Brent,
Correction. That should be Unruh radiation or the Unruh effect, not Uruh.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:18:00 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/13/2014 2:55 PM, LizR wrote:
I didn't really imagine that an acceleration-caused event horizon warps
space (particularly since it
acceleration is not really equivalent to gravitation?
Can anyone explain?
Edgar
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:02:15 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
All,
By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:24:02 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
I haven't seen any book on relativity point this out even though it is
quite obviously what relativity actually does. Do you deny relativity gives
elevator is motion
through curved space?
That was my original question but I don't know what your answer is from
your post..
Edgar
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:41:09 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:22:18AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All
of
the planet sized sized elevator or not? And if so what is the form of that
warpage? Is there a planet sized warping, or not?
Edgar
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:51:00 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse, Brent, Liz
Liz,
As usual, you are late to the party.
The accelerating elevator is in deep space. There are no tidal forces.
The tidal forces of EARTH'S gravitation on the man standing on earth are
negligible and can be ignored. They are just the difference in
gravitational pull on his head and feet.
, 2014 6:05:34 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 10:23:14AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Craig,
I also suspect Bruno's math skills are superior to mine, but his
understanding of the place of math in reality seems pretty deficient, or
perhaps just rigid
effects, the permanent which A and B do
agree upon (effects of gravity or acceleration), and the transient which A
and B do not agree upon (effects of relative motion only).
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:46:30 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga
Jesse,
But I just pointed out in my previous reply that your example is NOT even
correct relativity. Non-accelerated relative motion does NOT cause any
actual age differences because it's symmetric. A and B are in the exact
same relative motion with respect to each other so the effect has to
explained earlier.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:36:01 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
But I just pointed out in my previous reply that your example is NOT even
correct relativity. Non-accelerated relative motion does NOT cause any
actual age differences because it's symmetric
Bruno, and Craig,
Computational reality doesn't need any notion of primes, or 17 is a prime.
In fact I don't see any reason why reality needs any concept even of 17 to
compute its current state. If this is true then individual numbers such as
17 are not necessary for reality to compute the
that relativity either implies or requires
a common p-time background to all relativistic calculations and phenomena.
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:27:38 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Both, but you completely
assumptions. So given those
assumptions what DO you agree with? Why is this could not a WOULD?
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 9:46:14 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Before I go the trouble of answering
All,
In a computational reality everything consists of information in the
computational space of reality/existence, whose presence within it gives it
its reality. By taking place within reality these computations produce real
universe results.
All this information is ultimately quantized into
11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've
provided to your numerous questions, then I have to assume your motive is
asking all these questions is not to learn anything about
is running slower than B's.
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:19:12 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the answers I've
provided to your numerous
is...
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:45:23 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
I agree that Individual relativistic equations from a particular
coordinate system don't support p-time simultaneity but comparing both
equations of the two coordinate systems in the system, e.g. twin
UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
OK, I see which assumptions A, B, and C you are referring to now. I was
looking for them in the link you gave.
I agree assumption C is incorrect because I NEVER CLAIMED that. I
Jesse,
Sorry, that should read t will always = t'', not, t will always + t'.
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:13:51 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
Your condition C. was not example dependent. You just need to rephrase
your condition C. as two observers with no relative motion
Darn, t' NOT t''!
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:37:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
Sorry, that should read t will always = t'', not, t will always + t'.
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:13:51 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
Your condition C
the clock time t-values of
each that occurred in the same p-time, the same present moment of p-time.
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:00:23 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Your condition C. was not example
Richard,
I agree. As I recall physicians and hospitals are the 4th leading cause of
DEATH in the US.
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:52:40 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
ASK A PHYSICIAN. I went to med school until I was too sick to continue.
But I learned enough to never ASK A PHYSICIAN.
Richard,
And that must be rejected logically as well...
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:03:21 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event
that whenever t=t' for any value that occurs in a common
p-time, a common shared present moment of p-time.
Hope that clarifies it...
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:46:30 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse
Craig,
Of course science is supposed to make assumptions. It's done all the time
and rightfully so.
But those assumptions are then supposed to be tested to see if they are
reasonable.
This is done in two ways. One by testing against empirical evidence. Two by
seeing if they are logically
Craig,
This is basically a question of epistemology. What is knowledge, and how do
we know what is true knowledge.
Ultimately, since there is no direct knowledge of actual reality since it's
all filtered through and interpreted within our own minds, the only true
test of true knowledge is
Craig,
The logical proof that we have accurate knowledge of the world is our very
existence. If our belief was completely wrong we could not function or even
exist. Therefore all extant species have sufficient true knowledge
(beliefs) of the world to function and exist within it.
Edgar
On
Craig,
I explain both OBE's and NDE's in my book on Reality.
The key to understanding OBE's is to first understand why normally the
brain constructs a view of reality in which we seem to be INSIDE our body,
inside our heads. When you understand how that works, it's easy to
understand how the
, February 9, 2014 12:05:32 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Consider another simple example:
A and B in deep space. No gravity. Their clocks, t and t', are
synchronized. They are in the same current p-time moment
, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse, et al,
A Propros of our discussion of determining same past moments of P-time let
me now try to present a much deeper insight into P-time, that illustrates
and explains that, and see if it makes sense. I will show how
...
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 12:13:53 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
The ages are the only 'real' clocks here because they are not arbitrary
but real and actual and cannot be reset. They show
, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Same thing as I'm saying. My other clock time is just a clock centered in
your coordinate system. It's the same idea. If you look at the equations of
relativistic clock time they are always of the general form dt'/dt = f( ).
I just note
Liz,
I did explain it in considerable detail. As usual you either aren't paying
attention or things aren't registering
Read my previous posts for the explanation
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:02:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 10 February 2014 07:44, Edgar L. Owen edga
relativity works and compares in the frames of the
particular observers in the cases.
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 1:44:05 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
No, the definition of p-time simultaneity itself depends on the
arbitrary choice of coordinate system is NOT true. I clearly
:20 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
It's not clear to me what you mean by, in every coordinate system the
time-coordinate of A = the time-coordinate of B. Are you actually
disagreeing with that (please
t's and t''s will depend on the conditions in the preceding
paragraph, on the choice of frames. Which is what I said at least several
separate times in the preceding days.
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:42:43 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga
choice in the matter). Is this right or
am I still misunderstanding your wording?
Jesse
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 2:42:43 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Jesse,
No, the definition of p-time simultaneity
spatial analogues. Clock time does, at least in your weak
sense. I did explain that at length more than once...
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:29:39 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
The crux of my
Jesse,
PS: Because P-time doesn't have an intrinsic metric like clock time and
space do
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 3:29:39 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
The crux of my answer to the crossed
with or don't. To conduct an objective discussion it helps to know
what we agree with as well as what we don't. Don't you agree?
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 5:45:07 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
My
...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 4:16:16 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:29 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Let me clarify my previous answer a little.
P-time
of which is physically possible in my judgement for reasons I've
stated previously here.
Edgar
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 12:26:45 AM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:55:26PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Some good questions!
Yes, the theory predicts
Liz,
No, that's not my idea. See my proximate reply to Ghibbsa.
Edgar
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:15:42 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
I think Edgar's basic idea is that there is a plane of simultaneity which
sweeps through space-time, and that all events in space time intersect with
it -
be shorter than the shortest clock time event.
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:40:08 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Let me clarify my previous answer a little.
P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere
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, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
to the cosmological mass of the universe is
roughly correct. But it provides an actual theory for why this is true.
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:06:43 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/7/2014 5:53 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:34:50 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen
7, 2014 9:09:51 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
If as you say, the same point in time in relativity just MEANS that
two events are assigned the same time coordinate then the twins are NOT at
the same point
On Friday, February 7, 2014 7:53:36 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Re your question of simultaneous past p-times its a good question and I
did answer it but will give a more complete answer now.
I said
John, and Chris,
The problem is that language evolved to describe and make sense of daily
life, what I call 'the logic of things'. Thus it is not really designed to
properly describe many of the deeper more fundamental aspects of reality.
Trying to do that often leads to wrong or misleading
PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Well you just avoid most of my points and logic.
Can you itemize the specific points you think I'm avoiding?
But yes, I agree with your operational definition analysis
happened at the same time, or if it is fundamentally unknowable to
all beings within our universe'
(Obviously 2 and 3 only need to be answered if you do in fact answer yes
to the previous questions.)
Jesse
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse
whether or not you like my answers...
Edgar
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 6:23:37 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
No, they do NOT have the same time coordinates in their respective frames
because
-times if
you want.
Edgar
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:28:08 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen
at the same point in p-time
, that is always the clock time
of that clock that corresponds to the current p-time moment.
Edgar
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 5:28:08 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, I think there is always a way to determine
, February 8, 2014 5:28:08 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen
at the same point in p-time or not, provided you know everything about
Liz,
See my other post that discusses the minimum p-time cycle time must be less
than the minimum possible interval of events, where I discuss that...
Edgar
On Saturday, February 8, 2014 7:49:03 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 9 February 2014 04:18, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote
Jesse,
It doesn't give a coordinate transformation, it gives an explanation.
Shortly I'll post a longer analysis...
Best,
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:01:11 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
OK
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:37:21 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
OK, what I don't understand in this clearer example near the end of your
post is you say The coordinate time of an event *is* just clock time
Liz, and Jesse,
Yes, I second that! Jesse has very patiently explained his side of the
argument in a lot of thoughtful detail which I very much appreciate. It's
been an excellent opportunity for me to test and clarify the arguments in
support of my position.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6,
Jesse,
Again I will post shortly a detailed analysis addressing this and other
points you've made.
Best,
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:59:53 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
What's wrong
, Edgar L. Owen
edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
What's wrong with conscious experience? Every observation of science
is
ultimately a conscious experience.
Yes, ultimately, but the observations used in physical science used are
always of quantitative
Liz,
Interesting question, but for more fun make it a pinpoint eye looking in
every direction at once from the center toward the mirrored interior
surface of sphere.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Here's a problem that occurred to me recently - nothing
PS: I suspect you will seem very full of yourself when you do that!
:-)
All you really have to do is use the standard ray tracing algorithms of
computer graphics for the answer
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
Here's a problem that occurred to me
, no matter what their clock times, is the only
possible logical conclusion...
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:59:53 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
What's wrong with conscious experience? Every
FYI only. Don't have an opinion. Edgar
New Type of Star Emerges From Inside Black Holes
Born inside black holes, “Planck stars” could explain one of astrophysics’
biggest mysteries and may already have been observed by orbiting gamma ray
telescopes, say cosmologists
• The Physics arXiv Blog
definitions do support a same present moment.
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:49:32 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this
issue that I
, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this
issue that I promised:
A few points:
1. Since you asked let me repeat my 'operational definition
in areas of different entropy and backwards
in areas of decreasing entropy which it of course doesn't.
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 1:01:54 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
BTW, your own operational
and a present moment to
occur within. Both consciousness and the present moment are fundamental to
all observation.
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 12:51:32 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Well you just
, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Well you just avoid most of my points and logic.
Can you itemize the specific points you think I'm avoiding?
But yes, I agree with your operational definition analysis. That is
EXACTLY my point
as the
correct/absolute one?
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:42:41 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
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
PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:09:39 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
But it IS true that Andromedans must be doing something at this very
present moment. That's a key insight to the theory.
The fact that we can't determine exactly what the clock
twin
meets up with his dead twin in the same present moment.
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 5:01:26 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:55:02 PM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:09:39 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa
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:
Ghibbsa
computations are the different
relativistic clock time rates of processes throughout the universe.
Hope that makes it a little clearer
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:55:02 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 2:09:39 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa
Liz,
You can buy flexible sheets of reflective plastic.
Edgar
On Friday, February 7, 2014 6:32:23 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
I refrained from correcting Brent's grammar, but I see someone else had
the gall to anyway.
It's odd that there aren't more examples of this on the www, unless I
:01 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
BTW, your own operational definition proves that time flows. Because
your reflected light will always arrive back to you later on your clock
than when it was sent
, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Let me clarify my previous answer a little.
P-time runs at the same intrinsic rate everywhere in the universe though
it
doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual sense since it's prior to
dimensionality. However that rate is the speed at which
Brent,
Yes, and of course the fact that the age of the universe will pretty
certainly be calculated everywhere in the universe as the same 13.7 billion
years strongly suggest there is a common present universal present moment
or time.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:38:03 PM UTC-5,
PIerz,
Of course the very concept of true eidetic memory is totally impossible.
The total amount of data in the local environment in any single second is
many orders of magnitude greater than the total capacity of a human brain.
No one comes even vaguely close e.g. to remembering the position
Richard,
In a weak sense this Akashic records stuff has some merit.
The theory I present in my book is that reality is computational. This
means that the computational interactions of information forms changes
those information forms and those changes encode prior information states
in a
, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Dear Ghibbsa,
Thanks for the warm and friendly tone of your posts! That's rather the
exception here and you set a high standard and a great example for other
posters.
I think you've been treated really well.
It's kind of a given people reject a theory
Jesse,
The Hubble age of the universe just means that most observers throughout
the unvierse calculate nearly identical CLOCK times for that age. There
will be local differences but these will mostly be small due to averaging
effects over the life of the universe.
This Hubble age is NOT its
...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:53:16 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
A couple of points in response:
1. Even WITHOUT my present moment, the well established fact of a 4-d
universe does NOT imply block time nor require it. Clock time still flows
just fine in SR
Brent,
Here once again you are talking about clock time simultaneity. And here
again I agree. But you still don't grasp that is NOT the common p-time
present moment IN WHICH clock times are either simultaneous or not.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:45:24 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On
might provide one, but I don't see that yet.
Again, like consciousness, it's a verifiable empirical observation even
though no metric is associated with it.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:43:45 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga
Quentin,
But it's NOT the case...
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 10:52:58 AM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-06 Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com javascript::
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
But recall that p-time
wrote:
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:49:23 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Hmmm, guess I was a little over optimistic in my praise! I'll retract it
if you like. Your previous post must have been a temporary aberration!
:-)
Best,
Edgar
what you were actually doing was making
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:29:22 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Again, if I understand you, this is just a way to define 'same points in
spacetime'.
No, it's a way to physically define coordinate
Quentin,
Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that...
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:21:13 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
So, what is it ? What is it supposed to solve in the first place ?
2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript::
Quentin,
But it's
about what it is supposed to
solve...
Please state it here and now... do not refer to inexistant post.
2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript::
Quentin,
Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that...
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 1:21:13 PM UTC-5, Quentin
Jesse,
Once again, for the nth time, you are making statements about CLOCK time
simultaneity with which I agree. That has nothing to do with the same
present moment of p-time.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:15:16 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Edgar L
.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:34:25 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Frankly the utility of this approach seems opaque to me. I don't see how
it differs from just being able to calculate the actual
define it locally with a reflected light test. But
that is not sufficient to explain why. Only my p-time theory seems to be
able to do that
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:06:55 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote
:
On 7 February 2014 11:30, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
But even if they do that, one twin still is REALLY younger than the
other. That real actual time disparity can NOT be reset. There is a real
absolute time and age difference that relativity can CALCULATE but
relativity
, it can NOT explain or calculate it.
Only my p-time theory does this, relativity doesn't
Response?
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:06:55 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Once again, for the nth time
...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, only
to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and accusations.
Anyway I officially withdraw
, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
You are misunderstanding most of my points here!
By standard I just mean any usual analysis that computes the correct
answer of the twins' clock time differences when they meet. It seems to me,
correct me if I'm
observable FACT.
As for operational definition, I explained in detail how the theory works
on numerous occasions. In fact you criticize me in your first paragraph for
doing that too much!
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:28:30 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L
, for the comparison of
different t values to occur.
But it's clear from your comments you are here to flame rather than to
understand...
Edgar
On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:45:56 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2014-02-06 Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript::
Quentin,
For starters
201 - 300 of 803 matches
Mail list logo
