### Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to

### Re: Block Universes

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: And B's worldline consists of the following five segments: Segment 1 (blue): Remaining at rest in C's frame, from t=1999 to t=2009 Segment 2 (red): ACCELERATION 1 from t=2009 to t=2011 Segment 3 (blue): Moving

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, OK, Assume c=1 and start with your sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2) to calculate what you say is the proper time on a time-like interval. Using your method, which I assume is correct I do see that A's proper time will be greater than B's. The reason is basically that A has to travel

### Re: Block Universes

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK, Assume c=1 and start with your sqrt((t2 - t1)^2 - (x2 - x1)^2) to calculate what you say is the proper time on a time-like interval. Using your method, which I assume is correct I do see that A's proper time

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, PS: And in your nice long numerical example, which I thank you for, it seems to me what you are doing is calculating the proper time length of every segment of A's trip in terms of C's proper time. Isn't that correct? But if so aren't you in fact establishing a 1:1 correlation of proper

### Re: Block Universes

On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, PS: And in your nice long numerical example, which I thank you for, it seems to me what you are doing is calculating the proper time length of every segment of A's trip in terms of C's proper time. Isn't that

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your posts. I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME LENGTH due to the identical accelerations of A and B rather than different

### Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Finally hopefully getting a minute to respond to at least some of your posts. I'm looking at the two 2 world line diagram on your website and I would argue that the world lines of A and B are exactly the SAME

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER? E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A's world line looks longer than C's world line, it is ACTUALLY SHORTER? Edgar On Friday, March 7, 2014

### Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Do you understand why the world line that is depicted as LONGER in the typical world line diagram is ACTUALLY SHORTER? E.g. in your diagram do you understand why even though A's world line looks longer than C's

### Re: Block Universes

This is why time has a minus sign in SR. (I believe the usual way this informally is put is that the space-traveller trades space for time.) On 8 March 2014 13:26, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Do you

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, I guess I'm supposed to take that as a yes? You do agree that A's world line is actually shorter than C's (even though it is depicted as longer) because A's proper time along it is less than C's from parting to meeting? Correct? Strange how resistant you are to ever saying you agree

### Re: Block Universes

Liz, Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing I was? Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have included this except in response to your own Troll obsession.) Anyway let's

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we know their acceleration histories). And only SO LONG AS they continue in

### Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing I was? Isn't that correct my little Trollette? (Note I wouldn't have

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, You are right about velocity intervals I think, but I do think there will be a mathematically rigorous way to compare the proper time correlation of any two observers from all frame views of that correlation and I do think they will cluster around my results. Each frame view will

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, I don't think this is correct. It is meaningless to try to TAKE THE FRAME VIEW OF ALL FRAME VIEWS. That's not the correct way to look at it. What we do is to take all frame views of any ONE proper time correlation. Every frame view will give one and only one EXACT answer of how close

### Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Yes, from the point any two observers in the same inertial frame synchronize clocks, their clocks will be synchronized in p-time BUT ONLY FROM THEN ON (we can't know if they were previously synchronized unless we

### Re: Block Universes

On 3/6/2014 9:01 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same

### Re: Block Universes

On 7 March 2014 06:01, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Liz, Sure, but aren't the different lengths of world lines due only to acceleration and gravitational effects? So aren't you saying the same thing I was?

### Re: Block Universes

Just realized in retrospect that it was a very confusing choice of terminology to use reference frame to refer to the frame that's used to label other frame's relative velocities--I was thinking of the idea that other frame's velocities are labeled in reference to this one choice of frame, but

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that? But that really doesn't matter because second, you are NOT using MY method because you are using ANOTHER coordinate clock FRAME rather than the frame views of the

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Here's another point for you to ponder: You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the weighted mean of all frame views is? I would suspect that it converges towards my solution. It is clear from your own analysis that it does converge to my solution as

### Re: Block Universes

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, First I see no conclusion that demonstrates INtransitivity here or any contradiction that I asked for. Did I miss that? No, I was just asking if you agreed with those two steps, which show that different pairs of

### Re: Block Universes

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Here's another point for you to ponder: You claim that all frame views are equally valid. What would you say the weighted mean of all frame views is? Weighted how? I can't see any weighing that doesn't itself

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly. What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster around my results for any distance and motion difference pairs. In other words there would be a lot

### Re: Block Universes

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Yes, you are right. I phrased it incorrectly. What I meant to say was not that each individual view was somehow weighted, but that all views considered together would tend to cluster around my results for any

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying is that your example doesn't represent my method OR results. In your example of A and B separated but moving at the same velocity and direction, and C and D separated but moving at the same velocity and direction, BUT the two PAIRS moving at

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes. Or you could equally integrate over the continuous functions. Considered together simply means you plot the correlation each frame view (at the

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them when they meet up and check them, and 2.BECAUSE THEY ARE PERMANENT.

### Re: Block Universes

On 6 March 2014 09:12, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them when they

### Re: Block Universes

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Yes, but respectfully, what I'm saying is that your example doesn't represent my method OR results. In your example of A and B separated but moving at the same velocity and direction, and C and D separated but

### Re: Block Universes

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Yes, the views are infinite on several axes, but that can be addressed simply by enumerating views at standard intervals on those axes. But velocity intervals which are equal when the velocities are defined

### Re: Block Universes

If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from +c to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over them? Isn't there a measure problem over an uncountably infinite set? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

### Re: Block Universes

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, PS: It is well known that accelerations and gravitation are the ONLY causes that produce real actual age rate changes. These real actual age rate changes are real and actual because 1. ALL OBSERVERS AGREE on them

### Re: Block Universes

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from +c to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over them? Isn't there a measure problem over an uncountably infinite set? There's no

### Re: Block Universes

On 6 March 2014 11:01, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: If you have a continuum of inertial frames with velocities ranging from +c to -c in all possible directions, how are you going to integrate over them? Isn't there a

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, I'm interested in finding the truth, not in assigning blame. The important thing is we both now agree that there IS ALWAYS A CORRELATION OF ACTUAL AGES between any two observers. The difference is I think it's an EXACT correlation, and you think that it's ALMOST EXACT except for cases

### Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: So you are just going to COMPLETELY IGNORE my response, which pointed out that your supposed error relied on using the ambiguous phrase B's and C's proper ages are simultaneous in p-time because they are at the same

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, You ask me to choose between 1. and 2. 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age at this point in spacetime must be T as well (i.e. their proper ages are simultaneous in the sense that they must reach the same age simultaneously). 2. If B and C's

### Re: Block Universes

On 3/4/2014 11:19 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote: On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, You ask me to choose between 1. and 2. 1. If B's proper age at this point in spacetime is T, then C's proper age at this point in

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age correlation. If A and B are separated at any distance but at rest with respect to

### Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, BTW, in spite of your claim it can't be done, here is another simple way for any two observers at rest with respect to each other but separated by any arbitrary distance in space to determine their 1:1 age

### Re: Block Universes

Brent, First thanks for your comment. I think Jesse and I are both aware of that, but we are considering the age relationship JUST BETWEEN A and B and so must consider only how they see it in their OWN frames, not the view of a 3rd observer of that relationship. Though Jesse would probably

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Good, we agree it's a valid method for determining 1:1 age correlations in a common inertial frame in which they are both at rest. I claim that frame is the correct one to determine the actual age correlation because it expresses the actual relation in a manner both A and B agree, is

### Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Good, we agree it's a valid method for determining 1:1 age correlations in a common inertial frame in which they are both at rest. I claim that frame is the correct one to determine the actual age correlation

### Re: Block Universes

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: I promise you the example has nothing to do with any frames other than the ones in which each pair is at rest. Again, the only assumptions about p-time that I make in deriving the contradiction are: ASSUMPTION 1. If

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Your position becomes more and more absurd. You claim they DO have a unique 1:1 correlation of their ages when they are together but they DON'T when they separate. So how far do they have to separate before this correlation is lost? 1 meter? 1 kilometer, 1 light year? And is the

### Re: Block Universes

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Your position becomes more and more absurd. My position is simply that for any question on which different frames give different answers, there is no physical basis for judging one frame's judgments to be reality

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, OK, this is some progress. Now you've gone from saying there is NO correlation at all, to the ages ARE CORRELATED WITHIN SOME LIMIT. In other words we DO know that for any set of twins we can always say that their ages ARE the same within some limits. Correct? This is a VERY BIG

### Re: Block Universes

By the way, a friend suggested how Edgar's p-time could be rescued from relativity. If the universe is a simulation running on a game of life, which is itself running in a Newtonian universe with separate space and time dimensions (and assuming the simulation can handle relativity - we weren't

### Re: Block Universes

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK, this is some progress. Now you've gone from saying there is NO correlation at all, to the ages ARE CORRELATED WITHIN SOME LIMIT. In other words we DO know that for any set of twins we can always say that

### Re: Block Universes

Liz, Thanks but P-time doesn't need to be rescued from relativity since it's completely consistent with relativity, though apparently not with some people's interpretation of relativity. Edgar On Monday, March 3, 2014 1:42:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: By the way, a friend suggested how Edgar's

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, No, it was you that said there was NO correlation. In any case that's irrelevant if we know you now accept that there is a very LARGE correlation in most situations, and a definable correlation in ALL situations. That there is always SOME correlation. By actual age changing effect I

### Re: Block Universes

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, No, it was you that said there was NO correlation. Jeez Edgar, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. I just got through AGREEING that I had said that there wasn't a correlation, but I explained

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, much as I admire your attempt to engage with Edgar and his theory, I suspect you will eventually have to accept that he isn't arguing rationally - it looks to me as thought he will just pounce on some word you use, and twist it around to try and make a case. He is, in other words, a troll.

### Re: Block Universes

On 04 Mar 2014, at 00:01, LizR wrote: Jesse, much as I admire your attempt to engage with Edgar and his theory, I suspect you will eventually have to accept that he isn't arguing rationally - it looks to me as thought he will just pounce on some word you use, and twist it around to try

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, To answer your final question. If I understand your 3 points correctly then I agree with all 3. Though I suspect we understand them differently. When you spring your 'proof' we will find that out. And to your first points. I agree completely that there is no objective or actual truth

### Re: Block Universes

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, To address your points in order: 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks at his age clock), but to

### Re: Block Universes

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, To answer your final question. If I understand your 3 points correctly then I agree with all 3. Though I suspect we understand them differently. When you spring your 'proof' we will find that out. Thanks for

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple new case by you. Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each other at 1 second intervals (of their own proper clocks) for the duration of the entire trip. At each 1 second meeting I'm

### Re: Block Universes

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, I'll address your points in a later post, but first let me run this simple new case by you. Imagine the symmetric trips of the twins continually criss cross each other at 1 second intervals (of their own proper

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Glad we agree on the first point but, even if there is some minimum time limit to the criss crosses, you miss the real point of my example. Let me restate it: Since a criss cross symmetric trip is NO DIFFERENT IN PRINCIPLE than our previous symmetric trip (only a single meeting) it is

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Just checking but I'm sure you would agree that twins AT REST with respect to each other are the same actual age (have a 1:1 proper age correlation) even if they are SEPARATED by distance? You just don't agree that if they are separated by distance AND in symmetric acceleration that

### Re: Block Universes

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Just checking but I'm sure you would agree that twins AT REST with respect to each other are the same actual age (have a 1:1 proper age correlation) even if they are SEPARATED by distance? You just don't agree that

### Re: Block Universes

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Glad we agree on the first point but, even if there is some minimum time limit to the criss crosses, you miss the real point of my example. Let me restate it: Since a criss cross symmetric trip is NO DIFFERENT IN

### Re: Block Universes

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: No, of course I wouldn't agree that there is any unique actual truth about their ages in this case, nor would any mainstream physicist. Sorry, I wrote too quickly here--what I meant is that I don't agree there is any

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, OK good, that's what I assumed you meant. BUT now take the two twins at rest standing on opposite sides of the earth, and then they each start walking in different directions. By your criterion you then have to say that suddenly and instantly there is NO more 1:1 correlation of their

### Re: Block Universes

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, OK good, that's what I assumed you meant. BUT now take the two twins at rest standing on opposite sides of the earth, and then they each start walking in different directions. By your criterion you then have to

### Re: Block Universes

A little consideration of trains travelling at half lightspeed with photons bouncing between parallel mirrors, and people observing lights being turned on in the station should suffice to demonstrate that there is no objective truth about the order of spatially separated events. This margin is too

### Re: Block Universes

On 01 Mar 2014, at 02:18, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:14:29PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: Isn't it crazy to reject what there is enormous evidence for and accept what there is NO evidence for? That is what you do. There are no evidence for any universe, and indeed,

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to representing ACTUAL physical facts. E.g. we can choose various frames to make someone's age pretty much any number we like but nevertheless they are

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, To address your questions: 1. Yes, of course the choice of their own frame is a matter of convention. But that does NOT mean that all frames are equal when it comes to accurately representing some particular physical fact or relationship. 2. The their experience in my symmetric example

### Re: Block Universes

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Of course there is a rational justification for selecting one frame over another in many cases. All frames are NOT equal when it comes to representing ACTUAL physical facts. E.g. we can choose various frames to

### Re: Block Universes

, but this sort of comment shows that your grasp of relativity theory is about as good as your understanding of block universes - which is to say that yet again, you're completely missing the point. All frames are equal when it comes to representing physical facts, some are just more convenient than others

### Re: Block Universes

Liz, Hmmm, that's exactly what I said. So why are you disagreeing with yourself again? Looks like you are out of touch both with reality and English comprehension... Edgar On Saturday, March 1, 2014 3:51:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: On 2 March 2014 05:42, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com

### Re: Block Universes

On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Let me ask you one simple question. In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the exact same real actual ages isn't it completely logical to conclude they must also have been the

### Re: Block Universes

On 2 March 2014 11:51, Jesse Mazer laserma...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, Let me ask you one simple question. In the symmetric case where the twins part and then meet up again with the exact same real actual ages isn't it

### Re: Block Universes

On Monday, February 24, 2014 10:57:14 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote: 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

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, To address your points in order: 1. Yes, you said that proper ages are invariant. But note the important point that the proper age of A to himself is a direct observation (he looks at his age clock), but to anyone else is a computation and NOT an observation. In fact from their native

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, Yes, but what you are saying here is just that it is impossible to unambiguously OBSERVE that the proper ages are the same. I agree. But it is possible to unambiguously DEDUCE and CALCULATE that they MUST be the same, which is all my theory says. If we can use calculation and deduction

### Re: Block Universes

On 26 Feb 2014, at 15:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Stathis, At least we AGREE there is NO empirical evidence for a block universe. There is no evidence for a universe. (in the usual aristotelian sense of the word). But there is OVERWHELMING evidence for flowing time and a present

### Re: Block Universes

Bruno, Your contention that there is no evidence for a universe is simply delusional. The very fact you can make any statement absolutely PROVES a universe of some kind. Your contention is so absurd it's laughable.. Edgar On Friday, February 28, 2014 10:14:29 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, With regards to your contention in your first paragraph below it may express the correct view of frame DEPENDENT simultaneity, but that is NOT the point I'm making. I'll try to explain more clearly. This example is revised to attempt to conform with your previous objections so please

### Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: You point out that from the POV of all arbitrary frames they won't be, BUT the point is we MUST use a frame that MAINTAINS the real and actual symmetry to determine the ACTUAL REALITY of this situation. Why? You give no

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, First I would appreciate it if you didn't snip my proximate post that you are replying to... Anyway we MUST choose a frame that preserves the symmetry because remember we are trying to establish a 1:1 proper time correlation BETWEEN THE TWINS THEMSELVES (not them and anyone else), and

### Re: Block Universes

On 27 Feb 2014, at 04:45, Jesse Mazer wrote: 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

### Re: Block Universes

On 28 Feb 2014, at 00:10, LizR wrote: 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

### Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, First I would appreciate it if you didn't snip my proximate post that you are replying to... Anyway we MUST choose a frame that preserves the symmetry because remember we are trying to establish a 1:1 proper

### Re: Block Universes

On 28 Feb 2014, at 16:20, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Your contention that there is no evidence for a universe is simply delusional. I meant the Aristotelian universe, where physics is supposed to describe the fundamental ontology, or what is. Of course I believe in something, and I

### Re: Block Universes

Bruno, Nonsense. You continually ask the exact same questions which I answered several times but just ignore my answers and keep asking the same questions, and when you rarely do respond to my answers you do so incoherently and only in terms of your own very rigid worldview. Well perhaps

### Re: Block Universes

On 1 March 2014 04:14, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Feb 2014, at 15:32, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Stathis, At least we AGREE there is NO empirical evidence for a block universe. There is no evidence for a universe. (in the usual Aristotelian sense of the word). True. If only

### Re: Block Universes

On 1 March 2014 06:42, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 27 Feb 2014, at 04:45, Jesse Mazer wrote: 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

### Re: Block Universes

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 04:14:29PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: Isn't it crazy to reject what there is enormous evidence for and accept what there is NO evidence for? That is what you do. There are no evidence for any universe, and indeed, as you assume comp, you could understand that there

### Re: Block Universes

On 28 Feb 2014, at 21:05, Edgar L. Owen wrote: Bruno, Nonsense. You continually ask the exact same questions which I answered several times but just ignore my answers and keep asking the same questions, and when you rarely do respond to my answers you do so incoherently and only in

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, I haven't answered those questions out of any disrespect or rudeness but because I was working on a new explanation which I think does specifically address and answer all of them which I present in this post. I will be happy to answer any of your questions if you think they are still

### Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, I haven't answered those questions out of any disrespect or rudeness but because I was working on a new explanation which I think does specifically address and answer all of them which I present in this post. I

### Re: Block Universes

Jesse, First the answer to your question at the end of your post. Yes, of course I agree. Again that's just standard relativity theory. However as you point out by CONVENTION it means the observer's comoving inertial frame which is the way I was using it. Now to your replies to my post

### Re: Block Universes

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote: Jesse, First the answer to your question at the end of your post. Yes, of course I agree. Again that's just standard relativity theory. However as you point out by CONVENTION it means the observer's comoving inertial

### Re: Block Universes

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. So your comments that an observer's age will be measured differently in other frames, while obviously true, is NOT