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, > > 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 > must be at one and only one position in time and traveling through time at > c in one direction". It only works for pairs of observers that have > identical inertial frames. > Transformations of inertial frames do not generally commute. Any time a > change in the velocity occurs for an observer, its inertial frame is > changes and never again will their clocks completely agree. There may be a > momentary congruence of the numbers/readings of the respective clock, but > the twins will never again have the same biological age. > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> > > 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 light through spacetime. > This is NOT just "a useful myth", it's a very important fundamental > principle of reality (I call it the STc Principle). > > This is true of all motions in all frames. It's a universal absolute > principle. > > Now the fact that everything continually moves at the speed of light > through spacetime absolutely requires that everything actually moves and > continually moves through just TIME at the speed of light in one direction > in their own frame. This movement requires there to be an arrow of time, > and this principle is the source of the arrow of time and gives the arrow > of time a firm physical basis. > > Second, because everything is always moving through time at the speed of > light everything MUST be at one and only one location in time. That present > location in time is the present moment, it's a unique privileged moment in > time. > > (This argument demonstrates only there must be a present moment for every > observer. The other argument Brent references is necessary to demonstrate > that present moment is universal and common to all observers.) Bravo again > Brent, for remembering that one too! > > Since by the STc Principle everything must be at one and only one position > in time and traveling through time at c in one direction, this conclusively > falsifies block time. > > Thus SR conclusively falsifies block time. QED. > > Best, > Edgar > > > On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 6:39:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > 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 is correct and good evidence tells us that it is, of any > thing like a global present moment. > > � "That dog don't hunt!" > > > But notice that Edgar makes two kinds of arguments: > > First, the local event argument - if two bodies interact it must be at the > same moment (he neglects to to mention that it must also be at the same > place).� > > Second, the continuity argument - > if two bodies interact at two different events than at any given time > between those two events both bodies exist and this means that they are > existing in the same moment, even though they are in different places.. > > Curiously, in his online blog about SR he takes the same approach as Lewis > Carrol Epstein in his excellent little book "Relativity Visualized".� He > notes that everything is always traveling at the speed of light.� If > you're 'standing still' that means you're just traveling in the time > direction.� So if you move in the space direction you must give up some > speed in the time direction.� Epstein calls this a useful myth and > doesn't misused it.� Edgar assumes that 'time direction' is fixed like > Newtonian space. > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at <a href="http://gr > > ... -- 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 to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
