sideration and respond.
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
> > wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation.
>>
graph. Depends on what you mean by "instantaneous
acceleration". There is no such thing yet you are claiming it has an actual
physical effect.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:09:29 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen
>
tual ages
are if they can do that...
Though somehow I suspect you've got some other understanding of this ready
to spring!
Edgar
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:22:56 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
&g
ndependent method
to get the answer. That answer is given by relativity theory, not by p-time
theory.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:39:23 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>&g
Richard,
That's my point exactly. He can't. See my response just posted explaining
that in detail.
Edgar
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:46:18 PM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Jesse Mazer
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
e.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:59:43 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Not at all. I pointed out maybe a week ago with examples why your notion
> of "a same point in SPACEtime&qu
eir
relationships.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:07:48 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:57:11 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>>
>> Bruno, and Craig,
>>
>> Computational reality doesn't need any notion of primes,
;
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Let me clarify my response since I see it's slightly ambiguous.
>
> First every observer in the universe is ALWAYS at the same point in p-time
> ALL the time with all other obse
t is implicitly
assumed by relativity itself.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 3:36:44 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 13 February 2014 03:00, Edgar L. Owen >wrote:
>
>>
>> 5. The easy way is just to pause the experiment at any point and compare
>> clocks (that is
All,
By the Principle of Equivalence acceleration is equivalent to gravitation.
Gravitation curves space.
So doesn't this mean acceleration should also curve space? If not, why not?
If not, doesn't that violate the Equivalence Principle?
If so what is the geometric form of that curvature relat
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 univ
alculated by the method I 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 an
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 be
the
two kinds of relativistic time 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:
>
>
>
esponds to the same clock time in t' frame,
which indicates 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 T
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
>
> > wrote:
>
>> "Explanation, unlike causation is not just of an event but of an event
>>> under a descripti
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 PHYSICIA
'.
4. This process is transitive between any number of arbitrary observers in
any relativistic situation. We can always find 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
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, Ed
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
uary 11, 2014 11:37:22 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > 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 assump
ually 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 coordinat
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
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> If you don't agree with anything I've said, with any of the ans
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > 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
> a
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
reed with anything even given those 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
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse
veral ways 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
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
&
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
> > wro
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
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> The crux of my answe
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
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
>
4 at 3:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> 1. is correct. There is an objective truth that past events are
> simultaneous in p-time. Recall I also gave the exact same answer yesterday
> or the day before.
>
>
> Thanks. So how about the issue of transitivit
those 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
2:22:20 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > 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
So to calculate simultaneous p-times based on clock times we must be sure
we use the clock time readings of each observer's OWN clock. AND, in
general, we can't do it from any single relativistic equation, but only by
understanding how relativity works and compares in the frames of the
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, Edga
be computable.
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 12:47:49 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Same thing as I'm saying. My other clock time is just a clock centered in
> your coordi
you actual read my
posts...
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
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> The ages are the only 'real' clocks here because they are not arbitrary
>
2014 10:51:32 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > 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 illustr
ith one and only one B clock time t' value in B's frame.
Edgar
On Sunday, February 9, 2014 12:05:32 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Consider another simple example:
>
> A and B in deep
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 b
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 S
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 inte
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 co
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 >wrote:
>
>>
they can
always tell what that was...
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
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any two events happen
&
ou actually read, 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
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
>
beled events occurred at the same p-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
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Yes, I think there is always a way to determine if any t
your
questions 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
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> No, they do NOT have the same time coordinates in
>
>> 3. Part of what happens in every cycle of p-time is that all relativistic
>> effects, including all clock times and their differences, are recomputed.
>> The recomputed state of all those relativistic effects then has the local
>> re-computed clock time 'attached&
se p-time doesn't
have a metric.
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
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Well you just avoid most of my points and logic.
>
>
> Can you it
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 con
twins show.
Edgar
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
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Re your question of "simultaneous past p-times" its a good question and I
>> did
ruary 7, 2014 9:09:51 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> If as you say, the ""same point in time" in relativity just MEANS that
> two events are assigned the same time coordinate&qu
et is with respect 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 wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, February 7, 2
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
processor cycle must 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
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
th edges,
neither 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,
> >
y 8, 2014 4:28:16 AM UTC, ghi...@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,
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 in the universe though
> it
> > doesn't really have a 'rate' in the usual s
gt; On 2/7/2014 10:01 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> BTW, your own operational definition proves that time flows. Because
>> your reflected light will always arrive
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
. Part of the results of those 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
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
in. The living 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
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,
>>
>> But it IS true that Andromedans must be doing something at this very
>> present moment
we choose that frame 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
&
n of science requires both consciousness 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
, February 7, 2014 12:51:32 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Well you just avoid most of my points and logic.
>>
>
> Can you itemize the specific points you think I'm avoidin
low differently 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
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>&
, jessem wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the current state of this
>> issue that I promised:
>>
>>
>> A few points:
>>
ional
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
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> OK, here's the detailed analysis of how I see the c
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 i
universe they meet with.
This conclusion, that all observers in the universe share a common
universal present moment, 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
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 recent
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 - nothin
b 6, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > >
> wrote:
> >
> > > Jesse,
> > >
> > > What's wrong with "conscious experience"? Every observation of science
> is
> > > ultimately a conscious experience.
> > >
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
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
&g
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, 20
Best,
Edgar
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
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> OK, what I don't understand in this clearer example near the end of your
>> post is you say "
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
> > wrote:
>
>
r 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 >:
>
>> Quentin
;
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> So we can only discuss your ideas and not mine?
>>
>
> No, but it's pretty irritating when you ask me questions specifically
> about *my* (relativistic model),
014 6:12:10 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> You are misunderstanding most of my points here!
>>
>> By standard I just mean any usual analysis that computes the correct
>&
t; wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen
>> > 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
NE a same moment in
spacetime as you do, 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
> > wr
wrote:
>
> On 7 February 2014 11:30, Edgar L. Owen >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 relativit
moment) and then says
well at least we can 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
times in a SAME present moment..
Only the assumption of a separate p-time in my theory explains how that
happens.....
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
> > wrote:
>
>> Jesse,
&g
38 AM, Edgar L. Owen
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> OK, let's see if I understand your coordinate spacetime model the same way
> you do.
>
> Start with an empty space with no matter or energy.
>
> [But this is impossible in my theory since the presence of matter/e
f them, there is nothing 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 >:
>
>> Quentin,
>>
>> Please refer to my extensive posts to Jesse for that...
>>
>>
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 >:
>
>> Quentin,
t readings when they met proving that the meeting was at
the same point in spacetime.
Edgar
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
> > wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Again, if I understand you, t
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!
>> :
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 >:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Edgar L. Owen
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
trying to tell me
that coordinate time 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:
>
>
>
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
6, 2014 1:26:37 AM UTC-5, ghi...@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
&
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 p-
3:18:18 PM UTC, 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 yo
201 - 300 of 823 matches
Mail list logo
