9 February 2014 04:36, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Brent, and Liz,
>
> We have to be careful in our choice of words here.
>
> It is quite clear that e.g. during relative motion of frames A and B, that
> each sees the other's clock running slower. So the two frames DO NOT give
> the same results her
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:36:08 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent, and Liz,
>
> We have to be careful in our choice of words here.
>
> It is quite clear that e.g. during relative motion of frames A and B, that
> each sees the other's clock running slower. So the two frames DO NOT give
Brent, and Liz,
We have to be careful in our choice of words here.
It is quite clear that e.g. during relative motion of frames A and B, that
each sees the other's clock running slower. So the two frames DO NOT give
the same results here.
However when one twin returns with a different clock ti
Liz,
For the first part of my answer to the question of in what sense might
space be absolute see my new topic post on 'Newton's Bucket and Mach's
Principle'..
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:57:32 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 8 February 2014 15:45, > wrote:
>
>>
>>> but can you throw
One could consider the rest frame of the CMBR as an "absolute landscape" I
suppose. One over which the Earth is hurtling at some rate, iirc.
On 8 February 2014 16:28, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/7/2014 6:43 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrot
On 2/7/2014 6:43 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday,
On 8 February 2014 15:45, wrote:
>
>> but can you throw the relative character out of the window, and speak
>> of an 'absolute landscape' implied by relativity theory that is made up of
>> all the gravity wells, that definitely suggests a 'reality' that goes
>> beyond the principle of equivalence
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:43:37 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gma
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:44:30 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 5:53 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:34:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to choose
one
frame over the other to get the correct results.
You don't. But in almost al
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:34:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Ghibbsa,
>
> Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to
> choose one frame over the other to get the correct results.
>
> Edgar
>
I see what you are asking, or think so. But unfortunately it goes
be
On 2/7/2014 2:45 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Namely that ho
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:30:06 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge
Ghibbsa,
Well yes, basically that's it. The question I have is why we have to choose
one frame over the other to get the correct results.
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 5:17:41 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:04:42 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> G
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:37:17 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime
>> distortion representing the s
On 2/7/2014 1:37 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime
distortion
representing the sun and a tiny one representin
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:04:42 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Ghibbsa,
>
> I'm not sure that works because it assumes there is an absolute space
> background (sort of like the aether) defined by the NON-rotating center of
> the earth. Why would that be the case? In other words what is th
Ghibbsa,
I'm not sure that works because it assumes there is an absolute space
background (sort of like the aether) defined by the NON-rotating center of
the earth. Why would that be the case? In other words what is that "hell of
a lot faster" motion relative too, and why do we choose that fram
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:36:02 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Brent, and anyone else since Brent is not answering my more difficult
> questions,
>
> Take this example:
>
> Consider A on the earth and B in geosynchronous orbit directly overhead.
> By definition there is NO relative mot
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:27:14 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime
> distortion representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth,
> which - I thought - had to bias t
Jesse,
Correct. Yes, plenty of things are not relative. And any notion of a
cosmological spacetime is just a useful approximation. Penrose's 'Road to
Reality' points out that properly speaking all dimensional world views
exist as observer centered individual 'manifolds', and these are not
isom
Brent, and anyone else since Brent is not answering my more difficult
questions,
Take this example:
Consider A on the earth and B in geosynchronous orbit directly overhead. By
definition there is NO relative motion whatsoever.
Nevertheless A's clock runs slower than B's and both A and B agree
Brent,
First thanks for recommending Epstein's book "Relativity Visualized". It
turns out though that I seem to have independently invented 'Epstein
diagrams' myself since I use them both in my book and in my 1997 paper.
However I always thought the concept was obvious and never even thought of
On 2/2/2014 10:12 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
Namely that however you jig it, there's still going to be huge spacetime distortion
representing the sun and a tiny one representing the earth, which - I thought - had to
bias the objectively true relation between the sun and the earth for the earth
On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:12:18 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, February 3, 2014 5:38:59 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32:26 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 5:13 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, February
On Monday, February 3, 2014 5:38:59 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32:26 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 11:32:26 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> 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:
>
On 2/2/2014 3:17 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:16:09 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
On 2/2/2014 12:44 PM, 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:
...
It's funny b
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 Sunday, February 2, 2014 9:16:09 PM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
> On 2/2/2014 12:44 PM, 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 geometry akin
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 geometry akin to the surface
>>> of a world, and if the
On 2/2/2014 12:44 PM, ghib...@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 geometry akin to the surface
of a
world, and if the speed of light is constant,
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 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 exa
On 2/2/2014 4:13 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 arrives at each p
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 Saturday, February 1, 2014 6:21:41 PM UTC, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 05:36:42PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Russell,
>
> Sorry, but you miss my argument. The 1:1 correspondence is between actual
> or present moment time, not clock time. Please refer to my proximate
> responses to Jesse for the details of the argument.
>
> Edgar
>
>
T
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
The saga continues...
[image: Inline images 1]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this
Jesse,
Consider another case:
Consider every observer in the entire universe. Every one of them is always
currently in their own local actual time, their present moment. Now
consider every last one of them all travel to meet up on earth. Every last
one of them continually brings their own actu
Russell,
Sorry, but you miss my argument. The 1:1 correspondence is between actual
or present moment time, not clock time. Please refer to my proximate
responses to Jesse for the details of the argument.
Edgar
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:21:48 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sat,
Jesse,
You said "it was just a label" that seemed to imply otherwise, but I'm glad
we agree it is an objective knowable fact that the twins meet in an ACTUAL
same point in both time and space even with different clock times. That's
what I've always exactly said the present moment was.
By actua
On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 03:46:37PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> c. Therefore during the trip there must always be a one to one
> correspondence between those actual present moments even though the clock
> times are not in synch. Because they both begin and end in that present
> moment and never
Jesse,
You already told us that the twins ARE at the same point in spacetime when
they meet up again.
Is that not an OBJECTIVE fact? Do we not actually KNOW that? The twins most
certainly DO KNOW it because they can shake hands and look at each other's
clocks at the same time. How can you clai
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
Jesse,
PS: If coordinate time is just saying that when the twins meet up again
they are actually at the SAME point in spacetime, but we don't know (can't
agree) what clock time that corresponds to then I agree completely. That is
exactly what my theory says and what I've always said.
I just ca
Jesse,
No, it's not just semantics. It's my definition of the present moment. You
claim the present moment means something else, but then you don't even
believe there IS a present moment which seems a little strange! But be that
as it may.
The example you give is just standard relativity theo
On 01 Feb 2014, at 18:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Boy, you are really taking some giant leaps here!
Just because I point out that a local present moment is obvious IN
NO WAY is a claim that that insight is original with me! That's a
crazy inference.
The fact is that 99.999% of eve
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
Jesse,
Not correct. My present moment does NOT say "that there is an objective
common "present moment" for events that are *not* at the same point in
spaceTIME (my emphasis)."
My theory says that there is a common universal present moment shared by
all points in SPACE, not spaceTIME. Because c
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 *
Jesse,
Perhaps i could understand better what you are saying if you could kindly
explain in detail step by step a COORDINATE time analysis of how the twins
start at the SAME point in spacetime and end up at the SAME point in
spacetime but with different clock times.
And please describe what th
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:13:29 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Ghibbsa,
>
> Boy, you are really taking some giant leaps here!
>
> Just because I point out that a local present moment is obvious IN NO WAY
> is a claim that that insight is original with me! That's a crazy inference.
>
> The
You're so a joke... cannot doubt your own genius eh !
2014-02-01 Edgar L. Owen :
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, that "being at the same point in spacetime" is CALLED the present
> moment that I'm talking about.
>
> You are probably repeating the claim that 'coordinate time' falsifies
> p-time. It doesn't. Co
Jesse,
Yes, that "being at the same point in spacetime" is CALLED the present
moment that I'm talking about.
You are probably repeating the claim that 'coordinate time' falsifies
p-time. It doesn't. Coordinate time is an attempt to explain the obvious
problems with clock time not actually expl
Ghibbsa,
Boy, you are really taking some giant leaps here!
Just because I point out that a local present moment is obvious IN NO WAY
is a claim that that insight is original with me! That's a crazy inference.
The fact is that 99.999% of everyone on earth throughout history has had
the same ins
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 spacetime (assuming ideal
> point-like observers
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 Saturday, February 1, 2014 3:53:06 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:00:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Ghibbsa,
>>
>> I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from time to
>> a rather rambling post on epistemology?
>>
>
> I don't
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:00:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Ghibbsa,
>
> I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from time to a
> rather rambling post on epistemology?
>
I don't see it as epistemology save in the most literal sense of the word
with no baggage all
Ghibbsa,
I'm wondering why you'd want to suddenly change the subject from time to a
rather rambling post on epistemology?
Perhaps you were afraid you might be coming close to agreeing with me on a
present moment and afraid of the public consequences of that here on this
group? I agree you'd ha
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 2:35:49 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Dear Ghibbsa,
>
>
> Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious
> fact that the twins DO share a common p-time present moment with different
> clock times.
>
,
There are major distinctions betwe
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
Liz,
In my theory one possible explanation of inflation could be an initial vast
difference in the rates of p-time and clock time. I'm not saying that is
the only explanation but it is a consistent one in my theory.
Thus it is meaningful to derive the radius of my proposed 4-dimensional
hypers
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. See my previous post of today in response to Ghibssa for
consider
Omega=1 (to within 0.4%) which means the universe is very close to flat (or
even "hyperflat"). This is what would be predicted by inflation (which is
just as well, because I believe inflation was invented specifically to
solve the "flatness problem" !)
If one treats the universe as having uniforml
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
Liz,
Good question. Give me the formula to get the radius of a 4-dimensional
hypersphere from the curvature and I'll tell you. I asked for this already
and Brent gave me a formula that seems to make some extraneous assumptions.
The problem is that Omega doesn't simply seem to be the curvature i
On 31 January 2014 04:03, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Richard,
>
> I've already answered this same questions on multiple occasions.
>
:-)
>
> There isn't any direct mathematical relationship so far as I can see
> though we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the
> universe.
Richard,
I've already answered this same questions on multiple occasions.
There isn't any direct mathematical relationship so far as I can see though
we should be able to compute p-time from Omega, the curvature of the
universe.
P-time is prior to measure because it is the presence of the lo
Richard,
Yes it is and I'd like to see it also but I don't have access to the
astronomical data to do it myself. I'd love to have someone with the
necessary background take a shot at it, but unless they somehow hear about
the theory I don't see how would happen...
Edgar
On Thursday, January
Ghibbsa,
PS: And note that we actually visually confirm the present moment of p-time
cosmological geometry because we actually DO SEE all 4-dimensions of our
universe all the time. We actually see the 3 dimensions of space as 3
orthogonal dimensions in the present moment of p-time, and then we
Edgar,
Please specify the mathematical relationship between p-time and coordinate
time.
Richard
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Dear Ghibbsa,
>
> Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious
> fact that the twins DO share a common p-time prese
Edgar,
"dark matter space warping" as you call it is amenable to model
mathematically.
I think that is something we would all like to see.
Richard.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Ghibbsa,
>
> Yes, of course there is already a gravity gradient from regular matter
> arou
Dear Ghibbsa,
Thanks for stepping in. And quite pleased to see you accept the obvious
fact that the twins DO share a common p-time present moment with different
clock times.
OK, so it is agreed that there is a shared LOCAL p-time present moment,
but, as you note, we still need to prove there
Ghibbsa,
Yes, of course there is already a gravity gradient from regular matter
around galaxies, but that FALLS off outside galaxies whereas that is where
my dark matter effect strengthens thre due to the warping of space due to
the unequal Hubble expansion.
It is precisely that gravity normal
On 1/28/2014 4:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
PS: If geometry doesn't make clocks slow then what does?
Edgar
NOTHING! That's the whole point of idealized clocks. The clocks measure proper time and
proper time is different because the metric is different. General relativity is a
GEOM
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 Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:17:56 AM UTC, 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
>
It may be a bad idea stepping in here, because I would rate my knowledge of
Relativ
On Monday, January 27, 2014 9:09:29 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:34:04 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:12:00 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>>
>>> Ghibbsa,
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity
Brent,
PS: If geometry doesn't make clocks slow then what does?
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:17:56 PM UTC-5, 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
>
> On Monday, J
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
On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:27:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> On 1/27/2014 7:48 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Jesse,
> >
> > First this doesn't have anything to do wit
Brent,
Let me ask you some questions to clarify what you are saying here...
To make it simpler assume two observers, A and B. A is stationary on the
surface of a hugely massive planet. Now B plummets past him in free fall.
Consider the situation as B passes A just before he hits the ground.
I
On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:34:04 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:12:00 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Ghibbsa,
>>
>> I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and
>> see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely specu
On 1/27/2014 7:48 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 explain once more.
On 1/27/2014 5:22 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 by the object's OWN
On Monday, January 27, 2014 4:12:00 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Ghibbsa,
>
> I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and
> see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to me.
> I'd need some evidence that there was something reasonable tha
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 11:12 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Ghibbsa,
>
> I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and
> see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to me.
> I'd need some evidence that there was something reasonable that might
> pro
Ghibbsa,
I'm sorry to say I don't follow your alternative gravity effect here and
see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely speculative to me.
I'd need some evidence that there was something reasonable that might
produce it OR that it would account well for dark matter.
In any ca
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 explain once more.
In the case of time dilation effects caused by
``
On Monday, January 27, 2014 3:28:47 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:09:40 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Ghibbsa,
>>
>> The effect of the gravity gradient you keep mentioning is well known NOT
>> to account for the dark matter effect. The fa
On Thursday, January 23, 2014 8:09:40 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Ghibbsa,
>
> The effect of the gravity gradient you keep mentioning is well known NOT
> to account for the dark matter effect. The fact that it doesn't is why dark
> matter was postulated in the first place. So I don't see th
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
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 relative one. There is an
actual absolute slowing of clock time i
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
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 by the object's OWN comoving clock. It is of
course ACTUALLY obj
Brent and Liz,
It seems to me that the whole notion of the elephant being in two places at
the SAME TIME presupposes a common present moment. Surely Liz and SA didn't
mean that? That would be agreeing with Edgar's present moment of p-time!
Remember that this elephant is in different moments of
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 1/26/2014 8:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
PS: A slight correction to one sentence in my post below. The rest is good
My sentence "By the time they (the falling objects) are actually beyond the event
horizon they are long gone from view." is ambiguous because it doesn't specify whose
cloc
1 - 100 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
