On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>
> A simple example: say in Alice's rest frame, there are two markers at rest
> in this frame 20 light-years apart, and Bob moves inertially from one
> marker to the other a velocity of 0.8c in this frame. What is the proper
> time on Bob's w
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> 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.
>
No, you couldn't be more wrong about that last statem
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 the
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 frame" whic
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 beg
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen 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 will be
> happy
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 rel
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Edgar L. Owen 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 questions I ask you, I guess I'll have to take that as a sign
of cont
Jesse,
The only thing we are interested in is whether A and B THEMSELVES can
establish an UN-ambiguous 1:1 correlation of their actual ages. At this
point we don't care about any other observers or how they may view this.
In the symmetric case we merely take the common point of departure and
m
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Forget about coordinate systems, that isn't really the issue.
>
> The point is that each twin has A REAL ACTUAL AGE at every point on its
> world line no matter what its relativistic circumstances.\
>
Yes.
>
> The point is that
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> O, for God's sakes. Just take a SINGLE INERTIAL coordinate system centered
> at some point in deep space from which they both depart, travel
> symmetrically away from RELATIVE TO THAT SINGLE COORDINATE SYSTEM and then
> meet back
Jesse,
Forget about coordinate systems, that isn't really the issue.
The point is that each twin has A REAL ACTUAL AGE at every point on its
world line no matter what its relativistic circumstances.
The point is that it is always possible for each twin to figure out a 1:1
correlation of the re
On 27 February 2014 11:44, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> As I said before, this is quite rude behavior, and if you aren't
> interested in civil reasoned discourse where you actually address the other
> person's arguments and questions, rather than just haranguing them with the
> same assertions and expres
Jesse,
O, for God's sakes. Just take a SINGLE INERTIAL coordinate system centered
at some point in deep space from which they both depart, travel
symmetrically away from RELATIVE TO THAT SINGLE COORDINATE SYSTEM and then
meet back up at. That addresses all your concerns.
The whole trip is symm
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> A symmetric trip is defined in terms of the symmetric view of two
> observers A and B OF EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN COMOVING COORDINATE
> SYSTEMS.
>
If they aren't inertial observers in flat spacetime--and they can't be
ine
Jesse,
A symmetric trip is defined in terms of the symmetric view of two observers
A and B OF EACH OTHER IN TERMS OF THEIR OWN COMOVING COORDINATE SYSTEMS.
They both experience the exact same amounts of accelerations and
gravitation during their trips.
The proper times of both twins A and B ha
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> You continue to quibble over terminology to avoid engaging the real
> issues. Of course by 'view' I DO mean the actual equations in terms of a
> coordinate system with origin at a particular observer. There is OF COURSE
> a single
Jesse,
You continue to quibble over terminology to avoid engaging the real issues.
Of course by 'view' I DO mean the actual equations in terms of a coordinate
system with origin at a particular observer. There is OF COURSE a single
set of equations that describes that view. You can describe tha
Liz,
Where do you come up with these wildly off the wall statements! Don't you
even care about the truth?
Block universe theory is the MOST NON-parsimonious theory out there. It
requires all sorts of extra unsupported assumptions such as those to
explain the appearance of time flowing when tim
Stathis,
At least we AGREE there is NO empirical evidence for a block universe.
But there is OVERWHELMING evidence for flowing time and a present moment.
The experience of our existence in a present moment is the most fundamental
empirical observation of our existence. And all science, all know
Stathis,
Again you DISprove what you want to prove by your own language.
You say "I am me, here and now". Yes, of course you are. That's what being
in the present moment is. You tell us you are in the present moment at a
single location by that very phrase...
You are obviously not at any other
Stathis,
You completely miss my point.
First you are imagining a case which has no reality whatsoever. Your
example with widely separated temporal selves somehow running sequentially
doesn't even conform to block universe theory, much less to reality.
Second you still have to RUN the sequence
On 26 February 2014 11:39, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On 26 February 2014 08:07, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> > Stathis,
> >
> > I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you
> are
> > completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example in which
> time
> > is alr
On 26 February 2014 08:07, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Stathis,
>
> I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you are
> completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example in which time
> is already FLOWING.
>
> Since you can't demonstrate it, there is no reason to
On 26 February 2014 08:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Stathis,
>
> PS: You claim you are not, but you ARE privileged in SPACE compared to other
> people because your consciousness and your biological being are located
> where you are, not where anyone else is. That's a stupid claim on your
> part
On 26 February 2014 04:50, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Stathis,
>
> I understand your point but you don't understand my point.
>
> My point is that you try to prove time doesn't flow by giving me an example
> is which time DOES flow (the running projector). The projector has to run in
> time to give th
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> So we agree on my first two points. And yes, I agree you can have as many
> arbitrary coordinate systems as you like but that adds nothing to the
> discussion.
>
> I accept your criticism of my third point which was not worded tig
Stathis,
PS: You claim you are not, but you ARE privileged in SPACE compared to
other people because your consciousness and your biological being are
located where you are, not where anyone else is. That's a stupid claim on
your part
So your example proves MY point, not yours..
Edgar
O
Stathis,
I know that's your point. You are just restating it once again, but you are
completely UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE IT without using some example in which
time is already FLOWING.
Since you can't demonstrate it, there is no reason to believe it. Belief in
a block universe becomes a matter of
Jesse,
So we agree on my first two points. And yes, I agree you can have as many
arbitrary coordinate systems as you like but that adds nothing to the
discussion.
I accept your criticism of my third point which was not worded tightly
enough. I'll reword it...
What I mean here is that all obse
Stathis,
I understand your point but you don't understand my point.
My point is that you try to prove time doesn't flow by giving me an example
is which time DOES flow (the running projector). The projector has to run
in time to give the motion of the frames.
That kind of proof obviously doesn
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Here is a clearer, unambiguous and more general way to define p-time
> simultaneity in terms of proper times. Let me know what you think. I'll
> also address your latest questions in separate replies...
>
>
> Drop an arbitrary
Jesse,
Here is a clearer, unambiguous and more general way to define p-time
simultaneity in terms of proper times. Let me know what you think. I'll
also address your latest questions in separate replies...
Drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto an arbitrary space. Place a clock
at each
On 25 February 2014 00:35, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Stathis,
>
> You've of course hit on the crux in your explanation, though perhaps
> unknowingly so.
>
> You state "The me, yesterday is not me, now...".
>
> Yes, I agree completely. You, yourself have just stated the selection
> mechanism is the 'N
On 25 February 2014 00:26, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Stathis,
>
> 1. This disproves what it sets out to prove. It assumes a RUNNING computer
> which assumes a flowing time. This example can't be taken seriously. If
> anything it's a proof that time has to flow to give the appearance of time
> flowing
Because you did not, and you use the twin argument arguing that relativity
does not explain it, where clearly it does, p-time is of absolutely no use
for that.
2014-02-25 2:12 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen :
> Quentin,
>
> I just answered those exact two questions of yours. Why are asking the
> same t
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Well, I thought I was expressing your own model, but apparently not.
>
> However IF, and a big if, I understand you correctly then I do agree that "if
> two events have the same space and time coordinates in a single inertial
> fr
Quentin,
I just answered those exact two questions of yours. Why are asking the same
two questions again?
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 6:22:04 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> I just did,... your p-time is unnecessary, does not explain anything...
> your answer to my post, proves tha
Jesse,
Well, I thought I was expressing your own model, but apparently not.
However IF, and a big if, I understand you correctly then I do agree that "if
two events have the same space and time coordinates in a single inertial
frame, they must also satisfy the operational definition of "same po
Welcome to the club, Quentin.
--
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
I just did,... your p-time is unnecessary, does not explain anything...
your answer to my post, proves that you don't understand relativity at
all... so I think there is not much left to discuss...
If you could just explain what your p-time is supposed to solve and answer
this question: is there a
Quentin,
Ah, and I had hopes for you for a moment there, but those hopes have just
been dashed...
Sadly it's you who don't understand the perfectly valid points I'm
making
In any case even if you were correct, and you most certainly aren't, and
relativity did explain all of that, that sti
2014-02-24 23:50 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen :
>
> Quentin,
>
> Ah, at last a couple of meaningful questions!
>
> Actually relativity does NOT explain how the twins can have different
> clock times in the same present moment AND compare and agree on them in
> spite of what you say. I'll explain why...
Liz,
The point you are missing is that because time is clearly a 4th dimension,
that does NOT mean that we have to somehow be at every point in our lives
at once. That's as nutty as assuming we have to be at every point in space
that we ever visited or will visit at once. Ooops, I forgot you DO
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 implies the necessity of P-time. i've
demonstrated why. Please read to my p
Quentin,
Ah, at last a couple of meaningful questions!
Actually relativity does NOT explain how the twins can have different clock
times in the same present moment AND compare and agree on them in spite of
what you say. I'll explain why...
Of course one can place a coordinate clock at their m
The point Edgar seems to be missing vis-a-vis block universes is that,
whether correct or not, they explain our experience of time. Otherwise
Einstein, Weyl, Minkowski etc would have dismissed the idea of space-time
out of hand, instead of embracing it as a replacement for the Newtonian
paradigm of
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> Let me make sure I understand what you are saying.
>
> You say we can drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto spacetime, and
> then we can place an originally synchronized clock at every grid
> intersection. Is that correct?
>
I
On Monday, February 24, 2014 5:14:20 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Ghibbsa,
>
> Nevertheless people keep accusing P-time of being inconsistent with
> relativity when it isn't and no one has been able to demonstrate any way
> that it is.
>
> Edgar
>
Well, I can put hand on heart I have no pe
On Monday, February 24, 2014 5:14:20 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Ghibbsa,
>
> Nevertheless people keep accusing P-time of being inconsistent with
> relativity when it isn't and no one has been able to demonstrate any way
> that it is.
>
>
> Edgar
>
Well, I can put hand on heart I have n
Just first, explain what p-time is supposed to solve in the first place
that relativity doesn't. (if you come back again with the possibility for
the twins to meet up, relativity doesn't need p-time for that, so you
should find a real problem p-time solve that relativity alone can't).
Then answer
Quentin,
Even if that were true, and it's not, it doesn't even address your
contention my theory is inconsistent with relativity, which remains
unproved and simply an unfounded opinion on your part.
Perhaps you are trying to change the subject because you can't prove your
original contention?
écris donc en français et on en discute...
2014-02-24 18:58 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen :
> Quentin,
>
> Certainly you clearly CAN'T understand very much of anything, certainly
> not my theory. You demonstrate your lack of comprehension by being unable
> to even spell "misunderstood" correctly!
> :-
Yes, you didn't know proper time and coordinate time, and now you're
mastering it... you're the best joke of the internet... you should open a
circus.
Quentin
2014-02-24 18:56 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen :
> Quentin,
>
> The pitiful thing is that you don't understand that is a true statement
> exac
Quentin,
Certainly you clearly CAN'T understand very much of anything, certainly not
my theory. You demonstrate your lack of comprehension by being unable to
even spell "misunderstood" correctly!
:-)
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:53:12 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Yeah yeah...
Quentin,
The pitiful thing is that you don't understand that is a true statement
exactly as stated. It's a comment on definitions of terminology another
poster was using, rather than actual theory.
Keep trying my friend, but if that is the best you can do it will take a
very long time!
Edgar
Yeah yeah... you're a misundestood genius... poor guy.
2014-02-24 18:50 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen :
> Quentin,
>
> As I expected you can't show us anything to make your point, and just
> revert to hot air...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:39:30 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
Quentin,
As I expected you can't show us anything to make your point, and just
revert to hot air...
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 12:39:30 PM UTC-5, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> ahahah
>
>
> 2014-02-24 18:36 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen >:
>
> Quentin,
>
> I challenge you to show me a single in
For your pleasure, just a little quote from yourself:
"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 in time because the two events of their meeting have different
time coordinates i
ahahah
2014-02-24 18:36 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen :
> Quentin,
>
> I challenge you to show me a single inconsistency between P-time and
> relativity. There aren't any that I'm aware of even though Jesse has tried
> repeatedly he is still trying to prove the very first one (by his own
> admission)
Quentin,
I challenge you to show me a single inconsistency between P-time and
relativity. There aren't any that I'm aware of even though Jesse has tried
repeatedly he is still trying to prove the very first one (by his own
admission) and hasn't succeeded so far
You can't just state an unif
O Bruno, Bruno!
First you snip my post you respond to so no one can tell that my quote
applied to a very specific example given by Stathis which you snipped out,
and NOT to what your quote implies it referred to.
Second you once again repeat the charge I haven't explained what I mean by
comput
Plenty of people have already demonstrated the inconsistency of your view
of p-time and simultaneity... you just ignore it and play dumb. You still
haven't grasped what it means to be at the same spacetime coordinate...
Quentin
2014-02-24 18:14 GMT+01:00 Edgar L. Owen :
> Ghibbsa,
>
> Neverthel
Ghibbsa,
Nevertheless people keep accusing P-time of being inconsistent with
relativity when it isn't and no one has been able to demonstrate any way
that it is.
Edgar
On Monday, February 24, 2014 11:48:09 AM UTC-5, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:41:17 PM UTC, Edg
On 24 Feb 2014, at 14:26, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
It assumes a RUNNING computer which assumes a flowing time.
Not at all. you can hope that there is a physical universe capable of
running a computation, but a computation is a mathematical, even
arithmetical notion.
The existence of any end
On Monday, February 24, 2014 1:41:17 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Ghibbsa,
>
> To address one of your points.
>
> My P-time theory starts by accepting EVERY part of relativity theory and
> adding to it rather than trying to change any part of it. If my theory is
> inconsistent with relativit
Ghibbsa,
To address one of your points.
My P-time theory starts by accepting EVERY part of relativity theory and
adding to it rather than trying to change any part of it. If my theory is
inconsistent with relativity in any respect I would consider my theory
falsified.
I'm not trying to replac
Stathis,
You've of course hit on the crux in your explanation, though perhaps
unknowingly so.
You state "The me, yesterday is not me, now...".
Yes, I agree completely. You, yourself have just stated the selection
mechanism is the 'NOW' which you mention. It is the now that you are in
that se
Stathis,
1. This disproves what it sets out to prove. It assumes a RUNNING computer
which assumes a flowing time. This example can't be taken seriously. If
anything it's a proof that time has to flow to give the appearance of time
flowing, which is the correct understanding...
2. I assume in
Jesse,
Let me make sure I understand what you are saying.
You say we can drop an arbitrary coordinate system onto spacetime, and then
we can place an originally synchronized clock at every grid intersection.
Is that correct?
And that those clocks read what is called the coordinate times of tho
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 8:12:05 PM UTC, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
> Ghibbsa,
>
> Well, first of all my theory doesn't tell nature what to do, it asks
> nature what it does and attempts to explain it. All the issues you raise
> are good ones, but when my theory is understood it greatly SIMPLI
On 24 February 2014 08:09, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Stathis,
>
> This is just Sophistry that avoids the real question. Everyone of the
> Stathis instantiations may well feel it is the real one, but why is the one
> you are right now the one I am talking to?
>
> It could be anyone of them? Right? So
On 24 February 2014 07:57, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Stathis,
>
> If we assume time flows, as everyone in the universe other than block time
> devotees do, the answers to all your questions are obvious.
>
> First of all my universe is NOT a "presentist" universe. Don't use
> misleading incorrect labe
On 24 February 2014 12:49, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> One more question: Do you agree that if you lived in a block universe that
> you would be completely deterministic with no free will at all, and that
> you would be effectively a pre-progra
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> To address your question. I'll start with your terminology. Your A>B>C
> doesn't follow and I'll show why it doesn't.
>
> "Same space and time coordinates"? In which coordinate system? In general
> these will be different in diff
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> 1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
> read this?
>
Yes.
>
> 2. Do you agree that I am actually a particular age right now today as I
> write this, whether or not you know what that is?
>
Ye
Stathis,
This is just Sophistry that avoids the real question. Everyone of the
Stathis instantiations may well feel it is the real one, but why is the one
you are right now the one I am talking to?
It could be anyone of them? Right? So why is it the one you think you are
right now?
The only l
Stathis,
If we assume time flows, as everyone in the universe other than block time
devotees do, the answers to all your questions are obvious.
First of all my universe is NOT a "presentist" universe. Don't use
misleading incorrect labels to describe it.
If time flows, as it clearly does, then
On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Stathis,
>
> A couple more questions.
>
> Do you believe you are the same one of your block time selves at 8:00 AM
> as you are at 8:01 AM? Presumably you aren't. You are a different block
> time self in every instant of your existence. Right?
On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Stathis,
>
> You have avoided my main question which is the crux of block universe
> theory.
>
> It is easy to see how a 1p block time perspective gives a STATIC view
> because the memory of the past must exist in every present moment. But if
>
Stathis,
A couple more questions.
Do you believe you are the same one of your block time selves at 8:00 AM as
you are at 8:01 AM? Presumably you aren't. You are a different block time
self in every instant of your existence. Right? I'm not talking to the same
block time Stathis now that I was
Stathis,
You have avoided my main question which is the crux of block universe
theory.
It is easy to see how a 1p block time perspective gives a STATIC view
because the memory of the past must exist in every present moment. But if
the present moment is static, then that view of the past must a
Liz,
LOL! Sounds like P-time!
Edgar
On Sunday, February 23, 2014 1:40:13 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 24 February 2014 07:16, Stathis Papaioannou
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 3. So if we can prove that time does flow would that be suffici
On 24 February 2014 07:16, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
>
>> 3. So if we can prove that time does flow would that be sufficient to
>> disprove a block universe?
>>
>
> Yes, though not its impossibility.
>
> To be exact, it would imply a block
On Monday, February 24, 2014, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Hi Stathis,
>
> First thanks for answering my questions that Jesse refused to answer.
>
> A few more questions if I may.
>
> 1. Are you a believer in a block universe, or are you just presenting the
> argument for it? The following questions as
Jesse,
To address your question. I'll start with your terminology. Your A>B>C
doesn't follow and I'll show why it doesn't.
"Same space and time coordinates"? In which coordinate system? In general
these will be different in different coordinate systems, and as you
yourself have pointed out cho
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Hi Jesse,
>
> First, my name is Edgar, not Edward
>
> OK, even though I've answered this question of yours on several occasions,
> I'm willing to finally put it to bed once and for all.
>
> So please state in a non-ambiguous manner exact
Hi Stathis,
First thanks for answering my questions that Jesse refused to answer.
A few more questions if I may.
1. Are you a believer in a block universe, or are you just presenting the
argument for it? The following questions assume belief.
2. You don't believe time flows, that everything i
Hi Jesse,
First, my name is Edgar, not Edward
OK, even though I've answered this question of yours on several occasions,
I'm willing to finally put it to bed once and for all.
So please state in a non-ambiguous manner exactly what the question is AND
what you think the implication of it is
On 23 Feb 2014, at 01:03, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/22/2014 3:20 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the
credit for this term?) function because reality is what I call
Virtuality? Its the old simulation argument, served up by myself,
today.
On 23 February 2014 16:37, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> But if the block universe creates the effect of flowing time, as it must
> if the idea is not to be summarily dismissed, this isn't an issue.
>
Would you like to take a small bet? I wager that Edgar will completely
ignore your eminently s
>
> Last question: Why do you act every minute of every day as if you live in
>> a present moment through which clock time flows if it actually doesn't? How
>> can your mind be so completely deluded in this respect? Why does everyone
>> in the world except a few members of the block universe cult b
On Sunday, February 23, 2014, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> 1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
> read this?
>
Not Jesse, but yes.
2. Do you agree that I am actually a particular age right now today as I
> write this, whether or not you know what that i
Maybe Edgar should start the "Edgar-thing" list, where he *does* have
the unique
power to dictate what will be discussed.
--
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 a
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
> Jesse,
>
> 1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
> read this?
>
Hey, more questions! But as usual, I see you demand that I answer your
questions while you pointedly ignore the question I have repeatedly as
Jesse,
1. Do you agree you are actually a particular age right now today as you
read this?
2. Do you agree that I am actually a particular age right now today as I
write this, whether or not you know what that is?
3. Do you agree that we can both agree on those two ages?
4. Do you agree that
OK, maybe I won't bother with it after all. (My time is a bit limited...!)
On 23 February 2014 13:03, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/22/2014 3:20 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
>
> What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the credit for
> this term?) function because reality is what I
On 2/22/2014 3:20 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
What if Einstein's reference frames ( does anyone else get the credit for this term?)
function because reality is what I call Virtuality? Its the old simulation argument,
served up by myself, today. Someone who has worked arduously on this concept
I'll give it a go. Us Kiwis have a rep for punching above our weight in
physics, what with radioactivity and rotating black holes, to name but two
(I hestitate to mention powered flight) so who knows, he may be onto
something.
On 23 February 2014 12:20, wrote:
> What if Einstein's reference fra
1.pdf
-Original Message-
From: Edgar L. Owen
To: everything-list
Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 3:03 pm
Subject: Re: Block Universes
Jesse,
I think the basic problem in our discussion, which seems intractable from you
answers below, is your basic belief that time doesn't doesn't flow,
101 - 200 of 555 matches
Mail list logo
