which makes one
suspect they are as much faith based as based in reason.
But thankfully you seem to be the happy exception here. Much appreciated!
Best,
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 6:29:59 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:13:02 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen
:41:56 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Come on now. The well established fact that it is impossible to always
establish CLOCKTIME simultaneity of distant events does NOT require or even
imply block time
, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote
The question is why when A gets to the center of the galaxy and stops
That's the key point to remember, A comes to a stop. And during the
deceleration process things would no longer be symmetrical, A would see B's
clock
, February 3, 2014 11:00:49 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Liz,
Talk about confirmation bias! It's SOP when a person can't come up with a
real objective scientific rebuttal to an argument that they just flame
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
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
AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
both A and B experience the exact same 1g acceleration for the entire
trip.
Not if A comes to his destination AND STOPS.
A's watch doesn't suddenly spring back thousands of year in the second
he finally cuts off his acceleration
observers in
the universe argument follow to prove this present moment is common and
universal.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 12:31:50 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
I didn't answer these 3 because you
:40:41 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
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
, February 5, 2014 1:40:41 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
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
, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Let me ask you this simple question. You agree that there is a same
point in spacetime that both twin meet at and in which their clock times
are different.
How does your theory, or relativity, account
Liz,
Sure, and that means there is an infinite stack of turtles, each with one
more dimension than the one above!
Edga
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 3:25:25 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 6 February 2014 08:49, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
The point is, you aren't just
Jesse,
This is just outrageously wrong. Block time implies the most magical
mystical miraculous creation event of all times, of the entire universe
from beginning to end, a creation event that makes the Biblical creation
event look completely reasonable by comparison.
That is the exact
:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:53:16AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
In fact relativity itself conclusively falsifies block time as it
requires
everything to be at one and only one point in clock
, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
In fact relativity itself conclusively falsifies block time as it
requires
everything to be at one and only one point in clock time due to the
fact
that everything always travels at the speed of light through
spacetime. I
find it baffling that so many
, February 5, 2014 4:41:33 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:21:47PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 07:53:16AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote
Russell,
That's a block time interpretation, not as you imply anything proven.
Certainly the equations themselves don't necessitate that...
If you accept that you are faced with the intractable problem of explaining
the source of that moving 1p viewpoint.
And notice that strictly block time
, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:21:13PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
No, I never claimed that this means that all
points along a path traced out an object moving through space time
have exactly the same clock time, because everything travels at
c. as you
Liz,
Liz understanding of block time is correct here. I just pointed that same
error out to Russell.
Even so block time is wrong for the many reasons I've explained.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 5:42:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 6 February 2014 11:34, Russell Standish
hadn't used it first. Something
about glass houses comes to mind
Cheers!
:-)
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 5:42:11 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:21:13PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
No, I never claimed that this means that all
points
than calculating it from
the initial conditions as I asked.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 2:54:39 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
Let me ask you this simple question. You agree that there is a same
of
this lattice to predict the the twins start from the same point in
spacetime and end up at another same point in spacetime with different
clock times.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 4:00:43 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript
. A
few googles of orders simpler if I may say so! And I suspect Occam would
agree
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:06:20 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
This is just outrageously wrong. Block time
that the flow of time is an actual
observable fact, an empirical observation of the same status as all the
other empirical observations science is anchored in.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:10:40 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript
Russell,
If it's not intractable, then what's the explanation?
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:17:59 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:43:32PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
That's a block time interpretation, not as you imply anything proven
, 2014 6:17:59 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:43:32PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
That's a block time interpretation, not as you imply anything proven.
Certainly the equations themselves don't necessitate that...
If you accept that you
a difference. So time is necessary in order
to compare two things in one's mind.
(Page 63 of my book, Theory of Nothing).
Cheers
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:40:11PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
If it's not intractable, then what's the explanation?
Edgar
05, 2014 at 03:31:30PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jesse,
The fact that the entire universe from start to finish including every
even
that ever happened and will happen actually somehow exists doesn't imply
a
creation event??
Come on now Jesse. Let's get real here.
Yes
Russell,
Well thankfully a BU does not exist and consciousness CAN be described.
That's an advantage of my theory over the BU.
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:16:15 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:58:17PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
I
Liz,
Obviously none since it never happened!
Edgar
On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 7:16:23 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 6 February 2014 12:06, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse
...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:
wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 03:05:54PM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Russell,
Now that both Liz and I have corrected your misunderstanding of block
time
What was my misunderstanding of block time (more usually known as block
universe) again?
Just a bit of sloppy
:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
That's possible but it's only one quote and considering the circumstances
it could have just been an attempt to provide comfort to the grieving
family. Also Einstein is known to have spoken
-time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdijk-Putnam_argument
[image: Inline images 1]
On 4 February 2014 16:34, Jesse Mazer laser...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
That's possible but it's only one
Ghibbsa,
The implications of block time for individual lives are very clear. It
means you are a zombie with no free will in a mindless dead universe in
which nothing actually happens and your miserable life and death are
already written.
Of course it's not true, but that's what it means.
says block time is a BS theory.
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:12:02 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 17:11, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:19:42 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net wrote:
Liz
All,
1. In my view real science means only the equations that actually work to
predict events and the logical framework in which those equations are
meaningfully applied. In a more restrictive sense real science is only the
ACTUAL computations that actually compute the actual state of reality.
get an answer and I'll be a believer in block time too!
:-)
Best,
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:14:43 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
I agree that the evidence is that Einstein very probably believed
Jesse,
Come on now. The well established fact that it is impossible to always
establish CLOCKTIME simultaneity of distant events does NOT require or even
imply block time.
What it actually implies is that everything is MOVING in clock time and if
things actually move in clock time that is
that gets done.
Edgar
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:52:06 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:33:42 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
1. In my view real science means only the equations that actually work to
predict events and the logical framework in which
against anyone that might speak against it!
Edgar
On Sunday, February 2, 2014 5:20:00 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 3 February 2014 00:04, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Edgar L. Owen
edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Hi Telmo
at 1:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
I stated that A began his trip from earth ORBIT, not from blasting off
from earth's surface, so A's acceleration is 1g for the ENTIRE trip.
Then each would see the others clock as running slower than his own. You
might think
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
for the whole trip.
So now what's your answer to my original question?
Edgar
On Monday, February 3, 2014 5:42:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 09:29, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
John,
A couple of points in response.
Yes, I agree that both A and B see each other's
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and Einstein
believed in block time.
I've repeatedly asked you to substantiate this claim with some actual
quotes from them but you have been unable to do so.
Please provide quotes substantiating this or withdraw the claim.
.
It really couldn't be any simpler...
Edgar
On Monday, February 3, 2014 7:19:42 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:44, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
Einstein believed in block time
All,
Mach's Principle (to explain Newton's Bucket) is an important principle
that has profound implications. I provide a novel theory in my book on
Reality (available on Amazon under my name) which I think is convincing.
It's a consequence of a fairly detailed theory explaining how spacetime
?
Edgar
On Monday, February 3, 2014 7:37:44 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Liz,
You keep repeating your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that both Newton and
Einstein believed in block time.
I've repeatedly asked you
All FYI only, Edgar
Abraham Loeb, 2014. The habitable epoch of the early universe.
arXiv:1312.0613v2 [6pp]. ABSTRACT. In the redshift range 100(1+z)137, the
cosmic microwave background (CMB) had a temperature of 273-373K (0-100
degrees Celsius), allowing early rocky planets (if any existed) to
nonsense. I'll let you get on with scoring imaginary points, and stick with
people who have something meaningful to say.
On 4 February 2014 13:50, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote:
Liz, Liz, Liz!
OK, now you ADMIT that neither Newton or Einstein believed in block time
, 2014 8:21:41 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
Mach's Principle (to explain Newton's Bucket) is an important principle
that has profound implications. I provide a novel theory in my book on
Reality (available on Amazon under my name) which I think is convincing.
It's a consequence
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/1/2014 9:46 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock,
BUT the point is that A's
, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
One might think it was the acceleration that slowed time on A's clock,
BUT the point is that A's acceleration was only 1g throughout the entire
trip which was exactly EQUAL to B's gravitational acceleration back
trip how could
A's acceleration slow time but B's not slow time by the same amount?
Edgar
On Friday, January 31, 2014 1:59:59 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip
Everything is geometry
Yet time does slow...
So aren't those 2 statements contradictory?
Edgar
On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:25:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/31/2014 10:59 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote
, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
A's clock slow
Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at
near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both would see the
others
explain in PLAIN ENGLISH rather than your usual cryptic notations
and (undefined in the context) terminology..
Edgar
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 3:27:08 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 31 Jan 2014, at 13:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's
with it in your previous post!
Edgar
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:45:40 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
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
experience every moment of their lives...
All I can conclude is that your comment above was not objective but
unfortunately based on some personal antipathy...
Edgar
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:53:06 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:00:16 PM UTC, Edgar L
, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
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
please?
The t value of that point obviously can't be the clock time t values of
that point because they are different.
Thanks,
Edgar
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 11:30:26 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote
is
rotating.
So how does any change in the direction of acceleration of A have an effect
but the continual change in direction of B's acceleration does not?
Edgar
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:46:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga
, February 1, 2014 1:21:41 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
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
with NO problem at all.
Edgar
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:33:43 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Feb 2014, at 14:39, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
You have a very strange view of arithmetic if you think it is full of
processor cycles.
It is the standard understanding of computer science
?
Edgar
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:45:17 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
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
for sure :)
Cheers
Telmo.
Best,
Edgar
On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Edgar,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net
wrote:
Liz,
Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving
, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
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
, February 1, 2014 5:18:38 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
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
that is not clock time, and is not any single coordinate time.
Edgar
On Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:23:19 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jesse,
You already told us that the twins ARE at the same point in spacetime when
, 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 leave
7:23:19 PM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
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
Liz,
Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving!
The problem is not that static equations DESCRIBE aspects of reality. The
problem is that you are denying the flow of time.
For equations to compute (not just describe) reality, there must be active
processor cycles. There is
UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
So what you are saying is that because everything travels through
spacetime at the speed of light in all frames (my STc Principle) and A's
path through SPACE is much longer than B's (which is zero) that A's path
through time must be correspondingly shorter
All,
It seems to me there are some somewhat questionable assumptions here based
on a very restricted data set.
First, the presumed acceleration of the Hubble expansion is based on the
varying redshifts of standard candles such as type 1a supernovas with
distance and time.
The basic problem
to
tell me it isn't moving!
Best,
Edgar
On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Edgar,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Liz,
Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving!
The problem
, 2014 8:19:41 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
It seems to me there are some somewhat questionable assumptions here based
on a very restricted data set.
First, the presumed acceleration of the Hubble expansion is based on the
varying redshifts of standard candles such as type 1a
-time by these
computations.
Hope that makes it clearer
Edgar
On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:03:30 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Jan 2014, at 16:13, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
David,
Bruno's 'comp' has 2 intractable fundamental problems that I see.
1
All, More FYI for discussion, not because I believe it. Best, Edgar
*Eric Lerner*
*Big Bang Never Happened*
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
*Home Page and Summary*
In 1991, my book, the Big Bang Never Happened(Vintage), presented evidence
that the Big Bang theory was contradicted by
...@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 effect here
and see no source for the effect and thus it seems entirely
, and the future doesn't exist at all.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:11:45 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
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
. The past is simply the now nonexistent previous
computational trace of the present, and the future doesn't exist at all.
Edgar
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:11:45 PM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:17:56 AM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent
, January 30, 2014 9:48:20 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
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 edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Ghibbsa,
Yes
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 9:50:40 AM UTC-5, yanniru wrote:
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 edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Dear Ghibbsa,
Thanks for stepping
David,
Bruno's 'comp' has 2 intractable fundamental problems that I see.
1. There is absolutely no way for a static arithmetical Plantonia to
generate any happening whatsoever. Bruno's theory that all happening is a
1p perspective of human observers implies nothing happened in the entire
David,
Boy, O Boy!
You deliberately snipped the part of my post that you then accused me of
not providing!
Sorry for trying to help!
:-)
Edgar
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:55:00 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
On 30 January 2014 15:13, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:wrote
5:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Here's another relativity question I'd like to get your explanation for
if I may...
In Thorne's 'Black Holes and Time Warps' he gives the following example.
Two observers A and B.
A leaves earth orbit to travel to the center of the galaxy, 30,100
in the
ordinary sense of hyperspherical geometry so some sort of initial
conversion of Omega needs to be made first and I don't know what that must
be...
Edgar
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 3:37:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 31 January 2014 04:03, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net
which definition of
simultaneity is the correct one?
Jesse
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
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
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
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 8:54:07 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote:
You may consider that repeated assertions of there is absolutely no way
constitute a carefully reasoned argument, but I'm afraid I do not.
David
On 30 Jan 2014 16:18, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.net javascript:
wrote:
David
:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your
interpretation that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an
open mind.
It proves that no mass is *needed* inside a BH, that the gravity alone, in
the absence of matter (you
gravitational effects), which I don't think anyone other than he
believes.
Mass is one of the few things BHs DO have
Edgar
On Monday, January 27, 2014 10:25:20 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
On 1/27/2014 4:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
I asked How does mass inside a BH produce an gravitational
? In academia or the corporate
world?
Best,
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:20:39 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/28/2014 4:20 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Liz,
No, those are entirely different effects. You need to understand the
difference.
My proposed black hole effect is not as you
:
On 1/28/2014 12:45 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Perhaps I'm missing something but I read the Wikipedia article and
several others (eg.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html) and reread Chapter 13:
Inside Black Holes of
'Black Holes and Time Warps' by Kip Thorne and NONE
All, again a post FYI, not because I necessarily believe it. Edgar
Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe
A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the
universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and
no end.
As one of the few
it
survives the hit)? This would have to be the case if A's and B's clocks
were running at different rates as B plummets past A.
Thanks,
Edgar
On Monday, January 27, 2014 2:25:21 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/27/2014 5:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
I don't think my statement is confused
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
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, January 27
BTW)
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:20:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 1/28/2014 3:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
I did read the Wikipedia page, and frankly I don't buy your
interpretation that proves 1. and 2. below though I'm trying to keep an
open mind.
It proves
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
are valid in the local context of that frame,
but this doesn't invalidate my points above.
Edgar
On Monday, January 27, 2014 8:36:53 AM UTC-5, jessem wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Brent,
I don't think my statement is confused. Your
301 - 400 of 803 matches
Mail list logo
